Oceans of noise - Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society

More documents

Recommendations

Info

implications and the discussion should be science-based. The Full Committee (IWC 2002b) concluded that: 1. Persistent changes in cetacean behaviour associated with the presence of whale-watching platforms may indicate a negative effect. 2. Further research is encouraged. This high level recognition of persistent behavioural changes as a key issue can help to provide direction to future attempts at noise-pollution mitigation and related legislation. The recommendation is clearly not limited in application exclusively to whale watch platforms (because if persistent behavioural change is of significance for this source of disturbance it will be of significance for any other). A common-sense reading of the recommendation would also infer that persistent behavioural change should also be viewed in addition to any direct evidence of physical harm. The recognition for a need for further research should be coupled, in conservation and management terms, with recognition that responses to noise pollution should be highly precautionary in nature. As discussed elsewhere in this report, a full understanding of the implications of noise pollution for cetaceans is still far away. However, many authorities read the threat as severe and increasing. The recognition made of disturbance in the legal instruments discussed here, show that a precautionary approach has been initiated in at least some regions. 67
7. Solutions – mitigation and management Sarah Dolman “To fully address the adverse effects of noise on the marine environment, it will also be necessary to look at the long-term impact on Appreciating this, acoustic pollution in the marine environment is clearly an issue whose solution remains to be found in the coming decades” (Dotinga and Elferink, 2000). The reality is that little is known about the full consequences of noise pollution for cetaceans, particularly in the longer term. The various mechanisms by which marine mammals can be adversely impacted indicate considerable subtlety in the range of interactions, and a great deal of additional effort is required before we can expect to predict and quantify the potential for damage to populations (Potter and Delory 2001). Physiological impacts, as a result of exposure to noise pollution, are almost impossible to study. We currently rely on stranded or bycaught animals and, subsequently, analysis of ears and internal organs, to assess such impacts. With this limited knowledge, preventing impacts of noise pollution completely is unlikely, short of bringing to an end those activities responsible for producing intense noise. This situation has led to the pursuit of mitigation procedures suitable to minimise observable and short term behavioural impacts, with the aim of reaching commonly acceptable standards. Mitigation measures are operational techniques designed to reduce the adverse impact on the species or stock and its habitat (Roberts and Hollingshead 2002). Specific measures imposed upon an activity to reduce these impacts will vary depending on the nature and scale of the noise produced, and on the nature of the activity itself. There are little baseline data on the effectiveness of any mitigation measures (Moscrop and Swift 1999). This is emphasised by the non-uniform way in which sound travels through water (see Chapter 2) and the differing requirements and susceptibilities of different cetacean species, individual members within those groups and the activities being undertaken. Further, cetacean biology and behaviours are difficult to study and interpret. Ljungblad et al. (1988) noted that determining when subtle behavioural changes occurred was the most difficult part of experimental observations. The significance of behavioural responses is also often open to interpretation and debate. Likewise there can be debate about what is actually observed and recorded. Details of observations may depend on many elements including observer skill, nature of observation platform, observation conditions (such as weather and sea state) and whether acoustic as well as visual methods are used. In addition, measurements themselves may not be sensitive enough to detect effects (Borggaard et al. 1999). It remains that those using loud sources are typically the most likely to be those in a position to fund forums of discussion about such impacts and investigate mitigation techniques, as well as fund research studies. However, this may restrict academic freedom and lead to a perception of bias (Whitehead and Weilgart 1995), and ensuring that independent, non-aligned studies are conducted is likely to be a step towards finding solutions. 68
Page 1 and 2:
Oceans of noise A WDCS Science repo
Page 3 and 4:
Contents Author biographies 4 Prefa
Page 5 and 6:
Author biographies Sarah Dolman Sar
Page 7 and 8:
Preface Over the course of the last
Page 9 and 10:
some thoughts on the mitigation and
Page 11 and 12:
1. Introduction Lindy Weilgart The
Page 13 and 14:
2. The physics of underwater sound
Page 15 and 16:
Box 1. Characteristics of sound / l
Page 17 and 18: Box 2. The effects of temperature,
Page 19 and 20: Intensity The intensity of a sound
Page 21 and 22: For water, pref = 1µPa rms, _ = 1x
Page 23 and 24: 2.2. Types of sound source Sounds c
Page 25 and 26: Cylindrical spreading loss Cylindri
Page 27 and 28: Rain - - - - - - - - - 100-500 - Bi
Page 29 and 30: Energy source (Air gun array) 28 Se
Page 31 and 32: driving and pipe-laying (installati
Page 33 and 34: produced as the bubble collapses an
Page 35 and 36: and broadband noise sources decayed
Page 37 and 38: cetaceans to high levels of acousti
Page 39 and 40: Navigation (transponders) 38 7-60 1
Page 41 and 42: SONAR TYPE FREQUENCY RANGE AV. SOUR
Page 43 and 44: them from approaching fish farm cag
Page 45 and 46: 3.11. Research 3.11.1. Controlled E
Page 47 and 48: frequencies). These sound channels
Page 49 and 50: 4.3.6. Danger avoidance Many verteb
Page 51 and 52: Table 4.1. Summary of sound frequen
Page 53 and 54: Table 4.2. Summary of sound frequen
Page 55 and 56: 5. Noise as a problem for cetaceans
Page 57 and 58: Increased vulnerability to disease
Page 59 and 60: levels exceed the ear’s tolerance
Page 61 and 62: 5.6 A New Concern: Is noise causing
Page 63 and 64: stranding incident suggests that th
Page 65 and 66: The only cetaceans listed in Annex
Page 67: 6.4 The US Marine Mammal Protection
Page 71 and 72: 2. More targeted studies into each
Page 73 and 74: Noise pollution also needs to be co
Page 75 and 76: ange. Therefore prey must be closer
Page 77 and 78: identification of images collected.
Page 79 and 80: Pierson et al. (1998) indicated a m
Page 81 and 82: Baur, D.C., M.J. Bean, M.L. Gosline
Page 83 and 84: Cummings, W.C., Thompson, P.O. and
Page 85 and 86: Gedamke, J., Costa, D., Dunstan, A.
Page 87 and 88: Lagadere, J.P. 1982. Effects of noi
Page 89 and 90: National Research Council. 2000. Ma
Page 91 and 92: Sayigh, L.S., Tyack, P.L., Wells, R
Page 93 and 94: Todd, S., Lien, J. and Verhulst, A.
Page 95 and 96: December 1989, Pacific Grove, Calif
Page 97 and 98: consider just the definition of pol
Page 99 and 100: This evidence therefore suggests th
Page 101 and 102: jurisdiction (“the UNEP Conclusio
Page 103 and 104: Designation of Particularly Sensiti
Page 105 and 106: inter alia, internal waters, the te
Page 107 and 108: ief framework provision on pollutio
Page 109 and 110: definitions are located in the anne
Page 111 and 112: Questions arise as to the identity
Page 113 and 114: opportunity for, or a hurdle to, ad
Page 115 and 116: 145 LOSC in respect of polymetallic
Page 117 and 118: Seabed Authority) has been establis
Page 119 and 120:
One possibility is the adoption by
Page 121 and 122:
Identification and Designation of P
Page 123 and 124:
Provisions on Ships’ Routeing to
Page 125 and 126:
4. Conclusion This paper has analys
Page 127 and 128:
Instruments adopted under Bonn Conv
Page 129 and 130:
Appendix B - Treaties underlying re
Page 131 and 132:
Appendix C - Selected provisions of
Page 133 and 134:
abate, combat pollution of the Medi
Page 135 and 136:
Annex 2. Guidelines for commercial
Page 137 and 138:
1. Any commercial cetacean-watching
Page 139 and 140:
Annex 3. Documented examples of cet
Page 141 and 142:
Location: Sarasota, Florida, USA Pr
Page 143 and 144:
Beluga whales, Delphinapterus leuca
Page 145 and 146:
These results may indicate habituat
Page 147 and 148:
Location: Northwest Atlantic Northe
Page 149 and 150:
The dolphins started to display eva
Page 151 and 152:
Boats that approached within 30m or
Page 153 and 154:
Location: Hawaii On rare occasions
Page 155 and 156:
Location: Beaufort Sea Aversion beh
Page 157 and 158:
Location: Mexico Gray whale vocal b
Page 159 and 160:
If boats changed their speed or cou
Page 161 and 162:
Corkeron, P.J. 1990. Aspects of the
Page 163 and 164:
Kibal’chich, A.A., Dzhamanov, G.A
Page 165 and 166:
ates of fin whales, Balaenoptera ph
Page 167 and 168:
Annex 4. A note of the Recommendati
Page 169:
4. the inclusion of anthropogenic n
show all

Oceans of noise - Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?