Noise Pollution DA
Uniqueness
Ocean noise pollution threatens many marine species slight increases in ocean noise
have been detected but it’s not too late to reverse the trend.
Southall et. al. 2009 (Brandon, director of NOAA’s Ocean Acoustics Program, President and Senior Scientist for Southall Environmental
Associates, Ph.D. University of California Santa Cruz “Addressing the Effects of Human - Generated Sound on Marine Life: An Integrated Research Plan for U.S.
Federal Agencies .” Interagency Task Force on Anthropogenic Sound and the Marine Environment of
the Joint Subcommittee on Ocean Science and Technology. http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/acoustics/jsost2009.pdf)
Sound is integral in the lives of most marine vertebrates, as many species have converged on sound as
a particularly effective mode of communication and orientation. Fish, marine mammals, sea turtles, and even
some invertebrates have evolved functional and, in some cases, quite elaborate sound production
and reception mechanisms (see Tavolga, 1964; Richardson et al. , 1995; Popper and Edds-Watson, 1997; Wartzok and
Ketten, 1999; Popper et al. , 2004). For many marine animals, acoustic communication is central to social interactions such as mating and
tending to offspring. Some species, such as dolphins and porpoises, actively use sound to feed and sense their environment ( e.g. , Au, 1993).
Others listen for predators and prey sounds, or to navigate in a vast, visually- opaque sea ( e.g. Tyack, 1998, Schusterman et al. , 2000). The
ocean is far from a quiet place. Sounds from waves, animals, precipitation, earthquakes, wind, and other natural sources contribute to the
background (or "ambient") acoustic environment, although humans have increasingly added sound into the sea throughout the Industrial Age.
Many anthropogenic sound sources produce sound as a by-product of their operation ( e.g. , commercial shipping). Others generate signals for
the express purpose of locating objects or characterizing environmental features ( e.g. , seismic surveys for oil exploration).
Anthropogenic sound sources, either purposeful or incidental, can be intense, but
those sources are typically rare or intermittent ( e.g. , explosions, active sonars, pile-driving). Others may be
relatively quieter but more continuous ( e.g. , boats, dredging, drilling, and off- shore energy production and/or distribution terminals).
Anthropogenic sound sources can affect marine ambient noise and, in some specific
areas, appear to be resulting in increases over time of ambient noise at low
frequencies ( e.g. , Andrew et al. , 2002; McDonald et al. , 2006). However, such measurements have been
relatively rare, and actual changes are expected to vary as a function of time,
location, and other factors. The environmental implications of this human
contribution to low frequency ambient ocean background noise are as yet poorly
understood.
Links
Generic
Sonar is used in nearly all marine activities and is a significant contributor to ocean
noise.
McCarthy 2004 (Elena, researcher at Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute, Ph.D. in Marine Affairs University of Rhode Island, “International
Regulation of Underwater Sound: Establishing Rules and Standards to Address Ocean Noise Pollution.” Klewer Academic Publishers, pg.31)
Most maritime activities create sound at sea – either intentionally, or as a by-product of other activities.
Sonar is one of the most widespread intentional uses of sound in the ocean. It is
used during almost every human activity that takes place at sea. As such, it is addressed in this
section, prior to discussion of individual maritime activities that generate noise. Sonar has been in practical use since the turn of the century.
Today, thousands of sonars
are used daily throughout the world. They are found on fishing boats, merchant
ships, research vessels, oil rigs, and commercial fish farms. Sonar pingers are used by airlines to
locate lost flight recorders; side-scan sonars are used for locating shipwrecks; multibeam sonars are used to create three-dimensional maps of
the ocean floor; acoustic releases are used to locate methane pockets and determine sediment types in the seabed. Fathometers are used by
almost every large ship in the world to track the ocean floor; and fish-finding sonars are used by both commercial and sport fishermen. Two
general types of sonars exist: passive and active. A passive sonar only listens to incoming sounds and does not generate sound in the ocean.
Active sonars, however, emit pulses (usually called a “ping”) and then listen for a return echo. Active sonars are used to measure water depth
(fathometers); to locate schools of fish (fish-finders); to measure currents (acoustic Doppler current profilers); to search for wrecks (side-scan
sonars); to map the ocean floor (multi-beam sonars) and to detect enemy vessels (military sonars). They can be suspended in the water
column, fixed to the ocean floor, towed from vessels or helicopters, or hull mounted on submarines, ships, and torpedoes. Sonar frequency
ranges vary from a few hundred hertz for long-range search sonars to many hundred kilohertz for mapping and imaging sonars. The optimum
frequency range is highly dependent on the tasks. Generally, military sonars exist in all frequency ranges, whereas commercial sonars rely on
higher frequencies. Sonars
are used by almost all maritime activities such as shipping, oil
and gas exploration and fishing to navigate, create images, or carry out remote
sensing.
Shipping
Shipping is the single greatest contributor to ocean noise in some of the most
biologically productive areas.
McCarthy 2004 (Elena, researcher at Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute, Ph.D. in Marine Affairs University of Rhode Island, “International
Regulation of Underwater Sound: Establishing Rules and Standards to Address Ocean Noise Pollution.” Klewer Academic Publishers, pg.32-33)
Vessels of all types contribute to background noise in the sea in a number of ways; through
their engines and bearings, the vibration of the hull, and propeller cavitation. Propeller cavitation, the
creation of collapsing air bubbles adjacent to the ship propellers at high speeds, is usually the dominant noise generated by most ships.
Generally, for medium to large vessels, the noise from propeller cavitation peaks at 50-150 Hz. But all
the sources of noise
combine to create a characteristic ship noise that is a combination of narrow-band sounds and broadband sounds over a wide range of frequencies. Propulsion machinery is another significant source of noise. Rotating shafts,
gear teeth, and reciprocating parts all create noise that then travels into the ocean through the ship’s hull. Other sources of ship-related noise
include noise from pumps, compressors, and generators, low noise from the ships hull, and bubbles breaking the ships wake. These noise
levels vary widely as they depend on the size of the ship, the type of the propeller, the propulsion system, the ship’s speed, and its mode of
vessel traffic is a major contributor to noise
in the ocean, affecting very large geographic areas. Generally, all vessels at sea (e.g. ferries, cruise ships,
military vessels, commercial transport ships) produce noise in a similar fashion. Large ships, fully-loaded vessels, and ships that are
operation. Especially at low frequencies (between 5 and 500 Hz),
towing or pushing a load generate the most noise. The large number of ships throughout the world, their distribution around the globe, and their
mobility make shipping the
greatest source of continuous anthropogenic noise in the ocean.
the tendency of ships to travel in well-defined shipping lanes and call on ports
tends to consolidate shipping noise – often in shallow water areas that are the most
biologically productive. Moreover, the cumulative sonic acoustic energy generated by ships is significant and, most importantly,
Furthermore,
omnipresent.
Construction
Marine construction, including dredging, causes massive amounts of noise for weeks
on end, threatening marine life.
McCarthy 2004 (Elena, researcher at Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute, Ph.D. in Marine Affairs University of Rhode Island, “International
Regulation of Underwater Sound: Establishing Rules and Standards to Address Ocean Noise Pollution.” Klewer Academic Publishers, pg.37-38)
Noise from marine dredging, tunnel boring, and other construction activities can
exceed ambient noise for considerable distances. Dredges are used to deepen shipping lanes and harbors,
to build submerged platforms, or to create new land masses. They are a significant source of continuous
noise in coastal regions. Unlike transient noise sources in the ocean, such as ships, dredge noise is often
concentrated in the same area for weeks at a time. The noise from dredging is greatest at low frequencies
and is found to vary with dredge type and operating status. Tunnel boring requires large machines with rotating cutters to drill undersea tunnels
for railways, roads, and sewage outfalls. The sound from these machines was measured by Malme and Krumhansl and found to be strongest
below 10 Hz. Underwater
demolition is often required in support of coastal construction
and relies on explosions that typically use 10-1000 kg of explosives per blast. Smaller explosives are used for a wide range of
other applications. Other land-based construction activities such as pile-driving and pier construction can contribute to ocean noise although
their impact depends on how well coupled the land and ocean media are. Unfortunately, this coupling is poorly understood. However, the
proximity of construction activities to shore concentrates noise in shallow water, often in
biologically productive areas, where it may pose the greatest threat to marine life.
Offshore Drilling
Offshore drilling produces sounds that can be heard from hundreds of kilometers
away in biologically diverse areas.
McCarthy 2004 (Elena, researcher at Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute, Ph.D. in Marine Affairs University of Rhode Island, “International
Regulation of Underwater Sound: Establishing Rules and Standards to Address Ocean Noise Pollution.” Klewer Academic Publishers, pg.41-43)
Offshore drilling and mineral extraction involve several activities in two general categories that produce
underwater noise: exploration and extraction. Exploration, or geophysical surveying, is used to locate mineral deposits and
geological features associated with petroleum deposits. These geophysical surveys use the reflections from high-energy, lowfrequency sound transmission to characterize the ocean’s geological features. These reflected sound pulses can
be detected hundreds of kilometers from their original source. Several technologies are used to
create these sounds. Some of the most prevalent are airguns, sleeve exploders, and gas guns. Airguns are the most commonly used sound
generators for geophysical surveys. They are typically deployed from a ship and can be used individually or in arrays of as many as 70 airguns.
They operate by venting high-pressure air into the ocean, which produces an air-filled cavity that expands and contracts and expands again,
creating sound with each oscillation. A series of hydrophones, or underwater microphones, is towed behind the airguns to measure the reflected
signals from beneath the sea floor. Typically, the guns are fired once every several seconds and create source levels as high as 259dB. In the
Gulf of Mexico alone, over 900 seismic surveys are conducted each year. The use of towed arrays of airguns and other devices to generate
high-energy seismic waves has been reported to affect the movements and behavior of animals as far away as 10 km. Figure 7 illustrates how
air guns are used in seismic surveying. Marine seismic vessels tow arrays of air guns and streamers carrying hydrophones a few meters below
the surface of the water. The tail buoy helps the crew locate the end of the streamers. The air guns are activated periodically, (typically every 25
meters; about every ten seconds). The resulting sound wave travels into the ocean floor, is reflected back by the underlying rock layers to a
hydrophone, and then relayed to a recording vessel. Arrays of sleeve exploders and gas guns are also used for conducting geophysical
surveys; they explode a mixture of propane and oxygen to produce a sound pulse. Like airguns, they produce high-energy pulses of similar
levels. For example, a 12-sleeve array can create sound levels of approximately 150 dB eight kilometers from the source and 116 dB at more
than 25 km from the source. Extraction of oil and other minerals, another activity that generates noise, involves drilling from fixed platforms or
rigs, ships, and submersibles. Noise levels near several drilling and production sites throughout the world have been measured. It was found
that the
drilling itself can create a significant amount of noise, as can many of the
support activities required to maintain drilling platforms (e.g. the movement of supply ships and aircraft
and the installation of conductor pipe). It is acknowledged that the many activities involved in drilling for and recovering
oil produce a composite underwater noise field that is well above the ambient sound levels in
most areas. Furthermore, most oil and gas activities take place on the continental shelf, an
area of high biological productivity.
McCarthy 2004 (Elena, researcher at Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute, Ph.D. in Marine Affairs University of Rhode Island, “International
Regulation of Underwater Sound: Establishing Rules and Standards to Address Ocean Noise Pollution.” Klewer Academic Publishers, pg.50-51)
The fishing industry, like most other marine industries, relies heavily on the use of sound in the
sea. Fishing vessels create unique noise characteristics or “acoustic signatures” that have been
measured. Furthermore, fishing vessels use sonar for depthfinding, navigation, and fish
finding. Commercial fish finders and depth sounders are generally focused downward in the water column and operate in the kilohertz
frequency range. One concern over these devices is that they generally operate in areas of high
productivity in nearshore waters, where marine mammals are also likely to be found. Two
unique applications of sound by the fishing and aquaculture industries are the highpowered Acoustic Harassment Device (AHD) and the lower-powered Acoustic Deterrent Device
(ADD). Because many species of marine mammals interact with aquaculture operations and commercial fisheries, these industries have
developed such devices to create noise that prevents marine mammal interactions with fishing
gear or aquaculture pens (figure 13). However, the use of these acoustic devices to prevent such interactions is highly
controversial: numerous uncertainties exist about their safety and effectiveness. A claim by whale researchers in Canada alleged that killer
whales have abandoned waters between Canada’s west coast and northern Vancouver Island to avoid the
sound from AHDs, used by salmon farmers to keep seals from their fish pens. Habitat exclusion is not the
only concern; some devices are sufficiently high enough in source level that they
could damage the hearing of animals at close range. Because they are of a relatively high frequency
(kilohertz), their effect is geographically limited to the area immediately surrounding the net or pen where they can be located. The use of these
devices is present unregulated and they can be employed without prior determination of their impact on marine mammals.
Ocean Research/Maps
Oceanographic research uses sonar and even loud explosions to study the seafloor.
McCarthy 2004 (Elena, researcher at Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute, Ph.D. in Marine Affairs University of Rhode Island, “International
Regulation of Underwater Sound: Establishing Rules and Standards to Address Ocean Noise Pollution.” Klewer Academic Publishers, pg.55-56)
Sound is an important tool for many oceanographers who use it to measure the properties of water masses, to create
underwater images, and to record bathymetry. Most of this oceanographic research
utilizes low power sonar systems at high frequencies (e.g., sidescan sonar, multibeam mapping systems, acoustic
current profilers.) However, some ocean bottom surveys employ airguns and other similar tools used by the seismic survey industry.
Oceanographers also use explosives to study seafloor characteristics. These small explosives are known as
SUS charges (signal underwater sound) and create a significant amount of energy at low frequencies. Their use recently became the subject of
a lawsuit against the US National Science Foundation and oceanographers at Columbia University who were using them to map seamounts off
the coast of Mexico. But perhaps the most controversial acoustical research relies on powerful, low frequency sonars to detect changes in the
ocean temperature, a technology known as acoustic thermometry. This technique examines the properties (density, salinity, temperature, and
sound speed) of ocean layers using sound. Recent acoustic thermometry studies have been designed to study long-term trends in ocean
temperature as a function of sound speed. The first of these experiments was known as the Heard Island Feasibility Test and was conducted in
early 1991. In this study, sound transmitted from the Indian Ocean was detected as far away as Bermuda and California – almost halfway
around the world. The Acoustic Thermometry of Ocean Climate (ATOC) project was a follow-up to the Heard Island Feasibility Test and was
designed to monitor global warming trends in the Pacific Ocean.
Offshore Wind
Offshore wind farms create noises during construction and operation that can affect
marine life.
Thomsen et. al. 2006 (Frank Dr., Senior Marine Mammal and Underwater Sound Scientist at Danish Hydraulic Institute (DHI) in Denmark,
“Effects of offshore wind farm noise on marine mammals and fish” Cowrie
http://iwc.int/private/downloads/7rt8qdt9k3wocsgokcwwcgw48/Thomsen_et_al._2006%20Effects%20OWF%20noise%20on%20marine%20mammals%20and%20f
ish.pdf.)
This assessment provided further evidence that wind
farm related noise has the potential to affect the
physiology and behaviour of harbour porpoises and harbour seals at considerable distances. During
ramming, the zone of audibility will most certainly extend well beyond 80 km (the upper limit of our transmission loss formula), perhaps
hundreds of kilometres from the source. Behavioural responses are possible over many kilometres, perhaps up to ranges of 20 km. Masking
might occur in harbour seals at least up to 80 km and hearing loss is a concern – on the basis of a regulatory approach - at 1.8 km in porpoises
and 400 m in seals. Further, severe injuries in the immediate vicinity of ramming activities can not be ruled out. During operation, smaller
turbines of 1.5 MW should have only minor influences, as the detection radii in both species are rather small. However, since operational noise
of larger turbines can not be assessed reliably yet, these results are rather preliminary. It
is very likely that larger
turbines are noisier resulting in much larger zones of noise influence. Cod and herring will be
able to perceive piling noise at large distances, perhaps up to 80 km from the sound source. Dab and salmon might detect pile-driving pulses
also at considerable distances from the source. However, since both species are predominantly sensitive for particle motion and not pressure,
the detection radius can not be defined yet. Behavioural
effects, like avoidance and flight reactions,
alarm response, and changes of shoaling behaviour are possible due to piling noise.
The spatial extension of the zone of responsiveness can not be calculated, as the available threshold levels vary greatly. The zone of potential
masking might in some cases coincides with the zone of audibility. Also
physical effects, like internal or external
injuries or deafness (TTS/PTS) up to cases of mortality, may happen in the close vicinity
to pile-driving. Operational noise of wind turbines will be detectable up to a distance of app. 4 km for cod and herring, and probably
up to 1 km for dab and salmon. Within this zone, also masking of intraspecific communication is possible. Behavioural and/or
physiological (stress) effects are possible due to operational wind farm noise. However,
they should be restricted to very close- ranges.
Impacts
Resistance is Key
Ocean noise is the death of a thousand cuts, even small increases in the ocean noise
risk catastrophe.
Jasny 2005 (Michael, Senior Policy Analyst at National Resources Defense Council “Sounding the Depths II: The Rising Toll of Sonar, Shipping and
Industrial Ocean Noise on Marine Life” NRDC Nov.)
That some types of sound are killing some species of marine mammals is no longer
a matter of serious scientific debate. A range of experts, from the International Whaling Commission’s Scientific
Committee to the U.S. Navy’s own commissioned scientists, have agreed that the evidence linking mass strandings to mid-frequency sonar is
convincing and overwhelming. Suspect strandings have occurred off the Bahamas, the Canary Islands, the U.S. Virgin Islands, North Carolina,
Alaska, Hawaii, Greece, Italy, Japan, and other spots around the world. Some stranded animals have been found to suffer bleeding around the
brain, emboli in the lungs, and lesions in the liver and kidneys, symptoms resembling a severe case of decompression sickness, or “the bends.”
That these injuries occurred in the water, before the animals stranded, has raised concerns that whales are dying in substantially larger
numbers than are turning up onshore. Other sources of noise, such as the airguns used in seismic surveys, may have similar effects. But to
many scientists, it
is the cumulative impact of subtle behavioral changes that pose the
greatest potential threat from noise, particularly in depleted populations: what has
been called a “death of a thousand cuts.” We know that sound can chase some
animals from their habitat, force some to compromise their feeding, cause some to
fall silent, and send some into what seems like panic. Preliminary attempts at modeling the “energetics” of
marine mammals (the amount of energy an animal has to spend to compensate for an intrusion) suggest that even small
alterations in behavior could have significant consequences for reproduction or
survival if repeated over time. Other impacts include temporary and permanent hearing loss, which can compromise
an animal’s ability to function in the wild; chronic stress, which has been associated in land mammals with suppression of the immune system,
which could be
disastrous for species, like the endangered fin whale, that are believed to communicate over long
distances. Although marine mammals have received most of the attention , there are increasing signs that noise,
like other forms of pollution, is capable of affecting the entire web of ocean life. Pink
cardiovascular disease, and other health problems; and the masking of biologically important sounds,
snapper exposed to airgun pulses have been shown to suffer virtually permanent hearing loss; and the catch rates of haddock and cod have
plummeted in the vicinity of an airgun survey across an area larger than the state of Rhode Island. Indeed, fishermen in various parts of the
world have complained of declines in catch after intense acoustic activities, like oil and gas surveys and sonar exercises, moved onto their
grounds, suggesting that noise is seriously altering the behavior of commercial species. Other
potentially vulnerable species include brown shrimp, snow crabs, and the giant squid, which is known to have mass stranded in the vicinity of
airgun surveys.
Ocean noise is an insidious form of pollution that can cause behavioral changes in
marine animals and even mass deaths.
Landfried 2013 (Jessalee, Environmental Attorney at Beveridge & Diamond, P.C, J.D. Duke University School of Law, MEM Duke Nicholas
School of the Environment “QUIETING A NOISY OCEAN: POLICY GUIDANCE FOR EFFECTIVE REGULATION OF UNDERWATER OCEAN SOUND” Duke
Nicholas School of the Environment)
Underwater ocean noise threatens some of the planet’s most vulnerable species.
Sound can directly cause physical injuries, and it can cause harmful behavioral changes that ultimately weaken the animal. In the most
serious cases, underwater noise can cause mass marine animal fatalities. But what is
“ocean noise” exactly? In reality, it is an extremely broad term encompassing a huge variety of noise producing events, whose sounds are
received by scores of different creatures in a variety of underwater settings. Some noises are naturally present in the marine environment, but
some are produced by humans. Anthropogenic sound in the oceans can come from sonar, weapons testing, vessel traffic, seismic tests, wind
turbines, and drilling, among other sources. Noise can be chronic, like the engine noise from a ship, or sporadic, like an occasional boom from
seismic testing. Some sources are stationary, while some are mobile. Before examining policies that address underwater sound, it is helpful to
understand sound itself, and how the array of anthropogenic noise produced in the oceans can impact marine eco systems. A. Sound’s Basic
Properties In broad terms, ocean sound is a wave of pressure variations that travel through sea water. 12 The intensity of ocean sound is
measured on the decibel (dB) scale, which is a logarithmic scale for sound intensity (like the Richter scale of earthquake intensity). 13 A unitary
increase along the scale therefore indicates a multiple increase in intensity. A 10 dB increase produces a sound ten times louder, while a 20 dB
increase will be one hundred times greater. Decibel levels cannot be directly compared between air and underwater environments because the
differing pressure levels affect sound’s transmission differently. 14 A sound, if produced with the same intensity in both air and water, would be
Sound also travels more than four times farther in water than
in air. 16 From the perspective of animal protection, the volume of a sound at its source matters less than the volume that reaches an
approximately 63 dB quieter i n the air. 15
animal. For example, a Navy study found that a humpback whale three kilometers away from a 230 dB airgun would actually be exposed to a
160 dB sound. 17 The water’s characteristics (temperature, depth, salinity, and more) will also influence the extent of sound’s propagation. 18
In addition to the decibel scale’s measurement of intensity, sound is also measured in terms of frequency. Sound frequency is expressed in
Hertz (Hz), which measure a sound wave’s cycles per second. High - pitched sounds contain high frequencies, and low - pitched sounds
contain low frequencies. A very low - frequency sound, typically below 5 Hz, is known as infrasonic sound. In contrast, ultrasonic sound is at a
very high frequency, usually above 20,000 Hz. Humans cannot hear infrasonic or ultrasonic sounds, although both can be naturally found in the
ocean environment. For example, harbor porpoise clicks have been measured at 150, 000 Hz. 19 A single sound can contain different
frequencies; ‘narrowband’ sounds are composed of a small range of frequencies, while ‘broadband’ sounds are composed of a broad range. B.
Potential Effects of Noise on Marine Life Different types of marine animals are sensitive to different frequencies of sound. Just as dogs can hear
sounds that humans cannot, different marine animals are capable of hearing – and being harmed by – different sound levels. In 2007, Southall
et al completed the most comprehensive study of marine mammal hearing ranges to date. The Southall group estimated the hearing ranges for
a variety of marine animals, and grouped them into “functional hearing groups.” 20 These groups indicated the range of frequencies that
different species were able to hear, and indicated sound levels that would harm each hearing group. 21 These estimated hearing ranges are
considered the contemporary scientific gold standard, and are commonly referred to as the “Southall criteria.” 22 Functional hearing ranges for
marine species vary widely. For example, baleen whales’ functional hearing range is between 7 and 22 kHz, while harbor porpoises’ range is
from 200 Hz to 180 kHz. 23 Adding another layer of complexity, sound’s effects on marine life are heavily context dependant. Much like the
difference between hearing laughter in a library versus a crowded restaurant, the effect of noise on marine animals depends on the character of
their environment at a given time.
The most common physical injury caused by underwater
sound is threshold shift, which is noise - induced loss in hearing sensitivity. 24 Threshold
shift can be temporary (TTS) or permanent (PTS). If temporary, it can last from minutes to days, and can cause varying levels of sensitivity
reduction. PTS can also cause different levels of hearing loss. 25 In truth, no one knows exactly the point at which an animal’s hearing might be
permanently damaged. Only a handful of studies have provided empirical information on the levels at which threshold shift occurs in marine
Marine animals may also experience “acoustic masking, ” where
anthropogenic noise drowns out the auditory signals that animals rely on for an
array of tasks, such as communication, navigation, reproduction, and hunting. 27
When humans introduce loud noises of similar frequencies to those used by the
animals, the anthropogenic noise can harm the animals by masking the sounds they
need to hear to survive. As for vocal communications, many marine animals can adjust their calls to compensate for
animals. 26
background noise introduced by humans. For example, some whale calls become louder in the presence of consistent sound. 28 But producing
louder calls may divert the animals’ precious energy from other important tasks. 29 Persistent increased sound has also been shown to reduce
communications between north Atlantic right whales, one of the world’s most critically endangered species. 30
instances, underwater noise can kill marine animals.
In the most dire
Ocean sonar testing has been linked to gruesome
mass strandings of whales and dolphins across the globe. In 1996, a mass stranding of Cuvier’s beaked whales on the west coast of Greece
was linked with a nearby NATO vessel’s use of intense mid - and low - frequency active sonar. 31 In 2000, following a whale stranding in the
Bahamas, National Marine Fisheries Service ( NMFS ) examinations showed hemorrhaging in deceased animals’ ears consistent with
acoustic damage. A NMFS and Navy joint task force concluded that the deaths were due to “acoustic or impulse trauma” that was “most likely”
caused by mid - frequency sonar. 32 Later strandings in the Haro Strait, Gulf of Alaska, and Hawaii, were potentially linked to acoustic trauma,
although no official findings or scientific studies have established a causal link.
Fisheries turns
Ocean noise directly threatens global fisheries, costing billions of dollars and millions
of jobs.
Ocean Noise Coalition 2008 ( An international coalition of over 150 NGOs across the globe “Drowning in Sound: A call for international
action to protect living marine resources?” http://assets.oceancare.org/downloads/13_drowninginsound_041013_1.pdf.)
As the world human population increases, the dependence on fisheries to contribute to country economies and food security is also increasing.
Fish consumption currently accounts for 16.5 percent of the global intake of animal protein and 6.4 percent of all protein consumed according to
the FAO. Anthropogenic
ocean noise pollution presents a direct threat to the security of
fishing industry. Arguably, this threat has not been given the attention it deserves thus far, despite
available information. Three decades of controlled scientific studies indicate that intense ocean noise damages fish
and, consequently, fisheries. Research so far indicates adverse reactions to intense noise in 21 species of fish.
Harmful effects include: • Extensive damage to fish ears and hearing • Reduced catch rates of 40-80
percent and fewer fish near seismic surveys reported for cod, haddock, rockfish, herring, sand eel and blue whiting • Disruption
in schooling structure, swimming behavior, and, possibly, migration in bluefin tuna • Secretion of stress hormones in several
this food source, and to the
fish species in the presence of shipping noise • Alteration of gene expression in the brain of codfish following air gun exposure • A significant
increase in heart rate in embryonic clownfish with exposure to noise There are harmful effects to commercial invertebrates, too. These effects
include: • A reduction in growth and reproduction in brown shrimp exposed to noise • Bruised organs, abnormal ovaries, smaller larvae,
delayed development and stress in snow crabs when exposed to seismic noise Increased food consumption and histochemical changes in
Since anthropogenic ocean noise can travel hundreds of
miles from its source, the potential impact to fisheries from unregulated noise activities is
immense. This could have significant effect on national economies, commercial
fisheries and local fishing communities. An estimated 43.5 million people rely on
capture fisheries and aquaculture job markets for full or part time employment.
Eighty-six percent of this estimated total are citizens of Asia. An additional
estimated 4 million people are occasionally engaged in the fisheries and
aquaculture sector. 500 million people rely (indirectly and directly) on the fishery
and aquaculture sector for employment. Developing countries produce $24.6 billion
annually from their fisheries exports. The increasing reliance on fisheries for employment and economic growth,
lobster after exposure to seismic noise
especially for developing countries, will continue to grow. As this dependency develops, so will the number of overexploited fish stocks.
In addition to death, many sub-lethal affects are still observed in fish, leading to
reduced catch rates of up to 80%.
Weilgart 2005 (Linda, Ph.D. Research associate & assistant professor in the Dept. of Biology, Dalhousie University Council “Underwater Noise:
Death Knell of our Oceans?” International Ocean Noise Coalition Sept.)
Recently, noise has been shown to be deadly for at least some species of whales . The
evidence linking intense military sonars with fatal whale strandings is undeniable (e.g. Frantzis 1998; Jepson et al. 2003). The International
Whaling Commission’s Scientific Committee noted “there is now compelling evidence implicating military sonar as a direct impact on beaked
whales in particular”(IWC 2004). Even a U.S. Navy-commissioned report stated that “the evidence of sonar causation [of whale beachings] is,
in our opinion, completely convincing.” (Levine et al. 2004) Often whales show bleeding around their brain, in their ears, in other structures to do
with hearing, and in other organs of their body (e.g. NOAA and U.S. Navy 2001; Fernandez et al. 2005). Mass strandings of certain types of
whale increased dramatically after 1961 when more powerful naval sonars began to be used (Friedman 1989). Seismic air guns have been
thought to cause whale strandings as well (Taylor et al. 2004; Engel et al. 2004). Even giant squid have apparently mass stranded because of
air guns, suffering massive internal injuries and badly damaged ears (MacKenzie 2004 ).
Many sub-lethal effects have
also been documented. These may be as serious as lethal effects, because they
may affect more animals yet be harder to detect. Seismic air guns have been shown to severely damage fish
ears, most likely permanently, at distances of from 500 m to several kilometers from seismic surveys (McCauley et al. 2003). Reduced
catch rates of 50-80% and fewer fish near seismic surveys have been reported in
species such as cod, haddock, rockfish, herring, and blue whiting (Engås et al. 1996; Dalen and
Knutsen 1987; Løkkeborg 1991; Slotte et al. 2004; Skalski et al. 1992). These effects can last up to 5 days after exposure and at distances of
more than 30 km from a seismic survey. Increases in stress hormones (Santulli et al. 1999) and strong behavioral reactions have been
observed in fish due to noise. Day-to-night movements of fish were changed near air guns (Wardle et al. 2001). Fish also showed reactions like
dropping to deeper depths, becoming motionless, becoming more active, or forming a compact school (Dalen and Knutsen 1987; McCauley et
al. 2000; Pearson et al. 1992; Santulli et al. 1999; Skalski et al. 1992; Slotte et al. 2004). Snow crabs under seismic noise conditions showed
bruised organs, abnormal ovaries along with bleeding, stress, delayed embryo development, and smaller larvae (DFO 2004).
Impact Magnifier
Ocean noise threatens entire populations of marine life, it magnifies the affects of
other anthropogenic impacts.
Weilgart 2005 (Linda, Ph.D. Research associate & assistant professor in the Dept. of Biology, Dalhousie University Council “Underwater Noise:
Death Knell of our Oceans?” International Ocean Noise Coalition Sept.)
Certainly deaths of individuals are serious, particularly in endangered species. But
impacts on populations, even non-lethal ones, can severely affect species survival.
The International Whaling Commission’s Scientific Committee noted “… repeated and persistent acoustic insults
[over] a large area…should be considered enough to cause population level impacts.” (IWC
2004). Population impacts are hard to detect in animals as difficult to study as marine mammals, but noise has been thought to contribute to
Anything that interferes with a
marine animal’s ability to detect biologically important sounds could have a
negative effect on its survival and the health of its populations. Reef fish larvae, for instance, use
several whale species’ decline or lack of recovery (NMFS 2002; Weller et al. 2002).
sound to orient toward or select suitable habitat (Simpson et al. 2005). Certain whale species, such as beaked whales, could be highly
threatened by noise not only because of their apparent sensitivity, but also because they seem to occur in small isolated populations that stay
in the same area all year (Dalebout et al., in press), making them more vulnerable to local extinctions. Indeed, the best population data we
have from the Bahamas 2000 stranding indicates that almost the entire local population either moved away permanently or were killed by a
local beaked whale
populations have disappeared without our knowing it, since these are the most shy
and difficult to study of all whales. The impacts of noise can work cumulatively or
synergistically with other environmental threats. For instance, human impacts on
marine ecosystems such as over-fishing, eutrophication, climate change, and
ultraviolet radiation interact to produce a magnified effect (Worm et al. 2002; Lotze and Worm 2002).
single military sonar event (Balcomb and Claridge 2001). It is possible, even probable, that other
Noise could interact with marine mammal by-catch or ship collisions, preventing animals from sensing fishing gear or oncoming ships. It is
impossible to know what the effects of noise are on the entire marine ecosystem, but from what we know now, the consequences could be farranging and severe. Noise
has killed and deafened marine animals, caused them to move
away from important breeding and feeding areas, and produced declines in
fisheries’ catch rates. Ocean noise is getting dramatically louder every decade. It is time to start listening.
Sound is key to the survival of marine life, it is the most important sense used by
ocean life to hunt, avoid danger, find mates, and more.
Weilgart 2005 (Linda, Ph.D. Research associate & assistant professor in the Dept. of Biology, Dalhousie University Council “Underwater Noise:
Death Knell of our Oceans?” International Ocean Noise Coalition Sept.)
Most marine animals, particularly marine mammals and fish, are dependent on
sound, sometimes for all aspects of their life including reproduction, feeding,
predator avoidance, and navigation (e.g. Popper 2003). Marine life has used sound as its
principal sense because sound travels so efficiently underwater, travelling 5x the
speed of sound in air. Vision is only useful for tens of meters underwater, yet sound
can be heard for hundreds, even thousands of kilometers. Unfortunately, the same
goes for noise, or unwanted sound. For instance, the U.S. Navy’s Low Frequency Active (LFA) Sonar used to detect
submarines could affect marine life over an area of about 3.9 million km2 (Johnson 2003), an area covering much of the Pacific Ocean. (LFA
Noise
from just a single seismic survey (loud air guns used by the oil and gas industry to find oil up to 10 km underneath the
ocean floor or by geophysicist to study the ocean floor) can flood through a region of almost 300,000 km2,
raising noise levels 100 x higher, continuously for days at a time (IWC 2004). Seismic noise from
sonar can be heard over an even larger area, but this figure is based on noise levels shown to actually affect whales and fish).
eastern Canada measured 3,000 km away in the middle of the Atlantic was the loudest part of the background noise heard underwater
(Nieukirk et al. 2004). Ocean background noise levels have doubled every decade for the last six decades in some areas, mainly due to
Such noise can prevent fish, whales, and dolphins from hearing their
prey or predators, from avoiding dangers, from navigating or orienting to important
habitat, from finding mates that are often widely spread out, or from staying in
acoustic contact with their young or their group members. Whale calls seem to be becoming
shipping (IWC 2004).
increasingly drowned out by our noise (Nieukirk et al. 2004).
Extinction
Pollutions such as ocean noise, when left unchecked, will inevitably result in
extinction.
Myers & Ottensmeyer 2005 (Ransom, Ph.D. Biology Dalhousie University, Killam Chair in Ocean Studies Dalhousie University, &
Andrea, Masters Student Biology Dalhousie University “Extinction risk in Marine Species.“ Marine Conservation Biology: The Science of Maintaining the Sea's
Biodiversity, Island Press)
Pollutants come in many forms, and the oceans are often the ultimate repository of these wastes. Bioacumulation of toxic
metals and human-made organics in the food web threatens, in particular, the survival of top predators. The most polluted marine mammals,
mammal-eating killer whales (orcinus orca) of the North American northwest coast and belugas (delphinapterus leucas) of the St. Lawrence
estuary, have sufficient toxic loads that their immune systems are impaired and their life spans may be shortened (Deguise et. al. 1995; Ross et
Anthropogenic noise pollution in the marine realm due to shipping, petroleum exploration and
have the potential to disturb, injure, or kill
many marine creatures, most notably deep-diving marine mammals (Jepson et al. 2003; NOAA 2001). The impact
noise has in the open and deep oceans is likely far underestimated since it is only in
instances when carcasses wash up on land that humans are even aware that the
deaths have occurred. In the tropics, land-based pollution, particularly nutrient run-ff from agriculture and siltation from
al. 2000).
development, and military use of low- and mid-frequency sonar
construction, is one factor that has eliminated local populations of corals. Land-based nutrient pollution greatly reduces coral reef diversity
As more and more local
populations disappear, extinction is the inevitable result.
(Edinger et al. 1998) and can make corals more susceptible to epizootics (Bruno et al. 2003).
The effects of human noise pollution are directly contributing to extinction.
Myers & Ottensmeyer 2005 (Ransom, Ph.D. Biology Dalhousie University, Killam Chair in Ocean Studies Dalhousie University, &
Andrea, Masters Student Biology Dalhousie University “Extinction risk in Marine Species.“ Marine Conservation Biology: The Science of Maintaining the Sea's
Biodiversity, Island Press)
Humans are now causing a rapid process of marine extinctions on par with those we caused on
land each time humans invaded a new terrestrial realm. Indeed, we have mounted the offensive on many
fronts. We have captured and killed vast proportions of the sea's inhabitants. We are destroying the quantity and
the quality of habitats through repeated physical destruction, through the slow poisoning action of pollutants, by turning up the
heat, and by generating at times deadly noise. Indeed the effects of loss of habitat on extinction may be even greater than
the direct effects of fishing. Governments have and continue to subsidize these acts. One would think this onslaught
were a coordinated campaign.
Noise pollution is so dangerous because we continue to carve out exceptions, killing
off biodiversity little by little, leading to extinction
Kunich 2006 (John, Professor of Law and Fulbright Senior Specialist University of North Carolina at Charlotte, J.D. Harvard Law “Killing Our Oceans:
Dealing with the Mass Extinction of Marine Life.“ Praeger.)
Marine pollution farther from shore has been another destructive factor. Both deliberate dumping from ships and accidental
discharges, spills, and leaks have introduced large amounts of oil, organic waste, and chemicals into the oceans. Some of these are short-term
dramatic incidents, and others happen
little by little, day by day, to nonetheless deadly effect. Noise
pollution, and the effects of climate change, add to the habitat-altering crisis. As on land, biodiversity in
the expanse and depth of the oceans is most definitely not uniformly distributed.
There are areas of concentrated biodiversity, where a disproportionate number of species and higher taxa are
endemic to a relatively small geographic region. These marine hotspots are epicenters of biodiversity, with incalculable significance for the
planet as a whole. Yet, just as on land, the legal regime does not explicitly recognize hotspots, and in no way focuses legal protection or
conservation resources on what should be high priority areas. There
is an ongoing crisis in marine
biodiversity, amounting to a mass extinction of historic proportions, and the law has neither
prevented nor halted it.
Precuationary Principle
Ocean noise travels long distances, destroying communication and habitat loss,
decreasing catch rates and compromising biodiversity, we need a precautionary
approach.
Weilgart 2008 (Linda, Ph.D. Research associate & assistant professor in the Dept. of Biology, Dalhousie University Council “The Impact of Ocean
Noise Pollution on Marine Biodiversity ” International Ocean Noise Coalition March)
Most marine animals, particularly marine mammals and fish, are very sensitive to
sound. Noise can travel long distances underwater, blanketing large areas, and
potentially preventing marine animals from hearing their prey or predators, finding
their way, or connecting with mates, group members, or their young. Decreased species
diversity in whales and dolphins was related to an increase in seismic noise. Naval sonar has killed individuals and perhaps even geneticallyisolated local populations of whales. Invertebrates such as lobster, crab, and shrimp, also show noise impacts .
Noise has
deafened fish, produced dramatically reduced catch rates, caused stress
responses, and interfered with fish communication, schooling, and possibly the
selection of suitable habitat. Whales have moved from their feeding and breeding grounds, shown stress, and foraged less
efficiently due to noise. Noise has been thought to contribute to several whale species’ population declines or lack of recovery. Many (at least
marine biodiversity is
likely compromised by undersea anthropogenic noise. Noise levels are steadily
55) marine species have been shown to be impacted by ocean noise pollution to some degree. Thus,
rising, so ocean noise must be managed
both nationally and internationally
in a precautionary
way before irreversible damage to biodiversity and the marine ecosystem occurs.
We must use the precautionary principle with ocean noise pollution
Weilgart, L.S. 6 December 2007. (Ph.D., Dalhousie University. Professor in the Department of Biology, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada.).
“The impacts of anthropogenic ocean noise on cetaceans and implications for management”. Canadian Journal of Zoology, 2007, 85:1091-1116, 10.1139/Z07101. Accessed through: http://www.nrcresearchpress.com/doi/abs/10.1139/z07-101#.U-j4-4XR27F
Because of the limited ability of scientific methods to detect the full impacts of
noise on cetaceans and especially on the wider marine environment, and because of the
potential for harm to occur before it is detected, the noise issue has been
highlighted as a case where the application of precaution in management is
particularly warranted (Mayer and Simmonds 1996). It is improbable that there will be conclusive
evidence of causality for many, especially subtle, acoustically induced potential population-level
impacts, particularly within the time frames where irreversible population and ecosystem-level effects
may occur (Weilgart 2007). For instance, detecting precipitous declines in most marine mammal stocks, let alone population decreases
linked with noise impacts, is all but impossible without substantially increased monitoring effort. Taylor et al. (2007) noted that 72% of large
whale declines, 90% of beaked whale declines, and 78% of dolphin or porpoise declines would not be detected under current monitoring effort,
even if the declines were so dramatic as to represent a 50% decrease in abundance in 15 years .
For such reasons, increasing
protective and preventative action should not
be delayed until full scientific certainty is established, the so-called precautionary
approach.
numbers of international legislative fora have recognized that
The precautionary principle would dictate we halt ocean noise sources.
Gillespie 2007 (Alexander, Professor of Law, at the University of Waikato, New Zealand Ph.D (Nottingham), LL.B; LL.M(Hons)(Auckland). and
Rapporteur for the World Heritage Convention. “The Precautionary Principle and the 21st Century: A Case Study of Noise Pollution in the Ocean.“ International
Journal of Marine and Coastal Law, Vol. 22 Issue 1 April.)
With regard to the case study at hand of noise pollution in the ocean, the precautionary
principle would require the following steps. First, it is triggered by the identification of a concern, which in certain
instances, may be of a substantive concern. However, despite this general recognition, there is large amount of scientific uncertainty in this
area. Thus, in this context the foremost step taken under the precautionary principle should be the formation of an internationally based
scientific investigation, from which reliable and non-partisan evidence can be adduced, and robust policies can be built. Until that evidence is
concluded, a precautionary approach in this area would necessitate a series of tentative steps. Each of these steps would be linked to the
seriousness of the potential risk. In the context of marine noise, the seriousness will be influenced of which species are involved, their current
population status of the species and the critical nature of the areas utilized. Basic tentative measures which are suitable to apply under a
precautionary approach in this area are that, all areas of potentially substantively detrimental noise impact, should utilize observers who seek
to visually detect and identify marine species which may be the victims of potential impact. Where the risk is highest, a greater concentration of
observers should be utilized. Moreover, observation should be supplemented by electronic means of monitoring used to detect marine
In areas where noise may have significant detrimental
impacts upon the animals inhabiting the marine environment the noise source
should be stopped, or a moratorium on such activities should be implemented. Where
mammals which could be impacted upon.
such prohibitions or moratoriums are currently not possible, precautionary measures to avoid potential impact should be codified in industry
specific guidelines, so that responses are not ad-hoc. Such guidelines should include, inter alia, only using noise polluting sources whilst the
species are not in the area. Additional precautionary measures may include approaches such as warning signals, where the noise level slowly
increases, allowing animals to leave the area in good time. Although neither of these of these measures may be suitable to address long term
needs in this area, failure
to implement even these basic considerations, would not be
consistent with the obligation imposed by the precautionary principle.
The precautionary principle is key to sustaining life for generations to come.
Parenteau 1998 (Patrick, Director, Environmental Law Center, Vermont Law School, “Rearranging The Deck Chairs: Endangered Species Act
Reforms in an Era of Mass Extinction,” , William and Mary Environmental Law and Policy Review Spring 22 Wm. & Mary Envtl. L. & Pol'y Rev. 227,
http://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1276&context=wmelpr)
To summarize Part I,
the biodiversity crisis is real, and the stakes are high. Extinction
estimates may vary by a wide margin, but they all agree on the central point that the
current rate is far beyond any definition of "normal," and it is increasing. n127 Each
extinction, no matter how inconsequential it may appear in isolation, represents
another strand removed from the fabric of life, another rivet popped from the wing
of the airplane. n128 Neo-classical economics tells us almost nothing about the dollar value of individual species, let alone the
cumulative value of the services that healthy ecosystems provide. n129 The emerging field of ecological economics is beginning to get a
handle on these values, and the numbers being generated, though soft, are huge. n130 Yet in
the end it is not what we
know but what we do not know that may provide the most cogent argument for
exercising the "precautionary principle," for trying to save "every cog and wheel,"
not just for ourselves but for the next seven generations to come. n131 All well and good, you
may be thinking, but isn't habitat loss and even extinction simply the inevitable, albeit unfortunate, price we must pay for "progress?" A look at
the roots of the biodiversity crisis might shed some light on this question.