08-15-06: Science Sees Trouble In Sonar

The Jacksonville Daily News
Published August 15, 2006
By Patricia Smith, Daily News Staff

Sonar range effects on fish debated

BEAUFORT — Unknown effects are not the same as no effects.

That was a message speakers shot out to the public Monday as they talked at a North Carolina Coastal Federation-sponsored forum that looked at potential impact from a proposed Navy sonar range off the coast.

And it will be up to the public to ensure the Navy meets the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act, which requires an environmental impact statement to provide full disclosure, they said.

“NEPA is not going to stop the range from going in here or anywhere else,” said Michelle Nowlin, senior attorney with the Southern Environmental Law Center in Chapel Hill.

It will, however, force the Navy to mitigate for environmental damage should it go through with building a 500-square-mile sonar range about 47 miles off Camp Lejeune, Nowlin said.

A draft EIS released last year proposed mitigation only for marine mammals, said Michelle Duval, a senior scientist with Environmental Defense.

However, there is the potential for the sonar range and operations to harm fish, seabirds and sea turtles, as well as affect commercial and recreational fishing and tourism, Duval said.

For instance, although the draft EIS concluded the sonar range would operate at much higher frequencies than sea turtles are likely to hear, there has been so little research on sea turtle hearing that it is difficult to know what the potential effects might be, said Larry Crowder, professor of marine biology at the Duke University Marine Laboratory in Beaufort.

Jean Beasley, director of the Karen Beasley Sea Turtle Rescue and Rehabilitation Center in Topsail Beach, said she has seen noise affect turtle behavior at the hospital. Workers there had to discontinue use of a wet/dry vacuum because of it.

“We actually had a turtle that would have seizures when certain equipment was used,” Beasley said.

There also could be indirect effects on sea turtles if their fish food source is scared away during nesting season, Crowder said.

“Obviously these turtles are hanging out up here, not just to find a date, they’re looking for food,” Crowder said.

The draft EIS has concluded there is no evidence that exposure to intermittent use of sonar will cause any long-term, significant behavior disruptions in fish, though it may temporarily interfere with their orientation and communication.

But Joseph Luczkovich, an associate professor at East Carolina University’s Institute for Coastal and Marine Resources, said that any time a fish loses its equilibrium it becomes susceptible to predation. And there is the possibility of hearing loss, he said.

Additionally, it is possible that sonar could disrupt mating, since males in many fish species drum to attract females.

“Deep sea fishes are making sound; we shouldn’t dismiss them just because nobody’s studied them,” Luczkovich said.

But not everyone who heard the arguments was convinced they were sound enough to delay construction of the sonar range.

George Wisneskey, an Oriental resident who is retired from the U.S. Coast Guard and said he spent time training on Navy ships, said the questions could take years to answer but the threat of an attack by submarines is here now.

The Navy contends it needs the new sonar range because existing facilities are not representative of the shallower ocean environment in which ships often operate. It must use active sonar to train for anti-submarine warfare because so many nations — including Russia, China, Iran and North Korea — now use very quiet diesel subs that cannot be detected by simply listening.

“Every point you raised here should be answered as soon as you can, but the world’s going on,” Wisnesky said.

“If somebody drops a nuke on us, who cares about the environment?” he asked.

Contact Patricia Smith at psmith@freedomenc.com or (252) 808-2275.