on 1/17/2004 8:34 PM, Will Affleck-Asch at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> ----- forwarded message -----
> Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 05:35:16 -0700
> From: Teresa Binstock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Judge considers suit to block study on whale detection - sonar
>
> Judge considers suit to block study on whale detection
> Friday, January 16, 2004
> THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
> http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/156873_whalesonar16.html
>
> SAN FRANCISCO -- A federal judge yesterday considered
> whether to permit a team of marine biologists to continue testing
> an experimental sonar system to detect whales that are otherwise
> difficult to spot in the deep sea.
>
> U.S. District Judge Samuel Conti, who blocked testing of the
> sonar one year ago, had declined Monday to immediately halt the
> research, which some environmentalists claim can harm marine
> mammals.
>
> Yesterday, the judge heard arguments from the New Hampshire
> firm that designed the system, the government agency that
> approved the testing and environmental groups that sued to block
> the research. After a daylong hearing, he said he would announce
> his decision today.
>
> Scientific Solutions Inc. of Nashua, N.H., resumed testing of the
> sonar last week off the coast of Central California after receiving
> a permit from the National Marine Fisheries Service.
>
> One day after the tests began, a coalition of environmental
> groups -- including Australians for Animals, Sea Sanctuary and
> others -- filed a lawsuit seeking a judicial ban. They claimed the
> high-frequency sonar could distress and disorient whales, drive
> them from their habitat and separate calves from their mothers.
>
> Scientific Solutions says the system has not harmed the whales
> since testing began and will ultimately help protect them from
> ship collisions and underwater explosions.
>
> Last year, environmentalists successfully blocked research on the
> system after they filed a lawsuit, contending that an
> environmental assessment should have been conducted before
> research began.
>
> After obtaining such an assessment, Scientific Solutions received
> a new permit to test its sonar in late December and began testing
> in Pacific waters near San Luis Obispo on Jan. 6. They plan to
> conduct 20 days of testing each year for five years during the
> annual winter migration of gray whales.
>
> Yesterday, the environmental groups argued that research should
> be stopped again because the company and the government failed
> to consider the sonar's impact on certain types of whales. They
> said a species known as the harbor porpoise, which is particularly
> sensitive to noise, could be scared away from their feeding
> grounds, threatening their survival.
>
> "They took the most sensitive species and buried it in
> paperwork," said Lanny Sinkin, an attorney
> representing the environmental groups. "The agency
> prepared environmental documentation designed to allow the
> experiment to proceed, despite the environmental impact."
>
> Attorneys representing the company and the government said the
> environmental assessment was conducted properly, and that
> there's been no evidence of harm done to marine mammals since
> testing started last week.
>
> "The system is safe, and it was adequately reviewed before the
> permit was issued," said James Arnold, an attorney representing
> Scientific Solutions. "The goal is to develop a badly needed
> technology to protect marine mammals, particularly whales, from
> injury or even death."
>
> The case is Australians for Animals v. National Marine Fisheries
> Service, C040086.
>
> *
> The material in this post is distributed without profit to those
> who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included
> information for research and educational purposes.
> For more information go to:
> http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.html
> http://oregon.uoregon.edu/~csundt/documents.htm
> If you wish to use copyrighted material from this email for
> purposes that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission
> from the copyright owner.
