Bioacoustics The International Journal of Animal Sound and its Recording, 2008, Vol. 17, pp. i–xiv 0952-4622/08 $10
© 2008 AB Academic Publishers
CONTENTS Anthony Hawkins, Arthur N. Popper and Magnus Wahlberg Introduction: International Conference on the Effects of Noise on Aquatic Life
1
PART 1: General and Introductory Anthony Hawkins Effects of Noise on Aquatic Life: the Key Issues
7
Donald Henderson Creation of Noise Standards for Man: 50 Years of Research
10
W. John Richardson Effects of Noise on Aquatic Life: Much Known, Much Unknown
13
PART 2: Ambient Noise Olaf Boebel, Holger Klinck, Lars Kindermann and Saad El Din El Naggar PALAOA: Broadband Recordings of the Antarctic Coastal Soundscape
19
Douglas H. Cato Ambient Noise and Its Significance to Aquatic Life
21
Antonio Codarin, Maurizio Spoto and Marta Picciulin One-Year Characterization of Sea Ambient Noise in a Coastal Marine Protected Area: a Management Tool for Inshore Marine Protected Areas
24
Craig A. Radford, Andrew G. Jeffs, Chris T. Tindle and John C. Montgomery Ambient Noise in Shallow Temperate Waters around Northeastern New Zealand
26
ix
Frank Thomsen, Karin Luedemann, Werner Piper, Adrian Judd and Rudolf Kafemann Potential Effects of Offshore Wind Farm Noise on Fish Tint Tun Sound Signals Used in Castnet Fishing with the Help of Irrawaddy Dolphins Raquel O. Vasconcelos, M. Clara P. Amorim and Friedrich Ladich Ship Noise Affects Acoustic Communication in the Lusitanian Toadfish Alex De Robertis, Vidar Hjellvik, Neal J. Williamson and Christopher D. Wilson Intervessel Comparison of Walleye Pollock Acoustic Backscatter Recorded by a Noise-Reduced and a Conventional Research Vessel
221 224
226
228
PART 9: Risk Assessment, Regulation and Mitigation Michel André, Antoni Mànuel, Juan-Jose Danobeitia, Jean-François Rolin and Roland Person Biological and Anthropogenic Sound Sources: Effects and Control in the European Seas Observatory Network (ESONET) Elke Burkhardt, Olaf Boebel, Horst Bornemann and Christoph Ruholl Risk Assessment of Scientific Sonars
233
235
Bruce Cameron, Camille Mageau and Ron Smyth Canada’s Approach to Mitigation of Seismic Sound in the Marine Environment
237
Charles R. Greene, Jr. and Susanna B. Blackwell Mitigation
240
Scott A. Carr and Christine Erbe Assessing the Impact of Underwater Noise on Marine Fauna: a Software Tool
241
Stephen Cole Environmental Compliance by the Royal Australian Navy
243
235
from electronics experts on the choice and calibration of transducers for monitoring natural, biological, and anthropogenic sound sources, from physical acousticians to process signal/information provided by the ESONET NoE, from marine biologists to identify species sound-related behaviour and seasonality and large-scale data, from psychoacousticians to assess species-related hearing sensitivities, and from statisticians for the initial design, data analysis, and presentation. Acknowledgments
This work is supported by EC FP6 in the specific research and technological development programme Global Change and Ecosystems (Contract 036851 Project ESONET).
RISK ASSESSMENT OF SCIENTIFIC SONARS ELKE BURKHARDT, OLAF BOEBEL, HORST BORNEMANN, AND CHRISTOPH RUHOLL Alfred Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine Research, P.O. Box 120161, 27515 Bremerhaven, Germany.
[email protected] Introduction
Scientific sonars are an important asset for conducting oceanographic, geophysical, and biological research and are hence installed on many research vessels. Multibeam deep-sea echosounders map the sea-floor topography at high resolution, whereas sediment echosounders serve to explore the upper sediment layer stratification. Scientific fish finders map the fish and krill distribution over large areas. To achieve a high spatial resolution and full ocean depth coverage, scientific sonars emit high-intensity, mid- to high-frequency pings of high downward directivity and short duration. This study analyses the respective sound fields and discusses the potential risks of these echosounders’ usage with special emphasis on true Antarctic cetaceans. Methods
The study uses the scientific sonars’ source levels, pulse lengths, and beam patterns to determine the respective acoustic fields. Based on this information, injury criteria (http://www.mmc.gov/sound/plenary2/ pdf/gentryetal.pdf), the latest information on beaked whale strandings
236
(Cox et al. 2006), and a proposed definition of biologically significant effects (http://www.mmc.gov/sound/plenary4/pdf/wartzok.pdf), this study discusses three possible impact scenarios: risk of injury due to immediate acoustic effects, risk of injury due to behavioural response, and risk of biologically significant effects due to impacts on the habitat. Results
The study quantifies that for a steaming ship, the risk of injury due to (multiple) ensonifications with pings from scientific sonars is estimated to be less then 2% of the risk of a collision between ship and whale. For both, steaming ships and ships on station, the risk of injury caused by behavioural responses appears unlikely due to the scientific sonars’ characteristics and the physiological and behavioural characteristics of true Antarctic species. Risk of biologically significant effects due to impacts on the habitat appear unlikely due to the relatively short exposure periods. Discussion
Because of the significant lack of knowledge on marine mammal audition and behaviour, assumptions unavoidably had to be made. Following the precautionary principle, these were chosen conservatively
Figure 1. Silhouette of R/V Polarstern and water volume ensonified by multibeam echosounder within which injury criteria are exceeded if the whale is exposed to 5 or more pings. Axis labels in metres.
237
throughout. Even under these stringent requirements, the risks resulting from the usage of scientific sonars appear significantly smaller than the risk of collision. Only for ships on station does the risk of acoustic injury become a matter of concern. To mitigate possible negative effects, the Alfred Wegener Institute minimizes acoustic emissions by reducing the source levels of sonars onboard the R/V Polarstern to the extent scientifically feasible and shuts off its sonars when whales are observed within a critical radius during times when the ship is on station. Acknowledgments
This study benefited from many discussions, with and support by our AWI colleagues M. Breitzke, S. El Naggar, L. Kindermann, H. Klinck, J. Plötz, and H.-W. Schenke as well as Atlas Electronics and B. Werner (WTD 71). References Cox, T. M., Ragen, T. J., Read, A. J., Vos, E., Baird, R. W., Balcomb, K., Barlow, J., Caldwell, J., Cranford, T., Crum, L., D’Amico, A., D’Spain, G. L., Fernandez, A., Finneran, J., Gentry, R. L., Gerth, W., Gulland, F., Hildebrand, J., Houser, D., Hullar, T., Jepson, P. D., Ketten, D. R., MacLeod, C. D., Miller, P., Moore, S., Mountain, D. C., Palka, D., Ponganis, P., Rommel, S., Rowles, T., Taylor, B., Tyack, P., Wartzok, D., Gisiner, R., Mead, J., and Benner, L. (2006). Understanding the impacts of anthropogenic sound on beaked whales. J. Cetacean Res. Manage. 7, 177-187.
CANADA’S APPROACH TO MITIGATION OF SEISMIC SOUND IN THE MARINE ENVIRONMENT BRUCE CAMERON1, CAMILLE MAGEAU2, AND RON SMYTH3 1Department
of Energy, 5151 George Street, Suite 400, Halifax, Nova Scotia B3J 3P7.
[email protected] 2Oceans Policy and Planning, Planification et Politiques des Oceans, 200 Kent St., Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0E6, Canada.
[email protected] 3Offshore Oil and Gas Branch, Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources, 250-1675 Douglas St., Victoria, British Columbia V8W 9N2, Canada.
[email protected]
Seismic surveys in Canada are conducted in the Atlantic, Pacific, and Arctic Oceans in waters with very diverse biological, oceanographic, and geomorphic characteristics. They are subject to review and
