IS MARINE NOISE POLLUTION?

According to the UN Group of Experts on the Scientific Aspects of Marine Pollution (GESAMP): Marine pollution is the introduction by man, directly or indirectly, of substances or energy to the marine environment resulting in deleterious effects such as: hazards to human health; hindrance of marine activities, including fishing; impairment of the quality for the use of seawater, and reduction of amenities. So technically - yes

WHY IS UNDERWATER NOISE IMPORTANT?

Light availability in the oceans decrease with depth little light below 200m, so hearing becomes a more important sense than sight Sound also travels faster (1500 m/s vs 330 m/s) in water and can travel greater distances Because of the distances and directions that sound can travel in it has a wide geographical range

INCREASE OF UNDERWATER NOISE

Research off of Point Sur, California comparing sound levels between 1963-65 and 1994-2001 discovered: A 10 dB increase in noise levels = x 10 increase in noise in 33 years
This increase in noise was primarily due to human activities in the oceans [Wenz, 1968; Andrew et al., 2002]

WHY IS UNDERWATER NOISE IMPORTANT?

Sound is biologically important for the survival of many marine species: Communication Navigation Finding food Predator detection Finding mates/breeding [Parsons & Dolman (2003)]

NATURAL SOURCES OF UNDERWATER NOISE

Natural phenomenon in the marine environment that produce noise include: waves wind surf (104 dB) lightning precipitation (rain 55-85 dB) animals (fish, shrimp, marine mammals) earthquakes
Noise from earthquakes dominate frequencies below 100Hz, but rain and wave sounds dominate higher frequencies

SOURCES OF MAN-MADE NOISE

Shipping is one of main sources of man-made sound in the marine environment. Other sources include Air guns used in oil & gas exploration Fish finders and depth sounders Sound sources used in oceanographic research Predator deterrent devices (seal scrammers) Dredging Oceanic windfarms Military activities
[Parsons et al. (2003)]

SHIPPING
In general, older vessels produce more noise than newer ones and larger vessels produce more than smaller ones Lower frequency noises produced by shipping also travel further than higher frequency noises e.g. the noise from a supertanker (@ 6.8 Hz) could be detected 139 - 463 km away.
[Gordon and Moscrop (1996); Ross, (1976)]

SHIPPING
but even the noise from a small 70 hp outboard engine [142 dB; 400 Hz-4 kHz] could be detected 50 m away.
[Stewart et al., (1982)]

Shipping typically produces frequencies below 1 kHz - although frequencies above 1 kHz can be produced Species such as baleen whales may be most susceptible to these low frequency sounds.

Type of vessel 650cc Jetski Rigid inflatable 7m outboard motor boat Fishing boat Fishing trawler Tug pulling empty barge

Frequency (kHz) 0.8-50.0 6.3 0.63 0.25-1.0 0.1 0.037 1.0 5.0 1.0 5.0 0.63 0.43 0.06 0.008 0.007 0.007 0.033 0.008 0.041

Source level (dB re 1QPa) 75-125 152 156 151 158 166 164 145 170 161 159 169 180 187 190 185 181 181 172

Reference Evans and Nice, (1996) Malme et al., (1989) Malme et al., (1989) Greene, (1985) Malme et al., (1989) Buck and Chalfant, (1972) Miles et al., (1989) Miles et al., (1989) Malme et al., (1989) Buck and Chalfant, (1972); Ross, (1976); Thiele and dengaard, (1983) Buck and Chalfant, (1972); Ross, (1976); Thiele and dengaard, (1983)

Tug pulling loaded barge 34m (twin diesel engine) workboat Tanker (135m) Tanker (179m) Supertanker (266m) Supertanker (340m) Supertanker (337m) Containership (219m) Containership (274m) Freighter (135m)

OIL AND GAS EXPLORATION

To determine the location of oil and gas deposits under the sea bed seismic surveys are conducted. These surveys produce high intensity sounds which penetrate the seabed, the echo of these sounds, upon analysis, telling the oil companies the structure of the sea bed and positions of probable fossil fuel deposits. Depending on method being conducted, seismic surveys can produce sound of frequencies ranging from 5 Hz to 200 kHz, at levels of 225 to 270 dB

Summary of sound frequencies produced by seismic surveys and their source level
[Greene & Moore (1995); Perry (1998)]

Activity Seismic surveys i) High Resolution

Pingers, side-scanner

Frequency range (kHz)

Source Level (dB re 1 Pa)

10-200 0.008-0.5 0.005-0.5 0.02-0.07

<230 230-250 225-270 260

ii) Low resolution

Airguns Sleeve exploder Vibroseis

SEISMIC SURVEYS
The sounds produced by seismic surveys can be detected more 3000 miles from their source
[Nieukirk et al. (2004)]

Researchers trying to record cetaceans in the midAtlantic found that whale calls were frequently being smothered and masked by the high levels of continuous sound produced by seismic surveys
[Nieukirk et al. (2004)]

Sperm whales have been observed exhibiting a startle reaction 2km away from a seismic survey
[Stone (2003)]

SEISMIC SURVEYS
Seismic surveys have also been linked to whale stranding events: in 2002, two Cuviers beaked whales stranded on the Isla San Jose (Gulf of California) coincident with seismic surveys from the research vessel Maurice Ewing.
[Malakoff, (2002)]

It is possible that seismic surveys have caused cetacean strandings in other areas, such as the Galpagos Islands
[Palacios et al. (2004)]

But marine mammals arent the only marine life effected by seismic surveys

SEISMIC SURVEYS
A study by Norway's Institute of Marine Research showed that trawl catch rates of haddock and cod fell by 45-70% over a 2,000 square mile area - while seismic surveys were being conducted. Catch rates did not increase during 5 days surveyed after the air guns stopped. [Engas, et al. 1993] Another study by showed damage to fish ears by seismic surveys - beginning at 160 dB
[MacCauley et al. 2000]

Unusual numbers of giant squid were also found dead and stranded on beaches in large numbers at the same time seismic surveys were being conducted [MacKenzie, (2004)]

FISH FINDERS AND DEPTH SOUNDERS

Marine vessels have a variety of pieces of equipment which produce high levels of sound the most common being echo-sounders and fishfinders, both of which analyze received sound echoes from either fish or the seabed. This equipment can produce substantial levels of underwater sound For example:
220-230 dB for side scan sonar (50-500 kHz); 180dB+ for depth sounders (12kHz+); 200-230 dB for bottom profilers (100Hz-160 kHz) 180-200 dB for navigational transponders (7-60kHz)
[Greene and Moore, (1995)].

OCEANOGRAPHIC RESEARCH
Oceanographers frequently use high intensity sound sources during their research -including seismic surveys However, one of the most infamous was the Acoustic Thermometry of the Ocean Climate (ATOC) project The ATOC project was designed to detect changes in oceanic temperatures using a high intensity, low frequency sound source. The project was initially to have two transmitters - Kauai, Hawaiian Islands - Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary, California.
After public protest - the California sound source was relocated to the Pioneer Seamount, outside of, but close to, the Monterey Bay Sanctuary area.

ATOC
To investigate the potential impacts of the ATOC sound source on cetaceans in 1991 a field test (209-219 db) was conducted on Heard Island, in the Antarctic. While the low frequency sound source was operating researchers monitored a 70km by 70km area of ocean: Although long-finned pilot whales (Macrorhynchus melas) and sperm whales (Physeter macrocephalus) were acoustically detected nearly a quarter of the time when the sound source wasnt operating - there were no acoustic detections of these species at all when the sound system was on. [Bowles et al. (1994)]

ATOC
Despite the results of the Heard Island test, the ATOC project continued, albeit with a quieter (195 dB) source level than used in the Heard Bay test.

Effects of the system were still reported:

In Kauai, distances and durations between surfacings increased in humpback whales (Megaptera novaeangliae) exposed to ATOC (received levels = 98-109 dB)
[Frankel & Clark (1998); Frankel & Clark (2000)]

Also - whales were statistically significantly

further away when the sound source was on, than when the sound source was off [Frankel & Clark (2002)]

ATOC
These results were also echoed by researchers conducting aerial surveys in the Californian site: humpback whales, and sperm whales, where sighted significantly further away from the ATOC sound source when it was turned on [Calambokidis (1998)] But despite this ATOC was considered to have no short or long-term biologically significant effect This attitude was criticized in a US National Research Council report - the marine mammal research program associated
with the ATOC project was insufficient and had not adequately conducted research into whether there had indeed been short or longterm effects on marine mammals, or their biological significance
[National Research Council (2000)]

The ATOC project stopped in 1999 but the sound source was reused in 2002 - North Pacific Acoustic Laboratory Program (NPAL)

PREDATOR DETERRENT DEVICES

Fish farms are frequently predated by seals, sealions

and other marine predators To prevent marine marine mammals or other predators from approaching fish farm sites, many companies have resorted to using Acoustic Harassment Devices (AHDs) or seal-scrammers -to scare away predators, or even cause pain
AHDs typically produced mid to high frequency sounds (1.8 kHz 103 kHz) with a peak source level of up to 193 dB [Lepper
et al. (2004) ]

There are several studies have documented displacement of cetaceans from their habitat by AHDs :
Olesiuk et al., (1996); Taylor et al., (1998); Johnston and Woodley, (1998); Morton and Symonds, (2002); Johnston, (2003).

PREDATOR DETERRENT DEVICES In western Scotland the scale of displacement of protected species has become an issue every sea loch contains a fish farm
Half of these fish farms used AHDs
[Quick et al. (2004)]

Its been calculated, based on potential exclusion areas around sites with AHDs [Olesiuk et al. (1996)] harbor porpoises would be excluded from 16km2 of coastal waters harbor porpoise abundance would be significantly reduced over an area of 1187 km2 [Shrimpton (2001)] BUT - AHDs have been shown to be ineffective as a antipredator device [Seplveda and Oliva (2005)]

DREDGING
Dredging operations can be conducted to:
-remove silt or sediment from the seabed

-to keep shipping routes clear; -to quarry marine gravel/sand/and materials (for construction or roads) -or as a means of fishing e.g. for clams and other shellfish.

Several studies have demonstrated that the noise produced by dredging operations can impact marine life: e.g.1 - gray whales (Eschrichtius robustus) were displaced for several years from the Laguna Guerro Neggro in Baja, California [Bryant et al. (1984)] e.g.2 - bowhead whales (Balaena mysticetus) were displaced from an area (moving over 2km away) when sounds of dredging were played back to them
[Richardson et al. (1985a, 1985b, 1990); Wartzok et al. (1989)]

MILITARY ACTIVITIES
Of all the sources of marine noise, the potential of military-related noise, in particular military active sonar, is probably the most contentious and controversial. Noise producing military activities include:
military ship noise (large and small vessels) military Aircraft minesweeping (high frequency active sonar) inter-submarine communication ship board ordinance missile & torpedo tests ship structural tests (ship shock) marine minefields submarine detection (mid and low frequency active sonar) - vessel-based systems - sonobouys However the impacts of mid-frequency (c. 3-7 kHz) active sonar on         

cetaceans is a particular concern

Military sources of high intensity noise

Activity Search and surveillance Mine & obstacle avoidance Weapon mounted sonar Low Frequency Active Sonar (LFAS) used by NATO. Surveillance Towed Array Sensor System (SURTASS) Low Frequency Sonar (LFA) SONAR 2087 (Royal Navy Low Frequency Sonar System) Frequency range (kHz) 2-57 25-200 15-200 0.25-3.0? c. 0.1-0.5 kHz c. 0.1-0.5 kHz Source level
(dB re 1QPa)

230+ 220+ 200+ 230+ 215-240 200+

[Greene and Moore (1995); Parsons et al. (2003)]

CETACEANS AND SONAR

WHATS THE PROBLEM? In March 2000, 16 whales stranded themselves on beaches in the Bahamas [Balcomb & Claridge (2001); Evans & England ( 2001)] At the same time the US Navy was conducting an anti-submarine exercise in the area. The Navy initially denied that ships were in the area, or that they were using sonar they admitted to the exercise 5 weeks later. The Navy initially denied that active sonar was to blame but its own investigation later found hemorrhaging around the dead whales' ears = severe acoustic trauma.

CETACEANS AND SONAR

WHATS THE PROBLEM? The US government's study of the incident established with virtual certainty that the strandings in the Bahamas had been caused by mid-frequency active sonar used by Navy ships passing through the area [Evans and England (2001)] After the incident, all of the area's beaked whales disappeared, leading researchers to conclude that they had abandoned their habitat or died at sea. In the last year, beaked whales have been resighted, but only one has been identified from previous studies.

OTHER EVENTS
Other whale strandings and deaths associated with active sonar: 1985 - The Canary Islands 1986 - The Canary Islands 1989 - The Canary Islands 1996 Greece 1998 US Virgin Islands 1999 US Virgin Islands 2000 Madeira, Spain 2002 - The Canary Islands 2003 Washington State, US
NB: not just beaked whales, also minke whales, Kogia spp. Etc
[Simmonds & Lopez-Jurado (1991); Frantzis (1998); Frantzis & Cebrian (1999); Mead (2000); Frantzis ( 2004); Taylor et al. (2004)]

RECENT STRANDINGS
In Taiwan (Feb. 24 Mar. 10 2004 ), a variety of cetacean strandings including pilot whales and a ginkgo-toothed beaked whale, coincided with a joint US/Philippine military exercise, to the south of the island [Wang and Yang (2004)] Researchers managed to autopsy one of the beaked whales and discovered revealed many unusual injuries to structures that are associated with, or related to acoustics or diving. When this information was presented to the International Whaling Commission (in 2004) it was concluded that: The lesions/trauma suggest that this beaked whale died from acoustic or blast trauma that may have been caused by exposure to naval activities south of Taiwan.
[International Whaling Commission, (2004), p. 8]

RECENT STRANDINGS
Also, in July 2004 another unusual stranding of four Cuviers beaked whales (Ziphius cavirostris) occurred in the Canary Islands. [Espinosa et al. ( 2005)] There have been at least four mass strandings of beaked whales that have been associated with military exercises conducted near the Canary Islands (1985, 1986, 1987 and 2002). [Taylor et al. (2004)] The 2004 mass stranding event coincided with the naval exercise Majestic Eagle - being conducted 100 km to the north of the islands in the week prior to the beaked whale carcasses being discovered.
[Espinosa et al. ( 2005)]

RECENT STRANDINGS
A non-beaked whale event occurred at 7:30am on July 3rd 2004. 200 melon-headed whales (Peponocephala electra) normally deep water animals, were found in shallow water in Hanalei Bay, Hawaii. Coincident with this stranding, the US navy was conducting an active sonar tracking exercise 20 miles northwest of Kauai Initially the US Navy denied that there was a link between the stranding and their activities. Later they admitted that they had used sonar specifically between 6:45 and 7:10am, just prior to the stranding event. [Kaufman (2004)]

YET ANOTHER STRANDING

Between January 15th and 16th 2005 34 short-finned pilot whales, 1 minke whale and 2 pygmy sperm whales stranded in the Outer Banks area, North Carolina. Coincident with the stranding 6 navy vessels were operating off of Norfolk. The US Navy stated "no Navy ships were using active sonar within 50 nautical miles radius" of area But one naval vessel did use sonar for seven minutes about 90 nautical miles southeast of the stranding area. Preliminary postmortem data suggest noise-related trauma in these animals [Kaufman (2005)]

JAPAN STRANDINGS
On 14th April 2004 a presentation was given at an international beaked whale workshop and represented at the International Whaling Commission Another series of beaked whale strandings had been discovered in Japan [Brownell et al. (2004)] The sites of these strandings were adjacent to a US naval base Questions were asked why didnt the US Navy present this information as they must have known about it?

VULNERABILITY OF BEAKED WHALES TO SONAR

In October 2003 an article was published in the journal Nature [Jepson et al. (2003)] Autopsies had been conducted on 14 beaked whales that stranded in the Canary Islands 4 hours after a NATO exercise had started using sonar The autopsies showed that the animals had symptoms of the bends The researchers hypothesized that exposure to high levels of sound causes nitrogen bubbles to come out of solution in the blood

BEAKED WHALE WORKSHOP

Baltimore 13th-16th April an international workshop was held to discuss the beaked whale issue Biologists suggested that beaked whale blood is supersaturated with dissolved nitrogen Normally beaked whales spend very little time at the surface If (a) forced to stay at the surface (by noise) or (b) exposed to pressure waves (sudden noise) Vast numbers of nitrogen bubbles could come out of solution in the blood = bends-like effects
[Fernndez et al. (2004); Fernndez et al. (2005)]

BUBBLING BLOOD & THE BENDS

Recent lab-based experimental data reinforces that pressure changes can induce bubbling in supersaturated blood [Houser et al., (2001); Crum et al., (2005)] Moreover - a 2004 paper on sperm whale bones reports lesions associated with decompression sickness -adding more evidence to support the noiseinduced/provoked bends scenario. [Moore & Early (2004)]

KEEPING QUIET ABOUT IT

One interesting aspect of the super-saturated nitrogen theory is the fact that US naval authorities were aware of this issue. A military commissioned report in the mid 1990s described that high intensity, low frequency sound had the potential to cause bubbles in nitrogen saturated blood [Crum and Mayo (1996)] Andthat this posed a threat to marine mammals i.e. the US navy had been aware of this issue nearly a decade ago! Yet the US military has deliberately ignored this possible threat to cetaceans.

DEPTH EFFECTS & PANIC ATTACKS

Another published scientific paper brings up issues which may compound the effects of sonar on whales [Talpalar and Grossman (2002)] The paper suggests that the effects of pressure on the central nervous systems of diving cetaceans may result in hyperexcitability of the nervous system. That the repetative high intensity noise produced by sonar pinging may [cause more nerve cell stimulation] under high-pressure conditions than on the surface.[p137] Also, this may result in secondary responses that may impair orientation, or maintenance of the regular diving response of the cetaceans. [p 137] So exposure to sonar while submerged, particularly at depth: may give rise to an enhanced startle response leading to disturbance in normal behaviour. A severe startle response, possibly involving fear or panic, may cause stranding as a flight response. [p 137]

RETHINKING SAFETY GUIDELINES

Prior to the studies noted above, it was thought that the main physiological impact of noise on cetaceans would be the causing of hearing damage i.e. short term or permanent deafness [e.g. Ketten (1995)] = Temporary Threshold Shifts (TTS) or Permanent Threshold Shifts (PTS) Evaluations of the potential impacts of noise on cetaceans used the likelihood of TTS or PTS occurring as an index of potential harm to cetaceans.
[e.g. National Research Council. (2000); National Research Council, (2003)]

This has led to noise guidelines that have been used by the US and UK governments that considered sound sources up to 180dB to be safe for cetaceans

RETHINKING SAFETY GUIDELINES

But these safety guidelines may be very unsafe because the bubble effects may occur at much lower sound levels For example: the level of sound exposure of beaked whales during the 2000 Bahamas incident do not exceed 160-170 dB re 1 Pa @ 1m for 10-30 sec.
[International Whaling Commission, (2004), p. 7]

i.e. Levels of sound 10 100 times quieter that current safety guidelines for less than 30 seconds resulted in beaked whale strandings and death! Certain NOAA officials are planning to increase noise exposure limit guidelines from 180dB to 200-220 dB (10,000 1 million times louder!)

RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
INTERNATIONAL WHALING COMMISSION In 2004 the Scientific Committee of the International Whaling Commission discussed the noise and cetacean issue including the Bahamas, Canaries and Japan strandings & the Taiwan incident Over 200 of the worlds whale biologists stated: In conclusion, the Committee agrees that there is

now compelling evidence implicating military sonar as a direct impact on beaked whales in particular. (p44, IWC 2004)

Other International bodies have also recently echoed concerns about noise.
EUROPEAN UNION Resolution 2004
The European Parliament Calls on the Commission Calls and the Member States to set up a Multinational Task Force to develop international agreements regulating noise levels in the worlds oceans, with a view to oceans, regulating and limiting the adverse impact of anthropogenic sonars on marine mammals and fish fish.

ACCOBAMS (2004) Agreement on the Conservation of Cetaceans of the Black and Mediterranean Seas
charges the Scientific Committee to develop a common set of guidelines on conducting activities known to produce underwater sound with the potential to cause adverse effects on cetaceans (including military sonar) Also calls for the use of extreme caution in conducting such activities in the Mediterranean and Black Seas

IUCN (World Conservation Union) Congress (2004) Resolution CGR3.RES053-REV1 Undersea Noise Pollution
Monitor for and investigate the impacts on marine species Consider how to limit the use of powerful noise sources until their short-term and long-term effects are better understood U.S. submitted a statement in writing doesnt recognize that the issue is a problem

BUT NOT THE US

NEW ADMINISTRATION POLICY MEMO BLOCKS INTERNATIONAL EFFORTS TO RESTRICT SONAR The The US strongly opposes any international regulatory framework addressing military use of active sonar because of the potential to restrict individual states to balance the relevant security and environmental interests interests Memo produced in response to European Union resolution and pressure to restrict NATO use of sonar
Kaufman, 2005. Washington Post, February 28th, p. A5

REFERENCES
Andrew, R.K., B.M. Howe, J.A. Mercer, and M.A. Dzieciuch. 2002. Ocean ambient sound: Comparing the 1960s with the 1990s for a receiver off the California coast. Acoustic Research Letters Online 3(2): 65-70. Balcomb, K.C. and Claridge, D.E. 2001. A mass stranding of cetaceans caused by naval sonar in the Bahamas. Bahamas Journal of Science 8:1-12. Bowles, A.E., Smultea, M, Wrsig. B., DeMaster, D.P. and Palka, D. 1994. The relative abundance and behaviour of marine mammals exposed to transmissions from the Heard Island Feasibility Test. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 96: 2469-2484. Brownell, Jr., R.L., Yamada, T., Mead, J.G. and van Helden, A.L. 2004. Mass Strandings of Cuviers Beaked Whales in Japan: U.S. Naval Acoustic Link? Paper presented to the Scientific Committee at the 56th Meeting of the International Whaling Commission, 29 June10 July 2004, Sorrento, Italy. SC56/E37. Bryant, P.J., Lafferty, C.M. and Lafferty, S.K. 1984. Reoccupation of Laguna Guerrero Negro, Baja California, Mexico, by gray whales. In: The gray whale, Eschrichtius robustus (Ed. by M.L. Jones, S. Swartz and S. Leatherwood), pp. 375-387. Academic Press, Orlando. Calambokidis, J. 1998. Effects of the ATOC sound source on the distribution of marine mammals observerved from aerial surveys off central California. In: World Marine Mammal Conference, Monte Carlo, Monaco, 20-24th January 1998, Abstracts, pp. 22. European Cetacean Society and Society for Marine Mammalogy, Monaco. Crum, L.A. and Mayo, Y.I. 1996. Acoustically enhanced bubble growth at low frequencies and its implications for human diver and marine mammal safety. Tech. Report C-193. Naval Submarine Medical Research Laboratory. 993. Crum, L.A., Bailey, M.R., Guan, J., Hilmo, P.R., Kargl, S.G., Mutula, T.J. and Sapozhnikov, O.A. 2005. Monitoring bubble growth in supersaturated blood and tissue ex vivo and the relevance to marine mammal bioeffects. Acoustics Research Letters Online 6: 214-220. Engas, A., Lokkeborg, S., Ona E. and Soldal, A. V. 1993. Effects of seismic shooting on local abundance and catch rates of cod (Gadus morhua) and haddock (Melanogrammus aeglefinus). Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science 53: 2238-2249. Espinosa, A., Arbelo, M., Castro, P., Martn, V., Gallardo, T. And Fernndez, A. 2005. New beaked whale mass stranding in Canary Islands associated with naval military excercises (Majestic Eagle 2004). In: 19th Annual Conference of the European Cetacean Society and Associated Workshops, 2-7April ,2005, La Rochelle, France, p. 95. European Cetacean Society, La Rochelle.

International Whaling Commission. 2004a. Annex K. Report of the Standing Working Group on Environmental Concerns. International Whaling Commission, Cambridge. International Whaling Commission. 2004b. Report of the Scientific Committee. International Whaling Commission, Cambridge, UK. Jepson, P.D., M. Arbelo, R. Deaville, I.A.P. Patterson, P. Castro, J.R. Baker, E. Degollada, H.M. Ross, P. Herrez, A.M. Pocknell, F. Rodrguez, F.E. Howiell, A. Espinosa, R.J. Reid, J.R. Jaber, V. Martin, A.A. Cunningham, and A. Fernndez. 2003. Gas-bubble lesions in stranded cetaceans: was sonar responsible for a spate of whale deaths after an Atlantic military exercise? Nature 425:575-576. Johnston, D.W. 2002. The effect of acoustic harassment devices on harbour poipoises (Phocoena phocoena) in the Bay of Fundy, Canada. Biological Conservation 108: 113-118. Johnston, D.W. and Woodley, T.H. 1998. A survey of acoustic harassment devices (AHD) use in the Bay of Fundy, NB, Canada. Aquatic Mammals 24: 51-61. Kaufman, M. 2004. Sonar used before whales hit shore. Washington Post 31August 2004: A3. Kaufman, M. 2005. Whale Stranding in N.C. Followed Navy Sonar Use. Washington Post 28January 2005: A3. Ketten, D.R. 1995. Estimates of blast injury and acoustic trauma zones for marine mammals from underwater explosions. In: Sensory systems of marine mammals, (Ed. by R. Kastelein, J.A. Thomas and P.E. Nachtingall), pp. 391-407. De Spil Publishing, Woerden, Netherlands. Lepper, P.A., Turner, V.L.G., Goodson, A.D. and Black, K.D. 2004. Source levels and spectra emitted by three commercial aquaculture anti-predation devices. In: Proceedings of the Seventh European Conference on Underwater Acoustics, ECUA 2004, Delft, The Netherlands, 5-8 July, 2004. Malakoff, D. 2002. Suit ties whale deaths to research cruise. Science 298:722-723. MacKenzie, D. 2004. Seismic surveys may kill giant squid. New Scientist 184(2467): 15 McCauley, R.D., J. Fewtrell, A.J. Duncan, C. Jenner, M.-N. Jenner, J.D. Penrose, R.I.T. Prince, A. Adhitya, J. Murdoch, K. McCabe 2000. Marine seismic surveys: analysis and propagation of air-gun signals; and effects of airgun exposure on humpback whales, sea turtles, fishes and squid. Report prepared for Australian Petroleum production Exploration Association by Curtin University of Technology (R99-15). Mead, J. 2000. Historical mass strandings of Ziphiids. Marine Mammal Program, National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, unpublished. Moore, M.J. and Early, G.A. 2004. Cumulative sperm whale bone damage and the bends. Science 306: 2215. Morton, A.B. and Symonds, H.K. 2002. Displacement of Orcinus orca (L.) by high amplitude sound in British Columbia, Canada. ICES Journal of Marine Science 59: 71-80. National Research Council. 2000. Marine mammals and low frequency sound: progress since 1994. National Academy Press, Washington DC.

Evans, D.L., and G.R. England, G.R. 2001. Joint Interim Report Bahamas Marine Mammal Stranding Event of 14-16 March 2000. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. (http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/prot_res/PR2/Health_and_Stranding_Response_Program/Interim_Bahamas_Report. pdf) Fernndez, A., Arbelo, M., Deaville, R., Patterson, I.A.P., Castro, P., Baker, J.R., Degollada, E., Ross, H.M., Herrez, P., Pocknell, A.M., Rodrguez, F., Howie, F.E., Espinosa, A., Reid, R.J., Jaber, J.R., Martin, V., Cunningham, A.A. and Jepson, P. 2004. Whales, sonar and decompression sickness. Nature 428: 1-2. Fernndez, A., Edwards J.F., Rodrguez, F., Espinosa de los Monteros, A., Herrez, P., Castro, P., Jaber, J.R., Martn, V. and Arbelo, M. 2005a. Gas and Fat Embolic Syndrome involving a mass stranding of beaked whales (Family Ziphiidae) exposed to anthropogenic sonar signals. Veterinary Pathology 42: 446-457. Fernndez, A., Mendez, M., Sierra, E., Godhino, A., Herrez, P., Espinosa, A., Rodrguez, F. and Arbelo, M. 2005b. New gas and fat embolic pathology in beaked whales stranded in the Canary islands. In: 19th Annual Conference of the European Cetacean Society and Associated Workshops, 2-7April ,2005, La Rochelle, France, p. 95. European Cetacean Society, La Rochelle. Frankel. A.D. and Clark, C.W. 1998. results of low-frequency playback of M-sequence noise to humpback whales, Megaptera novaeangliae, in Hawaii. Canadian Journal of Zoology 76: 521-535. Frankel. A.D. and Clark, C.W. 2000. Behavioral responses of humpback whales to full-scale ATOC signals. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 108: 1-8. Frankel. A.D. and Clark, C.W. 2002. ATOC and other factors affecting distribution and abundance of humpback whales (Megaptera novaeangliae) off the north shore of Kauai. Marine Mammal Science 18: 644-662. Frantzis, A. 1998. Does acoustic testing strand whales? Nature 392: 29. Frantzis, A. 2004. The first mass stranding that was associated with the use of active sonar (Kyparissiakos Gulf, Greece, 1996). In: Proceedings of the workshop on active sonar and cetaceans. ECS Newsletter no. 42, special issue. (Ed. by P.G.H. Evans and L.A. Miller), pp. 14-20. European Cetacean Society. Frantzis, A. and Cebrian, D. 1999. A rare mass stranding of Cuvier's beaked whales: cause and implications for the species biology. European Research on Cetaceans 12:332-335. Gordon, J. and Moscrop, A. 1996. Underwater noise pollution and its significance for whales and dolphins. In: The conservation of whales and dolphins science and practice (Ed. by M.P. Simmonds and J.D. Hutchinson), pp. 281319. John Wiley and Sons, Chichester. Greene, C.R. and Moore, S.E. 1995. Man-made noise. In: Marine mammals and noise (Ed. W.J. Richardson, C.R. greene, C.I. Malme and D.H. Thomson), pp. 101-158. Academic Press, San Diego. Houser, D.S., R. Howard, and S. Ridgway. 2001. Can diving-induced tissue nitrogen supersaturation increase the chance of acoustically driven bubble growth in marine mammals? Journal of Theoretical Biology 213:183-195.

National Research Council. 2003. Effects of noise on marine mammals. In: Ocean Noise and Marine Mammals, pp. 83108. National Academies Press, Washington DC. 192pp. Nieukirk, S.L., Stafford, K.M., Mellinger, D.K., and Dziak, R.P. and Fox, C.G. 2004. Low-frequency whale and seismic airgun sounds recorded in the mid-Atlantic Ocean. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 115: 18321843. Olesiuk, P.F., Nichol, L.M., Sowden, P.J. and Ford, J.K.B. 1996. Effects of sounds generated by an acoustic deterrent device on the abundance and distribution of harbour porpoise (Phocoena phocoena) in Retreat Passage, British Columbia. Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Pacific Biological Station. Nanimo, BC., Canada. Parsons, E.C.M. and Dolman, S. 2003. The use of sound by cetaceans. In: Oceans of noise (Ed. by M. Simmonds, S. Dolman and L. Weilgart), pp. 44-52. Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society, Chippenham. Parsons, E.C.M. and Dolman, S. 2003. Noise as a problem for cetaceans. In: Oceans of noise (Ed. by M. Simmonds, S. Dolman and L. Weilgart), pp. 53-58. Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society, Chippenham. Parsons, E.C.M. Swift, R., and Dolman, S. 2003. Sources of noise. In: Oceans of noise (Ed. by M. Simmonds, S. Dolman and L. Weilgart), pp. 24-43. Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society, Chippenham. Parsons, E.C.M., I. Birks, P.G.H. Evans, J.G. Gordon, J.H. Shrimpton, and S. Pooley. 2000. The possible impacts of military activity on cetaceans in West Scotland. European Research on Cetaceans 14:185-190. Perry, C. 1998. A review of the impact of anthropogenic noise on cetaceans. Paper presented to the Scientific Committee at the 50th Meeting of the International Whaling Commission, 27 April- 9 May 1998, Oman. SC50/E9. Quick, N.J., Middlemass, S.J. and Armstrong, J.D. 2004. A survey of anti-predator controls at marine salmon farms in Scotland. Aquaculture 230: 169-180. Richardson, W.J., Fraker, M.A., Wrsig, B. and Wells, R.S. 1985. Behavior of bowhead whales, Balaena mysticetus, summering in the Beaufort Sea: reactions to industrial activities. Biological Conservation 32: 195-230. Richardson, W.J., Wells, R.S. and Wrsig, B. 1985b. Disturbance responses of bowheads and industrial activity, 198084. In: Behavior, disturbance responses and distribution of bowhead whales, Balaena mysticetus, in the eastern Beaufort Sea, 1980-84 (Ed. by W.J. Richardson), pp. 255-301. LGL Ecological Research Associates Inc., Bryan, Texas.. Richardson, W.J., Wrsig, B. and Greene, C.R. Jnr. 1990. Reactions of bowhead whales, Balaena mysticetus, to drill and dredge noise in the Canadian Beaufort Sea. Marine Environmental Research 29: 135-160. Ross, D. 1976. Mechanics of underwater noise. Pergamon Press, New York. Seplveda, M. and Oliva, D.2005. Interactions between South American sea lions Otaria flavescens (Shaw) and salmon farms in southern Chile. Aquaculture Research 36: 1062-1068. Simmonds, M. and L.F. Lopez-Jurado. 1991. Whales and the military. Nature 337:448.

Shrimpton J.H. 2001. The impacts of fish-farming on the harbour porpoise (Phocoena phocoena). Hebridean Whale and Dolphin Trust, Tobermory, Mull. Stewart, B.S., Evans, W.E. and Awbrey, F.T. 1982. Effects of man-made waterborne noise on the behaviour of Belukha whales (Delphinapterus leucas) in Bristol Bay, Alaska. Hubbs Sea World Research Institute Report 82-145. Unpublished report to the U.S National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Jeneau, Alaska. Taylor, B., Barlow, J., Pitman, R., Ballance, L., Klinger, T., DeMaster, D., Hildebrand, J., Urban, J., Palacios, D. and Mead, J. G. 2004. A call for research to assess risk of acoustic impact on beaked whale populations. Paper presented to the Scientific Committee at the 56th Meeting of the International Whaling Commission, 29 June10 July 2004, Sorrento, Italy. SC46/E36. Taylor, G., Telfer, T., Beveridge, M. and Muir, J. 1998. Collection and treatment of waste chemotherapeutants and the use of enclosed-cage systems in salmon aquaculture. Scottish Environmental Protection Agency, Stirling. Turnpenny, A. W. H., Thatcher, K. P. and Nedwell, J. R. 1994. The effects on fish and other marine animals of highlevel underwater sound. Report prepared for UK Defense Research Agency. (FRRI 27/94). Wang, J.Y. and Yang, S.-C. 2004. Unusual cetacean stranding events in Chinese waters in early 2004 and the gross examination of a ginkgo-toothed beaked whale, Mesoplodon ginkgodens Paper presented to the Scientific Committee at the 56th Meeting of the International Whaling Commission, 29 June10 July 2004, Sorrento, Italy. SC56/E38. Wartzok, D., Watkins, W.A., Wursig, B. and Malme, C.I. 1989. Movements and behaviors of bowhead whales in response to repeated exposures to noises associated with industrial activities in the Beaufort Sea. Purdue University, Fort Wayne, Indiana. Wenz, G.M. 1969. Low-frequency deep-water ambient noise along the Pacific Coast of the United States. U.S. Navy Journal of Underwater Acoustics 19: 423-444.

LOW FREQUENCY SONAR

The information so far has been on mid-frequency sonar - which has been in use for decades. In 1995 the Natural Resources Defense Council started to investigate rumors that the Navy was testing a new sonar system off the coast of California This new sonar system was Low Frequency Active Sonar (LFA) producing sounds that could travel 100s of miles, at frequencies similar to those used by baleen whales

Whale Vocalisations

Dominant Frequency Frequency Range SONAR 2087

V o c a l i s a t i o n F r e q u e n c i e s ( H z ) S o u r c e :

Human Humpback whale Minke whale Fin whale Blue whale 10 100 1000 10000 Source: NOAA, 2000.

LOW FREQUENCY SONAR

It soon became clear that the Navy had already fieldtested LFA sonar in 22 operations HOWEVER they had never evaluated and studied its effects on marine life. The Navy had been operating in violation of STATE and FEDERAL environmental law Nor had the Navy applied for the permits to disturb marine wildlife required by the Marine Mammal Protection Act and Endangered Species Act. Subsequently the Department of Defense agreed to conduct a full-scale study of environmental impacts

LOW FREQUENCY SONAR

The Navy released a final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) in 2001 BUT it was disturbingly limited. The EIS was legally required to be a "rigorous and objective evaluation" of environmental risks But it failed to address basic question such as the long-term effects on marine mammals at an individual, or population level

For the EIS, the Navy had commissioned a study to look at the behavior of whales when exposed to LFA sonar Gray, fin and humpback whales were exposed to LFA. The level of sound received by these animals was up to 155dB (more often closer to 120 dB) The scientists noted significant changes in behavior such as: -gray whales altering migration routes to go around the noise, -humpbacks increasing song length and -fins changing foraging behavior The navy considered these changes to be minor and of no consequence

The actual source level of LFA Sonar is at least 215dB - Behavioral changes had been noted at 120dB

The navy considered that from these results LFA would be safe for whales at a received level up to 180dB 180dB is 1,000,000 times louder that 120dB! The Navy said it will use onboard observers and fishfinding technology to make sure no animals come within 1.5 miles of an active sonar deployment. HOWEVER during tests near Alaska, the Navy calculated that sound levels of 140 dB (100 x louder than 120dB) were heard 300 miles from the source According to the Navy - LFAS sounds at 120 dB would be received 1,111 km away from the deploying vessel.

LOW FREQUENCY SONAR

At the same time the UK navy conducted an environmental assessment of their Low-Frequency Active Sonar system They calculated that with their sonar (over 10 times quieter that the US system) Whales would suffer permanent hearing loss (PTS=permanent threshold shift) within 6.6 km of the sonar and would be suffer temporary hearing loss (TTS=temporary threshold shift) within 71km of the system

LOW FREQUENCY SONAR

The Navy went ahead and applied to the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) for a permit for a "small take" of whales and dolphins by harassment in up to 75% of the worlds oceans Permission was given by NMFS This led NGOs to bring a court case and seek an injunction against the use of LFA Sonar

In summary, the judge ruled that the NMFS had acted improperly in granting the US Navy a take permit The judge also noted that LFA sonar has the potential to seriously impact whales and dolphins (and other species, e.g. turtles) A limited injunction was granted restricting the use of the sonar system Because the Navy declared that the sonar system was essential to detect new diesel-powered submarines and affected the Navys readiness for war

LOW FREQUENCY SONAR

The judge declared that the US Navy must be allowed a small area in which they could deploy the sonar system, to be properly prepared in times of war An small area was negotiated = 1% of the worlds oceans However, the area designated was still an area occupied by at least half a dozen endangered whale species

ITS NOT JUST MARINE MAMMALS A study commissioned by the British Defense Research Agency reported that fish exposed to sounds of the same frequency and duration of the LFAS signal (at levels above 160 dB) suffered internal injuries, eye hemorrhaging, auditory damage and mortality [Turnpenny et al. 1994] 57% of brown trout died after exposure to levels above 170 dB [Turnpenny et al. 1994] The US navy was aware of this study but have willfully ignored the information

IT ALSO EFFECTS HUMANS

The Navy's tests of LFAS on their own indicate that fairly strong aversive behavior would be expected at LFAS exposures well below 145 dB. i.e. levels which may occur hundred of miles from the sonar source One person tested had to be discharged from the navy for medical reasons directly linked to LFAS exposure NB- These navy personnel were aware that they were being exposed to sonar sounds, thus the cause of the effects Recreational scuba divers may be exposed and but unaware of the source of or unprepared for exposure increased likelihood of panic Recreational divers may also be at greater depth than the nay personnel tested which may increase effects