Contact TheIPD.US



Regulatory Actions
View Public Comments
Submit Comments

• NMFS ITA for Gulf of Mexico
• NMFS Acoustic Guidelines
• NMFS IHA for Scripps

Science
•  Best Available Science on Acoustic Effects on Marine Mammals
•  Seismic vs. Sonar
•  Physical Effects
• Behavioral Effects
•  Models
•  Sound Propagation
•  Mitigation
• Extrapolation From Terrestrial Mammal Acoustic Effects to Marine Mammals
•  Cumulative and Synergistic Effects
• Indirect Effects

•  NMFS
• MMS
• MMC
• NAS
•  US Navy
• Sperm Whale Seismic Study
• ICES
• Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory Institute
• NRDC
• ACCOBAMS
• The Acoustic Ecology Institute
• ASCOBANS
• Fisheries and Oceans Canada
• Sakhalin Energy Investment Company Limited

Library
•  Statutes
• Regulations
• Relevant NMFS Permits
• Major Studies and Reports

Comment on IPD
•  Potential Research Projects
•  Research Underway
•  Structure of the IPD

CRE Interventions
•  Agency Administrative Actions
•  Rulemaking
•  Litigation



















 

Soundings Archive

NRDC Sues Navy on Mid-frequency Sonar
On October 19, 2005, the Natural Resources Defense Council, several other NGOs, and Jean-Michel Cousteau sued the Navy in federal court in Los Angeles. In its own words, the NRDC complaint "challenges the [Navy's] testing and training with a battery of high-intensity ‘active sonar systems, known to cause the death and injury of whales, porpoises and other marine species, in United States waters and on the high seas."

The complaint alleges that the Navy's use of mid-frequency sonar violates the National Environmental Policy Act, the Marine Mammals Protection Act, and the Endangered Species Act.

In particular, the complaint alleges that the Navy violated NEPA by failing "to prepare an adequate (or, in many cases, any) environmental assessment...or an environmental impact statement... for individual navy exercises that employ mid-frequency sonar, or for the use of such sonar as a whole."

The complaint alleges the Navy violated the MMPA by failing "to seek or obtain a ‘small take permit' or an ‘incidental harassment authorization' from the National Marine Fisheries Service...."

The complaint alleges that the Navy violated NEPA, the MMPA, and the ESA by continuing "regularly to plan and conduct Navy exercises that employ mid-frequency active sonar without complying with" those statutes.

Among other relief, the complaint seeks a court order requiring the Navy "to propose within 60 days a plan to remedy the violations of law alleged in this Complaint, including a mitigation plan for uses of its mid-frequency active sonar during testing and training activities."

The complaint states that it "addresses only the navy's testing and training activities." It "does not address the Navy's use of mid-frequency active sonar in combat."
  • Click here for NRDC complaint
  •  
    Copyright © 2005 The Center for Regulatory Effectiveness.
    All rights reserved.