Subscribe via RSS

Archives by Date
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008

See all Archives
Archives by Category
'Canes
Afghan Update
Ammo and Munitions
Armor
Around the Globe
Av Week Extra
Axe in Iraq (and Elsewhere)
Bizarro
Blimps
Blog Bidness
Body Armor Blues
Bomb Squad
Brownshoes in Action
Bubbleheads, etc.
Cammo Green
Catch the "Buzz"
Chem-Bio
Civilian Apps
Cloak and Dagger
Commandos
Comms
Contingency Ops
Cops and Robbers
Cyber-warfare
Data Diving
Defense Tech Poll
Dissent Tech
Drones
DT Administrivia
Eat DT's Dust
Extra! Extra!
Eye on China
Fast Movers
FCS Watch
Fire for Effect
FOS Files
Friday Funnies
Gadgets and Gear
Going Green
Grand 'Ol Osprey
Grand Ole Osprey
Ground Vehicles
Guns
Homeland Security
In the Weeds with Eric
Info War
Iraq Diary
Jarhead Jazz
JSF Watch
Just War Theories
Lasers and Ray Guns
Less-lethal
Logistics
Los Alamos and Labs
M4 Monopoly
Medic!
Mercs
Missiles
Money Money Money
Most Wanted
MRAP Edge
Net-Centric
Nukes
Old Skool
Our Shrinking Planet
Planes, Copters, Blimps
Politricks
Polmar's Perspective
Popular Mechanics
Rapid Fire
Raptor Watch
Red Team
Retro-Futuro
Robots
Roll Your Own
Sabra Tech
Ships and Subs
Snipertech
Space
Special Ops
Star Wars
Strategery
Stray Trons
Tactical Development
Terror Tech
The Deadlies
The Defense Biz
The Peoples' Site
The Sunday Paper
The Tanker Tango
The View from Av Week
Those Nutty Norks
Training and Sims
Trimble on the Case
Video Lounge
War Update
Ward'z Wonderz
You can run...

See all Archives
Newsletters

Edited by Christian Lowe | Contact

Navy Cleared to Off Marine Life at Will

beachedwhales.jpg

President Bush delivered a blow to California's whale and dolphin huggers today on behalf of the Navy. Here's the press release from DoD:

The Navy announced today that two important steps have been taken under existing law and regulations to allow it to conduct effective, integrated training with sonar off the coast of southern California after a federal court earlier this month imposed untenable restrictions on such training.

In accordance with the provisions of the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA), and at the recommendation of the Secretary of Commerce, the President concluded that continuing these vital exercises without the restrictions imposed by the district court is in the paramount interests of the United States. He signed an exemption from the requirements of the CZMA for the Navy's continued use of mid-frequency active (MFA) sonar in a series of exercises scheduled to take place off the coast of California through January 2009. The Navy already applies twenty-nine mitigation measures approved by federal environmental regulators when using active sonar, and these will remain in place.

An exemption from the act was sought after an order was issued on Jan. 3 by the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, which created a significant and unreasonable risk that the Navy will not be able to conduct effective sonar training necessary to certify strike groups for deployment in support of world-wide operational and combat activities. Use of sonar is part of critical, integrated training that must be done in the Navy's operating area off the coast of San Diego to take advantage of Southern California's bathymetric features and its extensive ranges, airfields, and other infrastructure necessary for effective training. Approximately half the Navy's fleet will receive its most critical, "graduate level" training here before it deploys its forces around the world.

In a separate but related action, the Council on Environmental Quality approved the Navy's request for alternative arrangements for compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act, or NEPA, for these exercises until completion of the Southern California Range Complex environmental impact statement.

Following up on these actions, Secretary of the Navy Donald Winter signed a decision memorandum yesterday agreeing to those arrangements, which include adaptive management measures, more thorough reporting procedures, and increased public participation.

"We can protect our national security while simultaneously being good stewards of the environment," said Winter. "These alternative measures, in addition to the 29 protective measures already in place, will ensure our operating forces can train realistically without harming the environment."

"We are already taking extensive measures to protect marine mammals, and we have had positive results from those measures," said Winter. "We are furthermore committed to an extensive data collection effort to help inform our future efforts in this regard."

Even before the court's order, the Navy employed 29 protective measures, developed in cooperation with the National Marine Fisheries Service, any time sonar is used on Navy ranges, or in major exercises. The existing measures include, among other things, stationing specially trained lookouts to look for marine mammals, passive acoustic monitoring for marine mammals, establishing safety zones around ships where sonar power is reduced or shut down if marine mammals are sighted, and employing extra precautions during chokepoint exercises.

Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Gary Roughead said that the actions were necessary in order to ensure the Navy's ability to train Sailors to detect quiet submarines that might threaten its ships.

"We cannot in good conscience send American men and women into potential trouble spots without adequate training to defend themselves," said Roughead.

"The southern California operating area provides unique training opportunities that are vital to preparing our forces, and the planned exercises cannot be postponed without impacting national security," said Roughead. "The steps that have been taken will allow our men and women to train realistically, while continuing the effective employment of proven mitigation measures that have been endorsed by the Council on Environmental Quality and our regulator, the National Marine Fisheries Service."

So has sanity prevaled here? Or is this another win for the evil empire running roughshod on the environment?

-- Ward

Comments

I just wanted to say a thing here in regards to this debate...
If the US Navy had been real kick-ass, and I mean REAL kick-ass we would have destroyed the Russian whaling fleet in the 60's before they had a chance to destroy the last of the Atlantic Right Whale. ( yes there are some remaining buts it jsut a matter of time before they go). The problem is that the extremes in this country just do not know how to talk together. Imagine the right and left uniting in this country and sinking the Russian whaling fleet. We could have saved an entire freakin species and left the soviet fleet on the bottom of the Atlantic like Tojo did in the Pacific.

Posted by: Andre at January 22, 2008 02:00 PM


The Navy should train with this technology. Like much of the other tried / applied underwater technology, if doesn't fit with the way the Navy fights or there are more effective ASW practices, ditch it!

Even without evidence, at best I'll agree that the use of this sonar hurts the whales feeling, and I care about that. Sort of thinking aloud here or I read this already …maybe their o’ lady nagged them so much that the beach was an out? Or better, the Navy should cross their fingers and just tell the green-people that they are not going to train with it anymore ;-). Then everyone feels better.

RE: Demophilus
People who are very proficient at linear regression, I am not talking about meteorologists, live by one creed: Certainty is an illusion. When the former can predict the weather this weekend better than .25 +- 5% error, I’ll consider drinking the Kool-Aid. The difference is that at least my weekend forecast has the Sun heavily weighted in the prediction. What is more than obvious to the casual observer, like Marx’s, any system that espouses a super government for the distribution of anything is very scary. In defense of Marx, his critique was based upon conditions that were at least real, back then.

Posted by: Blake at January 18, 2008 10:49 AM


(snip)I'm just wondering if there are better approaches to ASW in the pipeline. DT reported a while ago on passive radar systems: you track a stealth object's interference, not its return. Seems there's enough ambient noise and emitters out there in the ocean that you could do the same thing, with a distributed sensor net, and enough processing speed. I mean, you could even monitor whale noise to detect large objects that move between you and the source(s).(snip)

That is a problem. Our subs are quieter than the background noise of the ocean. We pass by a bunch of noisy shrip and the passing can be noticed due to the drop in the background noise.

Posted by: Jack D. Ripper at January 18, 2008 10:48 AM


Interesting links Demo --and worthy of a discussion on their own. Thanks!

If I may offer few points for such discussion:
I would not assert that the Navy 'accepted the responsibility' for the Bahamas 2000 event based upon their summary at the Wiki link. They just said the sonars were "the most plausible source of this acoustic or impulse trauma." In the rest of the text, I read it to also conclude (I could be wrong and am open to alternate explanations) that under normal circumstances, they don't see how the physics (dB, distance and medium) of this exercise could have caused the events that transpired to happen in the end. This suggests to me an event like this should be considered at this time unexplainable, unusual, and definitely NOT the norm.

Just as interesting is the reason they stated they were conducting the exercise where they were at that time instead of where they normally played their game:

"The ships were operating in the Providence Channels because of unfavorable political conditions in their usual range near Vieques, Puerto Rico".

The headline of that event therefore could have just as easily read:
"Political Activism meets Environmental Activism and Whales Die!"
The Ken Balscomb letter linked at the Wiki site is interesting for two reasons.
1. The resonant frequencies of the whale brain cavities are (quite logically) depth dependent. A ping at X feet depth close-in might kill whereas a ping at any other depth might not even phase the animal.
2.’ The Ocean Marine Institute’ (OMI) tries to get you to take away from the letter only the things they want you to take away from it by listing a set of talking points. And I would argue their points do not really agree with the combined content of the Navy report and Balscomb’s letter.
What kind of an organization is the OMI? See the statement of its founder and leader, Marsha Green here: http://www.oceanmammalinst.com/ourhealingrelationship.html
Take in what else is at the Wiki, and you see these two weak points are surrounded by “whales have been beaching for centuries and we still don’t really know why”.

I of course concur with Demo’s point about the Navy proceeding (at least partly) in accordance with the findings and recommendations of the Bahamas 2000 report.

Posted by: SMSgt Mac at January 18, 2008 12:59 AM


@Vercingetorix, Jack D.:

Thanks. I'm pretty much up to speed on active vs. passive sonar, and thermoclines. I also realize that sometimes the tool on your belt is better than the one across the room.

I'm just wondering if there are better approaches to ASW in the pipeline. DT reported a while ago on passive radar systems: you track a stealth object's interference, not its return. Seems there's enough ambient noise and emitters out there in the ocean that you could do the same thing, with a distributed sensor net, and enough processing speed. I mean, you could even monitor whale noise to detect large objects that move between you and the source(s).

As for using a bullhorn, well, you never shout when you can speak or whisper, and sometimes its better to let other folks speak -- like, say, UUVs or buoys. As for thermoclines, well, they might not work so well against femtosecond pulse lasers at the (very few) wavelengths that propagate well at depth. Turbidity would still be a problem, I guess.

But, not working in the field, and not having the NTK, I don't really know diddly. This is just guesswork. Still, seems there are better ways to slice the onion.

"As far as whale beaching goes, why did it happen before we began testing our sonar?"

Also not my field, but some quick googling shows the USN accepted responsibility for the Bahamas beaching in 2000 in this report:

http://www.awionline.org/oceans/Noise/Interim_Bahamas_Report.pdf

It's hard to tell from the lede above, but it appears the USN is proceeding at least partly in accordance with the findings and recommendations of that report.

FWIW, there's a pretty good summary of historical beaching causation here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beached_whale#Causes

@Blake:

I didn't know global warming was a World Communist plot. Boy howdy, I'll have to chew on that.

Posted by: demophilus at January 17, 2008 05:06 PM


C --
RE: "i know i'm going to get flamed for this, but the other end of the "What I Do Is More Important Than What Everyone Else Does" attitude, the smug holier-than-thou/respect me for my choice to serve attitude of former and current military drives me insane"

If you find anyone who comes down on you and insists you respect them just because they chose to serve, let me know and I'll help you straighten them out. That's too close to the stupid "you have to have served to comment on the military" argument.

Most of us would never show up on a 'marine biology' website expressing heartfelt but uninformed opinions (I personally took extra Physics courses to avoid Biology) on whale physiology without expecting to be chastened.

Conversely, one should expect the same attitudes when visiting a 'military' website under certain conditions -- Such as when viewing the responses to an article that discusses the attempt to limit military operations on the basis of a 'supposed' impact to marine life without evidence to support the supposition. The attempt by Watermelons (Green on the outside-Red on the inside) and their sympathetic enablers to stop these operations without said evidence is based upon the Precautionary Principle: one of the most insidious anti-science anti-technology and anti-progress tools of the Luddite crowd. I've found that the severity and number of WIDIMITEEDs in a field of study to be inversely proportional to 'hardness' of the science.

I think most of us 'military types'(like most people) are extremely self-effacing outside our areas of expertise. But I have also found military folks far more interested in areas outside their comfort zones than my colleagues in the civilian sector. Tell us what you are 'expert' in, and I guarantee you will find someone interested in your work.

Don't mistake confidence for smugness.

Posted by: SMSgt Mac at January 17, 2008 04:02 PM


I can think of a classified number of ways to track / detect submarines. Having realistic training in each area is REQUIRED. Speaking of law, the Constitution requires we provide for a strong defense, I’m still looking for the whale clause. Alas, a judge will find divine one for us. For my globally aware friends: Republic first, Government Bad, People Good.

Kyoto? much like global warming, sorry climate change, is nothing more than a scheme that attempts to punish success and redistribute wealth to a few, disguised as nothing more than a religious cult hoax that is supposed to save human beings from capitalist pig resource exploiters. It’s been tried already and it is a documented failure. No I am not talking about the UN, but communism. The only positive thing that has come out of this movement is that they cannot agree on how to screw everyone; yet!

Speaking of the whales, the answer to the original question is a Gray Area - Environment Stewardship is a good thing with tradeoffs. However, I find that this “gray area” is where the “gray area people” are black and white. If you know what I mean.

Posted by: Blake at January 17, 2008 12:45 PM


Anybody know anything about any of that? Without getting into classified stuff, is this mid-range active MFAS all we got?

How does it relate to the low freak, high volume stuff that allegedly cause spontaneous beachings?

Well, without getting too technical, water has layers called thermoclines. It is possible for a sub to hide below a thermocline and be invisible to active sonar operating above it. Hi freq (not freak) gets absorbed rather quickly. The medium to low freq sometimes cuts through the thermoclines to detect hidden subs/objects. Different tools for different jobs. A chain saw cuts wood. A coping saw cuts wood. You wouldn't attempt to fell a large tree with a coping saw. We have sonar that covers the spectrum.

As far as whale beaching goes, why did it happen before we began testing our sonar?

Posted by: Jack D. Ripper at January 17, 2008 10:20 AM


so by that logic we have to stoop to their level? what makes our nation great is that we are better than everyone else. if we take the attitude that "they are doing it so we will do it too", we are severely deteriorating that status.

Posted by: C at January 16, 2008 11:48 PM


C(hippie basterd) :)

excellent point but think about it this way islamic terrorist and communist dont care about the enviroment they dont worry about whales
communist china once murdered anywhere from 44mil to 77 mil of its ppls(you know its bad when a country can obsorb that loss and just keep going.condums..anyways)

i believe in cleaning up the enviroment almost every american does but if we loss our enemies wont
so simple end all the wars get us in space and spread out our huge population(though world wars tend to help with the over population prob)
or figure out a way to detect subs quietly and safely

peace dude

Posted by: james at January 16, 2008 11:31 PM


In response to James above, I believe a country's first duty is to it's people not itself.

true but a nation is its people and well no offense if it ment losing a 10k mink whales or losing one us sub of mariners....i say take the mariners but thats just me

though if we could find out a way to detect subs as well without the sonar id be all for it maybe they would have a harder time finding us

last

I also think we should investigate giving the whales earmuffs. Just might solve everyones problem.

an excellent idea maybe just need ear plugs like ya use when weed eattin

but i think its easier to do it this way hippie.i here by give you the power to demand all other nations to disable and give us there subs this way we wouldnt need the radar and they wouldnt need to fund the subs.plus peaceful flower loving countries like china and iran could then put more men in the army

see problem solved right hippie its for gia im sure thell jump right to it right?

Posted by: James at January 16, 2008 11:24 PM


i know i'm going to get flamed for this, but the other end of the "What I Do Is More Important Than What Everyone Else Does" attitude, the smug holier-than-thou/respect me for my choice to serve attitude of former and current military drives me insane.

it's real easy to call people hippie scum and whatnot (completely obliviating your argument by the way) but think about this: societies across the world has spent the last couple millenia using the planet's resources to survive, and the past century and a half scraping it clean due to industrializing. shortsightedness, ignorance and above all avarice on the part of humanity has suddenly gotten us into a situation that is just now becoming understood but possibly partially irreversible. "running roughshod" over the theatre of operations in everyone's life is something to reckon.

it's going to sound corny but what point is there to fighting if what you're fighting over is dead?

Posted by: C at January 16, 2008 11:20 PM


Demophilius, sonar remains for the indefinite future the best way to spot a sub. We've had all sorts of sonar arrays and even MAD sensors (Magnetic Anamoly Detectors) since the fifties, sixties, but there is no substitute for integrating the sensor with the platform. And the best sensor remains sonar.

Some of the diesels are so quiet that even passive towed arrays will not get them, so you need the contingency to go hot with the bullhorn.

Posted by: Vercingetorix at January 16, 2008 10:29 PM


"The end justifies the means" arguments often assume 1) the means will lead to the end, and 2) there isn't a better way to get there.

If this sonar's the only way to detect submarines, then the whales have definitely got a problem.

Sonar's not my field, not by a long shot, but I'm sort of under the impression that heavy volume sonar from a single source, at a single set of freaks, isn't a particularly good way to go about it anymore. I've been under the impression that the next step in ASW lies in using distributed emitters and sensors (for example, buoys, towed arrays or UUVs) hopping freaks, or processing distortions in ambient noise, or using lasers: sneaky, stealthy approaches to ASW, as opposed to tooling around, yelling through a bullhorn. But maybe all that's way off in the future.

Anybody know anything about any of that? Without getting into classified stuff, is this mid-range active MFAS all we got?

How does it relate to the low freak, high volume stuff that allegedly cause spontaneous beachings?

Posted by: demophilus at January 16, 2008 08:54 PM


In response to James above, I believe a country's first duty is to it's people not itself.

If the people want happy whales, then it is the nation's duty to at least not go out of it's way to piss off the whales.

Myself, I like whales. They are wonders of the natural world. I also like Sonars. Nifty gadgets that save the good guys lives.

I also think we should investigate giving the whales earmuffs. Just might solve everyones problem.

Posted by: Jon at January 16, 2008 08:00 PM


Pharsalus, this: "We as human beings owe indefintely more to the planet we live on than to the country we're born in. Save the whales."

Is idiotic. The planet will not feed you, will not defend you, will not pay you, talk or listen to you, just as I will no longer listen to you. It is a utopian fantasy to consider yourself a citizen of the world and therefore asinine.

If we have a navy, we have to train it. If you don't want to train the navy, man up and come out and say, "Let's disband the navy, guys. Nuke subs are killing Gaia."

Then us vets can throw things at you and call you dirty names, because, you are an idiot.

Posted by: Vercingetorix at January 16, 2008 07:13 PM


By the way, could any one of you Americans please tell me what the reason is the US will only follow international treaties if it *wants* to? I mean, take Kyoto as an example; cutting back on emissions or saving fish (excusez-moi, marine mammals)(among others) would hurt your economy, so you don't sign up. If you come to the meeting, you should want to play.

We never signed that piece of crap called Kyoto. Also even if the President signs a treaty it must then be ratified by the Senate.

Whale-tastes just like chicken

Posted by: Jack D. Ripper at January 16, 2008 07:07 PM


wish we could save the whales without having to mess with the exercise but we cant defense comes first. that said i love whales never seen one always wanted to.

(begin spanking)Pharselus hate to tell you this boyo but if you ask russians chinese iranian and most any other country that doesnt follow blindly into the UNs all one ppl bull crap youll notice something

here let me make the words bigger

A COUNTRIES FIRST DUTY IS TO (ITSELF) then to its allies and friends yes were going to keep doing as we as a country need to do in order to survive and prospere.

and btw i think we where one of the only countries to cut back on our carbon footprint in 2007 so shove it hippie scum hehehe

Posted by: James at January 16, 2008 06:05 PM


Oh, and Pharselus? If you are not spanked soundly by the whenever I get back here I will be amazed.

I'll prepare you a bit for what may come:

a. Look up 'treaty', and somewhere you will read what it takes to put one into effect.

b. Google 'Kyoto' and somewhere you will see that the US is doing better controlling emissions than the actual signatories.

Posted by: SMSgt Mac at January 16, 2008 05:53 PM


Must be slow on the boards with Christian in the field ;-)

Hmmmm. 1. Can't link the deaths to the Navy.
2. Navy making an effort to proceed with care.

Yep. I'm good with it. Especially since I've seen some of these biologists in action at Point Mugu and SNI. Classic WIDIMITWEED ('What I Do Is More Important Than What Everyone else does') syndrome.

Posted by: SMSgt Mac at January 16, 2008 05:39 PM


By the way, could any one of you Americans please tell me what the reason is the US will only follow international treaties if it *wants* to? I mean, take Kyoto as an example; cutting back on emissions or saving fish (excusez-moi, marine mammals)(among others) would hurt your economy, so you don't sign up. If you come to the meeting, you should want to play.

We as human beings owe indefintely more to the planet we live on than to the country we're born in. Save the whales.

Pharsalus

Posted by: Pharsalus at January 16, 2008 05:36 PM


Let it be known that I'm a green-eyed left-wing whale-hugger. (As well as lover of stuff that goes -boom-.)

Also let it be known I do not like the Bush tribe.

Humph.

If your president was *really* into saving sealife he'd use his subs to scare off whaling ships.

Balaenae nobis conservandae sunt
Pharsalus

Posted by: Pharsalus at January 16, 2008 05:27 PM


on it's own, i would have read that release and thought to myself, "well they are making a compromise, i have some faith that they are doing what they can to not wantonly kill off life". but, after reading the bookends Ward put on the release, i now have the inclination to side with those attempting to file injunctions against the sonar training.

Posted by: C at January 16, 2008 05:14 PM


*Standard disclaimer start* I'm not a blind supporter of the Bush administration, in fact I'm quite pissed at a lot of what they have done, *Standard Disclaimer End* but comments like that of Mr. Wolf above are ridiculous.

"Act illegally" you say? Seems to me that he was acting well within the legal bounds of the POTUS. More to the point, bench made law is further from the framers original intentions then executive orders are. There is nothing illegal in the way the White House acted in this article.

Petty jabs in complex discussions do nothing to further understanding or advance debate.

Otter

Posted by: Otter at January 16, 2008 03:37 PM


How can the President act illegally if he has the authority to make this exemption under the CZMA?

Posted by: Dick at January 16, 2008 03:29 PM


Well isn't this par for the course? In the Bush administration if you don't like the law, you just go ahead and act illegally anyway. Problem solved!

Posted by: Markus Wolf at January 16, 2008 03:09 PM


To me, it looks like the Navy is doing what it can to protect marine life while still training the sailors. And you gotta train 'em. If they're not well trained to avoid subs, they die. And hell, 29 different methods to protect the animals is quite a bit.

Posted by: Warloc at January 16, 2008 03:01 PM


Post a comment




Remember Me?


Please enter the code as seen in the image below to post your comment.