The sound was picked up by underwater microphones: a blasting shriek every 25 seconds or so. About the same time, 20 killer whales that 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 stateﾴs 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 itﾴs 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.
The Navy and the National Marine Fisheries Service, however, 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.
LOW-FREQUENCY CONCERNS
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 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.
BALANCING NEEDS
The case raises an interesting question: How can the environmental impacts of defense systems under development be evaluated when they are usually classified ﾗ 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 Jasnyﾴs 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 Natural Resources Defense Council questions the effectiveness of such reviews.
“It just doesnﾴt do much because thereﾴs no effective oversight,” said Joel Reynolds, another spokesman.
COURT DECISION
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 worldﾴs 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 courtﾴs opinion underscores shortcomings in the MMPA (Marine Mammal Protection Act) that apply to any worldwide military readiness activity,” Moore told the Senate subcommittee.
The Associated Press
