Alex Espinosa Dr. Wilson
MCWP 125
2/8/16
Why Naval Sonar Use Should Be More Highly Regulated Over recent years, military- derived sonar has been found to be linked with cetacean strandings. This and the general increase of noise in the ocean within the last century, which is known to have increased with the introduction of propeller ship engines (Jasny 12), has largely impacted the oceanic ecosystem. If such strong correlations have been scientifically determined, why has the United States Navy failed to adjust its practices in favor of saving marine organisms? How much evidence will suffice for the United States government to take necessary strides towards keeping our oceans safe? It is with this in mind that I claim that the U.S. Navy’s use of active sonar, whether it be mid or low frequency, needs to be more highly regulated. Therefore, government officials need to use their political power to support the marine species being affected by these anthropogenic noises. My first sub claim supporting my driving thesis will pertain to the negative impact sonar activity has on marine organisms. I will begin with the introduction of the importance of sound to the ocean’s mammals, the most prominent subjects of mid and low frequency sonar. This is an imperative aspect of this issue because the survival of every single one of these marine animals is based concretely in their specialized abilities to hear through the oceanic medium. With this I will present the scientifically supported fact that hearing in marine animals became established for an evolutionary purpose: to enhance the abilities of “predator abundance and/ or prey detection” (Ladich 5). Therefore, the introduction of anthropogenic noise by the Navy is highly likely, if not guaranteed, to affect the survival abilities of marine animals. Additionally, sound is known to be essential in mating processes, communication, feeding, navigation etc. (Jasny 10). I will end this aspect of my first sub claim with evidence from “Navy Sonar and Cetaceans: Just How Much Does the Gun Need to Smoke Before We Act?” in support of the multitude of sound uses by marine organisms. Within the umbrella of negative sonar impacts I will define sonar in terms of its broad range of sound. I plan to compare each type of sonar, mid and low, to a universal form of measurement that will allow the average person to comprehend the impact it can have. Following the descriptions of sonar ranges I plan to introduce the fact that the frequencies being utilized are ones known to serve in the communication of marine organisms. The purpose of this point would be to demonstrate that naval activity creates a large source of competition for marine organisms that rely on sound to survive. This conclusion can be supported through various examples of marine mammal responses to noise. As evidence I will mention sperm whale silencing in the Caribbean. I also plan to use this concept of sound to address a possible counterargument pertaining to the adjustment of the Navy’s range to one not explicitly utilized by marine organisms; there is too much overlap to successfully demonstrate this idea. Supporting my first sub claim, I also plan to introduce cetacean strandings by mentioning the many marine mammals found dead globally at sea or on shore. I will utilize the Parsons article, specifically, on Navy sonar and cetaceans to exemplify the many linked instances of strandings and nearby Navy sonar activity; it will be essential to note that every case mentioned in Parsons’s report can be linked to a military training exercise nearby (2). I will also include that the well- known, due to media coverage, beaked whales are far from the only species of mammals being affected by mid- frequency sonar. The northern minke whale, the short finned pilot whale, and the pygmy killer whale are just a few other mammalian species whose strandings coincided with nearby naval activities (Parsons 2). I plan to utilize the latter information to counter the potential opposing argument that beaked whales are the only species being led to their death by active military sonar, therefore somehow considered overly sensitive— that is not the case. Alongside the strandings of marine mammals I plan to shed light on the other known effects of mid- frequency sonar use on all marine organisms. To start, I plan to acknowledge the behavioral responses seen in marine mammals as a result of exposure to sonar. This will include “…changes in vocalizations by long- finned pilot whales (Parsons 1250) and the shift in male humpback whale singing (Parsons 1250). I also want to make it clear that marine mammals may be the most recognized victims of sonar, but they are not alone. I want to include data pertaining to effects on fish and other marine organisms that reside alongside mammals in our oceans. Snow crabs, giant squid, pink snapper, and brown shrimp are known to be sensitive when they encounter intense oceanic noises (Jasny 5). Through my second sub claim, stating that established laws meant to serve as protection for all marine organisms against anthropogenic harm are not being enforced, I will introduce fundamental laws established by our American government for protection against the threats of mid- frequency sonar use. I will specifically describe the Marine Mammal Protection Act, the Endangered Species Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, and the Coastal Zone Management Act and how they are being overlooked in order to favor the naval perspective. Alongside the mention of what these laws establish, it will also be beneficial to mention a series of instances documented via law suits, such as NRDC v. Winters, that exploits consistent Naval exemptions from these laws in order to continue harmful underwater practices. I will explain potential sources of these exemptions that do not completely place the military at fault in order to avoid obviously biased accusations.
In support of my third sub claim, the assertion that the United States government has the actual ability to regulate sonar use, I plan to more explicitly report on the deliberation of the NRDC v. Winters case and its eventual ruling on the decrease of low frequency sonar use (Alexander 10). In addition to this case, although less specific to sonar, I plan to suggest the government’s abilities through other victories of compliance observed in water pollution policy stated in Vessel- Source Pollution and Public Vessels (1995). These insights will serve as evidentiary support for the success of litigation for compromise; in these cases, the balance between environmental protection and national security. Lastly, through my research on the litigation of sonar- related issues, it has occurred to me that the surveyors whose jobs are to evaluate the potential severity of naval sonar on marine animals are associated with the U.S. Navy. This naturally leads me to question their bias towards the position of their counterparts. Therefore, within the aforementioned area of argument, I plan to also address the roles of Navy- appointed surveyors in this, hopefully, objective process. With more research on this topic I hope to more directly address any potential counter arguments to my argument asserting that the U.S. Navy should be more closely regulated in its sonar use due to the detrimental effects mid and low frequency sounds can have one marine organisms. I want it to be clear that I do not oppose the use of sonar, however I believe that its use can be better controlled in order to lessen the burden on oceanic ecosystems. In order to do so, however, the government needs to be involved actively, my main claim.

Works Cited
Alexander, Kristina. Whales and Sonar: Environmental Exemptions for the Navy’s Mid-Frequency Active Sonar Training. Washington, D.C. : Congressional Research Service, 2008. Web. 19 Jan. 2016.
Dehner, Jeffrey S. "Vessel-Source Pollution and Public Vessels: Sovereign Immunity v. Compliance Implications for International Environmental Law." Emory International Law Review 9.2 (1995): 507-552.
Jasny, Michael. Sounding the Depths II: The Rising Toll of Sonar, Shipping and Industrial Ocean Noise on Marine Life. New York, NY: Natural Resources Defense Council, 2005. 1-84. Web. 18 Jan. 2016.
Ladich, Friedrich. “Acoustic Communication and the Evolution of Hearing in Fishes”. Philosophical Transactions: Biological Sciences 355.1401 (2000): 1285–1288. Web. 22 Jan. 2016.
Parsons, E.C.M., Sarah J. Dolman, Andrew J. Wright, Naomi A. Rose, W.C.G. Burns. “Navy Sonar and Cetaceans: Just How Much Does the Gun Need to Smoke Before We Act?” Elsevier 56 (2008): 1248-1257. Web. 19 Jan. 2016.