-
- "All's Whale
that Ends Whale!"
-
- The Navy has successfully launched a campaign of
reassurance.
This extensive PR campaign has repeatedly stated the US
Navy is committed
to working with experts in the field of marine
mammals. The Navy further
claims to have consulted with federal and
state agencies. This observer
believes that the Navy has done so
recently in an effort to comply with
laws, which they'd ignored
previously. Much of the interactive effort we
now see being
demonstrated came after being forced by the NRDC to produce
an
Environmental Impact Statement. The Navy was sited for their work with
LFAS (Low Frequency Active Sonar) in a marine sanctuary, where their
"researchers"
were experimenting on protected humpback whales
during the 1998 annual
migration. The US Navy also claims to be working
with environmental groups
having interest in marine environmental
protection. From what I've observed,
the Navy eventually responded to
accusations that they were in violation
of the Marine Mammal Protection
Act when in March of 1998 they "tested"
for signs of pain or
discomfort demonstrated by animals known for their
acoustic
sensitivity. The Navy is now doing, after the fact, what is required
by
law under NEPA (National Environmental Protection Act). How well they
are meeting that requirement or whether or not there is full compliance
is a contested point, as there seem to be several convenient omissions
in the documentation they've produced. The Environmental Impact Statement
was manufactured as an after-thought and represents a back-asswards
approach
to compliance.
-
- The Navy's campaign of reassurances states that it is
trying to ensure effective and environmentally safe use of this
"important
national defense tool." Why LFA Sonar is
considered important has
not been sufficiently justified. The Russian
fleet of submarines has been
dismantled through a US Taxpayer cost of
over 2.3 billion dollars. The
Navy counters this fact by saying that
Third World Countries are creating
quieter submarines. This invites
further speculation as to how our expenses
are justified by the
unlikely possibility that this one advancement requires
the acoustic
illumination of an entire oceanscape without consideration
of
alternative means.
-
- This particular sound-producing tool does not dissipate
with
the same readiness that a sound like an explosion would. Or, say if
you
had a rock band blasting its speakers underwater.... Even if the music
was initially louder than the LFAS system; the power of music would
dissipate
quickly. If you look at the overall area of influence, LFAS
may be the
most powerful man-made sound introduced to the oceans.
That's an opinion
open for interpretation. But even the loudest
"kaboom" is barely
discernable once you move away from its
source. However, from the literature
I've seen, the active clear tone
utilized in these low frequencies makes
this sonar efficiently
operational 100 miles from source to target. How
many hundreds of miles
a whale might be able to perceive the sound is completely
unknown.
-
- It's a beam. It's an acoustic beam. (We humans tend to
describe
even acoustic references in visual terms. However, to marine life
the
acoustics are the prime descriptive means of their world in that by
this means they can navigate and both seek and avoid prey.) LFAS acoustic
arrays consist of 18 underwater speakers. Observers in Hawaii described
the speakers as being the size of Volkswagens. The sound gets focused
through
a timing sequence. It can shift from near to far with
precision. The Navy
has described this as a defensive weapon but why it
could not be used as
an offensive weapon has not been
explained.
-
- NATO tested this technology in 1996. Twelve Cuvier Beaked
Whales died instantaneously. Other whale deaths also occurred but were
not so directly and obviously related. An article appeared in NATURE
magazine
in March of 1998 describing a researcher's findings. This
caused a NATO
review panel to convene and to assert (after many months
of hemming and
hawing) that insufficient information is known as to
just what the impact
of this technology might be on various species of
marine life. Anyway,
initial news about the NATURE magazine article
came out at the same time
that the US Navy was testing this technology
off the Coast of Hawaii.
-
- The atmosphere in Hawaii became litigious.
Organizations,
businesses and individuals filed suit against the Navy.
The House of Representatives
in Hawaii voted unanimously to have the
Navy stop their LFAS testing. (Hawaii
later offered a joint resolution,
which urged the Congress of the United
States to stop all further
testing of LFAS in Hawaiian waters.)
-
- Furthermore, a sudden absence
of would-be test subjects
created a problematic situation for the Navy.
Where had all the humpbacks
gone? (Didn't Bob Dylan write those
lyrics?)
-
- "Tests" were discontinued. The Navy never once
called
them warfare experiments. But it was littoral warfare equipment
they
were testing. These were termed "playback experiments."
This
was experimentation that was potentially damaging conducted on a protected
species. Oh, and by the way... the efforts to observe this so-called
"scientific
research" involved questionable techniques, which
are challenged by
those volunteers who made observations at the same
time. Breachings, separated
calves and dissipated migration patterns -
all these behaviors were seen
by observers other than the Navy.
"Anecdotal" reports by ships
captains were dismissed by the
Navy. Also, humans in the water became ill.
This upset people who
demanded to see an EIS. But there wasn't one. The
Navy just plain out
didn't have one. A year and a half later, after being
forced to do so,
the Navy has presented their EIS. It is a global impact
statement.
-
- Now the US Navy has asked for a response to this statement
within the next 30 days. (The report was released on July 30th.)
-
- In a recent letter I
received from the Navy, the situation
was described as follows:
-
- "As required by
Executive Order 12114, Overseas
Environmental Assessments were prepared
for the scientific research. In
addition, the National Marine Fisheries
Service issued a permit for the
scientific research. Previous legal
challenges in Hawaiian courts have
confirmed that the requirements of
applicable environmental law were met
in all cases. Extensive
protective and mitigation operational protocols
are proposed in the
DEIS for employment of SURTASS LFA to ensure that marine
mammals, as
well as humans, will not be exposed to harmful levels of
sound."
-
- The timing of the executive order is not referenced.
From what
I understand, the permit was issued without sufficient disclosure
about
the secret sonar. All that was known about the technology being deployed
was hinged on the concept that this activity was for marine mammal
"research."
I suspect that the permit application process did
not invite full disclosure
that there would be potential weapons
testing conducted on an endangered
species. Too, I would suppose that
the application for the permit failed
to disclose that its
environmental impact had not been studied or approved
and that this
same technology was suspected in multiple whale deaths two
years prior
in the Mediterranean. Elsewise, what would have been the likelihood
of
a permit being issued? To say you have a permit which does not provide
an accurate disclosure as to the nature of an activity means to me that
a necessary process was circumvented. Is it the intent of the permit
process
to allow for this dangerous activity being directed at a
protected species
in a marine sanctuary?
-
- In further response to the
Navy's assertions; whether
or not those "previous legal challenges
in Hawaiian courts" are
yesterday's news or if they would appear
to be ongoing remains unclear
to me. I have read information from an
attorney there, Mr. Lanny Sinkin,
who states, in a letter to Joe
Johnson:
-
- " As you know, the suits were dismissed as moot
because
the Navy stopped testing. The courts never reached the merits of
the
injunctive actions."
-
- Mr. Sinkin's letter is available on the Internet. His
"First Comments on the DEIS" calls for withdrawal stating
flat-out
that information was ignored in preparation of the
Environmental Impact
Statement.
-
- Easy reading on the Internet
would be found in a recent
CNN Series of Articles published just prior
to the release of the DEIS.
The Navy also has an Internet site devoted
to the SURTASS LFA Sonar DEIS.
On it they post the time and place of
events such as Open Houses and Hearings.
So far we've tried to respond
to such postings in as short a time frame
as a few days, certainly less
than a week. Some events have had more lead-time.
Apparently, the
Discovery Channel endorses this controversial warfare technology
as the
Navy continues to play their video.
-
- Please know that you are
welcome to learn more about
LFAS at my Internet Site. I have over 300
links there to sites which are
related to LFA Sonar.
-
- http://angelfire.com/ca/fishattorney/lfaslinks.html
-
- Thank you.
-
- Best regards,
-
- Cheryl A. Magill
|
