The settlement in question has nothing to do with training limitations or mitigation re: high intensity mid-frequency military sonar which can be fatal to whales and other marine life. The settlement addresses the Navy's refusal to complete EIS (Environmental Impact Statements) for sonar training exercises globally. The NRDC was joined in the action by the International Fund for Animal Welfare, Cetacean Society International, League for Coastal Protection, Ocean Futures Society and Jean-Michel Cousteau.

Here are the major points of the settlement which illustrate that the plaintiff's did in fact accomplish a significant move forward in pursuing this lengthy litigation. The following from Joel Reynolds, senior attorney and director of NRDC's marine mammal program:

1. It sets out a schedule for environmental compliance pursuant to which the Navy will prepare and issue environmental statements for sonar exercises and ranges around the world.

2. It requires public disclosure of previously classified information on sonar, including information that had been covered by protective order in NRDC v Winter. The Navy also agrees to provide plaintiffs a series of briefings on sonar compliance and mitigation-related issues.

3. The Navy agrees to fund $14.75 million dollars in new marine mammal research.

4. The settlement establishes a cooling off period to permit negotiation between plaintiffs and the Navy when future sonar disagreements arise.

5. The Navy agrees to pay $1.1 million dollars in attorney's fees for settling both the 2005 lawsuit and a 2006 lawsuit regarding sonar use around Hawaii.

Earlier reports had incorrectly stated that in point three above, that the agreement stipulated the marine research would be in areas of mutual interest to both the Navy and the plaintiffs. This was not accurate, the research is to be identified by the plaintiffs. Unfortunately,  in the previous media reports the significance of this agreement in terms of the Navy's environmental compliance was ignored or subject to spin. What this represents, even to those of us who continually push for more direct action, is another example of how the present legal system can work to better the environment if one has the resources, expertise, and tenacity of the NRDC behind them.

Now if we can get Joel and his staff to figure out a way to stop the Japanese whaling in the Southern Oceans I will really be happy.

Are you absolutely sure you want to delete this article? This process cannot be undone and is permanent.

Yes, Delete This Article

Are you absolutely sure you want to remove this article? This process cannot be undone and is permanent.

Yes, Remove This Article

The settlement in question has nothing to do with training limitations or mitigation re: high intensity mid-frequency military sonar which can be fatal to whales and other marine life. The settlement addresses the Navy's refusal to complete EIS (Environmental Impact Statements) for sonar training exercises globally. The NRDC was joined in the action by the International Fund for Animal Welfare, Cetacean Society International, League for Coastal Protection, Ocean Futures Society and Jean-Michel Cousteau.

Here are the major points of the settlement which illustrate that the plaintiff's did in fact accomplish a significant move forward in pursuing this lengthy litigation. The following from Joel Reynolds, senior attorney and director of NRDC's marine mammal program:

1. It sets out a schedule for environmental compliance pursuant to which the Navy will prepare and issue environmental statements for sonar exercises and ranges around the world.

2. It requires public disclosure of previously classified information on sonar, including information that had been covered by protective order in NRDC v Winter. The Navy also agrees to provide plaintiffs a series of briefings on sonar compliance and mitigation-related issues.

3. The Navy agrees to fund $14.75 million dollars in new marine mammal research.

4. The settlement establishes a cooling off period to permit negotiation between plaintiffs and the Navy when future sonar disagreements arise.

5. The Navy agrees to pay $1.1 million dollars in attorney's fees for settling both the 2005 lawsuit and a 2006 lawsuit regarding sonar use around Hawaii.

Earlier reports had incorrectly stated that in point three above, that the agreement stipulated the marine research would be in areas of mutual interest to both the Navy and the plaintiffs. This was not accurate, the research is to be identified by the plaintiffs. Unfortunately,  in the previous media reports the significance of this agreement in terms of the Navy's environmental compliance was ignored or subject to spin. What this represents, even to those of us who continually push for more direct action, is another example of how the present legal system can work to better the environment if one has the resources, expertise, and tenacity of the NRDC behind them.

Now if we can get Joel and his staff to figure out a way to stop the Japanese whaling in the Southern Oceans I will really be happy.

Are you absolutely sure you want to delete this article? This process cannot be undone and is permanent.

Yes, Delete This Article

Are you absolutely sure you want to remove this article? This process cannot be undone and is permanent.

Yes, Remove This Article