Navy officials and attorneys with the Natural Resources Defense Council, which brought the sonar lawsuit, offered these responses to today’s U.S. Supreme Court ruling.

For further details about the ruling, see the entry below in Watching Our Water Ways.

Navy Secretary Donald C. Winter:
“This case was vital to our Navy and Nation’s security, and we are pleased with the Supreme Court’s decision in this matter. We can now continue to train our Sailors effectively, under realistic combat conditions, and certify our crews “combat ready” while continuing to be good stewards of the marine environment.”

Admiral Gary Roughead, chief of Naval Operations:
“We are pleased with the Supreme Court’s decision on this case of vital importance to our National Security. We will continue to train realistically and certify the Sailors and Marines of our Navy strike groups in a manner that protects our nation’s security and the precious maritime environment.”

Lt. Sean Robertson, media relations action officer, CHINFO
“Without the crippling restrictions contained in the preliminary injunction, our Sailors can train realistically and the Navy is able to certify our forces are ready for Anti-Submarine Warfare, reducing risk to our Sailors and national security, while simultaneously protecting the environment. The Navy appreciates the careful consideration and prompt review the Court gave this important case involving national security.”

Rear Adm. James A. Symonds, commander of Navy Region Northwest
“Although this decision does not directly affect the Puget Sound, some SONAR training does occur on a smaller scale in the Northwest training ranges. It is important that our Sailors are able to train as they would be called to fight, in a realistic environment.

“When Sailors train, they adhere to the 29 protective mitigation measures whenever mid-frequency active SONAR is needed to minimize potential harm to marine mammals. This includes posting lookouts, power-down and shut-down requirements. The Navy is preparing an environmental impact statement to comprehensively analyze the effects of all Navy activities in the Northwest training ranges.”

Joel Reynolds, senior attorney and director of NRDC’s marine mammal program:
“The Supreme Court held that the lower courts did not properly balance the competing interests at stake, and struck down two significant safeguards that reduce harm to whales from high-intensity sonar training.

“The decision places marine mammals at greater risk of serious and needless harm. However, it is a narrow ruling that leaves in place four of the injunction’s six safeguards. It is significant that the court did not overturn the underlying determination that the Navy likely violated the law by failing to prepare an environmental impact statement.”

Richard Kendall, NRDC co-counsel:
“It is gratifying that the court did not accept the Navy’s expansive claims of executive power, and that two thirds of the injunction remains intact.”

See the full press release from NRDC

The U.S. Supreme Court has lifted restrictions imposed by a federal district judge on the use of sonar around marine mammals. The syllabus of the court decision includes this:

The preliminary injunction is vacated to the extent challenged by the Navy. The balance of equities and the public interest—which were barely addressed by the District Court—tip strongly in favor of the Navy. The Navy’s need to conduct realistic training with active sonar to respond to the threat posed by enemy submarines plainly outweighs the interests advanced by the plaintiffs.

And this:

A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy never awarded as of right. In each case, courts must balance the competing claims of injury and consider the effect of granting or withholding the requested relief, paying particular regard to the public consequences… Military interests do not always trump other considerations, and the Court has not held that they do, but courts must give deference to the professional judgment of military authorities concerning the relative importance of a particular military interest….

The use of MFA (mid-frequency active) sonar under realistic conditions during training exercises is clearly of the utmost importance to the Navy and the Nation. The Court does not question the importance of plaintiffs’ ecological, scientific, and recreational interests, but it concludes that the balance of equities and consideration of the overall public interest tip strongly in favor of the Navy. The determination of where the public interest lies in this case does not strike the Court as a close question.

The court said, in an opinion supported by six justices, that any restrictions should come after an environmental impact statement, and it warned that permanent court restrictions of similar nature would be an “abuse of discretion.”

This Court does not address the underlying merits of plaintiffs’ claims, but the foregoing analysis makes clear that it would also be an abuse of discretion to enter a permanent injunction along the same lines as the preliminary injunction. Plaintiffs’ ultimate legal claim is that the Navy must prepare an EIS, not that it must cease sonar training.

Review the sonar decision (PDF 308 kb) for yourself and take a look at this Associated Press story by Mark Sherman, which was posted soon after the decision came out.

Updated story by the AP Writer Pete Yost

Stay tuned for reactions and further discussion.

The advisory council for the Pacific Coast National Marine Sanctuary has voted unanimously to oppose the proposed expansion of the Navy’s Quinault Underwater Training Range. The plan is to increase the range from 48 square miles to 1,854, much of it within the sanctuary.

Council members said they were especially concerned about activities in the sensitive surf zone as well as plans for deploying landing craft at Kalaloch Beach, within Olympic National Park.

Similar concerns were expressed in a joint letter from the Natural Resources Defense Council and other environmental groups. See my story in Sunday’s Kitsap Sun.

To fully understand the concerns, it would be a good idea to read the letters from the advisory council (PDF 124 kb) and the NRDC et. al. (PDF 412 kb).

Official Navy information can be found at NavSea Keyport home page.

Balancing environmental concerns and military readiness is never easy. Every time I write a story in which environmental concerns are raised about Navy activities, it triggers a debate about which is more important, the Navy or the environment.

There are some people who believe the Navy would never cause undue harm to the ecosystem, while others are quick to point out that the Navy has created some of the most toxic sites in the nation.

It’s an interesting debate, but a couple of things are worth noting. First, the Navy has become more environmentally concerned as the years go by. As with general society, some previously common practices in the Navy are considered appalling today. (They don’t shoot whales, do they?)

Second, the Navy is fairly responsive to the civilian administration in power at the time — which means that the environment may be more or less protected, depending on who we have for president.

Also, for better or worse, Navy commands change constantly. Rear Adm. Len Hering, commander of Navy Region Northwest from 2002 to 2005, was widely recognized for his protective attitude toward the environment. I believe he is largely responsible for a dramatic decrease in the number of oil spills that have occurred in recent years.

The question in my mind is not whether the Navy is all good or all bad. And it’s not whether environmental groups lack respect for the military and its needs. The answer may be as simple as the need for everyone to respect and understand each other while trying to resolve competing goals.

Remember, we’re talking about training conditions. In cases of conflict or potential conflict, the environment is not really a consideration.

ABC World News is reporting that it will feature a story about the seven Puget Sound killer whales that are missing and presumed dead. Locally, watch Channel 4 at 5:30 p.m. A written story with plenty of photos can be seen on the World News Web site.

The Kitsap Sun was the first daily newspaper to report on the missing orcas. For breaking news and regular reports, sign up for e-mail notification or RSS in the right-hand column of “Watching Our Water Ways.”

And now we come to the endgame for President George W. Bush. You can almost hear environmentalists sweating as Bush pushes for last-minute regulations that many believe would undermine gains on the environmental front.

The group OMB Watch lays out the issue:

The Clinton administration published many rules in the Federal Register in January 2001, just days before leaving office. Because those rules were not yet effective, the incoming president, George W. Bush, took a second look at those rules and suspended many of them. Although Bush’s move was of questionable legality, it was never challenged in court.

Bush was able to derail a regulation that would have precluded businesses in repeated violation of the law (including tax laws, labor laws, employment laws, environmental laws, antitrust laws, and consumer protection laws) from receiving government contracts.

Now, the Bush administration is pushing rules a future administration might find objectionable. However, by ensuring those rules are in effect by Jan. 20, Bush is preventing the next president from employing the same strategy of suspending last-minute rules.

The White House foreshadowed this November push when, in May, it instructed agencies to finalize rules by Nov. 1. In a memo, White House Chief of Staff Joshua Bolten wrote, “[R]egulations to be finalized in this Administration should be proposed no later than June 1, 2008.” All final rules were to be completed by Nov. 1 except in extraordinary circumstances, according to the memo.

Many upcoming rules will miss the Nov. 1 deadline. However, the administration continues to push to finish rules by mid-November — at least 60 days before Bush leaves office.

Download the Bolten memo (PDF 740 kb) for a closer look.

The article by OMB Watch lists eight environmental rules to be amended, including those dealing with mining, endangered species, national parks, water pollution, air pollution and ocean management.

The Competitive Enterprise Institute, which promotes free enterprise and limited government, has joined with conservation groups in urging the Bush administration to suspend new regulations.

“This is a matter of good regulatory policy,” said Eli Lehrer, a senior fellow at the institute said in a press release. “The Bush administration has had eight years in office and has issued more regulations than any administration in history. At this point, in the current economic climate, it would be especially harmful to push through ill-considered regulations in the final days of the administration. Unless it’s a real emergency, the administration should keep its word on this matter.”

The coalition has set up a Web site called NoMidnightRegs.org.

Here’s how various publications have described this issue:
(more…)

I have yet to spend a significant amount of time in the Puget Sound Navy Museum in downtown Bremerton, but I have walked through the facility several times and I can tell you that it looks like a wonderful place to explore. Now that it has been a year in its new location, it’s about time that I spend some time there for a closer look.

The museum struggled financially for years until it was taken over as an official Navy museum in March. Admission is free; the museum is located in a truly historical building; and it is only a couple of minutes from the Bremerton ferry terminal.

Here is the information published by the Kitsap Peninsula Visitor & Convention Bureau in recognition of the museum’s first anniversary.
(more…)

I didn’t catch a notable New York Times editorial the week the U.S. Supreme Court heard a case that could decide the limits of presidential authority in overriding environmental laws.

Immediately after the hearing, which involved Navy sonar and marine mammals, I posted an entry on Watching Our Water Ways and later listed numerous news reports about the hearing and what the justices had to say.

In an editorial Oct. 11, the New York Times commented:

We hope the Supreme Court has the sense to assert its authority over military activities that can cause environmental harm far from any battlefield. Some of the justices’ comments this week sounded as though they were feeling far too deferential to the military…

It was dismaying to hear Justice Stephen Breyer assert that “I don’t know anything about this. I’m not a naval officer.” It was discouraging that Justice Samuel Alito found it “incredibly odd” that a district court judge had concluded that her restrictions would not compromise the Navy’s training when the Navy claimed they would…

Few justices are truly expert in most of the issues they confront. Yet they have no qualms about ruling on cases that involve complex political, social, economic, scientific or medical issues… Surely the Supreme Court has the ability to judge whether the military should be allowed to flout environmental laws with a dubious claim of national security.

I believe, as I’ve said before, that this issue rests on a balance between the needs of the Navy to train adequately and the needs of marine mammals to live and thrive. The Navy has come a long way in protecting the environment, and I’m not saying the restrictions imposed by a federal judge are the right ones. However, the military does not function outside of our government, which depends on checks and balances at all levels.

There is nothing like a weekly news magazine to explore the breadth and depth of an issue, as U.S. News and World Report has done in a story titled “Global Warming Triggers an International Race for the Arctic.”

The magazine piece, written by Thomas Omestad, discusses a treasure of oil and minerals, scientific discoveries, commercial potential and possible geopolitical clashes. I recommend it to anyone interested in the confluence of global warming and international intrigue.

A map of this remote area shows how the legendary Northwest Passage could become an important route between the East and West coasts.

After describing some strategic flurries in the Arctic by Russia and Canada, Omestad offers this observation:

The United States, for its part, has not acted with the same urgency. “We are behind when it comes to what is happening with our other Arctic neighbors,” says Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska.

The lagging begins with the Law of the Sea convention. Despite Bush administration support, Senate ratification of the 1982 treaty remains blocked by conservative Republicans fearful that the treaty will give away American sovereignty. The other four Arctic coastal states have adopted the convention and are eligible to file their claims for economic control.

The Pentagon has also appeared slow to focus on the region. The U.S. Coast Guard maintains just two working icebreakers, with another docked until repairs are authorized. The question of expanding the icebreaker force has been left unanswered, while a broader, interagency review of Arctic policy has continued for nearly two years….

I recently cited some sketchy stories about this subject on Watching Our Water Ways. Now this U.S. News article has placed the issue into the appropriate context. If the prescribed dominoes begin to fall, international tensions will no doubt rise in this remote part of the Earth.

North Atlantic right whales will get some needed protection, thanks to a new federal rule that calls upon big ships to slow down to reduce collisions with these highly endangered marine mammals.

“The ship strike rule, based on science, is a major addition to NOAA’s arsenal of protections for this endangered species,” Navy Vice Admiral Conrad C. Lautenbacher, Jr. said in a press release (PDF 28 kb).

The rule, from the National Marine Fisheries Service, requires ships 65 feet or longer to reduce their speed to 10 knots within 20 nautical miles of key ports along the East Coast.

Also from the press release:

With only 300 to 400 in existence, North Atlantic right whales are among the most endangered whales in the world. Slow moving right whales are highly vulnerable to ship collisions, since their migration route crosses major East Coast shipping lanes. Along with existing measures to prevent entanglement of right whales in fishing gear, the new ship strike reduction rule is the most comprehensive approach that NOAA has taken in its effort to help right whales recover.

For more information, including a fact sheet, check out NOAA Fisheries’ Web page on the Strategy to Reduce Ship Strikes to North Atlantic Right Whales.

Officials at the International Fund for Animal Welfare — including Jeffrey Flocken, director of IFAW’s Washington, D.C., office —were encouraged by the action.

“While we had hoped a 30-nautical-mile zone would be established around major ports,” Flocken said, “we are pleased by the U.S. government’s decision today to establish this new whale ship strike regulation. It will make great strides towards the protection of our nation’s endangered right whales.”

Flocken criticized the so-called “sunset” provision, which would allow the regulation to expire after five years. NOAA has said that the provision was established in order to take into consideration “ongoing scientific research.”

IFAW argues that the U.S. government should not only support ongoing research but should launch an extensive enforcement program to protect the whales.

“With this five-year ‘sunset’ provision, the sun may soon set not only on this important regulation, but on the future of right whales unless the U.S. government actively engages in developing and implementing new technologies to protect whales,” Flocken said in the press release.

“To be truly effective, IFAW feels it is vital for this regulation to be partnered closely with actual on the water enforcement as well as the development of improved right whale protection solutions before it is too late,” he said.

Even if all threats to right whales were eliminated today, they would still be critically endangered in five years, he said.

Scientists calculate that the species will become extinct within 200 years unless urgent action is taken, Flocken noted.

IFAW, he said, has been a key player in U.S. right whale conservation efforts, including: supporting the establishment of the Mandatory Ship Reporting System, removing discarded and dangerous fishing gear from Massachusetts waters, partnering with the U.S. government and lobster industry to develop whale safe lobster gear, supporting the disentanglement of whales caught in deadly fishing line, partnering to develop “pop-up” acoustic buoys that can detect and monitor whales, and supporting the establishment of the new U.S. whale ship strike regulation.

The power of the U.S. president to override environmental laws is a central issue in the sonar case before the U.S. Supreme Court.

In a story posted shortly after noon today on the Kitsap Sun’s Web site, Mark Sherman of the Associated Press reported that Justice David Souter ridiculed the idea that the administration could declare an emergency to try to get around complying with environmental laws. The Navy opted not to conduct a more rigorous environmental impact study before beginning the long-planned exercises, Souter said.

“If there’s an emergency, it’s one the Navy created simply by failing to start EIS preparation in a timely way,” he said.

The Bush administration has taken the position that the president has the authority to override environmental laws during emergencies. He essentially declared an emergency to make sure the Navy could adequately train to locate enemy submarines, an issue related to national security.

Justice Samuel Alito suggested that he found little evidence in the court record that marine mammals would be harmed by the sonar use proposed by the Navy, Sherman reported.

Alito also said there was “something incredibly odd” that a single federal judge, who issued the first order against the Navy in this case, would be able to force changes in the exercises.

Warren Richey of the Christian Science Monitor lays out the background of the case in a story yesterday.

“Call this story ‘save the whales’ meets ‘The Hunt for Red October,’ Richey writes.

“The case doesn’t simply pit the environment against national security,” he continues. “It is also a major clash over power – the power of judges to order environmental compliance versus the power of the president and the executive branch to defend the nation. But at its most basic, the case is about whales and warfare.”

HERE ARE SOME ADDITIONAL STORIES ABOUT TODAY’S SUPREME COURT HEARING
(more…)