Sea Life to be Decimated 11.7 Million in Pacific

[runlikehell]

Marine Mammals & Other Sea Life to be Decimated - 11.7 Million in the Pacific Alone!


MARINE MAMMALS & OTHER SEA LIFE TO BE DECIMATED
By 5-Year U.S. Navy Warfare Testing Programs Located in
the Atlantic, Pacific, and Gulf of Mexico

by Rosalind Peterson
http:// (http://newswithviews.com/Peterson/rosalindA.htm)



PLEASE SIGN PETITIONS AT THE FOLLOWING WEBSITES


ROSALIND PETERSON'S SITE - CALIFORNIA SKYWATCH
http://www.californiaskywatch.com/


THE WHITE HOUSE WOULD LIKE YOUR COMMENTS
http://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/eop/ceq/initiatives/oceans/result-Y/


The United States Navy will be decimating millions of marine mammals and other aquatic life, each year, for the next five years, under their Warfare Testing Range Complex Expansions in the Atlantic, Pacific, and the Gulf of Mexico. The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS under NOAA), has already approved the "taking" of marine mammals in more than a dozen Navy Range Warfare Testing Complexes (6), and is preparing to issue another permit for 11.7 millions marine mammals (32 Separate Species), to be decimated along the Northern, California, Oregon and Washington areas of the Pacific Ocean (7).


U.S. Department of Commerce - NOAA (NMFS) Definition: "TAKE" Defined under the MMPA as "harass, hunt, capture, kill or collect, or attempt to harass, hunt, capture, kill or collect." Defined under the ESA as "to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct." Definition: Incidental Taking: An unintentional, but not unexpected taking (12).

The total number of marine mammals that will be decimated in the Atlantic, Pacific and the Gulf of Mexico for the next five years is unknown. The NMFS approvals will have a devastating impact upon the marine mammal populations worldwide and this last Navy permit, which is expected to be issued in February 2010, for the "taking" of more than 11.7 million marine mammals in the Pacific will be the final nail in the coffin for any healthy populations of sea life to survive.

Now with ever-increasing numbers of permits being issued for sonar programs in more than twelve ranges in the Pacific, Gulf of Mexico, and the Atlantic regions of the United States, our marine mammals and other sea life are facing complete devastation. When you add bomb blasts to this list, warfare testing of all types, future war testing practice, and the toxic chemicals which are both airborne and to be used underwater, there is little chance that most marine life will survive in any significant numbers. Our U.S. Senators and U.S. Congressmen refuse to postpone these disastrous "takings" or hold U.S. Congressional Hearings while pretending to be ocean environment friendly in their re-election speeches.

Earlier this year, June 8th through June 16, 2009, a delegation from Connecticut and California spent time walking the halls of the U.S. Senate and U.S. House of Representatives. We left petitions, color fliers, and information about saving our marine mammals, requested a postponement and U.S. Congressional Hearings. Ninety-nine senate offices were visited and 2/3 of offices in the U.S. House of Representatives. The silent response from our elected officials regarding these two requests has been zero…one U.S. Congressman even stated that citizens would be "laughed out of the halls of the U.S. Congress for suggesting that we protect our marine mammals". Corporate paid "Lobbyists", who hand out money by the $Millions, on the other hand, are always accepted at hearings, give testimony, and are welcomed in the halls of Congress…apparently the voices of citizens of the United States are not given the same status.

These virtually unregulated Navy Warfare Testing Programs already approved are now taking a toll on marine mammals, the fishing and ocean tourism industries, and on all aquatic life. Many U.S. Senators and Congressmen are ignoring these issues by pretending that they doesn't exist even though they have been informed in advance of these programs.

A brief history of the Navy Warfare Testing Program is needed to understand the full implications of this Pentagon/Navy Warfare Testing Program. In 2004, the Bush Administration signed a bill weakening U.S. Environmental Laws (1), with regard to the U.S. Navy. And then in 2008, President Bush signed an executive order allowing the Navy to be exempt from environmental laws which protects endangered and threatened species (2-4). The Navy Southern California Complex was the first one to benefit from this executive order. Soon other Navy Range Complexes were obtaining exemptions from the NMFS with little or no oversight or significant mitigation measures (5).

A partial listing of known Navy Range Complexes (6), shows the amazing scope of the disaster. According to U.S. Congressman Waxman in a letter dated March 12, 2009: "…The Navy estimates that its sonar training activities will "take" marine mammals more than 11.7 million times over the course of a five-year permit…The sonar exercises at issue would take place off the Atlantic and Pacific coasts, Hawaii, Alaska and in the Gulf of Mexico - affecting literally every coastal state. In many regions, the Navy plans to increase the number of training exercises or expand the areas in which they may occur. Of particular concern are biologically sensitive marine habitats off our coasts, such as National Marine Sanctuary and other breeding habitats…In all, the Navy anticipates that its sonar exercises will "take" marine mammals more than 2.3 million times per year, or 11.7 million times over the course of a 5-year permit…." This statement was made in response to public inquiries regarding the Navy Northwest Training Range schedule for Northern California, Oregon, Washington, and Idaho.

KTVU Oakland San Francisco Television Station is the only television station to investigate and air a story about this U.S. Navy program (13), on May 18, 2009. It took a great deal of courage, in the face of the fact that no other major television networks would carry this story. A few courageous radio stations are also helping to get the word out to the public.

Published in the United States Federal Register on March 11, 2009:

The United States Navy published an application, as an addendum to their expanded Warfare Testing program, in the U.S. Federal Register, dated March 11, 2009. This application from the Navy "…requests authorization to take individuals of 32 species of marine mammals during upcoming Navy Warfare testing and training to be conducted in the NWTR areas (off the Pacific coasts of Washington, Oregon, and northern California) over the course of 5 years…"

The Navy Warfare Testing Program will "…utilize mid- and high frequency active sonar sources and explosive detonations. These sonar and explosive sources will be utilized during Antisubmarine Warfare (ASW) Tracking Exercises, Mine Avoidance Training, Extended Echo Ranging and Improved Extended Echo Ranging (EER/IEER) events, Missile Exercises, Gunnery Exercises, Bombing Exercises, Sinking Exercises, and Mine Warfare Training…" (More listed in Navy E.I.S.)

The "taking" of marine mammals negatively impacts the entire ecology of our oceans and the life in them which feeds large numbers of people and other species around the world. It should be noted that the list of toxic chemicals that the Navy proposes to use is a long one as noted in the Navy E.I.S. Depleted uranium, red and white phosphorus, mercury, lead, and a whole host of chemicals known to be toxic not only to man, but to marine life, are being served up on the "Navy Warfare Chemical Menu" that will contaminate our air, water, and soil.

Since all of the Navy Warfare Training Range Complexes have received, or will receive in the near future, permits to "take" marine mammals during their respective 5-year warfare training programs the cumulative and synergistic effects of losing millions of marine mammals will be disastrous. It is time to say no to any future permits being issued by the National Marine Fisheries Services. Please feel free to write or call National Marine Fisheries Service (9), regarding the U.S. Navy Environmental Impact Statement (10). Your elected officials in Washington, D.C., need to hear from all of us on this critical issue.


On May 28, 2009, U.S. Congressman Mike Thompson from California, in a Press Release to NOAA, made the following statements which could be directed toward any ocean Navy testing range: "…I am concerned about the United States Navy's ability to properly review the environmental impacts of proposed enhancements in its Northwest Training Range Complex (NWTRC)… I am particularly concerned that NOAA's existing mitigation measures may not be best suited for the protected marine mammals and endangered salmonids present in the Pacific Northwest… I am also concerned about proposed changes to current levels of activity in the NWTRC that focus on training for new aircraft and ship classes and physical enhancements to the training range. The Navy's Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) acknowledges that these changes, particularly those related to its increased use of mid-frequency sonar, are likely to have measurable impacts on 32 protected marine mammal species known to inhabit the NWTRC…"


Congressman Thompson continues: "…As the Navy moves forward with plans to train on new weapons systems, it is essential that NOAA identifies the environmental impacts of these new aircraft, ships and submarines - and their accompanying mitigation measures - specifically with reference to the productive ocean habitats and species that define the Pacific Coast… I am not aware of any specific elements included in the evaluation and am concerned that the review will be inadequate to address the Navy's EIS with respect to protection of Pacific Coast ocean ecosystems. NOAA's comprehensive review is particularly important given that the Navy has estimated shipboard visual monitoring for marine mammals - the most commonly employed sonar mitigation measure - to be effective only 9% of the time. It is important that NOAA take immediate steps to validate its comprehensive review of mitigation measures. Specifically, I request that you provide my office with an outline of the comprehensive review process and answers to the following questions:

1. What mitigation measures will be reviewed during NOAA's process?

2. What data will NOAA use to identify those mitigation measures best able to protect marine species?

3. How will your agency's recommendations target specific species, habitats or training activities of concern?

4. How will NOAA's recommendations address sonar impacts to species other than marine mammals?

5. How will NOAA or the Navy establish performance standards to ensure that recommended mitigation measures are functioning as intended?..."

The public should also be informed of any information received by Congressman Thompson's office. In addition, there are a few more questions which need to be answered:

1. What are the synergistic and cumulative effects of all the permits that have been issued in the last two years to Naval Range Complex requests?

2. Bomb blasts and toxic chemicals are also being tested by the Navy and NOAA reviews are not including information on the Navy Hazardous Waste and Toxic Chemicals sections of the Navy E.I.S., such as bioaccumulation of chemicals in the food chain, death from exposure to toxic chemicals and bomb blasts.

3. The Navy will also be conducting classified future warfare testing. Since the public is not to be informed of those tests, chemicals being used, electromagnetic weapons systems, and other air or land based tests, who is protecting sea life, human health, water, soil, and air from pollution and other experimental tests?

4. Human health from airborne pollutants, toxic debris, and shoreline contamination from toxic chemicals should also be considered in the NMFS evaluation. The protection of cruise ships, fishermen, ocean tourists, U.S. Coastguard personnel, and the public who swim in the ocean should also be considered in their evaluations. This is not just a marine mammal issue.

It is now time for all of us to weigh in with regard to these warfare programs which will devastate our marine mammals, pollute our air and water, and have negative impacts on human health. We should have U.S. Congressional Hearings and a postponement of these programs until such time as the public can be informed about these issues. Call your elected officials today. End

For more information contact: Rosalind Peterson (707) 485-7520 info@californiaskwatch.com
http:// (http://californiaskywatch.com/) Petitions - Posters -General Information
or http (http://://www.agriculturedefensecoalition.org/) Search Engine Provides 325 Navy Documents


Additional Information:

1, 2004 Bill Signed into Law by President Bush Summary. 108th Congress H.R. 1588
http:// (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h108-1588&tab=summary)2004

2, http:// (http://www.dailyherald.com/story/print/?id=115998) Associate Press January 18, 2009 - "…President Bush's decision to exempt the Navy from an environmental law so it can continue using high-power sonar in its training off Southern California _ a practice they say harms whales and other marine mammals…"

3, http:// (http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2008Jan16/0,4670,NavySonar,00.html)- Los Angeles January 16, 2009- Associated Press President Bush Executive Order Undermining Environmental Laws.

4, http:// (http://www.defenselink.mil/releases/release.aspx?releaseid=11622) U.S. Department of Defense News Release January 16, 2009 Navy Warfare Testing Southern California Range Complex-Use of Sonar

5, No Significant Mitigation Measures for all of the Navy Range Complexes Listing on this U.S. Map: http:// (http://afasteis.gcsaic.com/docs/Range%20Sustainability.pdfhttp://afasteis.gcsaic.com/docs/Range%20Sustainability.pdf)

6, Partial Listing of known Navy + Air Force Range Complexes:
NOAA Listing (NMFS) August 9, 2009 http:// (http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental.htm)

A. Northwest Training Range Complex - California, Washington, Idaho, Oregon
http:// (http://www.nwtrangecomplexeis.com)

B. Southern California Training Range Complex
http:// (http://afasteis.gcsaic.com/docs.aspx)and http:// (http://afasteis.gcsaic.com/links.aspx)

C. Cherry Point Training Range Complex
http:// (http://www.navycherrypointrangecomplexeis.com/otherresources.aspx#draft)
http:// (http://www.navycherrypointrangecomplexeis.com/EIS.aspx)

D. U.S. Air Force Eglin Gulf Test+Training Range EGTTR Strike Weapons Tests 2004-5 Years
http:// (http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/permits/eglin_psw_loa.pdf)

E. Hawaii Training Range Complex
http:// (http://www.govsupport.us/navynepahawaii/FEIS.aspx)
http:// (http://www.govsupport.us/navynepahawaii/hawaiirceis.aspx)

F. Jacksonville, Florida Navy Complex Training Range E.I.S.
http:// (http://www.jacksonvillerangecomplexeis.com/otherresources.aspx)
http:// (http://ncrus.org/media/Op-EdFloridaWannamaker.pdf)Marine Mammal Disaster 2008

G. Virginia Capes EIS/OEIS
http:// (http://www.vacapesrangecomplexeis.com/)
http:// (http://www.vacapesrangecomplexeis.com/otherresources.aspx#Final)
http:// (http://www.vacapesrangecomplexeis.com/Documents/EPA_Region_III_Letter.pdf)

H. Gulf of Mexico Range Complex EIS/OEIS
http:// (http://www.gomexrangecomplexeis.com/)
http:// (http://www.gomexrangecomplexeis.com/EIS.aspx Map)

I. Atlantic Fleet Active Sonar Training
http:// (http://afasteis.gcsaic.com/)
http:// (http://afasteis.gcsaic.com/docs.aspx)
http:// (http://afasteis.gcsaic.com/docs/Range%20Sustainability.pdf)

J. Mariana Islands Range Complex EIS/OEIS
http:// (http://www.marianasrangecomplexeis.com/otherresources.aspx)

K. NSWC Panama City Division: EIS/OEIS
http:// (http://nswcpc.navsea.navy.mil/Environment.htm)


L. NAVSEA NUWC Keyport Range Complex EIS/OEIS

M. Navy Undersea Warfare Training Range Complex
http:// (http://projects.earthtech.com/USWTR/USWTR_index.htm)

7, http:// (http://www.nwtrangecomplexeis.com/)
California, Washington, Idaho, Oregon Decision Pending

8, http:// (http://www.navycherrypointrangecomplexeis.com/)
Navy Cherry Point Range Complex

http:// (http://www.navycherrypointrangecomplexeis.com/otherresources.aspx#draft)
Table of Contents Environmental Impact Statement - Finalized April 23, 2009

http://www.navycherrypointrangecomplexeis.com/Documents/Navy_Cherry_Point_FEIS_Vol_1_Appendix_E.pdf
Weapons Systems Descriptions - Note Section on Red and White Phosphorus
Hazards

http:// (http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d05255.pdf) 2003 GAO Report Navy

9, Public Comment Deadline NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service August12,2009:

http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2009/E9-16301.htm Information here for how to file your protest and comments.

http://http://www.pco.noaa.gov/org/NOAA_Organization.htm
2009 Protests to your elected officials are also needed at this time.

10, http://www.nwtrangecomplexeis.comCalifornia, Oregon, Washington & Idaho Navy Environmental Impact Statement

11, NOAA "Take" Requests and Permit Authorization-Note Military & Other Types of Organizations:
http:// (http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental.htm)

12, NOAA Glossary of Terms - 2009 Definition: Incidental Taking: An unintentional, but not unexpected taking.
More Terms: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/glossary.htm

13, KTVU Channel 2 Investigation U.S. Navy Warfare Testing Program May 18, 2009
http://www.ktvu.com/news/19499224/detail.html

14, President Obama Restored Species Act Consultation-U.S. Department of Commerce & Interior
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/04/29/MN5917AP99.DTL&type=pr 2009

Notes: U.S. Navy Chemicals Usage - Warfare Weapons Range Complexes in the United States.

U.S. Navy: "…*Titanium tetrachloride is a colorless to pale yellow liquid that has fumes with a strong odor. If it comes in contact with water, it rapidly forms hydrochloric acid, as well as titanium compounds. Titanium tetrachloride is not found naturally in the environment and is made from minerals that contain titanium. It is used to make titanium metal and other titanium-containing compounds, such as titanium dioxide, which is used as a white pigment in paints and other products and to produce other chemicals. Military use it as a component of spotting charges. Titanium tetrachloride is very irritating to the eyes, skin, mucous membranes, and the lungs. Breathing in large amounts can cause serious injury to the lungs. Contact with the liquid can burn the eyes and skin…."


U.S. Navy: "…HAZARDS:
_ Explosive
_ Red phosphorus or Titanium tetrachloride
_ Smoke/incendiary
References: ATSDR The Aviation Ordnanceman; TRI-DDS website; MIDAS; Global Security.org.
MK-20 Rockeye
Description Physical Characteristics The MK-20 Rockeye is a free-fall, unguided cluster weapon designed to kill tanks and armored vehicles. The system consists of a clamshell dispenser, a mechanical MK-339 timed fuze, and 247 dual-purpose armor-piercing shaped-charge bomblets. The bomblet weighs 1.32 pounds and has a 0.4-pound shaped charge warhead of high explosives, which produces up to 250,000 psi at the point of
impact, allowing penetration of approximately 7.5 inches of armor. Rockeye is most efficiently use against area targets requiring penetration to kill. Fielded in 1968, the Rockeye dispenser is also used in the Gator air delivered mine system. During Desert Storm US Marines used the weapon extensively, dropping 15,828 of the 27,987 total Rockeyes against armor, artillery, and antipersonnel targets. The remainder were dropped by Air Force (5,345) and Navy (6,814) aircraft.

Filling: 247 bomblets…"


U.S. Navy: "…*Red Phosphorus may be harmful if absorbed through skin, ingested, or inhaled, and may cause irritation of the skin, eyes, upper respiratory tract, gastrointestinal tract, and mucous membranes. Inhalation of red phosphorus dust may cause bronchitis. Ingestion of red phosphorus may also cause stomach pains, vomiting, and diarrhea. Effects may vary from mild irritation to severe destruction of tissue depending on the intensity and duration of exposure. Prolonged and/or repeated skin contact may result in dermatitis. Chronic exposure may cause kidney and liver damage, anemia, stomach pains, vomiting, diarrhea, blood disorders, and cardiovascular effects. Chronic ingestion or inhalation may induce systemic phosphorus poisoning. If red phosphorus is contaminated with white phosphorus, chronic ingestion may cause necrosis of the jaw bone ("phossy-jaw"). HAZARDS: Explosive;
HAZARDS: Explosive; Red phosphorus or Titanium tetrachloride; Smoke/incendiary…"


U.S. Navy: "…**Pyrotechnic and screening devices contain combustible chemicals which, when ignited, rapidly generate a flame of intense heat, flash, infrared radiation, smoke or sound display (or combinations of these effects) for a variety of purposes. Compared to other explosive substances, pyrotechnics are more adversely affected by moisture, temperature, and rough handling. Some compositions may become more sensitive, and even ignite, when exposed to moisture or air. Mixtures which contain chlorates and sulfur are susceptible to spontaneous
combustion. Most pyrotechnics produce a very hot fire that is difficult to extinguish and most burn without serious explosions. Many chemicals used in pyrotechnics produce toxic effects when ignited. Other pyrotechnics, which contain propelling charges, create an extremely hazardous missile hazard if accidentally ignited…"

http://www.xzonenews.com/decimatedseamammals.htm

NOTE: SOME LINKS ARE ONLY SHOWING AS HTTP:// but they still work.

1 Hour Interview Coming Soon As I get A Link!!! :)

[metacomet]

Notes: U.S. Navy Chemicals Usage - Warfare Weapons Range Complexes in the United States.

U.S. Navy: "…*Titanium tetrachloride is a colorless to pale yellow liquid that has fumes with a strong odor. If it comes in contact with water, it rapidly forms hydrochloric acid, as well as titanium compounds.

Not good.

Are they really planning on rounding up 11.7 million animals?

I can't tell if this is talking about testing military weapons in the ocean or if they are going to abduct 11 million marine animals and run tests on them...

There's no excuse for 'testing' weapons on animals. Especially 11 million. This is some satanic stuff.

[runlikehell]

Hi Metacomet, yes it look's like they are going to be carrying out Weapon Testing Programs in the oceans!

And a lot of Marine Animals will die as a result!

It's just crazy! :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

[ozpixie]

An unspeakable atrocity against the earth and all that relies on it for life. What has humanity sunk to?

[runlikehell]

Activists blast Bush's anti-sonar law exemption

LOS ANGELES -- Conservationists vowed to return to court to challenge President Bush's decision to let the Navy continue using high-power sonar in its training off Southern California, a practice they say harms whales and other marine mammals.

The president's decision to exempt the Navy from an environmental law will not by itself allow the anti-submarine warfare training to go forward, because an injunction remains in place. But the Navy believes it will significantly strengthen its argument in court.

A three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco had been expected to rule on the future of the Navy exercises today. But after Bush's decision, the appeals court on Wednesday sent the issue back to the U.S. District Court in Los Angeles to consider. The Navy asked the court for a decision by 4 p.m. Thursday.

Scientists say loud sonar can damage marine mammal brains and ears. It may also mask the echoes some whales and dolphins listen for when they use their own natural sonar to locate food.

But much is still unknown about how sonar affects whales and other marine mammals. For example, the sound can hurt some species while not affecting others, and experts don't fully understand why.

The White House announced Wednesday that Bush signed the exemption a day earlier while traveling in the Middle East. In his memorandum, Bush said the Navy training exercises "are in the paramount interest of the United States" and its national security.

Peter Douglas, executive director of the California Coastal Commission, which joined in the lawsuit to provide the mammals greater protections from sonar, called the exemption unprecedented in California.

"I'm not surprised at all," he said. "It's typical for this Republican administration to ignore environmental protections under the banner of fear."

Attorneys for the Natural Resources Defense Council, which has been fighting the Navy's sonar training, said the group would file papers with the District Court to challenge Bush's exemption.

"The president's action is an attack on the rule of law," said Joel Reynolds, director of the council's Marine Mammal Protection Project. "By exempting the Navy from basic safeguards under both federal and state law, the president is flouting the will of Congress, the decision of the California Coastal Commission and a ruling by the federal court."

A federal judge in Los Angeles issued a preliminary injunction this month requiring the Navy to create a 12-nautical-mile, no-sonar zone along the Southern California coast and to post trained lookouts to watch for marine mammals before and during exercises. The order required that sonar be shut down when mammals were spotted within 2,200 yards.

The court found that using mid-frequency active sonar violated the Coastal Zone Management Act, and Bush exempted the Navy from a section of that act. Complying with the environmental law would "undermine the Navy's ability to conduct realistic training exercises that are necessary to ensure the combat effectiveness of carrier and expeditionary strike groups," Bush said.

The Navy says the exercises are vital and that it works to minimizes the risk to marine life.

A statement from the Defense Department said that the new exemption covers the use of mid-frequency active sonar in a series of exercises scheduled to take place off California through January 2009 and that the Navy already applies 29 measures to mitigate the effects.

In a separate development, the Pentagon statement said Navy Secretary Donald Winter signed a memo Tuesday agreeing to greater public participation and better reporting on the issue while officials complete an environmental impact study for Southern California.

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 features there related to water depth, as well as extensive ranges, airfields and other infrastructure needed for training, the statement said.

About half the Navy's fleet will receive "its most critical, graduate level training" there before it deploys its forces around the world, it said.

------

Associated Press writers Erica Werner and Pauline Jelinek in Washington contributed to this report.

------

On the Net:

Navy: http://
(http://www.whalesandsonar.navy.mil)

Southern California Range Complex Environmental Impact Statement: http:/// (http://www.socalrangecomplexeis.com)

http://www.dailyherald.com/story/print/?id=115998

[runlikehell]

Bush Exempts Navy From Environmental Law

Wednesday, January 16, 2008

By NOAKI SCHWARTZ, Associated Press Writer

* E-Mail
* Print

* Share:
o Digg
o Facebook
o StumbleUpon

LOS ANGELES — Conservationists on Wednesday blasted President Bush's decision to exempt the Navy from an environmental law so it can continue using high-power sonar in its training off Southern California _ a practice they say harms whales and other marine mammals.

The president's action by itself won't allow the anti-submarine warfare training to go forward because an injunction is in place, but the Navy believes it will significantly strengthen its argument in court. A three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco had been expected to make a determination on the future of the Navy exercises on Friday.

However, late Wednesday, the appeals court sent the issue back to the U.S. District Court in Los Angeles to consider first.

The White House announced Bush signed the exemption Tuesday while traveling in the Middle East. In his memorandum, Bush said the Navy training exercises "are in the paramount interest of the United States" and its national security.

Peter Douglas, the executive director of the California Coastal Commission, which joined in the lawsuit to provide the mammals greater protections from sonar, called the exemption unprecedented in California.

"I'm not surprised at all," he said. "It's typical for this Republican administration to ignore environmental protections under the banner of fear."

Attorneys for the Natural Resources Defense Council, which has been fighting the Navy's sonar training, said the group would file papers with the District Court to challenge Bush's exemption.

"The president's action is an attack on the rule of law," said Joel Reynolds, director of the Marine Mammal Protection Project at the Natural Resources Defense Council in Santa Monica. "By exempting the Navy from basic safeguards under both federal and state law, the president is flouting the will of Congress, the decision of the California Coastal Commission and a ruling by the federal court."

A federal judge in Los Angeles issued a preliminary injunction this month requiring the Navy to create a 12-nautical-mile, no-sonar zone along the Southern California coast and to post trained lookouts to watch for marine mammals before and during exercises. Sonar would have to be shut down when mammals were spotted within 2,200 yards, under the order.

The court found that using mid-frequency active sonar violated the Coastal Zone Management Act and Bush exempted the Navy from a section of that act. Complying with the environmental law would "undermine the Navy's ability to conduct realistic training exercises that are necessary to ensure the combat effectiveness of carrier and expeditionary strike groups," Bush said.

Scientists say loud sonar can damage marine mammal brains and ears. Sonar may also mask the echoes some whales and dolphins listen for when they use their own natural sonar to locate food.

But much is still unknown about how sonar affects whales and other marine mammals. For example, the sound can hurt some species while not affecting others, and experts don't fully understand why.

In an argument that has been going on for years, the Navy has continually said that the exercises are vital for training and that it works to minimizes the risk to marine life.

A statement from the Defense Department said that the new exemption covers the use of mid-frequency active sonar in a series of exercises scheduled to take place off California through January 2009 and that the Navy already applies 29 measures to mitigate the effects.

In a separate development, the Pentagon statement said, Navy Secretary Donald Winter signed a memo Tuesday agreeing to greater public participation and better reporting on the issue while officials complete an environmental impact study for Southern California.

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 features there related to water depth, as well as extensive ranges, airfields and other infrastructure needed for training, the Pentagon statement said.

About half the Navy's fleet will receive "its most critical, graduate level training" there before it deploys its forces around the world, it said.

Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Gary Roughead said that exercises with sonar 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," he said in the Pentagon statement.

http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2008Jan16/0,4670,NavySonar,00.html

[runlikehell]

Navy Granted Authority To Use Sonar In Training Off California

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.”

For additional information, contact the Navy Office of Information at (703) 697-5342 or visit the Navy’s Web site concerning sonar and marine mammals at http://www.whalesandsonar.navy.mil , or the Southern California Range Complex Environmental Impact Statement Web site at http:// (http://www.socalrangecomplexeis.com/) .

http://www.defenselink.mil/releases/release.aspx?releaseid=11622

[runlikehell]

NNOA Fisheries

Office Of Protected Resources

Incidental Take Authorizations

Overview
This page is designed to provide information on why the marine mammal non-fishery interaction program was created, how the program operates under current laws and regulations, and to provide guidance on how to obtain marine mammal small take authorizations for non-fishery activities. The marine mammal non-fishery interaction program is tasked with implementation of section 101(a)(5) (A-D) of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 (MMPA), as amended (16 U.S.C. 1371(a)(5)), which provides a mechanism for allowing, upon request, the "incidental", but not intentional, taking, of small numbers of marine mammals by U.S. citizens who engage in a specified activity (other than commercial fishing) within a specified geographic region.

MMPA Incidental Take Authorization or Letter of Authorization (LOA)
In 1981, Congress amended the MMPA to provide for "incidental take" authorizations for maritime activities, provided NMFS found the takings would be of small numbers and have no more than a "negligible impact" on those marine mammal species not listed as depleted under the MMPA (i.e., listed under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), and not having an "unmitigable adverse impact" on subsistence harvests of these species. These "incidental take" authorizations, also known as Letters of Authorization or LOAs, require that regulations be promulgated and published in the Federal Register outlining:

* Permissible methods and the specified geographical region of taking;
* The means of effecting the least practicable adverse impact on the species or stock and its habitat and on the availability of the species or stock for "subsistence" uses; and,
* Requirements for monitoring and reporting, including requirements for the independent peer-review of proposed monitoring plans where the proposed activity may affect the availability of a species or stock for taking for subsistence uses.

In 1986, Congress amended both the MMPA, under the incidental take program, and the ESA to authorize takings of depleted (and endangered or threatened) marine mammals, again provided the taking (lethal, injurious, or harassment) was small in number and had a negligible impact on marine mammals.
MMPA Incidental Harassment Authorization (IHA)
In 1994, MMPA section 101(a)(5) was amended to establish an expedited process by which citizens of the U.S. can apply for an authorization to incidentally take small numbers of marine mammals by "harassment", referred to as Incidental Harassment Authorizations or IHAs. It established specific time limits for public notice and comment on any requests for authorization which would be granted under this new provision. According to the legislative history, Congress expected NMFS to act expeditiously in complying with the notice and comment requirements and expected NMFS to use the general rule making authority available under section 112 of the MMPA to establish a process for granting authorization in the case of incidental takes by harassment in "Arctic waters". In 1996 NMFS published an interim final rule (50 CFR Part 216.101-108) implementing this aspect of the program. The interim rule will be amended and written upon completion of NMFS' criteria for acoustic harassment.

Because the incidental harassment authorization process has eliminated the need for promulgating specific regulations on the incidental taking, IHAs have been of increasing interest since 1994 for those individuals with relatively short-term activities that might inadvertently harass marine mammals. This program allows authorizations to be issued in 120 days, instead of the 6-8 months required for LOAs issued under regulations.

Types of Activities
Most LOAs and IHAs to date have involved the incidental harassment of marine mammals by noise. Activities with the greatest potential to harass by noise include:

* seismic airguns
* ship and aircraft noise
* high energy sonars
* explosives detonations

Applying for an LOA or IHA
First the applicant must ask: Do I need an LOA or an IHA?

The applicant should apply for an IHA and does not need an LOA for the activity if it can be shown that:

1. there is no potential for serious injury or mortality; or,
2. the potential for serious injury or mortality can be negated through mitigation requirements that could be required under the authorization

If these two requirements cannot be met, or in other words, if the potential for "serious injury" and/or mortalities exists and there are no mitigating measurements that could be taken to prevent this form of 'take' from occurring, then the applicant must obtain an LOA.

After the type of authorization is determined, the applicant must submit a written request to the NMFS Office of Protected Resources AND the appropriate NMFS Regional Office where the specified activity is planned. These requests must include items 1-14 below before being considered by NMFS.

{Note that incomplete applications and applications that do not contain or refer to the necessary NEPA documentation, if applicable, will be returned to the applicant with explanation.}

All applications for marine mammal incidental take authorizations, whether an LOA or an IHA, must include the following information in sufficient detail for NOAA Fisheries to meet the requirements mandated by section 7 of the Endangered Species Act and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA):

1. A detailed description of the specific activity or class of activities that can be expected to result in incidental taking of marine mammals;
2. The date(s) and duration of such activity and the specific geographical region where it will occur;
3. The species and numbers of marine mammals likely to be found within the activity area;
4. A description of the status, distribution, and seasonal distribution (when applicable) of the affected species or stocks of marine mammals likely to be affected by such activities;
5. The type of incidental taking authorization that is being requested (i.e., takes by harassment only; takes by harassment, injury and/or death) and the method of incidental taking;
6. By age, sex, and reproductive condition (if possible), the number of marine mammals (by species) that may be taken by each type of taking identified in paragraph (a)(5) of this section, and the number of times such takings by each type of taking are likely to occur;
7. The anticipated impact of the activity upon the species or stock;
8. The anticipated impact of the activity on the availability of the species or stocks of marine mammals for subsistence uses;
9. The anticipated impact of the activity upon the habitat of the marine mammal populations, and the likelihood of restoration of the affected habitat;
10. The anticipated impact of the loss or modification of the habitat on the marine mammal populations involved;
11. The availability and feasibility (economic and technological) of equipment, methods, and manner of conducting such activity or other means of effecting the least practicable adverse impact upon the affected species or stocks, their habitat, and on their availability for subsistence uses, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance;
12. Where the proposed activity would take place in or near a traditional Arctic subsistence hunting area and/or may affect the availability of a species or stock of marine mammal for Arctic subsistence uses, the applicant must submit either a "plan of cooperation" or information that identifies what measures have been taken and/or will be taken to minimize any adverse effects on the availability of marine mammals for subsistence uses.
13. The suggested means of accomplishing the necessary monitoring and reporting that will result in increased knowledge of the species, the level of taking or impacts on populations of marine mammals that are expected to be present while conducting activities and suggested means of minimizing burdens by coordinating such reporting requirements with other schemes already applicable to persons conducting such activity. Monitoring plans should include a description of the survey techniques that would be used to determine the movement and activity of marine mammals near the activity site(s) including migration and other habitat uses, such as feeding. Guidelines for developing a site-specific monitoring plan may be obtained by writing to the Director, Office of Protected Resources; and
14. Suggested means of learning of, encouraging, and coordinating research opportunities, plans, and activities relating to reducing such incidental taking and evaluating its effects.

How long does it take to get an authorization once the application is complete?
Please note that decisions on LOA applications (includes two comment periods, possible public hearings, and consultations) may take from 6-12 months. IHA decisions normally involve one comment period and, depending on the issues and species involved, can take anywhere from 2-6 months.

Endangered Species Act Authorizations Involving Marine Mammals
The 1986 MMPA Amendments provided for an authorization to incidentally take ESA-listed marine mammals provided the taking (including mortality) was authorized under section 101(a)(5) of the MMPA.

Any takings of marine mammals listed as threatened or endangered under the ESA must be authorized under both the ESA and MMPA. The ESA takes are authorized by either an Incidental Take Statement or ITS under Section 7 (for Federal agency actions) or a Section 10 permit (for private citizens).
Federal Agency Actions
Section 7 of the ESA requires a Federal authorizing or action agency to consult with NMFS on any actions that might affect listed species. If the agency or NMFS determines an action is likely to adversely affect a species (this would include any taking actions under the MMPA), formal consultation is required. Here, NMFS prepares a "Biological Opinion" (BO) which assesses whether the action is likely to jeopardize the existence of the species. The BO may include binding and/or discretionary recommendations to reduce impact. An ITS is attached to the BO as an appendix, and it is this statement which allows the incidental take. An ITS cannot be authorized for a listed marine mammal until the MMPA authorization is completed.

Non-Federal Actions
A private citizen or State action not involving a Federal agency which would result in an incidental taking of a listed species must be authorized under section 10 of the ESA. The applicant is required to develop a conservation plan which describes the action, evaluates the effect of the take, and establishes the level of take. The Federal action of NMFS issuing a permit under section 10 is considered an action which itself requires section 7 consultation (in which case NMFS consults with itself).

LOA/IHA Applications for Public Review

Click here and scoll down for more info PDF files
http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental.htm

[runlikehell]

Navy Cherry Point Range Complex Impact Statement

EIS/OEIS
What is a Range Complex?

Ranges and operational areas (OPAREAs) are locations where Navy personnel train to accomplish their mission of national defense. The Navy has geographically grouped its ranges and OPAREAs to form range complexes, which are organized and managed to optimize training opportunities in a safe and controlled environment. The ranges and facilities of the Navy Cherry Point (Navy CP) Range Complex are unique and provide training opportunities essential for the safety and readiness of military personnel and the success of the military mission. The protection of natural and cultural resources is also an integral component of this training. Navy training activities incorporate protective measures as standard operating procedures to promote environmental conservation.
Navy Cherry Point Range Complex

The Navy Cherry Point Range Complex is a three dimensional training area that includes sea space, undersea space and Special Use Airspace (SUA). The range complex also includes facilities and instrumentation areas that support the training conducted there. For nearly six decades the area has supported Navy training activities, and is now host to a wide range of training every year to ensure the nation’s military is fully prepared when in harm’s way.


http://www.navycherrypointrangecomplexeis.com/images/CP2.jpg


The Navy Cherry Point Range Complex (see map above) includes offshore areas of North Carolina, incorporating air and sea spaces that extend 120 nautical miles into the Atlantic Ocean. The Navy CP Range Complex is host to activities for research, development, testing, and evaluation of emerging maritime combat technologies.
Background

The Navy Cherry Point Range Complex is a combination of sea and airspace where Navy and Marine Corps training is conducted. The Navy prepared an Environmental Impact Statement/Overseas Environmental Impact Statement (EIS/OEIS) to comprehensively evaluate effects of current and future Naval activities within the Navy CP Range Complex on the natural, cultural, and socioeconomic resources. This comprehensive evaluation is part of a larger Navy program, the Tactical Training Theater Assessment and Planning (TAP) Program. Under the TAP Program, the Navy for the first time manages its training areas within broad geographic locations known as range complexes. The Navy CP Range Complex is one of several range complexes on the east coast.
Why is this needed?

Realistic training is the single greatest asset the military has in preparing and protecting Navy and Marine Corps personnel. “Train As We Fight” is not just a phrase - it is a statement of the absolute necessity to realistically train Naval personnel for the conditions in which they may find themselves while protecting the nation.

International events, changes in technology, base closures, and population growth are increasing the challenges the Navy faces in training its personnel to be prepared to defend our nation. To face these challenges and continue to provide combat capable forces that are ready to deploy worldwide, the Navy is comprehensively evaluating and planning activities at the range complex level. The purpose for the proposed action is to:
Achieve and maintain Fleet readiness using the Navy Cherry Point Range Complex to support and conduct current, emerging, and future training operations and Research, Development, Test and Evaluation (RDT&E) operations;
Expand warfare missions supported by the Navy Cherry Point Range Complex; and
Upgrade and modernize existing range capabilities to enhance and sustain Navy training and RDT&E.

The need for the proposed action is to provide range capabilities for the training and equipping of combat-capable naval forces ready to deploy worldwide. In this regard, the Navy Cherry Point Range Complex furthers the Navy’s execution of its Congressionally mandated roles and responsibilities under Title 10 U.S.C. § 5062.
What is proposed?

The Navy proposes to:


Maintain baseline training and testing operations at current levels, plus sufficient additional operations to support a surge capability in compliance with the Fleet Response Plan (FRP).

Provide flexibility to respond to real-world situations with increased training operations, and to accommodate mission expansion, emerging force structure changes, and new range capabilities.

Eliminate High Explosive bombing exercises and implement enhanced mine warfare training capability within the range complex.
What was evaluated?

The Navy understands and recognizes training activities may have potential effects on the environment, as well as to the community and the stakeholders that rely on these resources. The Navy analyzed several alternatives to determine the effects of potential actions on natural, cultural and socioeconomic resources. Additionally, public input received during the scoping phase and Draft EIS public comment period has been carefully considered in the environmental analysis. Three alternatives have been identified and analyzed:

No Action Alternative:

The No Action Alternative analyzed a variety of training and testing activities that occur within the Navy Cherry Point Range Complex. Under the No Action Alternative, training and testing operations would continue at current levels. No new or additional training and testing operations or infrastructure improvements would be implemented. Current operations include surge level operations consistent with the Fleet Response Training Plan.

Alternative 1:

Includes all operations under the No Action Alternative, plus a 10% increase in most training and testing operations, plus changes in type and quantity of operations and tactical employment of forces to accommodate expanded mission areas, force structure changes, and new range capabilities. These would include:
a) Using more commercial aircraft to serve as oppositional forces rather than using Navy aircraft for air-to-air missile exercise, surface-to-air gunnery exercises, air intercept control exercises, and detect-to engage exercises;
b) Incorporating anti-terrorism training into existing training events;
c) Adjusting training levels to ensure that deployment can be stepped up quickly and at multiple locations in response to world events; and
d) Conducting new or modified training associated with the introduction of the new MH-60 helicopter variants, and new organic mine countermeasure systems.

Alternative 2 (The Preferred Alternative):

This alternative includes all operations under Alternative 1 with the exception that all High Explosive Bombing Exercises (BOMBEX) would be eliminated. This alternative would also include implementing an enhanced mine warfare training capability to improve training and testing realism and quality. The Navy proposes to conduct mine hunting and sweeping operations in the same general area used for other major exercise events. Since water depth there is too deep for routine retrieval of submerged objects, these operations would take place without target mineshapes. The Navy further proposes to conduct mine neutralization operations in the areas currently designated for underwater detonation training. The water depth is suitable in these areas for the placement of expendable inert mineshapes, which are used to simulate a mine threat environment.

Under Alternative 2, the Navy proposes to eliminate all bombing exercise training events that involve dropping explosive (live) ordnance on targets at-sea. The at-sea target in these exercises is usually a flare or smoke float.

http://www.navycherrypointrangecomplexeis.com/EIS.aspx#Navy%20Cherry%20Point

[runlikehell]

Welcome to the Atlantic Fleet Active Sonar Training Website

ArleighBurke.jpgThe Department of the Navy (DON) proposes to conduct the majority of Atlantic Fleet active sonar training along the East Coast and within the Gulf of Mexico. During training events, surface ships, submarines, and aircraft use a number of active and passive sonar systems, as well as other training devices for antisubmarine warfare (ASW), mine warfare (MIW), and related active sonar training.

The Navy has prepared a Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Overseas Environmental Impact Statement (EIS/OEIS) for Atlantic Fleet Active Sonar Training (AFAST):

*

To provide active sonar training for U.S. Navy Atlantic Fleet ship, submarine, and aircraft crews to meet the requirements set forth in the Fleet Readiness Training Plan and maintain proficiency with ASW and MIW skills.
*

To comply with the National Environmental Policy Act, commonly known as the NEPA.
*

To comply with Executive Order 12114- Environmental Effects Abroad of Major Federal Actions
*

To discuss the potential environmental effects to the physical, biological, and socioeconomic resources along the East Coast and Gulf of Mexico that may result from active sonar training.

The DON has created these pages to provide you with information about the AFAST Draft EIS/OEIS. PublicMeeting.jpgYou may review the proposed action, purpose, and need statements here. This site will also include a schedule of events for activities such as public scoping meetings and hearings. You may also access currently available documents and submit comments during comment periods. We encourage you to contact us with your questions and concerns and to attend the public meetings for more information.

http://afasteis.gcsaic.com/

[runlikehell]

The U.S. Navy proposes to establish an instrumented undersea warfare training range (USWTR) off the east coast of the United States for anti-submarine warfare (ASW) training.

The USWTR would cover approximately 500-square-nautical mile area of the ocean and would enable the U.S. Navy to train effectively in a shallow water environment at a suitable location for Atlantic Fleet units.

http://projects.earthtech.com/USWTR/images/images_2008/cable-term.jpg

Subsequent to the preparation of the 2005 Draft OEIS/EIS, the Navy determined that a revised Draft OEIS/EIS should be prepared based on changes in the methodology by which behavioral impacts to marine mammals are assessed, comments received during the public comment period and changes in technology that eliminated the need for a secure landside cable termination facility. The 2008 Draft OEIS/EIS superseded the 2005 Draft OEIS/EIS. Public hearings were held on the 2008 Draft OEIS/EIS in September and October 2008. Based on comments received during the public comment period, and additional studies conducted by the Navy, a Final OEIS/EIS has been completed. The Record of Decision has been signed.

This Web site introduces the visitor to the proposed USWTR project and environmental impact statement. It details public involvement and the process ensuring that environmental issues are fully considered in project planning and development.

Last Updated 08/12/2009

[runlikehell]

Restored rule requires species act consultation

(04-29) 04:00 PDT Washington - --

Federal agencies again will have to consult with government wildlife experts before taking actions that could have an impact on threatened or endangered species.
Images
View Larger Image
More News

* On defense, Obama woos right, left on health care 08.20.09
* Police: Slain model's fingers, teeth were removed 08.20.09
* Microsoft, Yahoo, Amazon to fight Google book deal 08.20.09
* Scientists given sneak preview of Egyptian mummy 08.20.09

The Obama administration said Tuesday it was overturning a rule change made in the final weeks of the Bush presidency.

Officials at the Interior and Commerce departments said they have reimposed the consultation requirement that assured the government's top biologists involved in species protection will have a say in federal action that could harm plants, animals and fish that are at risk of extinction.

Such consultation had been required for more than two decades until the Bush administration made it optional in rules issued in December, just before the change in administrations. Environmentalists argued that the change severely reduced the protection afforded under the federal Endangered Species Act.

"By rolling back this eleventh-hour regulation, we are ensuring that threatened and endangered species continue to receive the full protection of the law" and that top science will be the foundation of the decision making, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar said.

Commerce Secretary Gary Locke added: "Our decision affirms the administration's commitment to using sound science to promote conservation and protect the environment."

Agencies in the two department's share responsibility for managing and enforcing the Endangered Species Act and employ the government's top scientists in species protection.

In March, President Obama issued an executive order putting the Bush rule change on hold. Congress followed by giving specific authorization for the Interior and Commerce departments to revoke the action, avoiding a long and complicated regulatory process.

The end of the requirement - dating to 1986 - of interagency consultation with the Interior and Commerce agencies on endangered species protection produced a firestorm in Congress and within the environmental and conservation communities.

For years, agencies involved in thousands of federal activities - from issuing clean air rules to approving highway or dam construction- have had to consult not only their own experts but also biologists at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to ensure the activities did not harm plants, animals or fish that are protected by the Endangered Species Act.

Developers and business groups argued that the consultation caused unneeded delays and increased the cost of projects. The Bush administration made the independent consultation optional, arguing that it was a minor shift in policy.

In California, as a result of the rule's reinstatement, federal agencies will have to get approval from government scientists for logging, cross-country motorcycle trips, grazing and other activities that could impinge on imperiled species.

"Any time federal agencies are going to permit development around Palm Springs in desert tortoise territory or livestock grazing in the Sierra Nevada near the big horn sheep, they would need Fish and Wildlife Service approval," said Noah Greenwald, a spokesman for the Center for Biological Diversity, a national wildlife advocacy group.

One impetus for the rule change was the Bush administration's concern that the species act might be used as a back door to regulate greenhouse gases to combat climate change. The Interior Department earlier had declared the polar bear a threatened species because of the loss of Arctic sea ice, a change attributed to global warming.

Under the reinstated rule, the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation must consult with federal scientists over the effects of climate change on the habitat of chinook salmon and delta smelt when allocating water to California cities and farms, Greenwald said.

Chronicle staff writer Jane Kay contributed to this report.

This article appeared on page A - 9 of the San Francisco Chronicle


http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/04/29/MN5917AP99.DTL&type=pr

[runlikehell]

NOAA Office Of Protected Resources

Glossary

For more terms related to all of NOAA Fisheries, please refer to the NOAA Fisheries Glossary [pdf] [1.7 MB].

Adipose Fin: a fin without a bone or cartilage, located behind the dorsal fin

Anadromous: Species that live their adult lives in the ocean but move into freshwater streams to reproduce or spawn (e.g., salmon).

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS): Part of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) that is charged with regulating the treatment of marine mammals held in captivity. APHIS creates health standards such as tank size and water quality.

Animal Welfare Act (AWA): Federal statute (7 U.S.C. 2131 eq sep.) created in 1966, to--

* insure that animals intended for use in research facilities or for exhibition purposes or for use as pets are provided humane care and treatment;
* assure the humane treatment of animals during transportation in commerce; and
* protect the owners of animals from the theft of their animals by preventing the sale or use of animals which have been stolen.

Antarctic Convergence: a line encircling Antarctica where cold, northward-flowing Antarctic waters sink beneath the relatively warmer waters of the sub-Antarctic. The convergence is a dynamic boundary, meaning it's precise location may shift, but is generally located between 48º S and 61º S latitude

Applicant/Holder: Person, institution, or agency who is ultimately responsible for all activities of any individual who is operating under the authority of a permit.

Arctic waters: Marine and estuarine waters north of 60° N. latitude.

Arribada: the Spanish word for "arrival"; massive synchronized nesting within the genus Lepidochelys

Baleen: Long, flat plates made of fingernail-like material called keratin that hang from a baleen whale's mouth in place of teeth.

Barbel: A fleshy sensory appendage, often arising from the head or chin area of a fish (e.g., catfish "whiskers").

Bathypelagic: ocean depths between about 2,000-12,000 feet (600-3,600 m)

Benthic: anything associated with or occuring on the bottom of a body of water

Benthopelagic: occurring on the bottom or midwaters of a body of water

Biological Opinion: Under ESA section 7, all Federal agencies are required, "in consultation with and with the assistance of the Secretary, to insure that any action authorized, funded, or carried out by such agency is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any threatened or endangered species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of designated critical habitat."
Thus, before a permit can be issued, "a written statement setting forth the Secretary's opinion and a summary of the information on which the opinion is based" that the issuance of the permit is not likely to jeopardize any protected species must be obtained.

Blackfish: a non-taxonomic grouping of predominantly small, dark cetaceans (e.g., pilot whales)

Bona fide scientific research: Scientific research conducted by qualified personnel, the results of which--

* likely would be accepted for publication in a refereed scientific journal;
* are likely to contribute to the basic knowledge of marine mammal biology or ecology (this includes, e.g., marine mammal parts in a properly curated, professionally accredited scientific collection); or
* are likely to identify, evaluate, or resolve conservation problems.

Boreal: of or pertaining to the north, north wind, or northern type of forest.

Bow riding: swimming near the front part of a ship

Brackish: Pertaining to waters with a salt concentration between that of pure ocean water and freshwater (i.e., bay water).

Breach: to leap out of water

Bycatch: Animals caught by fishing that were not the intended target of the fishing activity. Such unwanted catch is often wasted.

Candidate Species: any species that is undergoing a status review that NMFS has announced in a Federal Register notice. Thus, any species being considered by the Secretary (of the Department of Commerce or Interior) for listing under the ESA as an endangered or a threatened species, but not yet the subject of a proposed rule (see 50 CFR 424.02). NMFS' candidate species also qualify as species of concern. "Candidate species" specifically refers to--

* species that are the subject of a petition to list and for which we have determined that listing may be warranted, pursuant to section 4(b)(3)(A), and
* species that are not the subject of a petition but for which we have announced the initiation of a status review in the Federal Register.

For detailed definitions and explanations of Candidate Species, please refer to the April 15, 2004 and October 17, 2006, Federal register notices--(69 FR 19975) [pdf] and (71 FR 61022) [pdf]--that revised the Candidate Species definition.

Carrying Capacity: The maximum number of animals an environment can support based on the available resources.

Catch Per Unit Effort (CPUE): A measure of the density or population size of an animal that is targeted by fishing. Large CPUEs indicate large populations since many individuals are caught for every unit of fishing effort.

Caudal Peduncle: the portion of a cetacean's body between the dorsal fin and the fluke (tail). See also: tailstock

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR): Regulations created by various Federal agencies to support and explain Federal statutes. For purposes of this document, USFWS and NMFS have created wildlife and fisheries regulations to support and clarify sections of the MMPA and ESA. The wildlife and fisheries regulations pertaining to marine mammals and endangered species can be found in 50 CFR 1 - 599.

Co-investigator (CI): The on-site representative(s) of the Primary Investigator (PI) who conducts or directly supervises the conduct of the taking, importing, and exporting activities authorized under the permit.

Critical habitat:

1. Specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the species at the time of listing, if they contain physical or biological features essential to conservation, and those features may require special management considerations or protection; and
2. Specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by the species if the agency determines that the area itself is essential for conservation.

Delisted: When a species is no longer listed under the ESA. See also Recovered Species.

Depleted: Defined by the MMPA as any case in which--

* the Secretary, after consultation with the Marine Mammal Commission and the Committee of Scientific Advisors on Marine Mammals established under MMPA title II, determines that a species or population stock is below its optimum sustainable population;
* a State, to which authority for the conservation and management of a species or population stock is transferred under section 109, determines that such species or stock is below its optimum sustainable population; or
* a species or population stock is listed as an endangered species or a threatened species under the ESA.

Diatoms: minute planktonic unicellular or colonial algae

Dimorphism (sexual): males and females appear visually different

Distinct Population Segment (DPS): A DPS, or a distinct population segment, is a vertebrate population or group of populations that is discrete from other populations of the species and significant in relation to the entire species. The ESA provides for listing species, subspecies, or distinct population segments of vertebrate species.

Dorsal: relating to or situated near or on the back

Elasmobranch: Elasmobranchii is the subclass of cartilaginous (with skeleton made of cartilage rather than bone) fishes (class chondrichthyes) that includes skates, rays and sharks. Elasmobranchs have an upper jaw that is not fused to the braincase and separate slitted gill openings.

Endangered: Defined under the ESA as "any species which is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range."

Endemic: Native to a certain area, usually a relatively small area.

Endothermic: Animals that generate body heat above ambient temperatures through various physiological and anatomical specializations.

Enhancement permits: As defined in the MMPA, they are, "permits issued for the recovery of a species or stock where taking or importation--

* is likely to contribute significantly to maintaining or increasing distribution or numbers necessary to ensure the survival or recovery of the species or stock; and
* is consistent with any conservation plan adopted by the Secretary for the species or stock, or if there is no conservation or recovery plan in place, with the Secretary's evaluation of action required to enhance the survival or recovery of the species or stock..."

Epipelagic: waters from the surface to depths generally not exceeding around 650 feet (200 m).

Estuary: A semi-encolsed body of water having connections to the ocean at the downstream end and freshwater streams at the upstream end. Water in estuaries thus tends to be at an intermediate and variable salinity and temperature

Euryhaline: Tolerant to a wide-range of salinities.

Evolutionarily Significant Unit (ESU): An ESU, or evolutionarily significant unit, is a Pacific salmon population or group of populations that is substantially reproductively isolated from other conspecific populations and that represents an important component of the evolutionary legacy of the species. The ESU policy [pdf] (56 FR 58612) for Pacific salmon defines the criteria for identifying a Pacific salmon population as a distinct population segment (DPS), which can be listed under the ESA.

Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ): In the U.S., the EEZ extends up to 200 nautical miles from the coastline. Presidential Proclamation 5030 created the Exclusive Economic Zone in 1983.

Extirpate: to remove or destroy totally.

Falcate: hooked, curved, sickel-shaped; often referring to the shape of a dorsal fin.

Fall Line: A line connecting the waterfalls of nearly parallel rivers that marks a drop in land level.

Fecundity: the potential reproductive capacity of an organism or population, measured by the number of gametes (eggs)

Flipper Slapping: Flipper or fluke slapping is when a cetacean slaps the water with its flipper or fluke. This action sometimes creates a very loud sound that has been described as sounding like a gun shot.

Fluke: the tail of a whale

Fluking: When the fluke (tail) is raised vertically out of the water

Foot: in gastropod mollusks, such as black abalone, the foot is a muscular appendage used for movement and adhering to substrates

Foreign Species: Foreign species are those that occur entirely outside of U.S. territory. NMFS does not, and is not obligated to, designate critical habitat or develop recovery plans for foreign species.

Forage: to wander in search of food

Fork Length: measurement from the tip of the snout to the fork of the tail.
Fork length - total length comparison.

Founder Effect: When a population is very small after the movement of some individuals to a new area that is unoccupied, the genetic makeup of that new group will differ from the makeup of their original source area just by random chance depending on the genetic structure of the founding individuals.

Gametes: eggs and sperm

Gene Flow: The movement of genes from one population to the other through movement of individuals between those populations.

Harassment: Under the 1994 Amendments to the MMPA, harassment is statutorily defined as, any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance which--

* (Level A Harassment) has the potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild; or,
* (Level B Harassment) has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering but which does not have the potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild.

Haul Out: the place or the act of an animal crawling or pulling themselves out of the water and onto land, ice, or other object, such as a buoy

Import: to land on, bring into, or introduce into, or attempt to land on, bring into, or introduce into, any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, whether or not such landing, bringing, or introduction constitutes an importation within the Customs Laws of the U.S., except that, for the purpose of any ban issued under 16 U.S.C. 1371(a)(2) on the importation of fish or fish products, the definition of "import" in 50 CFR §216.24(e)(1)(ii) shall apply.

Incidental Taking: An unintentional, but not unexpected, taking.

Intrusive Research: any procedure conducted for bona fide scientific research, that involves--

* a break in or cutting of the skin or equivalent,
* insertion of an instrument or material into an orifice,
* introduction of a substance or object into the animal's immediate environment that is likely either to be ingested or to contact and directly affect animal tissues (i.e., chemical substances), or
* a stimulus directed at animals that may involve a risk to health or welfare or that may have an impact on normal function or behavior (e.g., audio broadcasts directed at animals that may affect behavior, or attachment of instruments to an animal using suction-cups or by penetration of the animal's skin).

Keel: a deepening or thickening of the body, particularly near the tail of some cetaceans.

Lobtailing: when a cetacean lifts its fluke (tail) out of the water and slaps it on the surface of the water

Lanugo: the thick fur of a pinniped shed after birth

Logging: floating motionless

Mantle: as in mollusks, such as the black abalone, the mantle is a thin layer of tissue that covers most of the organs and produces the shell

Marine Mammal Commission: A three-member panel appointed by the President to oversee implementation of the MMPA, and provide scientific advice to the Secretaries of Commerce and Interior. All permit applications for scientific research must be reviewed by the Commission and its 10-member Committee of Scientific Advisors on Marine Mammals.

Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY): The long-term yield of fish to a fishery that can be sustained indefinitely.

Melon: the often bulging, fatty forehead of a toothed cetacean

Mesopelagic: ocean depths extending from 200 m (650 ft.) down to around 1000 m (3280 ft.) below sea level

Minimum Population Estimate: Defined by the MMPA as an estimate of the number of animals in a stock that--

* is based on the best available scientific information on abundance, incorporating the precision and variability associated with such information; and
* provides reasonable assurance that the stock size is equal to or greater than the estimate.

Molt: the process of shedding hair, skin, or an outer layer periodically to be later replaced by new growth

Morbillivirus: A highly contagious and lethal genus of virus (Family Paramyxoviridae) that has been responsible for more significant marine mammal die-offs due to infectious disease than any other pathogen to date.

Mottling: spots or blotches of different color or shades of color, as if stained

Myctophids: small, deep sea fish found worldwide. They are also known as lanternfishes, named for their ability to emit light

Natal: Pertaining to birth, usually in the context of animals that return to their place of birth to spawn or give birth themselves (e.g., many salmon).

Negligible Impact: An impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival.

Neritic Zone: nearshore area

Optimum Sustainable Population: defined by the MMPA section 3(9), with respect to any population stock, the number of animals which will result in the maximum productivity of the population or the species, keeping in mind the carrying capacity of the habitat and the health of the ecosystem of which they form a constituent element. (16 U.S.C. 1362(3)(9))

Optimum Sustainable Population is further defined by Federal regulations (50 CFR 216.3) as is a population size which falls within a range from the population level of a given species or stock which is the largest supportable within the ecosystem to the population level that results in maximum net productivity. Maximum net productivity is the greatest net annual increment in population numbers or biomass resulting from additions to the population due to reproduction and/or growth less losses due to natural mortality.

Overfished:When the size of a fish stock is smaller than the sustainable target set by the National Marine Fisheries Service.

Overfishing: When a fish stock is being fished at a fishing mortality rate that exceeds the overfishing threshold set by the National Marine Fisheries Service.

Panmictic: Random mating of individuals within a population, the breeding individuals showing no tendency to choose partners with particular traits.

Parts: Hard parts are any bone, tooth, baleen, treated pelt, or other part of a marine mammal that are relatively solid or durable. Soft parts are any marine mammal part that is not a hard part (e.g. blood, muscle, blubber, skin, tissue-derived parts such as cell lines and DNA), excluding urine or fecal material.

Pectoral flippers: forelimbs of whales and dolphins that are used for stability and steering; they are generally flattened and paddle-like.

Pelagic: Pertaining to the part of the open sea or ocean comprising the water column, i.e., all of the sea other than that near the coast or the sea floor.

Pitch-pole: to turn end over end

Plan of Cooperation: Required where the proposed activity would take place in or near a traditional Arctic subsistence hunting area and/or may affect the availability of a species or stock of marine mammal for Arctic subsistence uses. The plan must include--

* statement that the applicant has notified and provided the affected subsistence community with a draft plan of cooperation;
* schedule for meeting with the affected subsistence communities to discuss proposed activities and to resolve potential conflicts regarding any aspects of either the operation or the plan of cooperation;
* description of what measures the applicant has taken and/or will take to ensure that proposed activities will not interfere with subsistence whaling or sealing; and,
* plans the applicant has to continue to meet with the affected communities, both prior to and while conducting the activity, to resolve conflicts and to notify the communities of any changes in the operation.

Plankton: Passively drifting or weakly swimming organisms that occur in swarms near the surface of open water

Polygamy: the tendency for one male to mate with two or more females

Porpoising: when an animal moves in and out of the water in a series of high speed leaps, much like a porpoise. Dolphins, whales, seals, and even penguins have been observed porpoising.

Potential Biological Removal (PBR) Level: defined by the MMPA as the maximum number of animals, not including natural mortalities, that may be removed from a marine mammal stock while allowing that stock to reach or maintain its optimum sustainable population. The PBR level is the product of the following factors--

* the minimum population estimate of the stock;
* one-half the maximum theoretical or estimated net productivity rate of the stock at a small population size; and
* a recovery factor of between 0.1 and 1.0.

Principal Investigator (PI): The individual primarily responsible for the taking, importation, export, and any related activities conducted under a permit issued for scientific research or enhancement.

Proposed species: Those candidate species that were found to warrant listing as either threatened or endangered and were officially proposed as such in a Federal Register notice after the completion of a status review and consideration of other protective conservation measures. Public comment is always sought on a proposal to list species under the ESA. NMFS generally has one year after a species is proposed for listing under the ESA to make a final determination whether to list a species as threatened or endangered.

Pupping Season: The time of year that seals give birth.

Recovered Species: Under the ESA, a species is "recovered" when it is no longer requires protection under the ESA and thus is delisted. In practice, a species or stock is widely regarded as recovered only once it is delisted under both the ESA and the MMPA (i.e., it is no longer "depleted" under the MMPA).

Rehabilitation: treatment of beached and stranded marine mammals taken under MMPA section 109(h)(1) or imported under MMPA section 109(h)(2) with the intent of restoring a marine mammal's health and, if necessary, behavioral patterns.

Research Assistant (RA): Any individual working under the direct on-site supervision of the Principal Investigator (PI) and/or Co-Investigator (CI).

Recruitment: Time when a young fish enters a fishery (i.e., becomes large enough to be caught) or enters a specific habitat such as juvenile or adult habitat.

Rooster Tail: spray of water created as a porpoise or dolphin surfaces at high speed, especially characteristic of the Dall's porpoise

Rostrum: Any beaklike prolongation, especially of the head of an animal. In various marine mammals, the rostrum is commonly referred to as the "beak" or "snout."

Scutes: Horny plates or thorny scales, as on the shell of a sea turtle or body of a sturgeon, respectively.

Secretary: The MMPA establishes a Federal responsibility to conserve marine mammals, with management of all cetaceans and pinnipeds (except walrus) vested in the Department of Commerce (presided over by the Secretary of Commerce). The Department of the Interior (under the supervision of the Secretary of the Interior) is responsible for all other marine mammals, including sea otter, walrus, polar bear, manatee, and dugong.

Serious Injury: Any injury that will likely result in mortality (50 CFR 216.3).

Sill: submerged ridge or vertical wall of relatively shallow depth separating two bodies of water

Smoltification: a complex developmental transformation, involving physiological, biochemical, morphological, and behavioral changes, that allows young salmon (parr) to transition from living in freshwater to living in saltwater

Species: Depending on how they were listed under the ESA, species is defined as species, subspecies, distinct population segment (DPS), or Evolutionarily Significant Unit (ESU).

Species of Concern: species about which NMFS has some concerns regarding status and threats, but for which insufficient information is available to indicate a need to list the species under the ESA. This may include species for which NMFS has determined, following a biological status review, that listing under the ESA is "not warranted," pursuant to ESA section 4(b)(3)(B)(i), but for which significant concerns or uncertainties remain regarding their status and/or threats. Species can qualify as both "species of concern" and "candidate species."

Spermaceti Organ: an organ inside a sperm whale's head that, historically, whalers believed produced sperm, but actually contains high quality oil.

Spyhopping: When whales and dolphins raise their heads vertically out of the water.

Stock: As defined by the MMPA, the term "stock" means a group of marine mammals of the same species or smaller taxa in a common spatial arrangement, that interbreed when mature.

Stranded marine mammal: a marine mammal specimen under the jurisdiction of the Secretary (Secretary of Commerce or authorized representatives) that is--

* dead, and is on a beach, shore, or is in the water within the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) of the United States; or
* alive, and is on a beach or shore and is unable to return to the water, or is in the water of the EEZ of the United States where the water is so shallow that the specimen is unable to return to its habitat under its own power.

Strategic Stock: defined by the MMPA as a marine mammal stock--

* for which the level of direct human-caused mortality exceeds the potential biological removal level;
* which, based on the best available scientific information, is declining and is likely to be listed as a threatened species under the ESA within the foreseeable future; or
* which is listed as a threatened or endangered species under the ESA, or is designated as depleted under the MMPA.

Subsistence: The use of marine mammals taken by Alaskan Natives for food, clothing, shelter, heating, transportation, and other uses necessary to maintain the life of the taker or those who depend upon the taker to provide them with such subsistence.

Tailstock: the portion of a cetacean's body between the dorsal fin and the fluke (tail). See also: caudal peduncle

Take:

* Defined under the MMPA as "harass, hunt, capture, kill or collect, or attempt to harass, hunt, capture, kill or collect."
* Defined under the ESA as "to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct."

Thoracic: relating to the thorax, the part of a mammalian body between the neck and the abdomen

Threatened: Defined under the ESA as "any species which is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range."

Unmitigable Adverse Impact: An impact resulting from the specified activity that--

* is likely to reduce the availability of the species to a level insufficient for a harvest to meet subsistence needs by
o causing marine mammals to abandon or avoid hunting areas;
o directly displacing subsistence users; or,
o placing physical barriers between the marine mammals and the subsistence users; AND
* cannot be sufficiently mitigated by other measures to increase the availability of marine mammals to allow subsistence needs to be met.

Vomer: bone in the roof of the mouth, may have teeth in some species, such as the Pacific eulcahon

Whelping: giving birth

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/glossary.htm

[runlikehell]

NNOA Fisheries

Office Of Protected Resources

Incidental Take Authorizations

Overview
This page is designed to provide information on why the marine mammal non-fishery interaction program was created, how the program operates under current laws and regulations, and to provide guidance on how to obtain marine mammal small take authorizations for non-fishery activities. The marine mammal non-fishery interaction program is tasked with implementation of section 101(a)(5) (A-D) of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 (MMPA), as amended (16 U.S.C. 1371(a)(5)), which provides a mechanism for allowing, upon request, the "incidental", but not intentional, taking, of small numbers of marine mammals by U.S. citizens who engage in a specified activity (other than commercial fishing) within a specified geographic region.

MMPA Incidental Take Authorization or Letter of Authorization (LOA)
In 1981, Congress amended the MMPA to provide for "incidental take" authorizations for maritime activities, provided NMFS found the takings would be of small numbers and have no more than a "negligible impact" on those marine mammal species not listed as depleted under the MMPA (i.e., listed under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), and not having an "unmitigable adverse impact" on subsistence harvests of these species. These "incidental take" authorizations, also known as Letters of Authorization or LOAs, require that regulations be promulgated and published in the Federal Register outlining:

* Permissible methods and the specified geographical region of taking;
* The means of effecting the least practicable adverse impact on the species or stock and its habitat and on the availability of the species or stock for "subsistence" uses; and,
* Requirements for monitoring and reporting, including requirements for the independent peer-review of proposed monitoring plans where the proposed activity may affect the availability of a species or stock for taking for subsistence uses.

In 1986, Congress amended both the MMPA, under the incidental take program, and the ESA to authorize takings of depleted (and endangered or threatened) marine mammals, again provided the taking (lethal, injurious, or harassment) was small in number and had a negligible impact on marine mammals.
MMPA Incidental Harassment Authorization (IHA)
In 1994, MMPA section 101(a)(5) was amended to establish an expedited process by which citizens of the U.S. can apply for an authorization to incidentally take small numbers of marine mammals by "harassment", referred to as Incidental Harassment Authorizations or IHAs. It established specific time limits for public notice and comment on any requests for authorization which would be granted under this new provision. According to the legislative history, Congress expected NMFS to act expeditiously in complying with the notice and comment requirements and expected NMFS to use the general rule making authority available under section 112 of the MMPA to establish a process for granting authorization in the case of incidental takes by harassment in "Arctic waters". In 1996 NMFS published an interim final rule (50 CFR Part 216.101-108) implementing this aspect of the program. The interim rule will be amended and written upon completion of NMFS' criteria for acoustic harassment.

Because the incidental harassment authorization process has eliminated the need for promulgating specific regulations on the incidental taking, IHAs have been of increasing interest since 1994 for those individuals with relatively short-term activities that might inadvertently harass marine mammals. This program allows authorizations to be issued in 120 days, instead of the 6-8 months required for LOAs issued under regulations.

Types of Activities
Most LOAs and IHAs to date have involved the incidental harassment of marine mammals by noise. Activities with the greatest potential to harass by noise include:

* seismic airguns
* ship and aircraft noise
* high energy sonars
* explosives detonations

Applying for an LOA or IHA
First the applicant must ask: Do I need an LOA or an IHA?

The applicant should apply for an IHA and does not need an LOA for the activity if it can be shown that:

1. there is no potential for serious injury or mortality; or,
2. the potential for serious injury or mortality can be negated through mitigation requirements that could be required under the authorization

If these two requirements cannot be met, or in other words, if the potential for "serious injury" and/or mortalities exists and there are no mitigating measurements that could be taken to prevent this form of 'take' from occurring, then the applicant must obtain an LOA.

After the type of authorization is determined, the applicant must submit a written request to the NMFS Office of Protected Resources AND the appropriate NMFS Regional Office where the specified activity is planned. These requests must include items 1-14 below before being considered by NMFS.

{Note that incomplete applications and applications that do not contain or refer to the necessary NEPA documentation, if applicable, will be returned to the applicant with explanation.}

All applications for marine mammal incidental take authorizations, whether an LOA or an IHA, must include the following information in sufficient detail for NOAA Fisheries to meet the requirements mandated by section 7 of the Endangered Species Act and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA):

1. A detailed description of the specific activity or class of activities that can be expected to result in incidental taking of marine mammals;
2. The date(s) and duration of such activity and the specific geographical region where it will occur;
3. The species and numbers of marine mammals likely to be found within the activity area;
4. A description of the status, distribution, and seasonal distribution (when applicable) of the affected species or stocks of marine mammals likely to be affected by such activities;
5. The type of incidental taking authorization that is being requested (i.e., takes by harassment only; takes by harassment, injury and/or death) and the method of incidental taking;
6. By age, sex, and reproductive condition (if possible), the number of marine mammals (by species) that may be taken by each type of taking identified in paragraph (a)(5) of this section, and the number of times such takings by each type of taking are likely to occur;
7. The anticipated impact of the activity upon the species or stock;
8. The anticipated impact of the activity on the availability of the species or stocks of marine mammals for subsistence uses;
9. The anticipated impact of the activity upon the habitat of the marine mammal populations, and the likelihood of restoration of the affected habitat;
10. The anticipated impact of the loss or modification of the habitat on the marine mammal populations involved;
11. The availability and feasibility (economic and technological) of equipment, methods, and manner of conducting such activity or other means of effecting the least practicable adverse impact upon the affected species or stocks, their habitat, and on their availability for subsistence uses, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance;
12. Where the proposed activity would take place in or near a traditional Arctic subsistence hunting area and/or may affect the availability of a species or stock of marine mammal for Arctic subsistence uses, the applicant must submit either a "plan of cooperation" or information that identifies what measures have been taken and/or will be taken to minimize any adverse effects on the availability of marine mammals for subsistence uses.
13. The suggested means of accomplishing the necessary monitoring and reporting that will result in increased knowledge of the species, the level of taking or impacts on populations of marine mammals that are expected to be present while conducting activities and suggested means of minimizing burdens by coordinating such reporting requirements with other schemes already applicable to persons conducting such activity. Monitoring plans should include a description of the survey techniques that would be used to determine the movement and activity of marine mammals near the activity site(s) including migration and other habitat uses, such as feeding. Guidelines for developing a site-specific monitoring plan may be obtained by writing to the Director, Office of Protected Resources; and
14. Suggested means of learning of, encouraging, and coordinating research opportunities, plans, and activities relating to reducing such incidental taking and evaluating its effects.

How long does it take to get an authorization once the application is complete?
Please note that decisions on LOA applications (includes two comment periods, possible public hearings, and consultations) may take from 6-12 months. IHA decisions normally involve one comment period and, depending on the issues and species involved, can take anywhere from 2-6 months.

Endangered Species Act Authorizations Involving Marine Mammals
The 1986 MMPA Amendments provided for an authorization to incidentally take ESA-listed marine mammals provided the taking (including mortality) was authorized under section 101(a)(5) of the MMPA.

Any takings of marine mammals listed as threatened or endangered under the ESA must be authorized under both the ESA and MMPA. The ESA takes are authorized by either an Incidental Take Statement or ITS under Section 7 (for Federal agency actions) or a Section 10 permit (for private citizens).
Federal Agency Actions
Section 7 of the ESA requires a Federal authorizing or action agency to consult with NMFS on any actions that might affect listed species. If the agency or NMFS determines an action is likely to adversely affect a species (this would include any taking actions under the MMPA), formal consultation is required. Here, NMFS prepares a "Biological Opinion" (BO) which assesses whether the action is likely to jeopardize the existence of the species. The BO may include binding and/or discretionary recommendations to reduce impact. An ITS is attached to the BO as an appendix, and it is this statement which allows the incidental take. An ITS cannot be authorized for a listed marine mammal until the MMPA authorization is completed.

Non-Federal Actions
A private citizen or State action not involving a Federal agency which would result in an incidental taking of a listed species must be authorized under section 10 of the ESA. The applicant is required to develop a conservation plan which describes the action, evaluates the effect of the take, and establishes the level of take. The Federal action of NMFS issuing a permit under section 10 is considered an action which itself requires section 7 consultation (in which case NMFS consults with itself).

LOA/IHA Applications for Public Review

Click here and scoll down for info
http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental.htm

[runlikehell]

All the information posted is taken from links in the OP (Original post) but there's much, much, more.

Theres a few PDF files you can download in the OP.

I hope the information provided helps.


Thank You...




LF ;) :)

[hobo]

Marine Mammals & Other Sea Life to be Decimated - 11.7 Million in the Pacific Alone!


MARINE MAMMALS & OTHER SEA LIFE TO BE DECIMATED
By 5-Year U.S. Navy Warfare Testing Programs Located in
the Atlantic, Pacific, and Gulf of Mexico

by Rosalind Peterson
http:// (http://newswithviews.com/Peterson/rosalindA.htm)



PLEASE SIGN PETITIONS AT THE FOLLOWING WEBSITES


ROSALIND PETERSON'S SITE - CALIFORNIA SKYWATCH
http://www.californiaskywatch.com/


THE WHITE HOUSE WOULD LIKE YOUR COMMENTS
http://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/eop/ceq/initiatives/oceans/result-Y/


The United States Navy will be decimating millions of marine mammals and other aquatic life, each year, for the next five years, under their Warfare Testing Range Complex Expansions in the Atlantic, Pacific, and the Gulf of Mexico. The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS under NOAA), has already approved the "taking" of marine mammals in more than a dozen Navy Range Warfare Testing Complexes (6), and is preparing to issue another permit for 11.7 millions marine mammals (32 Separate Species), to be decimated along the Northern, California, Oregon and Washington areas of the Pacific Ocean (7).


U.S. Department of Commerce - NOAA (NMFS) Definition: "TAKE" Defined under the MMPA as "harass, hunt, capture, kill or collect, or attempt to harass, hunt, capture, kill or collect." Defined under the ESA as "to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct." Definition: Incidental Taking: An unintentional, but not unexpected taking (12).



For more information contact: Rosalind Peterson (707) 485-7520 info@californiaskwatch.com
http:// (http://californiaskywatch.com/) Petitions - Posters -General Information
or http (http://://www.agriculturedefensecoalition.org/) Search Engine Provides 325 Navy Documents


Additional Information:

1, 2004 Bill Signed into Law by President Bush Summary. 108th Congress H.R. 1588
http:// (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h108-1588&tab=summary)2004

2, http:// (http://www.dailyherald.com/story/print/?id=115998) Associate Press January 18, 2009 - "…President Bush's decision to exempt the Navy from an environmental law so it can continue using high-power sonar in its training off Southern California _ a practice they say harms whales and other marine mammals…"

3, http:// (http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2008Jan16/0,4670,NavySonar,00.html)- Los Angeles January 16, 2009- Associated Press President Bush Executive Order Undermining Environmental Laws.

4, http:// (http://www.defenselink.mil/releases/release.aspx?releaseid=11622) U.S. Department of Defense News Release January 16, 2009 Navy Warfare Testing Southern California Range Complex-Use of Sonar

5, No Significant Mitigation Measures for all of the Navy Range Complexes Listing on this U.S. Map: http:// (http://afasteis.gcsaic.com/docs/Range%20Sustainability.pdfhttp://afasteis.gcsaic.com/docs/Range%20Sustainability.pdf)

6, Partial Listing of known Navy + Air Force Range Complexes:
NOAA Listing (NMFS) August 9, 2009 http:// (http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental.htm)

A. Northwest Training Range Complex - California, Washington, Idaho, Oregon
http:// (http://www.nwtrangecomplexeis.com)

B. Southern California Training Range Complex
http:// (http://afasteis.gcsaic.com/docs.aspx)and http:// (http://afasteis.gcsaic.com/links.aspx)

C. Cherry Point Training Range Complex
http:// (http://www.navycherrypointrangecomplexeis.com/otherresources.aspx#draft)
http:// (http://www.navycherrypointrangecomplexeis.com/EIS.aspx)

D. U.S. Air Force Eglin Gulf Test+Training Range EGTTR Strike Weapons Tests 2004-5 Years
http:// (http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/permits/eglin_psw_loa.pdf)

E. Hawaii Training Range Complex
http:// (http://www.govsupport.us/navynepahawaii/FEIS.aspx)
http:// (http://www.govsupport.us/navynepahawaii/hawaiirceis.aspx)

F. Jacksonville, Florida Navy Complex Training Range E.I.S.
http:// (http://www.jacksonvillerangecomplexeis.com/otherresources.aspx)
http:// (http://ncrus.org/media/Op-EdFloridaWannamaker.pdf)Marine Mammal Disaster 2008

G. Virginia Capes EIS/OEIS
http:// (http://www.vacapesrangecomplexeis.com/)
http:// (http://www.vacapesrangecomplexeis.com/otherresources.aspx#Final)
http:// (http://www.vacapesrangecomplexeis.com/Documents/EPA_Region_III_Letter.pdf)

H. Gulf of Mexico Range Complex EIS/OEIS
http:// (http://www.gomexrangecomplexeis.com/)
http:// (http://www.gomexrangecomplexeis.com/EIS.aspx Map)

I. Atlantic Fleet Active Sonar Training
http:// (http://afasteis.gcsaic.com/)
http:// (http://afasteis.gcsaic.com/docs.aspx)
http:// (http://afasteis.gcsaic.com/docs/Range%20Sustainability.pdf)

J. Mariana Islands Range Complex EIS/OEIS
http:// (http://www.marianasrangecomplexeis.com/otherresources.aspx)

K. NSWC Panama City Division: EIS/OEIS
http:// (http://nswcpc.navsea.navy.mil/Environment.htm)


L. NAVSEA NUWC Keyport Range Complex EIS/OEIS

M. Navy Undersea Warfare Training Range Complex
http:// (http://projects.earthtech.com/USWTR/USWTR_index.htm)

7, http:// (http://www.nwtrangecomplexeis.com/)
California, Washington, Idaho, Oregon Decision Pending

8, http:// (http://www.navycherrypointrangecomplexeis.com/)
Navy Cherry Point Range Complex

http:// (http://www.navycherrypointrangecomplexeis.com/otherresources.aspx#draft)
Table of Contents Environmental Impact Statement - Finalized April 23, 2009

http://www.navycherrypointrangecomplexeis.com/Documents/Navy_Cherry_Point_FEIS_Vol_1_Appendix_E.pdf
Weapons Systems Descriptions - Note Section on Red and White Phosphorus
Hazards

http:// (http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d05255.pdf) 2003 GAO Report Navy

9, Public Comment Deadline NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service August12,2009:

http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2009/E9-16301.htm Information here for how to file your protest and comments.

http://http://www.pco.noaa.gov/org/NOAA_Organization.htm
2009 Protests to your elected officials are also needed at this time.

10, http://www.nwtrangecomplexeis.comCalifornia, Oregon, Washington & Idaho Navy Environmental Impact Statement

11, NOAA "Take" Requests and Permit Authorization-Note Military & Other Types of Organizations:
http:// (http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental.htm)

12, NOAA Glossary of Terms - 2009 Definition: Incidental Taking: An unintentional, but not unexpected taking.
More Terms: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/glossary.htm

13, KTVU Channel 2 Investigation U.S. Navy Warfare Testing Program May 18, 2009
http://www.ktvu.com/news/19499224/detail.html

14, President Obama Restored Species Act Consultation-U.S. Department of Commerce & Interior
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/04/29/MN5917AP99.DTL&type=pr 2009

Notes: U.S. Navy Chemicals Usage - Warfare Weapons Range Complexes in the United States.

U.S. Navy: "…*Titanium tetrachloride is a colorless to pale yellow liquid that has fumes with a strong odor. If it comes in contact with water, it rapidly forms hydrochloric acid, as well as titanium compounds. Titanium tetrachloride is not found naturally in the environment and is made from minerals that contain titanium. It is used to make titanium metal and other titanium-containing compounds, such as titanium dioxide, which is used as a white pigment in paints and other products and to produce other chemicals. Military use it as a component of spotting charges. Titanium tetrachloride is very irritating to the eyes, skin, mucous membranes, and the lungs. Breathing in large amounts can cause serious injury to the lungs. Contact with the liquid can burn the eyes and skin…."


U.S. Navy: "…HAZARDS:
_ Explosive
_ Red phosphorus or Titanium tetrachloride
_ Smoke/incendiary
References: ATSDR The Aviation Ordnanceman; TRI-DDS website; MIDAS; Global Security.org.
MK-20 Rockeye
Description Physical Characteristics The MK-20 Rockeye is a free-fall, unguided cluster weapon designed to kill tanks and armored vehicles. The system consists of a clamshell dispenser, a mechanical MK-339 timed fuze, and 247 dual-purpose armor-piercing shaped-charge bomblets. The bomblet weighs 1.32 pounds and has a 0.4-pound shaped charge warhead of high explosives, which produces up to 250,000 psi at the point of
impact, allowing penetration of approximately 7.5 inches of armor. Rockeye is most efficiently use against area targets requiring penetration to kill. Fielded in 1968, the Rockeye dispenser is also used in the Gator air delivered mine system. During Desert Storm US Marines used the weapon extensively, dropping 15,828 of the 27,987 total Rockeyes against armor, artillery, and antipersonnel targets. The remainder were dropped by Air Force (5,345) and Navy (6,814) aircraft.

Filling: 247 bomblets…"


U.S. Navy: "…*Red Phosphorus may be harmful if absorbed through skin, ingested, or inhaled, and may cause irritation of the skin, eyes, upper respiratory tract, gastrointestinal tract, and mucous membranes. Inhalation of red phosphorus dust may cause bronchitis. Ingestion of red phosphorus may also cause stomach pains, vomiting, and diarrhea. Effects may vary from mild irritation to severe destruction of tissue depending on the intensity and duration of exposure. Prolonged and/or repeated skin contact may result in dermatitis. Chronic exposure may cause kidney and liver damage, anemia, stomach pains, vomiting, diarrhea, blood disorders, and cardiovascular effects. Chronic ingestion or inhalation may induce systemic phosphorus poisoning. If red phosphorus is contaminated with white phosphorus, chronic ingestion may cause necrosis of the jaw bone ("phossy-jaw"). HAZARDS: Explosive;
HAZARDS: Explosive; Red phosphorus or Titanium tetrachloride; Smoke/incendiary…"


U.S. Navy: "…**Pyrotechnic and screening devices contain combustible chemicals which, when ignited, rapidly generate a flame of intense heat, flash, infrared radiation, smoke or sound display (or combinations of these effects) for a variety of purposes. Compared to other explosive substances, pyrotechnics are more adversely affected by moisture, temperature, and rough handling. Some compositions may become more sensitive, and even ignite, when exposed to moisture or air. Mixtures which contain chlorates and sulfur are susceptible to spontaneous
combustion. Most pyrotechnics produce a very hot fire that is difficult to extinguish and most burn without serious explosions. Many chemicals used in pyrotechnics produce toxic effects when ignited. Other pyrotechnics, which contain propelling charges, create an extremely hazardous missile hazard if accidentally ignited…"

http://www.xzonenews.com/decimatedseamammals.htm

NOTE: SOME LINKS ARE ONLY SHOWING AS HTTP:// but they still work.

1 Hour Interview Coming Soon As I get A Link!!! :)

Yes, it´s a part of "their" plan to prevent humans to communicate with cetaceans, especially dolphins ,according to Stewart Swerdlow. And they do it the old-fashioned style by big-scale killings.Like they finished off the american buffaloes to remove the sustenance of the red indians,they are now also killing the wild-life on land, to make sure that there will be nothing to hunt, so people will be 100% dependant on the NWO for food. Does anybody really believe that it´s going to help anything to call/ write a white house- hotline???

[metacomet]

An unspeakable atrocity against the earth and all that relies on it for life. What has humanity sunk to?

It's not us.

[rodin]

Hhmm

decimated to 11.7 millions

Think about that

[jimmythebee]

thanks for posting
i will sgn the petition

it amazes me how one group of people could be so inclined to destroy anything that is good.:)

[rodin]

Yes, it´s a part of "their" plan to prevent humans to communicate with cetaceans, especially dolphins ,according to Stewart Swerdlow.

Yakov Sverdlov - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[hawk]

It's obvious that alot of these people have lost their humanity a very long time ago.

[dogsmilk]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yakov_Sverdlov

Well I can find people with the exact same surname!
You're clearly not much good at your name game.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noel_Swerdlow
Michael Swerdlow - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blink_(film) (directed by Kevin Swerdlow)
Child's Play - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (featuring Tommy Swerdlow as Jack Santos)
http://www.drummm.com/

[romas]

Wtf :s

[mrindigo]

It's obvious that alot of these people have lost their humanity a very long time ago.

I agree, and then some.

I don't think they fully understand what they're doing. Anyone with a hint of sanity would know that what they want to do is nothing short of maniacal. By removing apex creatures like whales, dolphins, and sharks, that leaves bacterial, plankton, and algae blooms to explode world wide. That will in turn further poison the water, killing pretty much everything else off.

If their plan is to create a dependency on the NWO for food, it won't work. An entire food source can't be completed with crops and livestock alone, especially in large numbers. Microbial life adapts to abundant resources. This means that we'll inevitably see an increase in blights/molds/destructive fungi.

[runlikehell]

Yes, it´s a part of "their" plan to prevent humans to communicate with cetaceans, especially dolphins ,according to Stewart Swerdlow. And they do it the old-fashioned style by big-scale killings.Like they finished off the american buffaloes to remove the sustenance of the red indians,they are now also killing the wild-life on land, to make sure that there will be nothing to hunt, so people will be 100% dependant on the NWO for food.

Good post Hobo :)

Does anybody really believe that it´s going to help anything to call/ write a white house- hotline???

It might and if it dosent all the American people could gather outside the white house and all tell Obma NO way!

Apparently The 2008 population estimate for the United States was about 304,059,724

http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/SAFFPopulation

http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds=uspopulation&met=population&tdim=true&q=what's+the+american+population

Imagine having that many people outside YOUR HOUSE all pissed off at you!!!!



It's not us.

That's so true Metacomet!

It's a small group if indeviduals in relation to the rest of the population of the world!

They dont represent US!


Hhmm decimated to 11.7 millions Think about that

I have done for about two days before i posted this! That inculdes Fish, Mammal's, plants, custations, Sea bird's, and lot's more!!!

Oh by the way! it dosent stop there, eventuly it will start effecting rivers too!


thanks for posting
i will sgn the petition

it amazes me how one group of people could be so inclined to destroy anything that is good.:)

Thank You Jimmy for taking the time to look at the thread and putting you signiture on the petiton, much appreciated :)

It's obvious that alot of these people have lost their humanity a very long time ago.

Im afraid your right Hawk! :(


I agree, and then some.

I don't think they fully understand what they're doing. Anyone with a hint of sanity would know that what they want to do is nothing short of maniacal. By removing apex creatures like whales, dolphins, and sharks, that leaves bacterial, plankton, and algae blooms to explode world wide. That will in turn further poison the water, killing pretty much everything else off.

If their plan is to create a dependency on the NWO for food, it won't work. An entire food source can't be completed with crops and livestock alone, especially in large numbers. Microbial life adapts to abundant resources. This means that we'll inevitably see an increase in blights/molds/destructive fungi.

That's right Mrindigo good post! also theres a lot of native people who depend of the Oceans to survive who will suffer.

I think the world have been ravaged, and savaged enough and this is a blatent all out plunderings worth!

They are trying to tip the balence and do unrepairable damage!

Thse F****er's are losing their evil grip! and they know it!

So they are going all out for destroying the planet on a blatent scale probly never seen before, becuase it's under the water and we cant look out the window and see it! :( :( :(

Here think of this in realation to the life that could be lost in the Oceans


http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_people_died_in_World_War_1

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_people_died_in_World_War_2

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/During_world_war_1_and_wolrd_war_2_how_many_people _died_in_the_entire_war

If this can happen to PEOPLE what chances dose other life have?

11.7 Million sea life Decimated, is very possable, these B*****DS could have that figure for breakfast! :eek:

[runlikehell]

SORRY FOR THE SHORT NOTICE

ROSALIND PETERSON - OCEANIC HOLOCAUST - 11.7 Million Sea Mammal and other Sea Life to be Decimated - 2 Hour Interview She's tonights 3rd guest see below (also check your time zone below)


MONDAY AUG 24 2009 / TUESDAY AUG 252009
10P-11P MIKE FISH - Business Man Rides Harley Across America to Help “Pay It Forward” To Troubled Homeowners

11p-12A JEFF KNOTT - Navigating The Health Care Maze - Understanding the US Health Plan Maze

12A-01A ROSALIND PETERSON - OCEANIC HOLOCAUST - 11.7 Million Sea Mammal and other Sea Life to be Decimated.
01A-02A

2 Hour interivew
http://www.talkstarradio.com/main/listen.htm

Check here for times zone Diffrences
http://www.xzone-radio.com/timezones.htm

[runlikehell]

Bump!

i cant belive it! :eek:

Looks like this thread could be connected to the Oil slick in Mexican Gulf! :mad: :(


Oil slick in Mexican Gulf

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=114118

[anthony1965]

Evil is the only word for these people and their destructive actions. :(

Here is another thread describing the US Navy treating the Pacific as their playground. This time the "Charged Aerosol Release Exercise" starting 2009.

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=96887

This is the US Navy improving their chemtrail spraying capabilities. The whole world is their playground.

Remember "Owning the Weather by 2025"?

http://csat.au.af.mil/2025/index.htm

The wiki chemtrails debunking page has a denial by the US military that this document has any relevance. On another chemtrail debunking site I read that the US Air Force denies undertaking any weather modification activities.

Does anyone believe them?

Lots more information here:

http://anticorruptionsociety.com/2010/04/17/poisoning-the-planet-from-the-skies/

[tjohn]

Good post Hobo :)



It might and if it dosent all the American people could gather outside the white house and all tell Obma NO way!

Apparently The 2008 population estimate for the United States was about 304,059,724

http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/SAFFPopulation

http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds=uspopulation&met=population&tdim=true&q=what's+the+american+population (http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds=uspopulation&met=population&tdim=true&q=what%27s+the+american+population)

Imagine having that many people outside YOUR HOUSE all pissed off at you!!!!Problem is, most of them are too asleep to be at anyone's door.

[academylin]

O.K.

I respect all of your views, Anthony - you know I do - But I get tied up in knots with all the technical data - you know I do -

So, in Laymans terms; You, Runlikehell and tJohn ( Hi, nice to meet y'all, btw) are linking this thread with the oil spill in the gulf and perhaps speculating or even insinuating that the whole catastrophe of the polluted ocean was some kind of chemical (or something) warfare training exercise?? Yes?

Which went wrong??

Or.... was supposed to go this way ( with reference to this thread title, it could appear to be deliberate.This I am not clear on)

I hear the deal re; the NWO and their urgency to be the sole providers of the worlds food source, thus, again, taking further control of us/them.............

But in the words that a two year old might understand..... could someone tell me why, please??

NB; Preferably without the need to read long multi terminology, sky scraping over my head techno speak.... please?

After much research on the previous thread re; the gulf oil spill, I was arriving at a semi informed conclusion...... Now I'm buggered!

Help please?!:o

[academylin]

bump!:confused:

[anthony1965]

O.K.

I respect all of your views, Anthony - you know I do - But I get tied up in knots with all the technical data - you know I do -

So, in Laymans terms; You, Runlikehell and tJohn ( Hi, nice to meet y'all, btw) are linking this thread with the oil spill in the gulf and perhaps speculating or even insinuating that the whole catastrophe of the polluted ocean was some kind of chemical (or something) warfare training exercise?? Yes?

Which went wrong??

Or.... was supposed to go this way ( with reference to this thread title, it could appear to be deliberate.This I am not clear on)

I hear the deal re; the NWO and their urgency to be the sole providers of the worlds food source, thus, again, taking further control of us/them.............

But in the words that a two year old might understand..... could someone tell me why, please??

NB; Preferably without the need to read long multi terminology, sky scraping over my head techno speak.... please?

After much research on the previous thread re; the gulf oil spill, I was arriving at a semi informed conclusion...... Now I'm buggered!

Help please?!:o

I haven't linked the oil spill to anything.

I was simply illustrating that the military treat the whole planet as their property, their own playground to pollute in any way they want. This is nothing new. There are many examples going back decades.

They discovered the Van Allen Belt in the 50's and set off nuclear bombs in it in the same year. What does this tell you about the mentality of the Strangeloves?

[academylin]

I haven't linked the oil spill to anything.

I was simply illustrating that the military treat the whole planet as their property, their own playground to pollute in any way they want. This is nothing new. There are many examples going back decades.

They discovered the Van Allen Belt in the 50's and set off nuclear bombs in it in the same year. What does this tell you about the mentality of the Strangeloves?

Quite,

But is runlikehell indicating this linking back to this original thread.. I think that is what she/he is implying!

I know you are showing examples of their games(?) but could this deepwater Horizon catastrophe be another one of their games really?

And if so is the implication of runlikehells thread that it was done as an extreme way to cull sealife?

[anthony1965]

Quite,

But is runlikehell indicating this linking back to this original thread.. I think that is what she/he is implying!

I know you are showing examples of their games(?) but could this deepwater Horizon catastrophe be another one of their games really?

And if so is the implication of runlikehells thread that it was done as an extreme way to cull sealife?

Of course the oil rig disaster could be a part of the big game, although I haven't looked into it in any detail yet.

The original story in this thread is simply beyond belief. It is barbarity and cruelty that goes beyond any rational explanation.

The people running the world seem to have contempt for all life, and then they turn facts on their head and blame the little people for all the disasters.

The elite want as much chaos and disaster as possible.

Any disaster has to be examined closely.

[guuna]

I Wonder if there is not in fact a programme afoot to decimate the oceans, thus remove a valuable protein source and force vaste swathes of the worlds' population into dependence on food produced by the Illuminati cartels.

[jimmythebee]

An unspeakable atrocity against the earth and all that relies on it for life. What has humanity sunk to?

well put

the people in charge are absolute fools

[anthony1965]

well put

the people in charge are absolute fools

If only they were just fools. :(

There is generally a method behind their madness.

I think gunna's point about food production is one important factor, but there may be more.

[psketti]

Good find run.

It's an absolute disgrace. Sadly, it doesn't surprise me either. I'll be signing the petition.

[runlikehell]

O.K.

I respect all of your views, Anthony - you know I do - But I get tied up in knots with all the technical data - you know I do -

So, in Laymans terms; You, Runlikehell and tJohn ( Hi, nice to meet y'all, btw) are linking this thread with the oil spill in the gulf and perhaps speculating or even insinuating that the whole catastrophe of the polluted ocean was some kind of chemical (or something) warfare training exercise?? Yes?

Which went wrong??

Or.... was supposed to go this way ( with reference to this thread title, it could appear to be deliberate.This I am not clear on)

I hear the deal re; the NWO and their urgency to be the sole providers of the worlds food source, thus, again, taking further control of us/them.............

But in the words that a two year old might understand..... could someone tell me why, please??

NB; Preferably without the need to read long multi terminology, sky scraping over my head techno speak.... please?

After much research on the previous thread re; the gulf oil spill, I was arriving at a semi informed conclusion...... Now I'm buggered!

Help please?!:o


Hello Academylin nice to meet you too :)

In simple terms basicly they have been in the area testing weapons since or before (Op was dated 21-08-2009 that was 9 months ago) and are apparently going to be doing so for 5 years. they probly have made a severe fuck up! downed the oil rig by accident that i don't know but they are in there testing at no cost!

My point is they go test weapons and don't worry about the environmental impact or damage!

Maybe im looking too deeply into things but i think it's certainly somthing to concider.


Evil is the only word for these people and their destructive actions. :(

Here is another thread describing the US Navy treating the Pacific as their playground. This time the "Charged Aerosol Release Exercise" starting 2009.

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=96887

This is the US Navy improving their chemtrail spraying capabilities. The whole world is their playground.

Remember "Owning the Weather by 2025"?

http://csat.au.af.mil/2025/index.htm

The wiki chemtrails debunking page has a denial by the US military that this document has any relevance. On another chemtrail debunking site I read that the US Air Force denies undertaking any weather modification activities.

Does anyone believe them?

Lots more information here:

http://anticorruptionsociety.com/2010/04/17/poisoning-the-planet-from-the-skies/


Basicly like Anthony said (links above) the world is their playground, they can do what they want, and that's exactly what they are doing!

read the posts below


"SWAT Teams to check all gulf platforms" - Obama (CNN)
swat teams to sabotage ANOTHER oil platform, part of Obama's agenda.
False Flag Terror Attack
Nearly 4000 platforms. That's a lot of checking.
He said they're sending "swat teams" to inspect all rigs.
And he said they're going to find out what caused the explosion of the rig.

WTF? The Gulf Coast is in danger of an ecological disaster and he's sending SWAT TEAMS???
Live speech just now.

Why would they do that if this was an accident?

http://ww.davidicke.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1058846938&postcount=12





another oil rig has overturned....:eek:

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1058850894&postcount=61




Every article regarding the 2nd rig overturning, they dont actually say how it happened.

Wonder what is going on.

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1058851332&postcount=66




Um... Iran to powerful? North Korea is the target of a false flag? Or propaganda for the start of WW111? Please say it ant so!


Ya, this is propaganda and truth.

The US navy can bomb the fuck out of the oil leak and stop it right now. It does not have to be a nuke so WTF is going on?


A grim report circulating in the Kremlin today written by Russia’s Northern Fleet is reporting that the United States has ordered a complete media blackout over North Korea’s torpedoing of the giant Deepwater Horizon oil platform owned by the World’s largest offshore drilling contractor Transocean that was built and financed by South Korea’s Hyundai Heavy Industries Co. Ltd., that has caused great loss of life, untold billions in economic damage to the South Korean economy, and an environmental catastrophe to the United States.

Most important to understand about this latest attack by North Korea against its South Korean enemy is that under the existing “laws of war” it was a permissible action as they remain in a state of war against each other due to South Korea’s refusal to sign the 1953 Armistice ending the Korean War.

To the attack itself, these reports continue, the North Korean “cargo vessel” Dai Hong Dan believed to be staffed by 17th Sniper Corps “suicide” troops left Cuba’s Empresa Terminales Mambisas de La Habana (Port of Havana) on April 18th whereupon it “severely deviated” from its intended course for Venezuela’s Puerto Cabello bringing it to within 209 kilometers (130 miles) of the Deepwater Horizon oil platform which was located 80 kilometers (50 miles) off the coast of the US State of Louisiana where it launched an SSC Sang-o Class Mini Submarine (Yugo class) estimated to have an operational range of 321 kilometers (200 miles).

On the night of April 20th the North Korean Mini Submarine manned by these “suicidal” 17th Sniper Corps soldiers attacked the Deepwater Horizon with what are believed to be 2 incendiary torpedoes causing a massive explosion and resulting in 11 workers on this giant oil rig being killed outright. Barely 48 hours later, on April 22nd , this North Korean Mini Submarine committed its final atrocity by exploding itself directly beneath the Deepwater Horizon causing this $1 Billion oil rig to sink beneath the seas and marking 2010’s celebration of Earth Day with one of the largest environmental catastrophes our World has ever seen.

To the reason for North Korea attacking the Deepwater Horizon, these reports say, was to present US President Obama with an “impossible dilemma” prior to the opening of the United Nations Review Conference of the Parties to the Treat on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) set to begin May 3rd in New York.

This “impossible dilemma” facing Obama is indeed real as the decision he is faced with is either to allow the continuation of this massive oil leak catastrophe to continue for months, or immediately stop it by the only known and proven means possible, the detonation of a thermonuclear device.

Russian Navy atomic experts in these reports state that should Obama choose the “nuclear option” the most viable weapon at his disposal is the United States B83 (Mk-83) strategic thermonuclear bomb having a variable yield (Low Kiloton Range to 1,200 Kilotons) which with its 12 foot length and 18 inch diameter, and weighing just over 2,400 pounds, is readily able to be deployed and detonated by a remote controlled mini-sub.

Should Obama choose the “nuclear option” it appears that he would be supported by the International Court of Justice who on July 8, 1996 issued an advisory opinion on the use of nuclear weapons stating that they could not conclude definitively on these weapons use in “extreme circumstances” or “self defense”.

On the other hand, if Obama chooses the “nuclear option” it would leave the UN’s nuclear conference in shambles with every Nation in the World having oil rigs off their coasts demanding an equal right to atomic weapons to protect their environment from catastrophes too, including Iran.

To whatever decision Obama makes it remains a fact that with each passing hour this environmental catastrophe grows worse. And even though Obama has ordered military SWAT teams to protect other oil rigs in the Gulf of Mexico from any further attack, and further ordered that all drilling in the Gulf of Mexico be immediately stopped, this massive oil spill has already reached the shores of America and with high waves and more bad weather forecast the likelihood of it being stopped from destroying thousands of miles of US coastland and wildlife appears unstoppable.

And not just to the environmental catastrophe that is unfolding the only devastation to be wrecked upon the United States and South Korea by this North Korean attack as the economic liabilities associated with this disaster are estimated by these Russian reports to be between $500 Billion to $1.5 Trillion, and which only a declaration of this disaster being an “act of war” would free some the World’s largest corporations from bankruptcy.

Important to note too in all of these events was that this was the second attack by North Korea on its South Korean enemy, and US ally, in a month as we had reported on in our March 28th report titled “Obama Orders ‘Immediate Stand-down’ After Deadly North Korean Attack” and which to date neither the Americans or South Korea have retaliated for and giving one senior North Korean party leader the courage to openly state that the North Korean military took “gratifying revenge” on South Korea.

And for those believing that things couldn’t get worse, they couldn’t be more mistaken as new reports coming from Japanese military sources are stating that North Korea is preparing for new launches of its 1,300 kilometer (807 miles) intermediate range ballistic “Rodong” missile which Russian Space Forces experts state is able to “deploy and detonate” an atomic electromagnetic pulse (EMP) device, and which if detonated high in the atmosphere could effectively destroy the American economy for years, if not decades, to come.
VN:F [1.8.8_1072]


http://www.eutimes.net/2010/05/us-orders-blackout-over-north-korean-torpedoing-of-gulf-of-mexico-oil-rig/

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1058851493&postcount=70





Im not thinking for a min that North Korea torpedoed the Deepwater Horizon oil platform, i think they have made a major mistake weapon testing gone wrong?
false flag? who knows? :confused:

[jesuitsdidit]

bmp

[runlikehell]

BUMP!

Just cos this thread has went away, dosen't mean the issue has!

Maybe this thread shoul be stickyed for a while, cos the message aint getting out.


Don't think for a min that they will stop because of the oil leak :(

[ritchs]

Not good.

Are they really planning on rounding up 11.7 million animals?

I can't tell if this is talking about testing military weapons in the ocean or if they are going to abduct 11 million marine animals and run tests on them...

There's no excuse for 'testing' weapons on animals. Especially 11 million. This is some satanic stuff.


There was a thread in the forums about how they perform huge amounts of animals sacrifices (such as mad cow) just before a war/invasion.
The animal souls being horrifically offered up before they start on the humans

[lauren_almighty]

Thanks for bumping this, I remember reading this last year.

It seems to me that this is connected to the oil spill. :(

[lauren_almighty]

Why is this not stickied? I don't understand. Was it not from a credible source or something? :confused:

[ozpixie]

What gets me is this... even the PTB and their alleged overlords need to eat.

If they destory the base of the food chain Atlantic, GOM, North Sea, Southern Ocean (spraying iron oxide) what are they going to do???

[velma]

What gets me is this... even the PTB and their alleged overlords need to eat.

If they destory the base of the food chain Atlantic, GOM, North Sea, Southern Ocean (spraying iron oxide) what are they going to do???

I'm sure they have alternative food sources, like Prince Charles and his organic farms.

This military takeover seems concentrated on the coastal regions of the US and the destruction of crops and seafood is a priority.

I see mass food shortages, hunger and despair in my crystal ball.....

I also see FEMA evacuations and the relocation of populations.

[runlikehell]

Why is this not stickied? I don't understand. Was it not from a credible source or something? :confused:

Hi Lauren i though people would clearly see whats going on when i first posted this, but seems like they dident only a few did.

all this time later! unfortunatly it still dident get the intrest it desrves.


Sadly Bumps the thread again! :(

[nosferatu_dj]

all i can say about this is...... goodbye food chain.

[runlikehell]

bump

[kel1]

Not good. There is so much evil created by these 'people', destroying the world bit by bit without a thought about the true consequences. Yeah, i am sure they know what they are doing - to an extent (to get what they want - power/control/money/our soul etc) - but do they really realise the destruction all of the crap they do brings on our world? Maybe they do, maybe not. But they have to live here too?!

[zenith82]

bump

Quite!

Very appropriate now, the chances of this not being connected to current events are slim to none. :)

[madmax]

It is astounding the lengths these hippocritical maniacs are prepared to go to to get what they want.

They tell us we are causing damage to the planet by producing to much carbon that we must pay taxes to save the world. They take away every day items because there not environmentally acceptable.

Then they go and blast the living crap out of the planet to destroy it.

And still the masses sleep on:mad:

[runlikehell]

Bumped cos they are still testing right on some of your door steps! :eek:

check the ares the testing is going on and compaire it againts all the recent shit thats went down the oil platform ect.


it's todays and tomorrows news, as long as it's on going.

[gestaltdude]

A bizzare thought just occured to me. There has always been talk of multiple factions within the Elite, all vying for the top spot. Is it possible that one of these factions is stationed in the gulf of mexico, and all the crap that has and will be happening is an attempt to remove this possibly benign faction?

[runlikehell]

A bizzare thought just occured to me. There has always been talk of multiple factions within the Elite, all vying for the top spot. Is it possible that one of these factions is stationed in the gulf of mexico, and all the crap that has and will be happening is an attempt to remove this possibly benign faction?


Hiya Gestaltdude that's certainly food for thought.

Don't get me wrong some of the info i nthe op is a bit unclear to me tbh, but one thing i do know is i posted this thread on 21-08-2009, 04:01 AM were what 2? 3 years into a 5 year testing plan.

look at this


The total number of marine mammals that will be decimated in the Atlantic, Pacific and the Gulf of Mexico for the next five years is unknown. The NMFS approvals will have a devastating impact upon the marine mammal populations worldwide and this last Navy permit, which is expected to be issued in February 2010, for the "taking" of more than 11.7 million marine mammals in the Pacific will be the final nail in the coffin for any healthy populations of sea life to survive.

Now with ever-increasing numbers of permits being issued for sonar programs in more than twelve ranges in the Pacific, Gulf of Mexico, and the Atlantic regions of the United States, our marine mammals and other sea life are facing complete devastation. When you add bomb blasts to this list, warfare testing of all types, future war testing practice, and the toxic chemicals which are both airborne and to be used underwater, there is little chance that most marine life will survive in any significant numbers. Our U.S. Senators and U.S. Congressmen refuse to postpone these disastrous "takings" or hold U.S. Congressional Hearings while pretending to be ocean environment friendly in their re-election speeches.

ringing any bells? do any of the areas mention hold any significence to anyone?

im gonna try (with some help) get a map marked out with the places named in the op where the testing is taking place, and list major events that went dont in those ares since my Op see if theres any connections.

im sure there will be some intresting results.

[jikwan]

youre making a big thing out of this small nothing

surely, you must be aware that some folk with boats
and nets go out every day to catch marine animals/fish
not just two or three boats
more like tens of thousand of them
every day
and each boat brings back more than two or three
small baskets of fish
more like tens of thousands of sizable living things
every boat
my guess is every day a lot more than your 11.7 million
wasteful sonar deaths
wasteful for needless human consumption deaths

whats the difference?

[runlikehell]

youre making a big thing out of this small nothing

me making a big thing outta nothing? get your glasses on and read the article properly!


surely, you must be aware that some folk with boats
and nets go out every day to catch marine animals/fish
not just two or three boats
more like tens of thousand of them
every day
and each boat brings back more than two or three
small baskets of fish
more like tens of thousands of sizable living things
every boat
my guess is every day a lot more than your 11.7 million
wasteful sonar deaths
wasteful for needless human consumption deaths

whats the difference?


what's the diffrence!!! the Diffrence is that estimated 11.7 Million is marine mammals that dosen't include the fish, crustations, plant life etc!!!

re read the article

The total number of marine mammals that will be decimated in the Atlantic, Pacific and the Gulf of Mexico for the next five years is unknown. The NMFS approvals will have a devastating impact upon the marine mammal populations worldwide and this last Navy permit, which is expected to be issued in February 2010, for the "taking" of more than 11.7 million marine mammals in the Pacific will be the final nail in the coffin for any healthy populations of sea life to survive.

you tell me its it still no big deal?

also the complications shit that comes from testing weapons!

the impact that has on the land, oceans, people, look this is serious man!

what about the oil rig that sunk bout a year ago? funny how they are testing in that area.

but i suppose that's no big deal too :rolleyes:

[edelweiss pirate]

An unspeakable atrocity against the earth and all that relies on it for life. What has humanity sunk to?

This isn't humanity this is the US military.

Entirely different species.

[kingmob]

They have already killed a few tens of million or more animals in the gulf with the oil spill, so another 20 million or so won't matter. These aren't human beings that we speak of, and their agenda doesn't include the preservation of any life that is not their own.

[andyh]

It could well be connected to all the marine deaths we've been seeing recently.
The birds seems to be a different thing though,

[verndewd]

! :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

+100 :mad:

[runlikehell]

This isn't humanity this is the US military.

Entirely different species.

dam right edelweiss pirate :(


They have already killed a few tens of million or more animals in the gulf with the oil spill, so another 20 million or so won't matter. These aren't human beings that we speak of, and their agenda doesn't include the preservation of any life that is not their own.

so true King :(


It could well be connected to all the marine deaths we've been seeing recently.
The birds seems to be a different thing though,

the beached whales, the recent fish in that bay the list goes on! :(



When you add bomb blasts to this list, warfare testing of all types, future war testing practice, and the toxic chemicals which are both airborne and to be used underwater

there you go Andy aitborne toxins too. this is major and it's been about 18 months (1 & a half years) since my Op, so the next 3 & a half years will be intresting. i think is connected to recent events in some way.

tbh im actuly surprised and disapointed in the response this thread has had, but as shit gos on maybe more thing's will be revealed.


+100 :mad:

oh yes dude ;)

very, very, sad shit this man.


ive got to try get a map of the areas mentioned and a list of events in those areas since the time of the article see if theres any possable/blatent connections.

[andyh]

tbh im actuly surprised and disapointed in the response this thread has had, but as shit gos on maybe more thing's will be revealed.



Hehee, you should've started a thread about sex, they usually do really well :D
Anything that stirs emotion basically, it's like a red rag to a bull with some of the forum users and its very simple to jerk their emotional brain into action all too easily. I remember my fear of having kids thread as being a prime example but I didn't own up until near the end lol :D

[wake_up_bomb]

tbh im actuly surprised and disapointed in the response this thread has had, but as shit gos on maybe more thing's will be revealed.I'm not sure how I missed this thread, but what is happening is outrageous. Having said that, these people view us as bacteria under a petri dish, so why should aquatic life be any different?

[cleopatraxxx]

This is almost unbelievable
Bush and his cartel of assassins, weaponry and organ trafficking....

All I can think of:

What Goes around, Comes around!
His and their days will come
Humanity traitors
Death penalty is not enough for them...
Satanists they are, soon they will have to pay for sll those atrocities!

[cleopatraxxx]

I'm not sure how I missed this thread, but what is happening is outrageous. Having said that, these people view us as bacteria under a petri dish, so why should aquatic life be any different?

Agreed

[jikwan]

me making a big thing outta nothing? get your glasses on and read the article properly!





what's the diffrence!!! the Diffrence is that estimated 11.7 Million is marine mammals that dosen't include the fish, crustations, plant life etc!!!

re read the article

The total number of marine mammals that will be decimated in the Atlantic, Pacific and the Gulf of Mexico for the next five years is unknown. The NMFS approvals will have a devastating impact upon the marine mammal populations worldwide and this last Navy permit, which is expected to be issued in February 2010, for the "taking" of more than 11.7 million marine mammals in the Pacific will be the final nail in the coffin for any healthy populations of sea life to survive.

you tell me its it still no big deal?

also the complications shit that comes from testing weapons!

the impact that has on the land, oceans, people, look this is serious man!

what about the oil rig that sunk bout a year ago? funny how they are testing in that area.

but i suppose that's no big deal too :rolleyes:

my apologies. youre dead right, its not what it seemed