Marine life, national security at issue as Navy trains with new
Mark Graffis
new sonar system
Wednesday, November 12, 2003
By Peggy Andersen, Associated Press
http://www.enn.com/news/2003-11-12/s_10295.asp
SEATTLE - The sound was picked up by underwater microphones: a blasting
shriek every 25 seconds or so.
About the same time, 20 killer whales who had been quietly feeding in Haro
Strait became agitated. As many as 100 porpoises leaped through the water,
apparently panicked.
"They were all going the same direction, and they all looked like they were
getting out of there," said Tom McMillen, owner of Salish Sea Charters, who
was in the waterway between Victoria, British Columbia, and Washington
state's San Juan Islands that day in May.
The Navy later confirmed that the guided-missile destroyer USS Shoup had
been training in the area using mid-range sonar, which emits signals at a
frequency range that includes human speech and industrial whistles.
Mid-range sonar has been used in some form since World War II, although it's
not known how whales responded to those early systems. People were less
aware of such problems, and the systems were used for deep-sea Cold War
surveillance, far from public view.
However, the Navy and the National Marine Fisheries Service have linked
mid-range sonar to the deaths of seven whales in the Bahamas in 2000. Tests
are still being conducted on 13 porpoises found dead around the time of the
Haro Strait incident.
Environmental activists worry that the effects of low-frequency sonar, which
came into use about 10 years ago, could be more widespread. They challenged
its use by suing successfully in federal court, prompting Navy agreement to
peacetime restrictions.
While court approval of those restrictions is pending, the Pentagon is
asking Congress for a broad range of exemptions from federal environmental
law, including the Marine Mammal Protection Act.
For an environmental impact statement, the Navy has conducted only limited
scientific studies on the effect of low-frequency sonar on marine life.
Navy Vice Adm. Charles W. Moore Jr. told a Senate subcommittee in July that
"there is no evidence of any negative impact on marine mammals in the single
ocean area" where tests of low-frequency sonar are being conducted.
Low-frequency sonar can send signals hundreds of miles in water before it
dissipates. Operating at a range that includes higher-frequency thunder and
some whale communication, it is felt, more than heard, by humans.
When the Navy tested the system off California in 1994, it could be heard on
underwater mikes in Alaska and Japan. The system could transform the
acoustic landscape into a jumble of signals in the range used by whales to
navigate, search for food, and find mates, environmental advocates say.
Environmentalists became aware of the system in 1994, when it was being
tested around the world and in U.S. coastal areas.
"It soon became clear the Navy had been conducting tests of the system for a
number of years without any kind of environmental review," said Michael
Jasny of the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC).
The case raises an interesting question: How can the environmental impacts
of defense systems under development be evaluated when they are usually
classified and thus hidden from the scrutiny of those whose priority is the
natural world?
Jasny contends that classifying defense information as secret or top secret
only aggravates a problem common to governmental agencies: Programs are
planned and resources committed before the environment is considered. If
review occurs, it happens when development is under way.
"That kind of back-end analysis tends to make for bad environmental
planning," he said. Add classification, "which essentially shields the Navy
from much of the public scrutiny that other agencies receive," and the
problem worsens.
A Pentagon spokesman refutes Jasny's contention that the environment gets
short shrift when new defense systems are in the planning and development
stage.
"Throughout all stages of their development, trials, and operational use,"
Navy systems are subject to the appropriate environmental review, said Lt.
Cmdr. Cappy Surette.
But the NRDC questions the effectiveness of such reviews.
"It just doesn't do much because there's no effective oversight," said Joel
Reynolds, another spokesman.
The National Marine Fisheries Service issued the Navy a five-year permit
last year for use of low-frequency sonar, allowing deployment over 75
percent of the world's oceans.
After environmentalists challenged the permit, U.S. Magistrate Judge
Elizabeth LaPorte in San Francisco ruled it illegal, a decision finalized in
August. She acknowledged the compelling public interest in ensuring the
military can detect hostile submarines but said peacetime Navy testing
should be limited to low-risk areas with few marine mammals and endangered
species.
The parties agreed to an area along the east coast of Asia, with seasonal
restrictions to protect whale migrations. The restrictions would not apply
in wartime.
"This agreement safeguards both marine life and national security," Reynolds
said. "It will prevent the needless injury, harassment, and death of
countless whales, porpoises, and fish and yet allow the Navy to do what is
necessary to defend our country."
LaPorte signed a permanent injunction Oct. 14.
The Navy had been braced for the worst since earlier this year when LaPorte
set similar, temporary limits.
"The court's opinion underscores shortcomings in the MMPA (Marine Mammal
Protection Act) that apply to any worldwide military readiness activity,"
Moore told the Senate subcommittee.