Dr. Robert Gisiner of the United States Navy Office of Naval Research recently confirmed that the Navy intends to fund more research on the Low Frequency Active Sonar (LFA). CSI has been reporting on the LFA in almost every Whales Alive! since October 1996. A lawsuit filed in Hawaii in March argues that in 1998 the Navy succeeded in having suits challenging LFAS testing off Hawaii dismissed by representing to the courts that the Navy had completed the underlying research and did not intend to do any more testing. The Hawaii County Green Party filed a motion on Tuesday, 14 March to reopen the 1998 case. Government attorneys immediately made a motion to dismiss the case, avoiding any discussion of the allegation that the Navy has made and continues to make irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources to SURTASS LFA deployment in violation of the National Environmental Policy Act. All motions are being scheduled on June 13.

Unofficial plans for the LFA Scientific Research Program (SRP) Phase IV show a study of the reactions of sperm whales to LFA-type sounds, conducted in the Azores or Dominica about July or August. Principal investigators are Drs. Jonathan Gordon of Oxford and Peter Tyack of Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution. After the Bahamas strandings (see preceding article) it is likely that the beaked whales will not be targeted, although they were originally included.

The way the results of the earlier SRP's were used leave many interested parties divided about SRP Phase IV, to put it mildly. The Navy's spin on the earlier SRP's, claiming that the LFA is no worse than a bad heavy metal band, was such bad public relations that they blew away any credibility they had. The scientist's desire for clean and clear data suffered from technological and environmental problems, a lack of funding and foresight to do enough directed surveys and follow-ups, a biased slant to the data selectively used to support the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS), and some unsupported conclusions that will haunt reputations. The DEIS drew an enormous amount of expert criticism. The Navy contends that SRP IV does not need to be incorporated into a revised DEIS, while clearly admitting that it is needed to fill gaps.

Meanwhile, in part because of the inability of the previous SRP's to answer reasonable questions and concerns, the opposition to the LFA has grown enormously. The whale watch industry in the Azores is not pleased with what they have heard. Any further testing anywhere will be objected to on the principle that the Navy's scientists cannot be trusted to search objectively for the truth about acoustical impacts without harming marine life in the process. Tyack and Gordon are far from Navy scientists. There are no other experts in their field who care more about whales, but will their results be valued as objective science or interpreted to support a military mission? Will they answer enough questions? Can they do all this without harming marine life, and prove it?

In rebuttal to opposition to any more LFA tests there are those who ask: "How else will we know what we are doing? We all 'know' that human noises are harming marine life but without objective data there can be no regulation or management of excess noise." The answer is that even with all possible data on whales left deaf in the wake of experiment after experiment any regulatory or management solutions will be delayed by military and industrial politics, always underfunded and understaffed, and never adequately enforced. In other words the public doesn't trust the Navy to care enough, nor the National Marine Fisheries Service to protect enough. Perhaps both will, but they must prove it.