Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0449.027 2000-2002 MINORITY WHIP-AT-LARGE WgSHWGTON, DC OFFICE: 2270 RAYBURN HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING DEMOCRATIC CAUCUS WASHINGTON, DC 205 7 5-1 7 02 EDUCATION TASK FORCE PHDNE:;2oz)225-asos CO-CHAIR FAX: (202) 225-4987 ~Yn;!/vmmw ho se govh ~ W E B: h tt p/www. h o u s e. g ovlm i n k COMMlT7EE5: EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE . !~y_ HgWgII OFFICE: SUBCOMMITTEES: I X625 5104 PRINCE KUHIO FEDERAL BUILDING 27 ST CENTURY COMPETITIVENESS HONOLULU, H196850-4977 RANKING MEMBER ~Cor~~re of t~j e ~~~Q~ ~d6t~~' PHONE: (808) 541-798& FAx:18G8)538-0233 WORKFORCE PROTECTION ~ypq~y BIG ISLAND: 935-3756 GOVERNMENT REFORM 2166! ~~irj1C1~ abJ~II KAUAll:245-7951 SUBCOMMITTEES: ENERGY POLICY, NATURAL RESOURCES AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS c p9q TECHNOLOGY AND PROCUREMENT POLICY I ~Jt~~ 1 ~O ny by C®NCaRESSW®NIAN PATSY MINK OF HAWAII in the House Subcoavi~ittee on Fisheries Conservation, W6ldlife, and Oceans . ~ for the Oversight Hearing on •~.Reauthorization of the IVlarine EVlammal Protection ~,ct 1324 Longworth House Office ~uiidin October 11, 2001 Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for the opportunity to testify today before the Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife, and Oceans as part of the oversight hearings on Reauthorization of the Marine Mammal Protection Act. 1 especially want to thank you for including a panel to look at the impact of deployment of the U.S. Navy's Surveillance Towed Array Sensor System Low Frequency Active Sonar (SURTASS LFA) on our marine environment. And I thank you for inviting Dr. Hal Whitehead of Dalhousie University to testify before the Subcommittee. am deeply concerned about the potential harm that deployment of this technology could have on marine mammals. In the Navy's Final EIS, it acknowledges that they really do not know how this technology will affect marine life. But we do know that there have been several instances, in the Bahamas and elsewhere, where use of sonar has resulted in whale deaths and strandings. During the testing in Hawaii in 1998, numerous witnesses reported- that whales fled the area when sonar testing began. Sound is an integral part of the daily life of whales, dolphins, and other marine life. Low-frequency broadcasts, such as the Navy's SURTASS LFA sonar, could endanger the delicate balance between the natural habitat and these species. Research suggests that the first indicator of physical damage to whales from low- frequency sounds is temporary hearing loss, which can occur from exposures to 185- ~ 200 d~. At higher levels, tissue damage in the lungs, heart, and nervous system can ° occur. The unusual feature of this sonar is not its volume, but the low frequency at which it operates (100-150 Hz). Sound energy at the high frequencies typical of most sonar is ~g ~ ~ PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER 6~ y ~ ~ absorbed by seawater, but low frequency sounds can travel and be detected hundreds of miles away. Not only does this sonar disrupt the behavior of animals at relatively low levels, the behavioral disruption can occur over a large proportion of a species' habitat. it could change behaviors related to breeding and raising of young. ®isruption of the behavior of endangered marine mammals and the assault on their habitat is a violation of the Marine Mammal Protection Act, which is designed to protect these species from man-made harm. The Navy claims that the effect of LFA sonar on marine animals is negligible. I frankly worry about having the agency that is committed to deploying a technology so intimately involved in deciding whether it is environmentally safe. I submit for the record a statement and detailed critique of the Navy's l~nvironmental Impact Statement prepared by one of my constituents, Lanny Sinkin of Hilo, Hawaii. Mr. Sinkin is an attorney whose legal work has been in the areas of the environment, national security, and civil rights. From his research, Mr. Sinkin has gained a broad knowledge of the history of the LFA program and of the evidence that SURTASS LFA is too dangerous to deploy. Mr. Sinkin's research supports the conclusion that had the Navy complied with environmental laws early in the LFA process, they mould have avoided expenditure of hundreds of millions of dollars on the development of LFA and pursued other technologies that have, in fact, proven capable of achieving the same purpose. I have asked the General Accounting Office to undertake a study of the Navy's SURTASS LFA sonar program.. I asked them to investigate the potential environmental costs of deploying this technology and to examine whether the close relationship between the Navy and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) in preparing the CIS represents a conflict of interest. Under the Act, the Secretary of Commerce, acting through the National Marine Fisheries Service, is responsible for the conservation and management of whales, dolphins, porpoises, seals, and sea lions. It is vital that the agency responsible for protecting these species maintain the highest possible standards in assessing possible harmful effects. Perhaps another agency, like the National Ocean Service, which has more of a conservation focus and manages our National Marine Sanctuaries, should be given responsibility for conservation and management of these species. Clearly, the Navy's first responsibility is to protect our nation from attack. And they have invested millions of dollars in developing and testing this technology. We all support a strong national defense, especially in light of the horrific events of a month ago today. But this does not mean that we can shirk our responsibilities as stewards of our environment. We must ask ourselves: Is deployment of LFA sonar truly essential to protect us from the security challenges facing our nation today? Wouldn't these funds be better spent on improved intelligence and on deployment of a environmentally safer passive sonar system? Must we endanger the well-being of our magnificent marine mammals--a heritage that belongs to a!I the world-~to effectively protect ourselves? I-lawaii is home to many endangered species. We are host to the largest Pacific population of the endangered humpback whale during the months of November through May. T'he Navy's application specifically excludes deployment of SURTASS ~a°A in the Penguin Sanks area of the Hawaiian Islands during this period, but they would still be able to deploy the system beyond the 1 ~-mile limit surrounding the islands. Many other endangered species are found in the waters surrounding Hawaii, including the Hawaiian Monk seal, several species of dolphins, and endangered and threatened sea turtles. I oppose deployment or further testing of SURTASS LFA Sonar in the open oceans surrounding Hawaii. I urge the Subcommittee to maintain and strengthen our commitment to protecting marine mammals from harassment and harm as you. study how to improve the Marine Mammal Protection Act.