Source: http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=119fa356-b757-46cc-bd85-8ce9e35ed5d7
Timestamp: 2016-12-04 21:05:06
Document Index: 313441563

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1361', '§ 4321', '§ 5062', '§ 1361', '§ 1371', '§ 1371', '§ 1372', '§ 1431', '§ 1451', '§ 1456', '§ 1531', '§ 1543', '§ 4321', '§ 1506', '§ 1531', '§ 1531', '§ 1451', '§ 1431', '§ 1506', '§ 1456', '§ 1506', '§ 1506', '§ 1456', '§ 5062', '§ 1361', '§ 1372', '§ 1361', '§ 1543', '§ 1371', '§ 1371', '§ 1371', '§ 1371', '§ 1361', '§ 1371', '§ 1361', '§ 1506', '§ 1456', '§ 1506', '§ 1456', '§ 101', '§ 1371', '§ 1371']

Brief of the Navy League of the United States et al as Amicus Curiae in Support of the Petitioners | Winter, Secretary of the Navy v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. | Robert Thomas - JDSupra
Winter, Secretary of the Navy v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.Brief of the Navy League of the United States et al as Amicus Curiae in Support of the Petitioners
Download PDF ================================================================ In The Supreme Court of the United States ♦ ---------------------------------RESOURCES ♦ ---------------------------------To Of ♦ ---------------------------------– ADMIRAL ADMIRAL HAYS, C. JOE” VASEY, ADMIRAL HUCHTING, THE MILITARY ♦ ---------------------------------G. 96813 A. JONES 96813 H. KUDO CHOCK HASTERT 96813 com for Amici ================================================================ PRINTING CO. (800) 225-(402) 342-No. 07-1239 The Court of the United States ---------------------------------? ---------------------------------DONALD C. WINTER, SECRETARY OF THE NAVY, et al., Petitioners, v. NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL, INC., et al., Respondents. ---------------------------------? ---------------------------------On Writ Of Certiorari To The United States Court Of Appeals For The Ninth Circuit ---------------------------------? ---------------------------------BRIEF OF THE NAVY LEAGUE OF THE UNITED STATES -HONOLULU COUNCIL, ADMIRAL THOMAS B. HAYWARD, ADMIRAL RONALD J. HAYS, ADMIRAL R.J. “ZAP” ZLATOPER, VICE ADMIRAL PETER M. HEKMAN, VICE ADMIRAL ROBERT K.U. KIHUNE, REAR ADMIRAL RICHARD C. MACKE, REAR ADMIRAL LLOYD “JOE” VASEY, REAR ADMIRAL GEORGE HUCHTING, REAR ADMIRAL STEPHEN R. PIETROPAOLI, THE NAVY LEAGUE OF THE UNITED STATES, MILITARY AFFAIRS COUNCIL OF THE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE OF HAWAII, SOUTHWEST DEFENSE ALLIANCE, SAN DIEGO REGIONAL CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, AND THE SAN DIEGO MILITARY ADVISORY COUNCIL AS AMICI CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF THE PETITIONERS ---------------------------------? ---------------------------------THEODORE G. MEEKER ROBERT H. THOMAS 707 Richards Street, MARK M. MURAKAMI* Suite 700 CHRISTI-ANNE H. KUDO CHOCK Honolulu, Hawaii 96813 DAMON KEY LEONG KUPCHAK MICHAEL A. LILLY HASTERT 1003 Bishop Street NING LILLY & JONES 1600 Pauahi Tower 707 Richards Street, Honolulu, Hawaii 96813 Suite 700 (808) 531-8031 Honolulu, Hawaii 96813 www.hawaiilawyer.com *Counsel of Record Counsel for Amici Curiae COCKLE LAW BRIEF PRINTING CO. (800) 225-6964 OR CALL COLLECT (402) 342-2831 Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=119fa356-b757-46cc-bd85-8ce9e35ed5d7PRESENTED the Secretaries of Defense, Commerce and the Interior, and the Navy carefully balanced the Navy’s need to train realistically, against putative harm to marine mammals under the defense exemption to the Marine Mammal Act of U.S.C. et seq. did the courts below properly enjoin training exercises until those same issues were addressed the purely procedural requirements of the Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 42 U.S.C. i QUESTION PRESENTED Because Congress, the Secretaries of Defense, Commerce and the Interior, and the Navy carefully balanced the Navy’s need to train realistically, against the putative harm to marine mammals under the national defense exemption to the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, 16 U.S.C. § 1361 et seq. (MMPA), did the courts below properly enjoin training exercises until those same issues were addressed under the purely procedural requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 42 U.S.C. § 4321, et seq. (NEPA)? Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=119fa356-b757-46cc-bd85-8ce9e35ed5d7OF CONTENTS PRESENTED..................................... OF AUTHORITIES ................................... OF AMICI CURIAE ........................... ADMIRALS AND NAVAL WARFARE PROFESSIONALS .............................................. MILITARY SUPPORT ORGANIZATIONS ... OF THE CASE................................ THE DIESEL ELECTRIC SUBMARINE THREAT....................................................... TRAINING TO DETECT AND COUNTER THREAT.............................................. THE NINTH CIRCUIT ENJOINED THE USE OF MFA SONAR DESPITE FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT AND NO INJURY OR HARM TO ANY MAMMAL IN SOCAL ................. OF ARGUMENT ................................ ARGUMENT........................................................... IN THE MMPA AMENDMENT, ALLOWED THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE TO EXEMPT THE IN THE INTEREST DEFENSE ......................... ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page QUESTION PRESENTED... i TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ... iv INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE ... 1 I. ADMIRALS AND NAVAL WARFARE PROFESSIONALS ... 3 II. MILITARY SUPPORT ORGANIZATIONS ... 7 STATEMENT OF THE CASE... 10 I. THE DIESEL ELECTRIC SUBMARINE THREAT ... 10 II. TRAINING TO DETECT AND COUNTER THE THREAT ... 15 III. THE NINTH CIRCUIT ENJOINED THE NAVY’S USE OF MFA SONAR DESPITE THE FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT AND NO RECORD OF INJURY OR HARM TO ANY MARINE MAMMAL IN SOCAL ... 19 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ... 25 ARGUMENT... 26 I. IN THE 2004 MMPA AMENDMENT, CONGRESS ALLOWED THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE TO EXEMPT THE NAVY’S ACTIVITIES IN THE INTEREST OF NATIONAL DEFENSE ... 26 Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=119fa356-b757-46cc-bd85-8ce9e35ed5d7OF CONTENTS – Continued NEPA IS INAPPLICABLE BECAUSE NAVY BALANCED AND MITIGATED PUTATIVE HARMS TO MARINE UNDER THE SUBSTANTIVE PROVISIONS OF THE MMPA ........ ....................................................... iii TABLE OF CONTENTS -Continued Page II. NEPA IS INAPPLICABLE BECAUSE THE NAVY BALANCED AND MITIGATED PUTATIVE HARMS TO MARINE MAMMALS UNDER THE SUBSTANTIVE PROVISIONS OF THE MMPA ... 31 CONCLUSION ... 36 Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=119fa356-b757-46cc-bd85-8ce9e35ed5d7OF AUTHORITIES ex rel. Siegelman v. Envt’l Protection F.2d 499 (11th ....................Trident v. Rumsfeld, 555 F.2d 1977).................................................35 484 U.S. 518 (1988) .....2, 28 Trans. v. Public Citizen, 541 U.S. 752 2004).......................................................................v. Agee, S. ................................Club, 427 U.S. 390 (1976) .........v. Thomas, 807 F.2d 776 (9th Cir. 1986) .......33 Res. Def. Council, Inc. v. Evans, 364 Cal. 2003) ..........................Res. Def. Council, Inc. v. Winter, 502 2007) ....................................Res. Def. Council, Inc. v. Winter, 508 2007) ..........................................Res. Def. Council, Inc. v. Winter, 518 2008) ................................Res. Def. Council, Inc. v. Winter, 518 2008) ....................................Res. Def. Council, Inc. v. Winter, 527 2008) ..........................Inst. v. Gates, 546 F. Supp. 2d 2008)..........................................iv TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page CASES Alabama ex rel. Siegelman v. Envt’l Protection Agency, 911 F.2d 499 (11th Cir. 1990) ... ..34 Concerned About Trident v. Rumsfeld, 555 F.2d 817 (D.C. Cir. 1977)... .35 Dep’t of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518 (1988) .....2, 28 Dep’t of Trans. v. Public Citizen, 541 U.S. 752 (2004) ... ..32 Haig v. Agee, 453 U.S. 280 (1981) ... ..1 Kleppe v. Sierra Club, 427 U.S. 390 (1976) ... ...32, 33 Merrell v. Thomas, 807 F.2d 776 (9th Cir. 1986) ... .33 Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc. v. Evans, 364 F. Supp. 2d 1083 (N.D. Cal. 2003) ... ..27 Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc. v. Winter, 502 F.3d 859 (9th Cir. 2007) ... ...20, 21 Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc. v. Winter, 508 F.3d 885 (9th Cir. 2007) ... ...21 Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc. v. Winter, 518 F.3d 658 (9th Cir. 2008) ... ..2, 19, 24 Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc. v. Winter, 518 F.3d 704 (9th Cir. 2008) ... ...23, 24 Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc. v. Winter, 527 F. Supp. 2d 1216 (C.D. Cal. 2008) ... ..22 Ocean Mammal Inst. v. Gates, 546 F. Supp. 2d 960 (D. Haw. 2008) ... ...passim Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=119fa356-b757-46cc-bd85-8ce9e35ed5d7OF AUTHORITIES – Continued v. Methow Valley Citizens Council, 1989).................................................32 S. 57 (1981) ....................Bay Neighborhood Council v. Karlen, 1980).................................................33 States ex rel. Toth v. Quarles, 350 U.S. ....................................................................v. Romero-Barcelo, U.S. 1982).......................................................................v. Envt’l Protection Agency, Cir. 1991) ............................................................22 Supp. V 2005).......f)(2005)..................f)(2005).......27, .....................................................................11 ........................................11, (2000)...................................................................11, ..............................................26 ......................................v TABLE OF AUTHORITIES -Continued Page Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens Council, 490 U.S. 332 (1989) ... .32 Rostker v. Goldberg, 453 U.S. 57 (1981) ... ..35 Stryker’s Bay Neighborhood Council v. Karlen, 444 U.S. 223 (1980) ... .33 United States ex rel. Toth v. Quarles, 350 U.S. 11 (1955) ... ..1 Weinberg v. Romero-Barcelo, 456 U.S. 305 (1982) ... ..35 Western Nebraska Res. Council v. Envt’l Protection Agency, 943 F.2d 867 (8th Cir. 1991) ... ..34 STATUTES 10 U.S.C. § 5062 (2000) ... .22 16 U.S.C. § 1361(5) (2000 & Supp. V 2005) ... .passim 16 U.S.C. § 1371(f )(1) (Supp. V 2005)... ...27, 29 16 U.S.C. § 1371(f )(2)(B) (Supp. V 2005) ... .27, 28, 34 16 U.S.C. § 1372(a)(1) (Supp. V 2005) ... ..26 16 U.S.C. § 1431 (2000) ... .11 16 U.S.C. § 1451 (2000) ... . 11, 20 16 U.S.C. § 1456(c)(1)(B) (2000) ... ...21, 31 16 U.S.C. § 1531 (2000) ... . 11, 20 16 U.S.C. § 1543 (2000) ... .26 42 U.S.C. § 4321 (2000) ... ..passim Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=119fa356-b757-46cc-bd85-8ce9e35ed5d7OF AUTHORITIES – Continued Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 2004, Pub. L. No. 108-136, 117 Stat. .............................................................................................................AUTHORITIES Fleet Active Sonar Training Environmental Impact Statement, Feb. 2008 .....................for the Secretary of the Navy, National Defense Exemption from of the Marine Mammal Protection Act for Certain DoD Military Readiness That Employ Mid-Frequency Active or Improved Extended Echo Ranging 2007........................................29 Memorandum Accepting Alternative for the U.S. Navy’s Southern Operating Area Composite Training Unit Exercises and Joint Task Force Exercises To Occur Between Today 2009, 73 Fed. Reg. 4189 (2008) ........Kime, Environmental Stewards, Seapower, 2008 .....................................................Kreisher, As Underwater Threat Reemerges, Renews Emphasis on ASW, 2004................................................vi TABLE OF AUTHORITIES -Continued Page National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004, Pub. L. No. 108-136, 117 Stat. 1391 (2003) ... ..27 REGULATIONS 40 C.F.R. § 1506.11 ... ..21, 31 OTHER AUTHORITIES Atlantic Fleet Active Sonar Training Environmental Impact Statement, Feb. 2008 ... ...19 Memorandum for the Secretary of the Navy, Subject: National Defense Exemption from Requirements of the Marine Mammal Protection Act for Certain DoD Military Readiness Activities That Employ Mid-Frequency Active Sonar or Improved Extended Echo Ranging Sonobuoys, Jan. 23, 2007... .29 Decision Memorandum Accepting Alternative Arrangements for the U.S. Navy’s Southern California Operating Area Composite Training Unit Exercises and Joint Task Force Exercises Scheduled To Occur Between Today and January 2009, 73 Fed. Reg. 4189 (2008) ... ..22 Patricia Kime, Environmental Stewards, Seapower, July 2008 ... ..12 Otto Kreisher, As Underwater Threat Reemerges, Navy Renews Emphasis on ASW, Seapower, Oct. 2004 ... ...15 Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=119fa356-b757-46cc-bd85-8ce9e35ed5d7OF AUTHORITIES – Continued Lague, Chinese Submarine Fleet is Analysts Say, N.Y. Times, Feb. 25, .........................................................................13 Chinese Ships Confronted Kitty Hawk, Times, Jan. 17, 2008 .....................................15 Presses China on Armed Submarine Wash. Times, Jan. 10, 2007 2008 ........Declaration of David Yoshihara in of Defendants’ Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction, Institute v. Gates, Civ. No. LEK (D. Haw., Sept. 27, .............................................................11-Wertheim, World Navies in Review, U.S. Institute Proceedings, Mar. 2008 ................14 class submarine – People’s Liberation Navy, Globalsecurity.org, available at www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/kilo.htm .........................................................Graney – Project Varshavyanka/Paltus – Kilo class Diesel-Electric Globalsecurity.org, available http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/russia/877.htm ..............................................14 vii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES -Continued Page David Lague, Chinese Submarine Fleet is Growing, Analysts Say, N.Y. Times, Feb. 25, 2008 ... .13 Report: Chinese Ships Confronted Kitty Hawk, Navy Times, Jan. 17, 2008 ... .15 U.S. Presses China on Armed Submarine Encounter, Wash. Times, Jan. 10, 2007 2008 ... ..15 Unclassified Declaration of David Yoshihara in Support of Defendants’ Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction, Ocean Mammal Institute v. Gates, Civ. No. 07-cv-00254-DAE-LEK (D. Haw., Sept. 27, 2007) ... .11-13, 16 Eric Wertheim, World Navies in Review, U.S. Naval Institute Proceedings, Mar. 2008 ... .14 Kilo-class submarine -People’s Liberation Army Navy, Globalsecurity.org, available at http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/china/kilo.htm ... ...14 Project 877 Graney -Project 636 Varshavyanka/Paltus -Kilo class Diesel-Electric Torpedo Submarine, Globalsecurity.org, available at http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/877.htm ... .14 Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=119fa356-b757-46cc-bd85-8ce9e35ed5d7OF AMICI CURIAE Thomas B. Hayward, Admiral Ronald J. Admiral R.J. Zlatoper, Vice Admiral M. Hekman, Vice Admiral Robert K.U. Kihune, Richard C. Macke, Admiral Lloyd “Joe” Rear Admiral George Huchting, and Rear Stephen R. Pietropaoli are retired flag-rank officers.1 understand that “no government is more compelling than the security of the Haig v. Agee, 453 U.S. 280, 307 (1981) (citing v. Sec’y of State, 378 U.S. 500, 509 (1964)). collective years of experience on watch the Nation at sea has given them unique insights into the issues in this case and dangers posed by the Ninth Circuit’s decision to Navy’s ability to train realistically with midfrequency active (MFA) sonar. “Unlike courts, it is the business of armies and navies to fight or be to fight wars should the occasion arise,” United Toth v. Quarles, 350 U.S. 11, 17 (1955), naval warfare experts have served at every of the United – Navy of the United States, Military the Chamber of Commerce Hawaii, Southwest Alliance, Regional Chamber of Commerce, Advisory Council are organizations counsel to the filing this notice of amici’s intention to file this it counsel made preparation this 1 INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE Admiral Thomas B. Hayward, Admiral Ronald J. Hays, Admiral R.J. “Zap” Zlatoper, Vice Admiral Peter M. Hekman, Vice Admiral Robert K.U. Kihune, Rear Admiral Richard C. Macke, Admiral Lloyd “Joe” Vasey, Rear Admiral George Huchting, and Rear Admiral Stephen R. Pietropaoli are retired flag-rank naval officers.1 They understand that “no government interest is more compelling than the security of the Nation.” Haig v. Agee, 453 U.S. 280, 307 (1981) (citing Aptheker v. Sec’y of State, 378 U.S. 500, 509 (1964)). Their collective 319 years of experience on watch defending the Nation at sea has given them unique and valuable insights into the issues in this case and the dangers posed by the Ninth Circuit’s decision to the Navy’s ability to train realistically with midfrequency active (MFA) sonar. “Unlike courts, it is the primary business of armies and navies to fight or be ready to fight wars should the occasion arise,” United States ex rel. Toth v. Quarles, 350 U.S. 11, 17 (1955), and these naval warfare experts have served at every 1 Amici The Navy League of the United States -Honolulu Council, The Navy League of the United States, Military Affairs Council of the Chamber of Commerce of Hawaii, Southwest Defense Alliance, San Diego Regional Chamber of Commerce, and the San Diego Military Advisory Council are organizations supporting the men and women of the naval services and their families. All counsel of record consented to the filing of this brief, and received notice of amici’s intention to file this brief at least ten days before it was due. This brief was not authored in any part by counsel for either party, and no person or entity other than amici made a monetary contribution toward the preparation or submission of this brief. Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=119fa356-b757-46cc-bd85-8ce9e35ed5d7of command, including the very highest positions of responsibility in the Navy under diverse authorities. Congress gave the executive – not judiciary – the discretion to determine when the of the Nation would take precedence over what has been in this case only the mere of harm to marine mammals. Amici submit brief to confirm that the decisions by the President, the Navy, the Secretaries of Defense, Commerce Interior, the Council for Environmental Quality, the National Marine Fisheries Service were with the sound judgment of warfare professionals whose only concern is that the Sailors and Marines tasked with Nation’s seaborne defense are able to train realistically. Under the Ninth Circuit’s restrictions, however, first time a sonar operator can fully use his her equipment is when it counts and there is no for error. to national security must be evaluated those with the necessary expertise.” Dep’t of the v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 529 (1988). MFA sonar used by the U.S. and other navies for over decades, and the record in this case, the Ninth noted, contains evidence that marine have been harmed by the use of MFA sonar the Southern California Operating Area.” Natural Council, Inc. v. Winter, 518 F.3d 658, 696 Cir. 2008). Those with the “necessary expertise” the threat and exempted the Navy’s use MFA sonar, but the Ninth Circuit rejected that 2 level of command, including the very highest positions of responsibility in the Navy under diverse civilian authorities. Congress gave the executive -not the judiciary -the discretion to determine when the defense of the Nation would take precedence over avoiding what has been in this case only the mere possibility of harm to marine mammals. Amici submit this brief to confirm that the decisions by the President, the Navy, the Secretaries of Defense, Commerce and Interior, the Council for Environmental Quality, and the National Marine Fisheries Service were necessary, and consistent with the sound judgment of naval warfare professionals whose only concern is insuring that the Sailors and Marines tasked with the Nation’s seaborne defense are able to train realistically. Under the Ninth Circuit’s restrictions, however, the first time a sonar operator can fully use his or her equipment is when it counts and there is no margin for error. Threats to national security must be evaluated “by those with the necessary expertise.” Dep’t of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 529 (1988). MFA sonar has been used by the U.S. and other navies for over five decades, and the record in this case, the Ninth Circuit noted, contains “no evidence that marine mammals have been harmed by the use of MFA sonar in the Southern California Operating Area.” Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc. v. Winter, 518 F.3d 658, 696 (9th Cir. 2008). Those with the “necessary expertise” evaluated the threat and exempted the Navy’s use of MFA sonar, but the Ninth Circuit rejected that Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=119fa356-b757-46cc-bd85-8ce9e35ed5d7and substituted its own judgment for that of naval warfare professionals in how to train to hunt sophisticated enemy submarines detection. by decades of command experience, and by lifetimes of preparing for and fighting submarine warfare, amici urge the Court to that the Navy must train as it may fight, that the decision by the Ninth Circuit unnecessarily puts Sailors, and the Nation they defend, at AND NAVAL WARFARE PROFESSIONALS service includes assignments as Chief of Operations, the senior military officer of the of the Navy and a member of the Joint of Staff; Commander of the U.S. Pacific Fleet, world’s largest naval force which encompasses the Earth’s surface and includes more than 190 aircraft, and 200,000 personnel; Commander of the Pacific Command, a joint services of all U.S. military forces in the Pacific Commander of the Seventh Fleet, which is for the Asia-Pacific and the Indian Ocean and command of battle groups and surface Thomas B. Hayward, U.S. Navy (Ret.) the twenty-first Chief of Naval Operations a member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff from 1978 3 expertise and substituted its own judgment for that of experienced naval warfare professionals in how to best train to hunt sophisticated enemy submarines designed to avoid detection. Guided by decades of command experience, and informed by lifetimes of preparing for and fighting anti-submarine warfare, amici urge the Court to understand that the Navy must train as it may fight, and that the decision by the Ninth Circuit unnecessarily puts Sailors, and the Nation they defend, at risk. I. ADMIRALS AND NAVAL WARFARE PROFESSIONALS Amici’s service includes assignments as Chief of Naval Operations, the senior military officer of the Department of the Navy and a member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; Commander of the U.S. Pacific Fleet, the world’s largest naval force which encompasses half the Earth’s surface and includes more than 190 ships, 1,600 aircraft, and 200,000 personnel; Commander of the Pacific Command, a joint services command of all U.S. military forces in the Pacific Theater; Commander of the Seventh Fleet, which is responsible for the Asia-Pacific and the Indian Ocean areas; and command of battle groups and surface ships. Admiral Thomas B. Hayward, U.S. Navy (Ret.) served as the twenty-first Chief of Naval Operations and a member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff from 1978 Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=119fa356-b757-46cc-bd85-8ce9e35ed5d7In his almost 40 years of active duty he also Commander in Chief of the U.S. Pacific the Commander of the U.S. Seventh Fleet, chief of Naval Operations-Navy Program Commandant of the 14th Naval District Harbor), Commander of Fleet Air Hawaii, and of the Apollo Space Recovery Forces. Ronald J. Hays, U.S. Navy (Ret.) served Vice Chief of Naval Operations from 1983 to and as Commander in Chief of the Pacific A naval surface warfare expert, his 38 service included tours on destroyers, carriers and sea-going staffs responsible for force protection. R.J. “Zap” Zlatoper, U.S. Navy (Ret.), is Commander in Chief, U.S. Pacific Fleet. combat-experienced naval aviator with over 4,000 hours and 1,000 carrier landings, in addition to operational assignments in his 33 years of also served as the Chief of Naval Personnel, Battle Group Commander in DESERT STORM SHIELD, the Military Assistant to the Secretary of Defense, and the Chief of Staff for the U.S. Peter M. Hekman, U.S. Navy (Ret.) a naval surface warfare expert. In his 40 years service, Admiral Hekman commanded several ships and the Naval Sea Systems Command, unit responsible for equipping and maintaining vessels. He also served as Deputy Director for 4 to 1982. In his almost 40 years of active duty he also served as the Commander in Chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet, the Commander of the U.S. Seventh Fleet, deputy chief of Naval Operations-Navy Program Planning, Commandant of the 14th Naval District (Pearl Harbor), Commander of Fleet Air Hawaii, and Commander of the Apollo Space Recovery Forces. Admiral Ronald J. Hays, U.S. Navy (Ret.) served as the Vice Chief of Naval Operations from 1983 to 1985, and as Commander in Chief of the Pacific Command. A naval surface warfare expert, his 38 years of military service included tours on destroyers, aircraft carriers and sea-going staffs responsible for task force protection. Admiral R.J. “Zap” Zlatoper, U.S. Navy (Ret.), is also a former Commander in Chief, U.S. Pacific Fleet. A combat-experienced naval aviator with over 4,000 flying hours and 1,000 carrier landings, in addition to numerous operational assignments in his 33 years of service, he also served as the Chief of Naval Personnel, a Battle Group Commander in DESERT STORM and DESERT SHIELD, the Military Assistant to the Secretary of Defense, and the Chief of Staff for the U.S. Seventh Fleet. Vice Admiral Peter M. Hekman, U.S. Navy (Ret.) is a naval surface warfare expert. In his 40 years of service, Admiral Hekman commanded several surface ships and the Naval Sea Systems Command, the unit responsible for equipping and maintaining naval vessels. He also served as Deputy Director for Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=119fa356-b757-46cc-bd85-8ce9e35ed5d7National Military Command Center, of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; Commander, Task Seventy-Five, U.S. Pacific Fleet; Commander, Destroyer Group One; Deputy Director for Test and Evaluation on the of the Chief of Naval Operations; Deputy Commander for Surface Ship Programs, Naval Sea Systems Command; and as Commander, Naval Sea Admiral Robert K.U. Kihune, U.S. Navy the former Commander of the Naval Surface U.S. Pacific Fleet and Assistant Chief of Operations for Surface Warfare. In his 35 years service, Admiral Kihune also commanded two carrier battle groups – the USS KITTY HAWK USS NIMITZ – as well as the USS NEW JERSEY group. Among his other significant military were the support for the capture of the involved in the ACHILLE LAURO hijacking, Chief of Naval Education and Training responsible all technical training in the U.S. Navy, including training and recruit training. Richard C. Macke, U.S. Navy (Ret.) more than 35 years, including assignments in Chief of the Pacific Command, and of the aircraft carrier USS DWIGHT D. Carrier Group Two, Group 5 Operations, National Military Command Center, Office of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; Commander, Task Force Seventy-Five, U.S. Pacific Fleet; Commander, Cruiser-Destroyer Group One; Deputy Director for Research, Development, Test and Evaluation on the Staff of the Chief of Naval Operations; Deputy Commander for Surface Ship Programs, Naval Sea Systems Command; and as Commander, Naval Sea Systems Command. Vice Admiral Robert K.U. Kihune, U.S. Navy (Ret.) is the former Commander of the Naval Surface Forces of the U.S. Pacific Fleet and Assistant Chief of Naval Operations for Surface Warfare. In his 35 years of service, Admiral Kihune also commanded two aircraft carrier battle groups -the USS KITTY HAWK and USS NIMITZ -as well as the USS NEW JERSEY battleship group. Among his other significant military assignments were the support for the capture of the terrorists involved in the ACHILLE LAURO hijacking, and Chief of Naval Education and Training responsible for all technical training in the U.S. Navy, including flight training and recruit training. Rear Admiral Richard C. Macke, U.S. Navy (Ret.) served for more than 35 years, including assignments as Commander in Chief of the Pacific Command, and commander of the aircraft carrier USS DWIGHT D. EISENHOWER, Carrier Group Two, and Carrier Group Four. Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=119fa356-b757-46cc-bd85-8ce9e35ed5d7Lloyd “Joe” Vasey, U.S. Navy (Ret.) an expert on geopolitical strategy and U.S. political-relations in the Asia-Pacific region, the security strategy of the People’s Republic of China. Admiral Vasey’s 36 years of active duty assignments as chief of strategic plans and at U.S. Pacific Command Headquarters, to the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff; deputy of the U.S. National Military Command in the Pentagon; and chief of staff for Commander U.S. Seventh Fleet. He founded the Pacific at the Center for Strategic and International in the mid-1970s and served as CEO until He is the author of several published articles studies on Asia-Pacific security issues. He presently focuses on assessing the impact of China’s policies on regional security. George Huchting, U.S. Navy (Ret.) for more than 36 years as a Surface Warfare commanding both a guided missile destroyer cruiser. During his last 11 years in the Navy, he an Acquisition Professional and as the Program Executive Officer for Aegis Shipbuilding and well for Stephen R. Pietropaoli, U.S. Navy the Navy’s Chief of Information from 2000 His 26 years of naval service included a of assignments including the special assistant affairs to Army General Hugh Shelton, then of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, head of the national news desk in the Pentagon, and as 6 Rear Admiral Lloyd “Joe” Vasey, U.S. Navy (Ret.) is an expert on geopolitical strategy and U.S. political-security relations in the Asia-Pacific region, including the security strategy of the People’s Republic of China. Admiral Vasey’s 36 years of active duty include assignments as chief of strategic plans and policies at U.S. Pacific Command Headquarters, secretary to the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff; deputy director of the U.S. National Military Command Center in the Pentagon; and chief of staff for Commander U.S. Seventh Fleet. He founded the Pacific Forum at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in the mid-1970s and served as CEO until 1990. He is the author of several published articles and studies on Asia-Pacific security issues. He presently focuses on assessing the impact of China’s defense and foreign policies on regional security. Rear Admiral George Huchting, U.S. Navy (Ret.) served for more than 36 years as a Surface Warfare Officer commanding both a guided missile destroyer and cruiser. During his last 11 years in the Navy, he served as an Acquisition Professional and as the Program Executive Officer for Aegis Shipbuilding and Combat Systems as well as for all Surface Combatants. Rear Admiral Stephen R. Pietropaoli, U.S. Navy (Ret.) was the Navy’s Chief of Information from 2000 to 2003. His 26 years of naval service included a variety of assignments including the special assistant for public affairs to Army General Hugh Shelton, then chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, head of the Navy’s national news desk in the Pentagon, and as Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=119fa356-b757-46cc-bd85-8ce9e35ed5d7media relations officer for the Commander of the Fleet and the U.S. Atlantic Command. Admiral Pietropaoli began his naval career as a surface officer in the Atlantic Fleet. Currently he is Executive Director of the Navy League of the States. MILITARY SUPPORT ORGANIZATIONS Navy League of the United States is the civilian non-governmental organization is to support the men and women of United States sea services, and to ensure they equipment and training they need to defend Nation. The Navy League was founded in 1902 the encouragement of President Theodore Roosevelt, and membership today stands at over 65,000 Honolulu Council is a non-profit Hawaii and operates as a chartered council of League of the United States. It was incorporated in 1957 and has over 3,500 members, making it largest council in the world. The Honolulu Council is participating as amicus curiae in the pending Circuit appeal of Ocean Mammal Inst. v. Gates, 2d 960 (D. Haw. 2008), a case in which district court preliminarily enjoined the Navy’s sonar in Undersea Warfare Exercises around Islands. Affairs Council (MAC) of the Chamber of Commerce of Hawaii is a chartered subsidiary 7 the media relations officer for the Commander of the Atlantic Fleet and the U.S. Atlantic Command. Admiral Pietropaoli began his naval career as a surface warfare officer in the Atlantic Fleet. Currently he is the Executive Director of the Navy League of the United States. II. MILITARY SUPPORT ORGANIZATIONS The Navy League of the United States is the leading civilian non-governmental organization whose mission is to support the men and women of the United States sea services, and to ensure they have the equipment and training they need to defend the Nation. The Navy League was founded in 1902 with the encouragement of President Theodore Roosevelt, and membership today stands at over 65,000 nationwide. The Honolulu Council is a non-profit Hawaii corporation, and operates as a chartered council of the Navy League of the United States. It was incorporated in 1957 and has over 3,500 members, making it the largest council in the world. The Honolulu Council is participating as amicus curiae in the pending Ninth Circuit appeal of Ocean Mammal Inst. v. Gates, 546 F. Supp. 2d 960 (D. Haw. 2008), a case in which the district court preliminarily enjoined the Navy’s use of sonar in Undersea Warfare Exercises around the Hawaiian Islands. The Military Affairs Council (MAC) of the Chamber of Commerce of Hawaii is a chartered subsidiary Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=119fa356-b757-46cc-bd85-8ce9e35ed5d7the Chamber of Commerce of Hawaii, a Hawaii corporation. In 1985, MAC was established affiliate of the Chamber to serve official liaison for the State of Hawaii in matters relating to the military. Over the years, the has assumed the role of being the advocate military and providing oversight for the multibillion dollar defense industry that has grown to second major source of revenues to Hawaii. The MAC is comprised of representatives from Chamber and State of Hawaii and City and of Honolulu administrations, and retired officers. Southwest Defense Alliance (SWDA) is a non-partisan 501(c)(3) California corporation founded in to advocate sustaining the national security assets in the southwest States. Elected officials, civic leaders, defense military experts and others from Arizona, California, New Mexico, Nevada, Texas and Utah voluntarily team to preclude or mitigate encroachment the irreplaceable land, sea, and air ranges and within and adjacent to the six-state region. hundreds of civilian participants and volunteers the SWDA live and work in Arizona, California, Mexico, Nevada, Texas and Utah. SWDA’s backgrounds and interests, but one vision: to sustain a vibrant and supportive where the critical defense missions of testing and training can be conducted far the future. To help assure this vision, SWDA 8 of the Chamber of Commerce of Hawaii, a Hawaii non-profit corporation. In 1985, MAC was established as an unencumbered affiliate of the Chamber to serve as the official liaison for the State of Hawaii in matters relating to the military. Over the years, the Chamber has assumed the role of being the advocate for the military and providing oversight for the multibillion dollar defense industry that has grown to become the second major source of revenues to Hawaii. The MAC is comprised of representatives from the Chamber and State of Hawaii and City and County of Honolulu administrations, and retired senior military officers. The Southwest Defense Alliance (SWDA) is a non-profit, non-partisan 501(c)(3) California corporation founded in 1997 to advocate sustaining the critical national security assets in the southwest United States. Elected officials, civic leaders, defense and military experts and others from Arizona, California, New Mexico, Nevada, Texas and Utah voluntarily team to preclude or mitigate encroachment of the irreplaceable land, sea, and air ranges and facilities within and adjacent to the six-state region. The hundreds of civilian participants and volunteers of the SWDA live and work in Arizona, California, New Mexico, Nevada, Texas and Utah. SWDA’s members have diverse backgrounds and interests, but share one vision: to sustain a vibrant and supportive environment where the critical defense missions of research, testing and training can be conducted far into the future. To help assure this vision, SWDA Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=119fa356-b757-46cc-bd85-8ce9e35ed5d7in education and advocacy. SWDA is governed by an 18-member board of directors: three from each of the six member states, and is executive director. Chamber of Commerce is California corporation. It notes a large percentage of the Navy’s active surface, and submarine fleet as well as its Anti-Submarine and Mine Warfare Commands are located in Diego and have a huge impact on the region’s Chamber believes it is important for Navy to continue using active sonar in order to effective training to our men and women in The Chamber further understands that the already undertakes extensive measures to marine mammals. San Diego Military Advisory Council is a 501(c)(6) non-profit mutual benefit incorporated under the laws of the state SDMAC currently has over 75 corporate and 350 individual members in the San region. The SDMAC mission is to help San military defend the nation. To that end, champions the issues that are identified by military as critical to national defense, the military/industrial team, and to the quality of life of personnel in the San Diego area. The U.S. ability to use MFA sonar to adequately train crews prior to extended deployment in defense of country is one such issue. SDMAC considers it to the defense of our nation that the United 9 engages in education and advocacy. SWDA is governed by an 18-member board of directors: three directors from each of the six member states, and is managed by a retained executive director. The San Diego Regional Chamber of Commerce is a 501(c)(6), non-profit California corporation. It notes that a large percentage of the Navy’s active surface, air and submarine fleet as well as its Anti-Submarine Warfare and Mine Warfare Commands are located in San Diego and have a huge impact on the region’s economy. The Chamber believes it is important for the Navy to continue using active sonar in order to provide effective training to our men and women in uniform. The Chamber further understands that the Navy already undertakes extensive measures to protect marine mammals. The San Diego Military Advisory Council (SDMAC) is a 501(c)(6) non-profit mutual benefit corporation incorporated under the laws of the state of California. SDMAC currently has over 75 corporate members and 350 individual members in the San Diego region. The SDMAC mission is to help San Diego’s military defend the nation. To that end, SDMAC champions the issues that are identified by the military as critical to national defense, the military/industrial team, and to the quality of life of military personnel in the San Diego area. The U.S. Navy’s ability to use MFA sonar to adequately train its crews prior to extended deployment in defense of our country is one such issue. SDMAC considers it vital to the defense of our nation that the United Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=119fa356-b757-46cc-bd85-8ce9e35ed5d7Navy continue to train its deploying Strike in the use of MFA Sonar. The Navy has consistently demonstrated over a long period of time, willingness to undertake extensive measures to marine mammals and the environment whenever The consequences our young women in harm’s way without the necessary to prepare themselves for any eventuality, outweighs any potential harm to the marine population or the environment. ♦ ---------------------------------OF THE CASE DIESEL ELECTRIC SUBMARINE use a single term for all surface of any type whether they be naval surface aircraft carriers, supply ships, merchant or passenger liners: “target.”2 A few submarines can wreak extraordinary damage upon men, and international commerce. The threat to supply lines by U-Boats in the Atlantic during War II – and the damage caused to the enemy our own submarines in the Pacific – graphically denotes a subset of naval speaking, they are ships built other aircraft. Surface combatants include and carriers, amphibious mine 10 States Navy continue to train its deploying Strike Groups in the use of MFA Sonar. The Navy has consistently demonstrated over a long period of time, their willingness to undertake extensive measures to protect marine mammals and the environment whenever possible. The consequences of sending our young men and women in harm’s way without the necessary training to prepare themselves for any eventuality, far outweighs any potential harm to the marine mammal population or the environment. ---------------------------------? ---------------------------------STATEMENT OF THE CASE I. THE DIESEL ELECTRIC SUBMARINE THREAT Submariners use a single term for all surface vessels of any type whether they be naval surface combatants, aircraft carriers, supply ships, merchant marine, or passenger liners: “target.”2 A few submarines can wreak extraordinary damage upon men, material, and international commerce. The threat to Allied supply lines by U-Boats in the Atlantic during World War II -and the damage caused to the enemy by our own submarines in the Pacific -graphically 2 “Surface combatants” denotes a subset of naval fighting ships. Generally speaking, they are ships built to fight other ships, submarines, or aircraft. Surface combatants include cruisers, destroyers, and frigates, among others. They do not include aircraft carriers, amphibious assault ships, or mine hunters. Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=119fa356-b757-46cc-bd85-8ce9e35ed5d7home the terrifying reality of submarine world’s naval forces employ two types of detect submerged submarines: passive sonar for emitted sounds, while active sonar transmits sound and listens for a reflection from the target. Unclassified Declaration of David Yoshihara in of Defendants’ Opposition to Plaintiffs’ for Preliminary Injunction (Yoshihara Dec.) 5, ¶ 9, 10, Ocean Mammal Inst. v. Gates, Civ. LEK (D. Haw., Sep. 27, 2007).3 http://www.hawaiioceanlaw.pdf. Captain anti-submarine the Director, Commander, ASW on the staff Naval and was of Anti-Submarine of Operations for will in the future, the advanced technologies to swiftly be Navy personnel need Yoshihara 16, 2007, Institute the Navy in the district and injunctive undersea exercises coast See v. Gates, 546 F. alleged of NEPA, Endangered 1973 (ESA), 16 U.S.C. § 1531, 1451, et seq., and the National et seq. The district the Navy violated NEPA page) 11 brought home the terrifying reality of submarine warfare. The world’s naval forces employ two types of sonar to detect submerged submarines: passive sonar listens for emitted sounds, while active sonar transmits sound and listens for a reflection from the target. Unclassified Declaration of David Yoshihara in Support of Defendants’ Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Yoshihara Dec.) at 5, ¶¶ 9, 10, Ocean Mammal Inst. v. Gates, Civ. No. 07-cv-00254-DAE-LEK (D. Haw., Sep. 27, 2007).3 3 Available at http://www.hawaiioceanlaw.com/files/yoshihara dec.pdf. Captain David Yoshihara, U.S. Navy (Ret.) is an expert in anti-submarine warfare (ASW) and currently the Director, Fleet ASW for the Commander, U.S. Pacific Fleet. He was the Director, Task Force ASW on the staff of the Chief of Naval Operations, and was the principal drafter of Anti-Submarine Warfare Concept of Operations for the 21st Century, the Navy’s vision for how ASW will be conducted in the future, including an examination of the advanced technologies necessary to swiftly defeat the submarine threat wherever it may be found and an examination of the skills Navy personnel will need to effectively conduct ASW. Yoshihara Dec. at 3, ¶ 4. On May 16, 2007, the Ocean Mammal Institute filed a complaint against the Navy in the district court for the district of Hawaii, seeking declarative and injunctive relief to stop the use of MFA sonar in undersea warfare exercises off the coast of Hawaii. See Ocean Mammal Inst. v. Gates, 546 F. Supp. 2d 960, 966 (D. Haw. 2008). The plaintiffs alleged violation of NEPA, the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA), 16 U.S.C. § 1531, et seq., the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (CZMA), 16 U.S.C. § 1451, et seq., and the National Marine Sanctuaries Act (NMSA), 16 U.S.C. § 1431, et seq. The district court determined that the Navy violated NEPA and the CZMA, and limited the (Continued on following page) Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=119fa356-b757-46cc-bd85-8ce9e35ed5d7sonar developed during World War II helped the tide against U-Boats and win the war, but at a terrible cost in ships and personnel. World War II, the development of deep indefinitely submerging, and very fast nuclear which could run below the various deep active sonar ranging detection such vessels. Accordingly, the Navy developed a of “passive” systems, both shipboard and at bottom of the sea (the Sound Surveillance System, to detect such vessels by the noise they in their operation, both from internal machinery and from the cavitation sounds made by their For every measure, however, there is a and presently, most of the submarines deployed by the world’s navies use diesel engines for propulsion while surfaced, and batterypowered electric motors while submerged. Yoshihara at 4, 7. Diesel electric submarines are effective in avoiding detection by passive court imposed several measures the impact of sonar use while training MFA sonar narrower circumstances. these are to those imposed by the Circuit in the case at bar. “The court’s caused ship of five in deploy Far East untrained.” Patricia Stewards, Seapower, www.seapower-digital.com/seapower/200807/?12 Active sonar developed during World War II helped turn the tide against U-Boats and win the war, but still at a terrible cost in ships and personnel. After World War II, the development of deep diving, indefinitely submerging, and very fast nuclear submarines which could run below the various deep ocean layers hampered active sonar ranging detection of such vessels. Accordingly, the Navy developed a variety of “passive” systems, both shipboard and at the bottom of the sea (the Sound Surveillance System, SOSUS), to detect such vessels by the noise they made in their operation, both from internal machinery and from the cavitation sounds made by their propellers. For every measure, however, there is a countermeasure, and presently, most of the submarines deployed by the world’s navies use diesel engines for propulsion while surfaced, and batterypowered electric motors while submerged. Yoshihara Dec. at 4, ¶¶ 6, 7. Diesel electric submarines are uniquely effective in avoiding detection by passive Navy’s use of MFA sonar. The district court imposed several mitigation measures intended to limit the impact of sonar use on marine mammals, while allowing the Navy to continue training with MFA sonar under narrower circumstances. Many of these mitigation measures are similar to those imposed by the district court and the Ninth Circuit in the case at bar. “The district court’s restrictions caused one ship of five in a carrier strike group to deploy to the Far East untrained.” Patricia Kime, Environmental Stewards, Seapower, July 2008, available at http://www.seapower-digital.com/seapower/200807/?pg=39. Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=119fa356-b757-46cc-bd85-8ce9e35ed5d7diesel-electric submarines are designed suppress emitted noise levels specifically to and defeat the best available passive SONAR at 5, ¶ 9. “Until at very close ranges, diesel-electric submarine operating on battery nearly undetectable to U.S. and allied naval SONAR alone.” Id. Consequently, submarines pose the “primary threat to U.S. Navy’s ability to perform a number of critically necessary Id. at 4, ¶ 6. threat that these submarines present to the and women who man our surface combatants and other ships is not in any sense idle. A single explosive device (torpedo or otherwise) sink an aircraft carrier with over 4,000 sailors the tactical or strategic nuclear devices vessels can carry, the definition of from just vessels to entire cities their surroundings. The only effective countermeasure to such silent threats is the considerably sophisticated active sonar which the Navy is developing and putting into effect. The People’s of China, North Korea, and Iran have developed obtained extraordinarily quiet diesel electric which make their detection by passive and, in many cases impossible. Id. at 4, (more than 300 diesel electric submarines are adversary nations). See also David Fleet is Growing, Analysts available www. com/2008/02/25/world/asia/25submarine.html 13 sonar: “Modern diesel-electric submarines are designed to suppress emitted noise levels specifically to counter and defeat the best available passive SONAR technology.” Id. at 5, ¶ 9. “Until at very close ranges, a diesel-electric submarine operating on battery power is nearly undetectable to U.S. and allied naval forces using passive SONAR alone.” Id. Consequently, diesel electric submarines pose the “primary threat to the U.S. Navy’s ability to perform a number of critically necessary missions.” Id. at 4, ¶ 6. The threat that these submarines present to the young men and women who man our surface combatants and other ships is not in any sense idle. A single conventional explosive device (torpedo or otherwise) can sink an aircraft carrier with over 4,000 sailors aboard. As for the tactical or strategic nuclear devices these vessels can carry, the definition of “target” expands dramatically from just vessels to entire cities and their surroundings. The only effective countermeasure to such silent threats is the considerably more sophisticated active sonar which the Navy is now developing and putting into effect. The People’s Republic of China, North Korea, and Iran have developed or obtained extraordinarily quiet diesel electric submarines which make their detection by passive sonar difficult and, in many cases impossible. Id. at 4, ¶ 7 (more than 300 diesel electric submarines are owned by potential adversary nations). See also David Lague, Chinese Submarine Fleet is Growing, Analysts Say, N.Y. Times, Feb. 25, 2008, available at http://www. nytimes.com/2008/02/25/world/asia/25submarine.html Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=119fa356-b757-46cc-bd85-8ce9e35ed5d7analysts report China will surpass the States in numbers of submarines by the end of decade included in those acquisitions are two powered ballistic missile submarines). China have as many as twelve diesel electric, KILO-class submarines purchased from Russia. class submarine – People’s Liberation Army Globalsecurity.org, available at http://www. military/world/china/kilo.htm. See also Wertheim, World Navies in Review, U.S. Naval Proceedings, Mar. 2008, at 15 (China received ten improved KILO-class submarines from and has completed domestic production of class submarines). purchased several 877 an older version of the 636, Russia in the past and, despite a June 1995 enter any new arms contracts with Iran, is reported that the two countries were engaged in the modernization of the diesel submarines operated by the Iranian Army as as 2005. See – Project 636 Paltus – Kilo class Diesel-Electric Submarine, Globalsecurity.org, available at www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/877. from these submarines to the Navy’s fleet is real. In late 2006 near Okinawa, for a SONG-diesel electric attack submarine of China’s People’s Liberation Army Navy was detected by the Kitty Hawk Carrier Strike Group it surfaced within torpedo range of the aircraft 14 (military analysts report China will surpass the United States in numbers of submarines by the end of the decade and included in those acquisitions are two nuclear powered ballistic missile submarines). China may currently have as many as twelve diesel electric, 636 KILO-class submarines purchased from Russia. See Kilo-class submarine -People’s Liberation Army Navy, Globalsecurity.org, available at http://www. globalsecurity.org/military/world/china/kilo.htm. See also Eric Wertheim, World Navies in Review, U.S. Naval Institute Proceedings, Mar. 2008, at 15 (China received ten improved KILO-class submarines from Russia and has completed domestic production of SONG class submarines). Iran purchased several 877 KILO-class submarines, an older version of the 636, from Russia in the past and, despite a June 1995 pledge not to enter any new arms contracts with Iran, it is reported that the two countries were engaged in discussions regarding the modernization of the diesel electric submarines operated by the Iranian Army as recently as 2005. See Project 877 Graney -Project 636 Varshavyanka/Paltus -Kilo class Diesel-Electric Torpedo Submarine, Globalsecurity.org, available at http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/877. htm. The threats from these submarines to the Navy’s surface fleet is real. In late 2006 near Okinawa, for example, a SONG-class diesel electric attack submarine of China’s People’s Liberation Army Navy was not detected by the Kitty Hawk Carrier Strike Group until it surfaced within torpedo range of the aircraft Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=119fa356-b757-46cc-bd85-8ce9e35ed5d7USS KITTY HAWK. See U.S. Presses China on Submarine Encounter, Wash. Times, Jan. 10, available at http://www.washtimes.com/news/10/20070110-112623-9814r/. In November Kitty Hawk battle group was “shadowed” by Chinese submarine and destroyer in the Taiwan prompting a confrontational standoff for eight hours. See Report: Chinese Ships Confronted Kitty Hawk, Navy Times, Jan. 17, 2008 available at http://www.navytimes.com/news/2008/01/kyo_ TRAINING TO DETECT AND COUNTER THREAT the threat, the Navy has refocused on submarine warfare which is the Pacific Fleet’s warfighting priority.” Yoshihara Dec. at 3, ¶ 3. Otto Kreisher, As Underwater Threat Reemerges, Navy on ASW, Seapower, 2004, available at http://www.military.com/New 0,13190,ASW_the shadows, the Navy has put antisubmarine warfare (ASW) back at the top of its warfighting priorities, injecting new leadership and increased into the fight against a re-emerging undersea primary sonar in use by the Navy is MFA “yields the greatest probability of detection capability across the spectrum of environments 15 carrier USS KITTY HAWK. See U.S. Presses China on Armed Submarine Encounter, Wash. Times, Jan. 10, 2007, available at http://www.washtimes.com/news/2007/jan/10/20070110-112623-9814r/. In November 2007, the Kitty Hawk battle group was “shadowed” by a Chinese submarine and destroyer in the Taiwan Strait prompting a confrontational standoff for twenty-eight hours. See Report: Chinese Ships Confronted Kitty Hawk, Navy Times, Jan. 17, 2008 available at http://www.navytimes.com/news/2008/01/kyo_ china_080115/. II. TRAINING TO DETECT AND COUNTER THE THREAT To counter the threat, the Navy has refocused on anti-submarine warfare which is the Pacific Fleet’s “#1 warfighting priority.” Yoshihara Dec. at 3, ¶ 3. See also Otto Kreisher, As Underwater Threat Reemerges, Navy Renews Emphasis on ASW, Seapower, Oct. 2004, available at http://www.military.com/New Content/0,13190,NL_ASW_100404-P1,00.html (“After a decade in the shadows, the Navy has put antisubmarine warfare (ASW) back at the top of its warfighting priorities, injecting new leadership and increased funding into the fight against a re-emerging undersea threat.”). The primary sonar in use by the Navy is MFA sonar, which “yields the greatest probability of detection capability across the spectrum of environments Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=119fa356-b757-46cc-bd85-8ce9e35ed5d7Yoshihara Dec. at 6, ¶ 10.4 Use of MFA has “greater potential in assuring more valid accurate acoustic contacts of a submarine at distances than use of passive SONAR alone.” ¶ 11. Detecting and holding the track of a submarine with MFA sonar is a “very complex task.” Id. at ¶ 12. Navy sonar operators must contend with density changes based on temperature, salinity, currents, weather conditions, and the varying of the ocean bottom, all of which affect the in which sound propagates through water.” at 7, ¶ 7. Computer simulations cannot substitute the infinite details and adjustments to the sonar that the dynamic, real-world environment of Navy operators. Furthermore, coastal are noisier than open ocean waters, making likelihood of detection with passive sonar alone difficult. Training in coastal waters, therefore, vital because interpreting a sonar display is as art as science, requiring users to distinguish “echoes” and “reverberation” and between and “clutter” and “lines” and “blobs.” Id. at of war is never a pleasant one. For charged with the defense of their country, need to do that job very well – with maximum frequency, frequency. frequency frequency effective 16 expected.” Yoshihara Dec. at 6, ¶ 10.4 Use of MFA sonar has “greater potential in assuring more valid and accurate acoustic contacts of a submarine at greater distances than use of passive SONAR alone.” Id. ¶ 11. Detecting and holding the track of a submarine with MFA sonar is a “very complex task.” Id. at 6-7, ¶ 12. Navy sonar operators must contend with “water density changes based on temperature, salinity, currents, weather conditions, and the varying profile of the ocean bottom, all of which affect the manner in which sound propagates through water.” Id. at 7, ¶ 7. Computer simulations cannot substitute for the infinite details and adjustments to the sonar equipment that the dynamic, real-world environment requires of Navy operators. Furthermore, coastal waters are noisier than open ocean waters, making the likelihood of detection with passive sonar alone more difficult. Training in coastal waters, therefore, is vital because interpreting a sonar display is as much art as science, requiring users to distinguish between “echoes” and “reverberation” and between “targets” and “clutter” and “lines” and “blobs.” Id. at 8, ¶ 16. The business of war is never a pleasant one. For those charged with the defense of their country, the need to do that job very well -with maximum 4 There are three types of active sonar: low frequency, midfrequency and high frequency. Low frequency equipment is bulky, and high frequency sonar is only effective over a short distance. Id. at 5, ¶ 10. Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=119fa356-b757-46cc-bd85-8ce9e35ed5d7and effectiveness – is critical not only to victory, but also to do so with the minimum of our own Sailors and Marines in a way that, practicable, minimizes damage to the To meet that goal, there is one absolutely critical element every servicemember understands and values above all, and that is training. is always present in one form or another in military environment, but without training, that is useless. Sailors and Marines may be into combat and discipline may make them if they have not first been trained to use their effectively, their leaders have breached duty. Realistic training in the Southern California Operating Area (SOCAL) range and the Hawaii (subject of the Ocean Mammal Institute v. Gates litigation) with MFA sonar is absolutely has the advantage of sharing the topographical and acoustical conditions in probable conflict areas, and is close to the of the surface ships undergoing the training. The Hawaii Range Complex is within range of a of submarines which can act as opposing forces.5 becomes even more critical when utilizing sophisticated systems such as sonar and other 7, these Admirals who served Pacific and at Pearl Harbor, the USS ARIZONA and USS UTAH, for eternal vigilance and training. 17 efficiency and effectiveness -is critical not only to ensure victory, but also to do so with the minimum loss of our own Sailors and Marines in a way that, whenever practicable, minimizes damage to the environment. To meet that goal, there is one absolutely critical element every servicemember understands and values above all, and that is training. Discipline is always present in one form or another in a military environment, but without training, that discipline is useless. Sailors and Marines may be ordered into combat and discipline may make them go, but if they have not first been trained to use their equipment effectively, their leaders have breached their duty. Realistic training in the Southern California Operating Area (SOCAL) range and the Hawaii Range Complex (subject of the Ocean Mammal Institute v. Gates litigation) with MFA sonar is absolutely necessary. SOCAL has the advantage of sharing the unusual topographical and acoustical conditions found in probable conflict areas, and is close to the home ports of the surface ships undergoing the training. The Hawaii Range Complex is within range of a fleet of submarines which can act as opposing forces.5 Training becomes even more critical when utilizing sophisticated systems such as sonar and other 5 The December 7, 1941 attack was launched from these very waters. For the amici Admirals who served in the Pacific Fleet and at Pearl Harbor, the USS ARIZONA and USS UTAH, both of which remain at rest there, were daily reminders of the need for eternal vigilance and training. Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=119fa356-b757-46cc-bd85-8ce9e35ed5d7weapons systems and countermeasures on and their support vessels. These are systems which the operator simply switches on a flashlight in the night. Rather, they are vastly and interdependent systems run by intelligent men and women who have spent preparing to use them and who should not be from training in conditions as close as real thing. imposed by the district court and Ninth Circuit in the case at bar, and the measures the court in Ocean Mammal Institute with the Navy’s mitigation measures under the MMPA, subjects the Navy’s MFA to a patchwork of restrictions instead fleet-wide standards. Piecemeal restrictions which change from operating area to operating a risk to the Navy’s preparedness conduct anti-submarine warfare. Military readiness constant training and assessment and hands-on use of equipment to ingrain very young and often times inexperienced Amici’s best professional judgment that the Navy’s mitigation measures are effective: are uniform, applicable fleet-wide, well considered, keeping with the careful balance between harms to marine mammals and the need to Navy sonar operators. 18 related weapons systems and countermeasures on modern warships and their support vessels. These are not systems which the operator simply switches on like a flashlight in the night. Rather, they are vastly complicated and interdependent systems run by highly intelligent men and women who have spent years preparing to use them and who should not be precluded from training in conditions as close as possible to the real thing. The limitations imposed by the district court and the Ninth Circuit in the case at bar, and the measures imposed by the court in Ocean Mammal Institute v. Gates, contrasted with the Navy’s mitigation measures under the MMPA, subjects the Navy’s MFA sonar operators to a patchwork of restrictions instead of consistent fleet-wide standards. Piecemeal restrictions which change from operating area to operating area pose too great a risk to the Navy’s preparedness to conduct anti-submarine warfare. Military readiness requires constant training and assessment and repetitive hands-on use of equipment to ingrain procedures into very young and often times inexperienced personnel. Amici’s best professional judgment is that the Navy’s mitigation measures are effective: they are uniform, applicable fleet-wide, well considered, and in keeping with the careful balance between putative harms to marine mammals and the need to train Navy sonar operators. Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=119fa356-b757-46cc-bd85-8ce9e35ed5d7THE NINTH CIRCUIT ENJOINED THE USE OF MFA SONAR DESPITE FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT AND NO RECORD OF INJURY OR HARM TO ANY MAMMAL IN SOCAL is no evidence in the record that MFA has caused any physical harm to a marine Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc. v. Winter, 518 658, 696 (9th Cir. Other actual causes marine mammal mortality eclipse the potential imputed to sonar. See generally Atlantic Active Sonar Training Environmental Impact at Appendix E, Feb. 2008, available at afasteis.gcsaic.Draft%20Stranding%After an Environmental Assessment (EA), and studies and the input of the of Defense, the Department of Commerce, and the National Marine Fisheries Service, Navy concluded that the use of MFA sonar with self-imposed mitigation measures would not impact on the environment. Consequently, NEPA did not require the preparation of an Impact Statement (EIS) for the proposed exercises in SOCAL. This conclusion with the 40-year history of the Navy’s of the same frequency and intensity SOCAL, which has not resulted in a single documented case of injury, harm, or death to marine 19 III. THE NINTH CIRCUIT ENJOINED THE NAVY’S USE OF MFA SONAR DESPITE THE FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT AND NO RECORD OF INJURY OR HARM TO ANY MARINE MAMMAL IN SOCAL There is no evidence in the record that MFA sonar has caused any physical harm to a marine mammal. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc. v. Winter, 518 F.3d 658, 696 (9th Cir. 2008). Other actual causes of marine mammal mortality eclipse the potential mortality imputed to sonar. See generally Atlantic Fleet Active Sonar Training Environmental Impact Statement, at Appendix E, Feb. 2008, available at http://afasteis.gcsaic.com/docs/Draft%20AFAST%20EIS_ Appendix%20E,%20Cetacean%20Stranding%20Report. pdf. After an Environmental Assessment (EA), and backed by comprehensive studies and the input of the Department of Defense, the Department of Commerce, and the National Marine Fisheries Service, the Navy concluded that the use of MFA sonar with certain self-imposed mitigation measures would not have a significant impact on the environment. Consequently, NEPA did not require the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the proposed training exercises in SOCAL. This conclusion was consistent with the 40-year history of the Navy’s use of MFA sonar of the same frequency and intensity in SOCAL, which has not resulted in a single documented case of injury, harm, or death to marine mammals. Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=119fa356-b757-46cc-bd85-8ce9e35ed5d7March 2007, respondents filed suit in the District of California, seeking a declaration the Navy’s SOCAL exercises violated NEPA, the and the CZMA. Respondents allege that the use of MFA sonar in SOCAL, even with the measures, would have a significant effect environment and consequently that the Navy have prepared an EIS. The district court the ESA claim, agreed with respondents on NEPA and CZMA claims, and enjoined all use of sonar during the Navy’s SOCAL exercises. The court found that respondents demonstrated success merits of their claim that the violated NEPA by failing to prepare an EIS; the Navy violated the CZMA because it submitted a consistency determination to the California Commission that did not take into account planned use of MFA sonar; and the Navy violated by failing to adopt the mitigation measures CCC determined were necessary for the SOCAL consistent with the California Coastal Program. Ninth Circuit rejected the district court’s ban, holding that it had not considered the interest in having a trained and effective Navy had not explained why a total prohibition on the exercises was more appropriate than permitting the exercises to be conducted with mitigation Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc. v. Winter, F.3d (9th Cir. The Ninth Circuit 20 In March 2007, respondents filed suit in the Central District of California, seeking a declaration that the Navy’s SOCAL exercises violated NEPA, the ESA, and the CZMA. Respondents allege that the Navy’s use of MFA sonar in SOCAL, even with the mitigation measures, would have a significant effect on the environment and consequently that the Navy should have prepared an EIS. The district court rejected the ESA claim, agreed with respondents on their NEPA and CZMA claims, and enjoined all use of MFA sonar during the Navy’s SOCAL exercises. The district court found that respondents demonstrated probable success on the merits of their claim that the Navy violated NEPA by failing to prepare an EIS; that the Navy violated the CZMA because it submitted a consistency determination to the California Coastal Commission that did not take into account the planned use of MFA sonar; and the Navy violated the CZMA by failing to adopt the mitigation measures the CCC determined were necessary for the SOCAL exercises to be consistent with the California Coastal Management Program. The Ninth Circuit rejected the district court’s total ban, holding that it had not considered the public interest in having a trained and effective Navy and had not explained why a total prohibition on the SOCAL exercises was more appropriate than permitting the exercises to be conducted with mitigation measures. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc. v. Winter, 502 F.3d 859 (9th Cir. 2007). The Ninth Circuit Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=119fa356-b757-46cc-bd85-8ce9e35ed5d7the case to the district court to modify the and permit the exercises with mitigation Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc. v. Winter, (9th Cir. 2007). On remand, the district issued a new preliminary injunction allowing Navy to complete the SOCAL exercises provided complied with mitigation measures established by thereafter, the Council on Environmental (CEQ), pursuant to its responsibilities under C.F.R. determined that emergency were presented, and permitted the to continue its exercises without first completing an EIS. That regulation permits CEQ to exempt NEPA’s EIS requirement: emergency circumstances make it take an action with significant impact without observing the of these regulations, the Federal the action should consult with Council about alternative arrangements. the Council will limit such arrangements to actions necessary to control immediate impacts of the emergency. actions remain subject to NEPA review. C.F.R. § 1506.11. Facing exercises it considered for deployment of the USS ABRAHAM LINCOLN Group, the Navy also asked the President to authority under 16 U.S.C. § 1456(c)(1)(B) determined that the use of MFA 21 remanded the case to the district court to modify the injunction and permit the exercises with mitigation measures. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc. v. Winter, 508 F.3d 885 (9th Cir. 2007). On remand, the district court issued a new preliminary injunction allowing the Navy to complete the SOCAL exercises provided it complied with mitigation measures established by the court. Shortly thereafter, the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), pursuant to its responsibilities under 40 C.F.R. § 1506.11, determined that emergency circumstances were presented, and permitted the Navy to continue its exercises without first completing an EIS. That regulation permits CEQ to exempt an agency from NEPA’s EIS requirement: Where emergency circumstances make it necessary to take an action with significant environmental impact without observing the provisions of these regulations, the Federal agency taking the action should consult with the Council about alternative arrangements. Agencies and the Council will limit such arrangements to actions necessary to control the immediate impacts of the emergency. Other actions remain subject to NEPA review. 40 C.F.R. § 1506.11. Facing exercises it considered critical for deployment of the USS ABRAHAM LINCOLN Strike Group, the Navy also asked the President to exercise his authority under 16 U.S.C. § 1456(c)(1)(B) (2000). The President determined that the use of MFA Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=119fa356-b757-46cc-bd85-8ce9e35ed5d7is “essential to national security” and is in the interest of the United States,” and exempted the Navy’s use of MFA sonar in the SOCAL from the requirements of the CZMA. The subsequently adopted the mitigation measures by the CEQ. See Decision Memorandum Accepting Alternative Arrangements for the U.S. California Operating Area Composite Unit Exercises and Joint Task Force Exercises Scheduled Occur Today and these exemptions, the district upheld its injunction. It concluded CEQ’s action because there were, in the district court’s no “emergency circumstances” justifying an from NEPA. The district court also found Respondents had adequately demonstrated a of irreparable harm. Natural Res. Def. Inc. v. Winter, 527 F. Supp. 2d 1216, 1226-32 Cal. 2008). The Ninth Circuit upheld the injunction, but sua sponte modified the district court’s measures and imposed its own: importance of the Navy’s mission to for the national defense and the by the Chief of Naval Operations that the district court’s preliminary in its current form will risk” effective training and strike certification and thereby interfere his statutory responsibility under to e], train[ ] , and the Navy,” we sua sponte partially 22 sonar is “essential to national security” and is in the “paramount interest of the United States,” and exempted the Navy’s use of MFA sonar in the SOCAL exercises from the requirements of the CZMA. The Navy subsequently adopted the mitigation measures recommended by the CEQ. See Decision Memorandum Accepting Alternative Arrangements for the U.S. Navy’s Southern California Operating Area Composite Training Unit Exercises and Joint Task Force Exercises Scheduled To Occur Between Today and January 2009, 73 Fed. Reg. 4189 (2008). Notwithstanding these exemptions, the district court upheld its injunction. It concluded CEQ’s action was invalid because there were, in the district court’s opinion, no “emergency circumstances” justifying an exemption from NEPA. The district court also found that Respondents had adequately demonstrated a possibility of irreparable harm. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc. v. Winter, 527 F. Supp. 2d 1216, 1226-32 (C.D. Cal. 2008). The Ninth Circuit upheld the injunction, but sua sponte modified the district court’s mitigation measures and imposed its own: the importance of the Navy’s mission to provide for the national defense and the representation by the Chief of Naval Operations that the district court’s preliminary injunction in its current form will “unacceptably risk” effective training and strike group certification and thereby interfere with his statutory responsibility under 10 U.S.C. § 5062 to “organiz[e], train[ ] , and equip[ ] the Navy,” we sua sponte partially Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=119fa356-b757-46cc-bd85-8ce9e35ed5d7stay the preliminary injunction as adopted by the district court to the provided herein. Res. Def. Council, Inc. v. Winter, 518 F.3d (9th Cir. The modified mitigation established by the Ninth Circuit require use of MFA sonar if a marine is detected within 2,200 yards of the at a “critical point in the exercise,” in case the Navy shall reduce the MFA level by decibels when a marine is detected within 1,000 meters from sonar source, reduce the MFA sonar level a marine mammal is detected 500 meters of the sonar source use sonar when a marine mammal is detected within 200 meters of source. “critical point in the exercise” a point when, in the discretion of the overseeing the exercise or the commander of the sonar-emitting vessel, continued use of MFA sonar is critical to the of a strike group or the effective of its personnel. For example, the officer, in his discretion, might that a shutdown would fundamentally undermine effective training or certification because exercise underway a stage that would be seriously compromised . . . 23 and temporarily stay the preliminary injunction as adopted by the district court to the extent provided herein. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc. v. Winter, 518 F.3d 704, 705 (9th Cir. 2008). The modified mitigation measures established by the Ninth Circuit require the Navy: [T]o suspend its use of MFA sonar if a marine mammal is detected within 2,200 yards of the sonar source, except when MFA sonar is being used at a “critical point in the exercise,” in which case the Navy shall reduce the MFA sonar level by 6 decibels when a marine mammal is detected within 1,000 meters from the sonar source, reduce the MFA sonar level by 10 decibels when a marine mammal is detected within 500 meters of the sonar source and suspend its use of MFA sonar when a marine mammal is detected within 200 meters of the sonar source. A “critical point in the exercise” is a point when, in the discretion of the Admiral overseeing the exercise or the commander of the sonar-emitting vessel, continued use of MFA sonar is critical to the certification of a strike group or the effective training of its personnel. For example, the responsible officer, in his discretion, might determine that a shutdown would fundamentally undermine effective training or certification because the particular exercise underway is at a stage that would be seriously compromised by a shutdown. Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=119fa356-b757-46cc-bd85-8ce9e35ed5d7measure is modified to the Navy, when significant surface conditions are detected, to reduce the sonar level by 6 decibels where a marine mammal is detected within 2,000 meters the sonar source, reduce the MFA sonar 10 decibels where a marine mammal detected within 1,000 meters of the sonar and suspend its use of MFA sonar a marine mammal is detected within sonar source. at 705-06. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district the same day in a separate opinion. Res. Def. Council, Inc. v. Winters, 518 F.3d Cir. 2008). The Ninth Circuit noted that record contained “no evidence that marine mammals have been harmed by the use of MFA sonar in Southern California Operating Area.” Id. at 696. that fact, the district court determined respondents had established “to a near certainty” that Navy’s use of MFA sonar would irreparably harm environment and marine mammals. Both the in the case at bar and in Ocean Mammal Institute Gates the judgment of military professionals and the legislative and executive branches harm to marine mammals was unlikely to occur, even if it did, the need to prepare the Nation’s forces was, on balance, more important. ♦ ---------------------------------24 The second mitigation measure is modified to require the Navy, when significant surface ducting conditions are detected, to reduce the MFA sonar level by 6 decibels where a marine mammal is detected within 2,000 meters of the sonar source, reduce the MFA sonar level by 10 decibels where a marine mammal is detected within 1,000 meters of the sonar source, and suspend its use of MFA sonar where a marine mammal is detected within 500 meters of the sonar source. Id. at 705-06. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s injunction the same day in a separate opinion. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc. v. Winters, 518 F.3d 658, 703 (9th Cir. 2008). The Ninth Circuit noted that the record contained “no evidence that marine mammals have been harmed by the use of MFA sonar in the Southern California Operating Area.” Id. at 696. Despite that fact, the district court determined respondents had established “to a near certainty” that the Navy’s use of MFA sonar would irreparably harm the environment and marine mammals. Both the court in the case at bar and in Ocean Mammal Institute v. Gates rejected the judgment of military professionals and the legislative and executive branches that harm to marine mammals was unlikely to occur, and even if it did, the need to prepare the Nation’s naval forces was, on balance, more important. ---------------------------------? ---------------------------------Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=119fa356-b757-46cc-bd85-8ce9e35ed5d7OF ARGUMENT the district court, the Ninth Circuit, nor disputed the present and growing posed by quiet, diesel electric submarines, the need for the Navy to train realistically with sonar to detect and neutralize those threats. Ninth Circuit, however, overruled the judgment with the “necessary expertise” – naval warfare professionals and their civilian leaders – and the Navy from training effectively because mere possibility that marine mammals may be even though the court acknowledged the was devoid of any evidence that any marine had been injured by the Navy’s use of MFA SOCAL. courts below could not have concluded that Navy’s use of MFA sonar might result in irreparable injury to marine mammals since the Navy had been exempted from the substantive in the MMPA, the statute protecting mammals from harm. Congress, the Secretaries of Defense, Commerce and the Interior, and the carefully balanced the Navy’s need to train and mitigated putative harm to marine under the national defense exemption to ♦ ---------------------------------25 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT Neither the district court, the Ninth Circuit, nor respondents disputed the present and growing threats posed by quiet, diesel electric submarines, and the need for the Navy to train realistically with MFA sonar to detect and neutralize those threats. The Ninth Circuit, however, overruled the judgment of those with the “necessary expertise” -naval warfare professionals and their civilian leaders -and prohibited the Navy from training effectively because of the mere possibility that marine mammals may be harmed, even though the court acknowledged the record was devoid of any evidence that any marine mammal had been injured by the Navy’s use of MFA in SOCAL. The courts below could not have concluded that the Navy’s use of MFA sonar might result in irreparable injury to marine mammals since the Navy already had been exempted from the substantive limitations in the MMPA, the statute protecting marine mammals from harm. Congress, the Secretaries of Defense, Commerce and the Interior, and the Navy carefully balanced the Navy’s need to train realistically, and mitigated putative harm to marine mammals under the national defense exemption to the MMPA. ---------------------------------? ---------------------------------Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=119fa356-b757-46cc-bd85-8ce9e35ed5d7THE 2004 MMPA AMENDMENT, CONGRESS ALLOWED THE SECRETARY OF TO EXEMPT THE NAVY’S ACTIVITIES IN THE INTEREST OF NATIONAL DEFENSE United States arguably has done more than other country to provide for the protection of mammals, and to utilize its resources in their See U.S.C. & V 2005) (making it unlawful to “take” marine meaning to “harass, hunt, capture, or kill, attempt to harass, hunt, capture or kill” them). represents an explicit finding by Congress these animals ought to be protected because they or are instrumentalities of, interstate international commerce. See 16 U.S.C. § 1361(5) Supp. V 2005) (finding that marine mammals interstate commerce “and that the protection conservation of marine mammals and their is therefore necessary to insure the continuing availability of those products which move in commerce”). The MMPA is the principal regime governing interaction with marine See, e.g., U.S.C. (2000) of [the Endangered Species Act] shall take over any more restrictive conflicting of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of mammals such as whales, dolphins, and range throughout the oceans of the world in 26 ARGUMENT I. IN THE 2004 MMPA AMENDMENT, CONGRESS ALLOWED THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE TO EXEMPT THE NAVY’S ACTIVITIES IN THE INTEREST OF NATIONAL DEFENSE The United States arguably has done more than any other country to provide for the protection of marine mammals, and to utilize its resources in their rejuvenation. See 16 U.S.C. § 1372(a)(1) (2000 & Supp. V 2005) (making it unlawful to “take” marine mammals, meaning to “harass, hunt, capture, or kill, or attempt to harass, hunt, capture or kill” them). The MMPA represents an explicit finding by Congress that these animals ought to be protected because they move through, or are instrumentalities of, interstate and international commerce. See 16 U.S.C. § 1361(5) (2000 & Supp. V 2005) (finding that marine mammals move in interstate commerce “and that the protection and conservation of marine mammals and their habitats is therefore necessary to insure the continuing availability of those products which move in interstate commerce”). The MMPA is the principal regulatory regime governing interaction with marine mammals. See, e.g., 16 U.S.C. § 1543 (2000) (“no provision of [the Endangered Species Act] shall take precedence over any more restrictive conflicting provision of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972”). Marine mammals such as whales, dolphins, and seals range throughout the oceans of the world in Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=119fa356-b757-46cc-bd85-8ce9e35ed5d7conceivable salt waterway, and MFA sonar or its tactical use in any area could potentially affect them. By 2004, Congress had come to that military exercises might sometimes in harm to protected marine mammals, and the was amended to allow the Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Secretaries of Commerce and Interior, to exempt actions of the of Defense from the MMPA: Secretary of Defense, after conferring the Secretary of Commerce, the Secretary of the Interior, or both, as appropriate, any action or category of actions by the Department of Defense or components from compliance with any requirement of this Act, if the Secretary determines that it is necessary for the national U.S.C. § 1371(f)(1) (Supp. V 2005). The statutory was adopted in the wake of Natural Res. Council, Inc. v. Evans, F. Supp. 2d 1083 Cal. 2003), a case which limited the Navy’s use low frequency active sonar. See National Defense Act for Fiscal Year 2004, Pub. L. No. Stat. 1391, 1433-35 (2004). The exemption was not without limitation, since the amendment any such exemption is valid only for two which time the Secretary of Defense must with the Secretary of Commerce and make a determination of the necessity of the additional 16 U.S.C. § 1371(f)(V 2005). 27 every conceivable salt waterway, and MFA sonar training or its tactical use in any area could potentially affect them. By 2004, Congress had come to recognize that military exercises might sometimes result in harm to protected marine mammals, and the MMPA was amended to allow the Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Secretaries of Commerce and Interior, to exempt actions of the Department of Defense from the MMPA: The Secretary of Defense, after conferring with the Secretary of Commerce, the Secretary of the Interior, or both, as appropriate, may exempt any action or category of actions undertaken by the Department of Defense or its components from compliance with any requirement of this Act, if the Secretary determines that it is necessary for the national defense. 16 U.S.C. § 1371(f )(1) (Supp. V 2005). The statutory exemption was adopted in the wake of Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc. v. Evans, 364 F. Supp. 2d 1083 (N.D. Cal. 2003), a case which limited the Navy’s use of low frequency active sonar. See National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004, Pub. L. No. 108-136, 117 Stat. 1391, 1433-35 (2004). The exemption was not without limitation, since the amendment provides that any such exemption is valid only for two years, after which time the Secretary of Defense must confer with the Secretary of Commerce and make a new determination of the necessity of the additional exemption. 16 U.S.C. § 1371(f )(2)(B) (Supp. V 2005). Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=119fa356-b757-46cc-bd85-8ce9e35ed5d7exemption allowing the Navy to mammals was Congress’ determination that commanders and their civilian leaders could their best professional judgment about the needs of the fleet even if it might mean hunting, capturing, or killing” marine otherwise protected by the MMPA. See 16 f)(V of Defense to exempt the Department from MMPA). Put another way, the statutory protection provided by Congress for marine mammals was subject to revocation or modification, and did so. Congress permitted those most to decide when critical training needs must precedence over a perceived threat to marine echoing this Court’s statement in Dep’t of v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518 (1988), that threats to defense must be evaluated by those “with necessary expertise.” Id. at 529. An exemption to the Navy to train to defend against submarine makes sense when the statute is based on commerce power, see 16 U.S.C. § 1361(5) & Supp. V 2005), since it would plainly affect and international maritime commerce if United States Navy was anything less than fully to utilize MFA sonar to detect silent running submarines. January 23, 2007, the Deputy Secretary of exempted all the Navy’s military readiness employing MFA sonar for the duration of 28 The exemption allowing the Navy to “take” marine mammals was Congress’ determination that military commanders and their civilian leaders could exercise their best professional judgment about the training needs of the fleet even if it might mean “harassing, hunting, capturing, or killing” marine mammals otherwise protected by the MMPA. See 16 U.S.C. § 1371(f )(2)(B) (Supp. V 2005) (authorizing Secretary of Defense to exempt the Department from the MMPA). Put another way, the statutory protection provided by Congress for marine mammals was always subject to revocation or modification, and Congress did so. Congress permitted those most qualified to decide when critical training needs must take precedence over a perceived threat to marine mammals, echoing this Court’s statement in Dep’t of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518 (1988), that threats to national defense must be evaluated by those “with the necessary expertise.” Id. at 529. An exemption to permit the Navy to train to defend against submarine threats makes sense when the statute is based on Congress’ commerce power, see 16 U.S.C. § 1361(5) (2000 & Supp. V 2005), since it would plainly affect interstate and international maritime commerce if the United States Navy was anything less than fully prepared to utilize MFA sonar to detect silent running submarines. On January 23, 2007, the Deputy Secretary of Defense exempted all the Navy’s military readiness activities employing MFA sonar for the duration of Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=119fa356-b757-46cc-bd85-8ce9e35ed5d7exercises in SOCAL from the requirements of the The exemption determined: is necessary for the national defense to exempt all military readiness exercises that mid-frequency active sonar or Improved Extended Echo Ranging sonobuoys either during major training exercises, or within established Department of maritime ranges or established areas, from compliance with the of the Marine Mammal Protection Act, Title 16, Sections 1361 1421h, of the States Code. for the Secretary of the Navy, Subject: Defense Exemption from Requirements of the Mammal Protection Act for Certain DoD Readiness Activities That Employ Mid-Active Sonar or Improved Extended Echo Sonobuoys, Jan. available at www.hawaiioceanlaw.com/files/England_Memo even with the full exemption granted section 1371(f), the Navy had gone to extraordinary lengths to minimize as much as possible the on marine mammals. See Ocean Mammal 546 F. Supp. 2d at 985-91 (reviewing mitigation the exemption and the case at bar). It number of measures which had been standard operating procedure in the Navy’s ASW exercises since These measures included extra lookouts with enhanced searching procedures, 29 the exercises in SOCAL from the requirements of the MMPA. The exemption determined: it is necessary for the national defense to exempt all military readiness exercises that employ mid-frequency active sonar or Improved Extended Echo Ranging sonobuoys (IEER), either during major training exercises, or within established Department of Defense maritime ranges or established operating areas, from compliance with the requirements of the Marine Mammal Protection Act, Title 16, Sections 1361 1421h, of the United States Code. Memorandum for the Secretary of the Navy, Subject: National Defense Exemption from Requirements of the Marine Mammal Protection Act for Certain DoD Military Readiness Activities That Employ Mid-Frequency Active Sonar or Improved Extended Echo Ranging Sonobuoys, Jan. 23, 2007, available at http://www.hawaiioceanlaw.com/files/England_Memo _1_23_07.pdf. Moreover, even with the full exemption granted by section 1371(f ), the Navy had gone to extraordinary lengths to minimize as much as possible the effects on marine mammals. See Ocean Mammal Inst., 546 F. Supp. 2d at 985-91 (reviewing mitigation measures from the exemption and the case at bar). It adopted a number of measures which had been standard operating procedure in the Navy’s ASW exercises since 2004. These measures included extra visual lookouts with enhanced searching procedures, Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=119fa356-b757-46cc-bd85-8ce9e35ed5d7on transmission levels when within 1,000 of marine mammals, additional powering down sonar when mammals are inside 500 yards from sonar equipment, and exercise planners must for bathymetry and sound conditions. These measures are practically advantageous for reasons. First, they are in place fleet-wide training and operation of sonar equipment is and universal. Second, these mitigation were developed in consultation with the of Commerce allowing the officials who the MMPA to collaborate with the military the marine mammal resources in a global Finally, because the Navy itself designed the measures, those measures necessarily take account the staffing, equipment issues, and obstacles to protection of the mammals, minimizing any negative impact to national enactment of the exemption by Congress after the original legislation and after NEPA’s requirements, reflects that it was not an afterthought, but was designed to address shortcomings in the original legislation, and the claim that the administration manipulated the exemption power to impermissibly overrule courts. The administration was simply exercising discretion granted by Congress, by following the warfare professionals. 30 limitations on transmission levels when within 1,000 yards of marine mammals, additional powering down of sonar when mammals are inside 500 yards from the sonar equipment, and exercise planners must account for bathymetry and sound conditions. These mitigation measures are practically advantageous for several reasons. First, they are in place fleet-wide and training and operation of sonar equipment is standardized and universal. Second, these mitigation measures were developed in consultation with the Department of Commerce allowing the officials who enforce the MMPA to collaborate with the military and protect the marine mammal resources in a global fashion. Finally, because the Navy itself designed the mitigation measures, those measures necessarily take into account the staffing, equipment issues, and practical obstacles to protection of the mammals, while minimizing any negative impact to national defense. The enactment of the exemption by Congress long after the original legislation and after NEPA’s procedural requirements, reflects that it was not simply an afterthought, but was designed to address specific shortcomings in the original legislation, and refutes the claim that the administration manipulated the exemption power to impermissibly overrule the courts. The administration was simply exercising the discretion granted by Congress, by following the best advice of naval warfare professionals. Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=119fa356-b757-46cc-bd85-8ce9e35ed5d7NEPA IS INAPPLICABLE BECAUSE THE BALANCED AND MITIGATED PUTATIVE HARMS TO MARINE MAMMALS THE SUBSTANTIVE PROVISIONS THE MMPA Congress, the Secretaries of Defense, and the Interior, and the Navy carefully the need to train realistically with MFA mitigated putative marine mammal harm the substantive provisions of the MMPA, it was for the courts below to enjoin training exercises those same issues were addressed under purely procedural requirements of NEPA.6 Since possible harm had already been accounted for deemed acceptable, information gathering under MMPA is the principal substantive protection for marine mammals. By contrast, NEPA is an and procedural statute, which unlike MMPA, provides no substantive protection for mammals. NEPA does not mandate any also has recognition the statute’s be avoided emergency See R. § 1506.11. Similarly, regarding the compliance Federal activity are found the Federal to be an approved State program, if the President that the paramount States.” 16 U.S.C. § 1456(these invoked, reinforcing have been 31 II. NEPA IS INAPPLICABLE BECAUSE THE NAVY BALANCED AND MITIGATED PUTATIVE HARMS TO MARINE MAMMALS UNDER THE SUBSTANTIVE PROVISIONS OF THE MMPA Because Congress, the Secretaries of Defense, Commerce and the Interior, and the Navy carefully balanced the need to train realistically with MFA sonar, and mitigated putative marine mammal harm under the substantive provisions of the MMPA, it was illogical for the courts below to enjoin training exercises until those same issues were addressed under the purely procedural requirements of NEPA.6 Since this possible harm had already been accounted for and deemed acceptable, information gathering under NEPA was unnecessary. The MMPA is the principal substantive protection for marine mammals. By contrast, NEPA is an informational and procedural statute, which unlike the MMPA, provides no substantive protection for marine mammals. NEPA does not mandate any 6 NEPA also has built-in recognition that the statute’s requirements may be avoided in emergency situations. See 40 C.F.R. § 1506.11. Similarly, regarding the CZMA, the President may “exempt from compliance those elements of the Federal agency activity that are found by the Federal court to be inconsistent with an approved State program, if the President determines that the activity is in the paramount interest of the United States.” 16 U.S.C. § 1456(c)(1)(B) (2000). Both of these exemptions have been invoked, reinforcing the conclusion that the harms have already been considered. Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=119fa356-b757-46cc-bd85-8ce9e35ed5d7outcome, only that information be gathered sweeping policy goals announced in of NEPA are thus realized through a of forcing” procedures that require that agencies take a “ ‘hard look’ at consequences,” . . . and that for broad dissemination of relevant information. Although these are almost certain to affect the decision, it is now well that NEPA itself does not mandate results, but simply prescribes the Citizens Council, 490 U.S. 350 (1989) (quoting Kleppe v. Sierra Club, 427 410 n.21 (1976)). Consequently, NEPA does dictate results, but rather provides guidelines federal agencies to assess any major federal that may have a significant impact on the See Dep’t of Trans. v. Public Citizen, 541 756-57 (2004) (citing Robertson, 490 U.S. at “If the adverse environmental effects of the are adequately identified and evaluated, the agency is not constrained by NEPA from that other values outweigh the environmental costs.” Robertson, 490 U.S. at 350 (citations Since NEPA itself is a procedural statute, only role for a reviewing court in a NEPA challenge to determine whether the agency has considered environmental consequences of the proposed the court “cannot interject itself within the 32 particular outcome, only that information be gathered and disseminated: The sweeping policy goals announced in § 101 of NEPA are thus realized through a set of “action-forcing” procedures that require that agencies take a “ ‘hard look’ at environmental consequences,” . . . and that provide for broad dissemination of relevant environmental information. Although these procedures are almost certain to affect the agency’s substantive decision, it is now well settled that NEPA itself does not mandate particular results, but simply prescribes the necessary process. Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens Council, 490 U.S. 332, 350 (1989) (quoting Kleppe v. Sierra Club, 427 U.S. 390, 410 n.21 (1976)). Consequently, NEPA does not dictate results, but rather provides guidelines requiring federal agencies to assess any major federal action that may have a significant impact on the environment. See Dep’t of Trans. v. Public Citizen, 541 U.S. 752, 756-57 (2004) (citing Robertson, 490 U.S. at 349-50). “If the adverse environmental effects of the proposed action are adequately identified and evaluated, the agency is not constrained by NEPA from deciding that other values outweigh the environmental costs.” Robertson, 490 U.S. at 350 (citations omitted). Since NEPA itself is a procedural statute, the only role for a reviewing court in a NEPA challenge is to determine whether the agency has considered the environmental consequences of the proposed action; the court “cannot interject itself within the Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=119fa356-b757-46cc-bd85-8ce9e35ed5d7of discretion of the executive as to the choice of action to be taken.” Stryker’s Bay Neighborhood v. Karlen, 444 U.S. 223, 227 (1980) (quoting 410 n.21). the inherent limitations of legislative process in environmental regulation, a framework to handle the multitude of environmental issues that could arise within the United and its territories. In so doing, it never precluded itself from enacting subsequent specific environmental legislation to regulate the treatment of a species or genus, nor did it preclude itself exempting areas of the environment or species both from the dictates of NEPA or other environmental or species protection acts. The Navy’s MMPA and the mitigation measures it undertook thereto rendered NEPA (and the CZMA to the same analysis applies throughout) inapplicable action. the displacement doctrine, NEPA does not when procedures under another statute displace or make superfluous the procedures under or provide the “functional equivalent” of those Displacement” means that Congress has a statutory scheme whereby NEPA’s procedures are supplanted. equivalence” the procedures of the statute in question the functional equivalent of NEPA. Here, the comprehensively provides for orderly consideration of alleged harms by MFA sonar to marine Cf. Merrell v. Thomas, 807 F.2d 776, 780 33 area of discretion of the executive as to the choice of the action to be taken.” Stryker’s Bay Neighborhood Council v. Karlen, 444 U.S. 223, 227 (1980) (quoting Kleppe, 427 U.S. at 410 n.21). Congress, recognizing the inherent limitations of the legislative process in environmental regulation, set up a framework to handle the multitude of environmental issues that could arise within the United States and its territories. In so doing, it never precluded itself from enacting subsequent specific environmental legislation to regulate the treatment of a particular species or genus, nor did it preclude itself from exempting areas of the environment or species or both from the dictates of NEPA or other environmental or species protection acts. The Navy’s MMPA exemption and the mitigation measures it undertook pursuant thereto rendered NEPA (and the CZMA to which the same analysis applies throughout) inapplicable to this action. Under the displacement doctrine, NEPA does not apply when procedures under another statute displace or make superfluous the procedures under NEPA, or provide the “functional equivalent” of those procedures. “Displacement” means that Congress has enacted a statutory scheme whereby NEPA’s procedures are supplanted. “Functional equivalence” means that the procedures of the statute in question are the functional equivalent of NEPA. Here, the MMPA comprehensively provides for orderly consideration of alleged harms by MFA sonar to marine mammals. Cf. Merrell v. Thomas, 807 F.2d 776, 780 Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=119fa356-b757-46cc-bd85-8ce9e35ed5d7Cir. 1986) (registration process under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act was functional equivalent of NEPA and made compliance with NEPA “superfluous”); Western Nebraska Protection Agency, 943 F.2d 867, (8th Cir. 1991) (many circuits hold that the does not need to comply with the formal requirements of NEPA in performing its environmental functions because legislation” specific procedures for considering the that are functional equivalents of the process) (citing Alabama ex rel. Siegelman v. Protection Agency, 911 F.2d 499, 504 (11th Cir. The MMPA is the functional equivalent of because the substantive protections provided the MMPA provide more protection to marine that the informational NEPA, and the of the MMPA, including the exemption, procedural requirements of NEPA. the Ninth Circuit should not have the MMPA exemption which expressly addressed any purported harm to marine mammals. the MMPA, the Navy is allowed to “take” See 16 U.S.C. § 1371(f)(2)(B) (Supp. V 2005). harm cannot qualify as irreparable injury NEPA, when the potential harms have already by the authority delegated by Congress make such determinations, and the risk has areas of national security and defense of the the judiciary’s role is at its nadir. See, e.g., 34 (9th Cir. 1986) (registration process under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act was the functional equivalent of NEPA and made compliance with NEPA “superfluous”); Western Nebraska Res. Council v. Envt’l Protection Agency, 943 F.2d 867, 871-72 (8th Cir. 1991) (many circuits hold that the EPA does not need to comply with the formal requirements of NEPA in performing its environmental protection functions because “organic legislation” mandates specific procedures for considering the environment that are functional equivalents of the NEPA process) (citing Alabama ex rel. Siegelman v. Envt’l Protection Agency, 911 F.2d 499, 504 (11th Cir. 1990)). The MMPA is the functional equivalent of NEPA because the substantive protections provided in the MMPA provide more protection to marine mammals that the informational NEPA, and the provisions of the MMPA, including the exemption, displaced any procedural requirements of NEPA. Consequently, the Ninth Circuit should not have ignored the MMPA exemption which expressly addressed any purported harm to marine mammals. Under the MMPA, the Navy is allowed to “take” them. See 16 U.S.C. § 1371(f )(2)(B) (Supp. V 2005). Speculative harm cannot qualify as irreparable injury under NEPA, when the potential harms have already been considered by the authority delegated by Congress to make such determinations, and the risk has been deemed acceptable. In areas of national security and defense of the Nation, the judiciary’s role is at its nadir. See, e.g., Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=119fa356-b757-46cc-bd85-8ce9e35ed5d7v. Goldberg, 453 U.S. 57, 71 (1981) (“The for determining how best our Armed attend to that business rests with Congress . . . and with the President”). Indeed, courts repeatedly recognized that national defense can override even technical violations of laws. In Concerned about Trident v. 555 F.2d 817 (D.C. Cir. 1977), as here, the attempted to act as a good steward of the environment while at the same time fulfilling its national duties: Navy has taken no arbitrary or capricious here but has attempted to comply in good faith with the mandates of NEPA, in only two instances, we do not that the issuance of an injunction the Navy’s revision of the Final EIS necessary, especially since we have found the Navy gave proper weight to environmental considerations in deciding to with this strategically important at 830. See also Weinberg v. Romero-Barcelo, 456 310-11 (refusing to enjoin Navy’s use island despite “technical violations”). the Navy, having balanced and mitigated putative harm to marine mammals under the provisions of the MMPA in favor of national security, is exempt from the procedural requirements of NEPA. ♦ ---------------------------------35 Rostker v. Goldberg, 453 U.S. 57, 71 (1981) (“The responsibility for determining how best our Armed Forces shall attend to that business rests with Congress . . . and with the President”). Indeed, courts have repeatedly recognized that national defense exigencies can override even technical violations of environmental laws. In Concerned about Trident v. Rumsfeld, 555 F.2d 817 (D.C. Cir. 1977), as here, the Navy attempted to act as a good steward of the environment while at the same time fulfilling its national security duties: As the Navy has taken no arbitrary or capricious action here but has attempted to comply in good faith with the mandates of NEPA, failing in only two instances, we do not believe that the issuance of an injunction pending the Navy’s revision of the Final EIS is necessary, especially since we have found that the Navy gave proper weight to environmental considerations in deciding to proceed with this strategically important project. Id. at 830. See also Weinberg v. Romero-Barcelo, 456 U.S. 305, 310-11 (1982) (refusing to enjoin Navy’s use of training island despite “technical violations”). Here, the Navy, having balanced and mitigated any putative harm to marine mammals under the substantive provisions of the MMPA in favor of national security, is exempt from the procedural requirements of NEPA. ---------------------------------? ---------------------------------Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=119fa356-b757-46cc-bd85-8ce9e35ed5d7judgment of the Court of Appeals should be submitted, 2008. G. 96813 A. JONES 96813 H. KUDO CHOCK 96813 for Amici 36 CONCLUSION The judgment of the Court of Appeals should be reversed. Respectfully submitted, AUGUST 2008. THEODORE G. MEEKER ROBERT H. THOMAS 707 Richards Street, MARK M. MURAKAMI* Suite 700 CHRISTI-ANNE H. KUDO CHOCK Honolulu, Hawaii 96813 DAMON KEY LEONG KUPCHAK HASTERT MICHAEL A. LILLY NING LILLY & JONES 1003 Bishop Street 707 Richards Street, 1600 Pauahi Tower Suite 700 Honolulu, Hawaii 96813 Honolulu, Hawaii 96813 (808) 531-8031 www.hawaiilawyer.com *Counsel of Record Counsel for Amici Curiae Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=119fa356-b757-46cc-bd85-8ce9e35ed5d7