Print
E-mail
Comment
Rate
Restrictions on Navy sonar use tightened
by Rachel Gehrlein - The Garden Island
In a ruling that could impact the future of naval training exercises in Hawai‘i, federal district Chief Judge David Ezra said Friday that the U.S. Navy could not continue carrying out its undersea warfare exercises in Hawaiian waters without following additional mitigation measures to protect marine mammals.
The Navy is also required to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement to examine the impacts of high-intensity, mid-frequency active sonar.
Friday’s ruling stems from a 2007 lawsuit filed by Earthjustice on behalf of five groups, including the Ocean Mammal Institute and the Surfrider Foundation, to protect endangered whales in Hawai‘i from Navy sonar.
Paul Achitoff, an attorney for Earthjustice, said he was pleased with the judge’s ruling, but would have liked to see stronger mitigation measures implemented on the Navy.
“The Navy has used (stronger) measures in the past and could use them now,” Achitoff said. “But the Navy will resist any restrictions they don’t want to do.”
Ezra said the Navy is not allowed to conduct exercises within 12 nautical miles of the shoreline, as certain species near the shore are particularly sensitive to MFA sonar.
The Navy was also told, among other requirements, to monitor for the presence of marine mammals for one hour before using MFA sonar, employ three dedicated lookouts at all times MFA sonar is used and immediately stop sonar transmission when a marine mammal is within 500 feet of the vessel. In addition, sonar must be gradually powered on so any marine mammals in the area can escape.
The anti-submarine exercises the Navy is conducting began in January and will continue over a two-year period, with the next exercise taking place this month.
Although Ezra was aware of the Navy’s need to train, he said the Navy failed to investigate alternatives to conducting the exercises.
Capt. Scott Gureck, spokesman for the commander of the U.S. Pacific Fleet, said the Navy is studying the impact the court’s decision will have on the Navy’s anti-submarine capabilities.
“The court’s opinion acknowledges the importance of maintaining a Navy ready to fight and attempts to balance protection of marine mammals with maintaining the ability to train,” Gureck said in a prepared statement. “The court did not adopt the training restrictions of the Plaintiffs, but has put in place restrictions that could seriously impact our ability to train effectively.”
In a similar case in California, Federal District Court Judge Florence-Marie Cooper temporarily lifted part of her own injunction in January that required the Navy to not use MFA sonar during training exercises in Southern California waters.
Cooper was forced to lift elements of the injunction by Bush administration waivers that aimed to exempt the Navy from the Coastal Zone Management Act and the National Environmental Policy Act, laws on which the original injunction was based.
On Friday night, a federal appeals court rejected the Bush administration waivers and upheld every element of the lower court order.
“The court is saying that neither the President nor the U.S. Navy is above the law,” Joel Reynolds, director of the Marine Mammal Protection Project at the Natural Resources Defense Council, said. “The court found that the Navy must be environmentally responsible when training with high intensity sonar, and that doing so won’t interfere with military readiness. Simple, common sense measures can reduce the risk of harm to whales and other marine life from this dangerous technology.”
According to Achitoff in an earlier interview, the lawsuit did not address the biennial Rim of the Pacific -- RIMPAC -- war games off the coast of the Hawaiian Islands. But the rulings in California and Hawai‘i may have an impact on how the Navy deals with RIMPAC, Achitoff said.
For the upcoming RIMPAC exercises this summer, the U.S. Department of Defense has exempted the Navy and the use of sonar from adhering to the Marine Mammal Protection Act.
The two-year exemption was issued in January 2007.
• Rachel Gehrlein, staff writer, can be reached at 245-3681 (ext. 225) or rgehrlein@kauaipubco.com.
The Navy is also required to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement to examine the impacts of high-intensity, mid-frequency active sonar.
Friday’s ruling stems from a 2007 lawsuit filed by Earthjustice on behalf of five groups, including the Ocean Mammal Institute and the Surfrider Foundation, to protect endangered whales in Hawai‘i from Navy sonar.
Paul Achitoff, an attorney for Earthjustice, said he was pleased with the judge’s ruling, but would have liked to see stronger mitigation measures implemented on the Navy.
“The Navy has used (stronger) measures in the past and could use them now,” Achitoff said. “But the Navy will resist any restrictions they don’t want to do.”
Ezra said the Navy is not allowed to conduct exercises within 12 nautical miles of the shoreline, as certain species near the shore are particularly sensitive to MFA sonar.
The Navy was also told, among other requirements, to monitor for the presence of marine mammals for one hour before using MFA sonar, employ three dedicated lookouts at all times MFA sonar is used and immediately stop sonar transmission when a marine mammal is within 500 feet of the vessel. In addition, sonar must be gradually powered on so any marine mammals in the area can escape.
The anti-submarine exercises the Navy is conducting began in January and will continue over a two-year period, with the next exercise taking place this month.
Although Ezra was aware of the Navy’s need to train, he said the Navy failed to investigate alternatives to conducting the exercises.
Capt. Scott Gureck, spokesman for the commander of the U.S. Pacific Fleet, said the Navy is studying the impact the court’s decision will have on the Navy’s anti-submarine capabilities.
“The court’s opinion acknowledges the importance of maintaining a Navy ready to fight and attempts to balance protection of marine mammals with maintaining the ability to train,” Gureck said in a prepared statement. “The court did not adopt the training restrictions of the Plaintiffs, but has put in place restrictions that could seriously impact our ability to train effectively.”
In a similar case in California, Federal District Court Judge Florence-Marie Cooper temporarily lifted part of her own injunction in January that required the Navy to not use MFA sonar during training exercises in Southern California waters.
Cooper was forced to lift elements of the injunction by Bush administration waivers that aimed to exempt the Navy from the Coastal Zone Management Act and the National Environmental Policy Act, laws on which the original injunction was based.
On Friday night, a federal appeals court rejected the Bush administration waivers and upheld every element of the lower court order.
“The court is saying that neither the President nor the U.S. Navy is above the law,” Joel Reynolds, director of the Marine Mammal Protection Project at the Natural Resources Defense Council, said. “The court found that the Navy must be environmentally responsible when training with high intensity sonar, and that doing so won’t interfere with military readiness. Simple, common sense measures can reduce the risk of harm to whales and other marine life from this dangerous technology.”
According to Achitoff in an earlier interview, the lawsuit did not address the biennial Rim of the Pacific -- RIMPAC -- war games off the coast of the Hawaiian Islands. But the rulings in California and Hawai‘i may have an impact on how the Navy deals with RIMPAC, Achitoff said.
For the upcoming RIMPAC exercises this summer, the U.S. Department of Defense has exempted the Navy and the use of sonar from adhering to the Marine Mammal Protection Act.
The two-year exemption was issued in January 2007.
• Rachel Gehrlein, staff writer, can be reached at 245-3681 (ext. 225) or rgehrlein@kauaipubco.com.
 |
 |
|
| Fighting muscular dystrophy on Kaua‘i | Marks still missing nearly 3 years later |
Related headlines
- Navy visit to Kalaheo School offers students another career choice
- Pirates on the Internet?
- Residents speak out about driving on Polihale Beach
Article Rating
Reader Comments
The following are comments from the readers. In no way do they represent the view of kauaiworld.com.
You must register with a valid email to post comments. Only your Member ID will be posted with the comments.
Registered users sign in here: |
Become a Registered User |
RSS
Ronald Pray wrote on Oct 17, 2009 5:14 AM:
I am a former U.S. Coast Guard Search and rescue team member at Barbers Point. I never read the scathing November 28 article about a rescue I did in 1977 while on leave.
In November of 1977 I had visited Kauai on leave and hiked the Na Pali coast to go camping. On the trail I saw some hikers in front of me ignore the cries of a man saying he was poisoned by mushrooms he had eaten. I know that there are many poisonous varieties from the orange mushrooms to the copelandia varieties which are deadly. I stopped and he was vomitting and telling me that he was dying. I laid my sleeping bag down onto the ground and made him comfortable then lit my coleman stove and cooked him soup to eat. He ate the soup and continued vomitting. He said that he needed immediate attention. I ecouraged him to vommit everything out of his stomache.
I asked him if he would be OK while I ran back to Haena for help and he said please do that.
I ran from his location sometimes skipping the zig-zags in the trails steep inclines jumping straight down to the trail below. I had injured my Achilles tendon by twisting my ankle which put me on light duty upon returning to Barbers Point.
I then knocked on the first door I found and asked them to contact the U.S. Coast Guard that there was a man stranded on the trail who needed immediate attention.
The Fire Department went in on the trail and found the man walking out on his own. This is why the writer in 1977 claimed that I had misread the situation and that is why he called my rescue "The Rescue that wasn't". I believe that had that man died, his death would have been on my ticket and given that rescuing folks was my business I had a responsibility to perform.
We may never know what part my inducing vomiting played in the recovery of this man. I'd like to believe that it played a major role in his quick recovery.
I am proud that I stood for the highest traditions of the U.S. Coast Guard on that fateful day on the Na Pali Coast.To this day, I have a lump in my Achilles Tendon which hurts on certain days to remind me of that day I ran into that man.
Malama Pono,
Former 3rd Class Petty Officer Ronald Pray "