Navy News, opinions, editorials, news from Iraq, photos, reports - Navy Times

New sonar ruling backs global restrictions

Another federal judge has cited environmental concerns in limiting sonar operations that the Navy says are vital for protecting its ships from enemy submarines.

Elizabeth D. Laporte, a San Francisco-based magistrate, on Wednesday said restrictions that have barred the Navy from testing a new, more powerful type of sonar system in waters off the coasts of California and Hawaii should be extended to more distant waters such as those near the Great Barrier Reef, the Galapagos Islands and Pelages Sanctuary.

The system being tested, the Surveillance Towed Array Sensor System-Low Frequency Active, sends a powerful sound wave from a transmitter suspended beneath a ship. Sensors towed behind the ship detect reflections of those waves and use that information to pinpoint the location of enemy submarines.

SURTASS holds great promise because it could allow the Navy to detect enemy submarines at up to 100 nautical miles, a distance that would give them “enough time to react”, according to a statement released by Navy officials.

But attorneys from the case’s lead plaintiff, the National Resources Defense Council, said the sonar can detect ships at great distance for a good reason: It puts as much acoustic energy into the water as do 500 supertankers running at full speed.

Sound waves from a low-frequency system used by civilian researchers in the South Indian Ocean were “perfectly audible” to sensors located off the coast of Oregon — a distance of more than 5,000 miles — according to Michael Jasny, an NRDC attorney.

Jasny said low-frequency sonar waves can harm marine wildlife at distances of up to 300 miles, but Navy spokeswoman Lt. Cmdr. Cindy Moore said the Navy found no evidence of harm to marine wildlife during 15 tests of the sonar system that lasted more than 300 hours.

Still, Moore said the Navy was pleased with parts of Laporte’s ruling, including her admission that the American public had a “compelling interest” in a Navy capable of protecting itself.

“We believe that no injunction was justified in the case,” Moore said. “But we are pleased that the court recognized the need for the Navy to be afforded greater flexibility under the terms of this injunction than under the previous injunction. Specifically, this allows us to continue training in the Western Pacific, an area of great strategic interest to us, and it allows us flexibility for use in coastal areas.

“We are also pleased that the court recognized that the public has a compelling interest in protecting national security by ensuring military preparedness and a strong defensive capability as well as protecting those serving in the military from attacks by hostile submarines.”

Laporte said expanding the injunction was critical because the prior agreement included mostly areas off the coast of the U.S. But other waters also have large numbers of marine mammals, he said.

“The court said the areas the Navy would exclude were too few and were largely clustered around the United States,” Jansy said. “Habitat for marine mammals is not just found off the U.S.”

Under Laporte’s injunction, federal government attorneys must now meet with NRDC representatives to come up with a new set of restrictions that are agreeable to both sides, so the agreement in the six-year old case can be updated.

NRDC attorneys originally sued the Navy in 2002 after the National Marine Fisheries Service, a federal agency tasked with enforcing the Marine Mammal Protection Act, created a set of restrictions that NRDC felt were not strict enough.

MMPA requires activities that will “harass, hunt, capture, collect, or kill” significant numbers of marine mammals receive a permit from the NMFS.

In 2003, Laporte ordered the Navy and NRDC to come up with a five-year agreement. With that agreement set to expire, NRDC asked Laporte for a new injunction restricting sonar usage in waters far removed from the U.S.

Laporte’s ruling came the same week a federal judge based in Los Angeles ruled that President Bush cannot exempt the Navy from environmental laws placing strict limits on sonar training. That case, decided by U.S. District Judge Florence Marie Cooper, involved use of mid-frequency active sonar in training exercises by carrier and amphibious assault strike groups off the Southern California coast.

Unlike Cooper’s ruling, the most recent ruling will not affect Navy operational training but instead will affect two contracted Military Sealift Command ships that are testing the system in the Pacific Ocean.

Navy officials say there are no current plans to expand the sonar program to other Military Sealift Command ships or to Navy warships.

Jasny said NRDC does not object to the use of low-frequency sonar, and said the group does not believe it is placing more importance on the lives of whales and dolphins than on those of sailors.

“These are two absolutely critical aims that must both be achieved,” he said. “We’re not trying to stop the Navy from training with the system. I expect this [agreement] to unfold within weeks.”