Polarcus Amani specification.indd

Transcription

GXT 2013 Southwest Greenland
Marine 2D Seismic, Gravity and Magnetic Span Survey
Environmental Impact Assessment
Volume 2: Appendices
1 March 2013
TABLE OF CONTENTS
APPENDIX A: Vessel and Equipment Details
APPENDIX B: Review of the Effects of Airgun Sounds on Marine Mammals
APPENDIX C: Review of Potential Effects of Airgun Sound on Fish and Marine Invertebrates
APPENDIX D: Underwater Sound Modelling for 2013 Seismic Program
APPENDIX E: Fundamentals of Underwater Sound
APPENDIX F: Summary of Calculations for Estimates of Percentage of Populations and
Number of Individuals Exposed to Airgun Array Noise
APPENDIX G: ION/GXT QHSE Policy and Management System
APPENDIX H: Waste Management Plans and Pollution Prevention Certificates
APPENDIX A
VESSEL AND EQUIPMENT DETAILS
Vessel
Specification
Page |1
OHS 18001
FM 583618
M/V HARRIER EXPLORER
TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION
SeaBird Exploration FZ LLC
Media City, Shatha Tower
PO Box 500549
Dubai, UAE
SeaBird Exploration Americas Inc.
1155 Dairy Ashford
Suite 206
Houston, TX 77079, USA
Tel: +971 4 427 1700
Fax: +971 4 429 0644
www.sbexp.com
Tel: +1 281-556-1666
Fax: +1 281-556-5315
www.sbexp.com
SeaBird Exploration PLC
Ariadne House
333 28th October Street
PO Box 58023
3730 Limassol, Cyprus
Tel: +357 2581 4416
Fax: +357 2581 4420
www.sbexp.com
SeaBird Exploration Norway AS
Stortingsgaten 8
N-0161 Oslo, Norway
PO Box 1302 Vika
N-0112 Oslo, Norway
Tel: +47 22 40 27 00
Fax: +47 22 40 27 01
www.sbexp.com
SeaBird Exploration
Pacific Region
VBox 889340
Singapore 919191
Asia
Tel: +65 9180 2605
Fax: +65 6258 4120
www.sbexp.com
Incorporated as a Free Zone Company with Limited Liability pursuant to the Dubai Technology and Media Free Zone Private Companies Regulation 2003 issued under law No. 1 of 2000 of the Emirate of Dubai (as amended).
.)‫ إلمارة دبي (وتعديالته‬2000 ‫) لسنة‬1( ‫ والصادر بموجب قانون رقم‬2003 ‫تأسست كشركة منطقة حرة ذات مسؤولية محدودة وفقا لقانون الشركات الخاصة في منطقة دبي الحرة للتكنولوجيا واإلعالم‬
Vessel
Specification
Page |2
OHS 18001
FM 583618
Table of Contents
Table of Contents .................................................................................................................... 2
1
Vessel Technical Information .............................................................................................. 3
2
HSSEQ management system ............................................................................................... 6
3
Planned Maintenance and Spare Part Control System ....................................................... 7
4
Positioning Systems............................................................................................................. 8
4.1
Integrated Navigation System..................................................................................................8
4.2
GNSS GPS Positioning ...............................................................................................................9
4.3
RGPS ...................................................................................................................................... 10
4.4
Streamer Positioning ............................................................................................................. 10
4.4.1 Streamer Control and Monitoring ..................................................................................... 10
4.4.2 Cable Depth Control / Heading Sensor ............................................................................. 10
5
Streamer System ............................................................................................................... 11
5.1
5.2
5.3
5.4
6
Recording System .................................................................................................................. 11
Storage System ...................................................................................................................... 12
Streamer ................................................................................................................................ 12
Automatic Streamer Retrievers ............................................................................................. 13
Energy Source .................................................................................................................... 13
6.1
Source Array Configuration ................................................................................................... 13
6.2
Air Gun Controller System ..................................................................................................... 13
6.2.1 Source Triggering............................................................................................................... 14
6.2.2 Control Algorithm .............................................................................................................. 14
6.3
Source Positioning ................................................................................................................. 14
6.4
Towing techniques................................................................................................................. 14
6.5
Gun Depth Transducer System .............................................................................................. 14
6.6
Compressor Plant .................................................................................................................. 14
6.7
Pressure monitoring & Control .............................................................................................. 15
7
Navigation Processing & QC .............................................................................................. 15
8
Seismic QC Processing System .......................................................................................... 16
9
Gravity Data Acquisition.................................................................................................... 16
10 Velocity Meter System ...................................................................................................... 16
11 Vessel diagrams ................................................................................................................. 17
PO Box 500549
Dubai, UAE
1155 Dairy Ashford
Suite 206
Tel: +971 4 427 1700
Fax: +971 4 429 0644
www.sbexp.com
Tel: +1 281-556-1666
Fax: +1 281-556-5315
www.sbexp.com
Ariadne House
PO Box 58023
Tel: +357 2581 4416
Fax: +357 2581 4420
www.sbexp.com
Stortingsgaten 8
N-0161 Oslo, Norway
PO Box 1302 Vika
N-0112 Oslo, Norway
Tel: +47 22 40 27 00
Fax: +47 22 40 27 01
www.sbexp.com
SeaBird Exploration
Pacific Region
VBox 889340
Singapore 919191
Asia
Tel: +65 9180 2605
Fax: +65 6258 4120
www.sbexp.com
Vessel
Specification
Page |3
OHS 18001
FM 583618
1 Vessel Technical Information
The Harrier Explorer is designed as a Solid Streamer 2D vessel or Large Array Shooting Vessel.
Name:
M/V Harrier Explorer
Call Sign:
3EIE3
Flag:
Panama
Type:
Seismic Survey Vessel
Built:
1979
Converted:
SUPPLY-SOURCE/2D Netherlands 2007
Home port:
Panama
Owner:
Harrier Navigation Company Ltd.
Classification:
Research Vessel
Length overall:
81.26 metres
Beam:
18.3 metres
Draft:
5.8 metres
Gross Tonnage:
4009
Net Tonnage:
996
Cruising Speed:
10.5 knots
Cruising Range:
23000 nautical miles
Fuel Capacity:
1260 m³ - (FO/HFO)
Fuel Consumption:
15.5 ton/day in 2D op
Fresh water capacity:
336 m³
Fresh water consumption:
10 - 12 m3/day
DailyFreshwater
Maker/Production:
2 x ENWA MT 20TSRH
Endurance:
Cruising: 90 days; Seismic: 60 days
Accommodation:
47 persons
Propulsion
Nohab F212V-D720
Twin pitch propellers
2 x 1960KW
2 Main Engines
A/E 1: AvK, 460 kW
A/E 2: AvK, 390 kW
A/E 3: Leroy Somers / Partner Alternators, 424 kW
Shaft generators: 2 X Siemens, 810 kW each
Main Engines / Generators:
/ 18m³ / day
Propeller:
Ulstein
Bow Thruster:
2x Bow - Ulstein AS 90TV 370KW
1x Aft - Ulstein AS150TV 590KW
PO Box 500549
Dubai, UAE
1155 Dairy Ashford
Suite 206
Tel: +971 4 427 1700
Fax: +971 4 429 0644
www.sbexp.com
Tel: +1 281-556-1666
Fax: +1 281-556-5315
www.sbexp.com
Ariadne House
PO Box 58023
Tel: +357 2581 4416
Fax: +357 2581 4420
www.sbexp.com
Stortingsgaten 8
N-0161 Oslo, Norway
PO Box 1302 Vika
N-0112 Oslo, Norway
Tel: +47 22 40 27 00
Fax: +47 22 40 27 01
www.sbexp.com
SeaBird Exploration
Pacific Region
VBox 889340
Singapore 919191
Asia
Tel: +65 9180 2605
Fax: +65 6258 4120
www.sbexp.com
Vessel
Specification
Page |4
OHS 18001
FM 583618
Cranes:
Incinerator:
1x Z-Martine AS 1600-50 SWL 5t /16m
1x Palfinger PK-10500M SWL 0.984t / 9.6m
1x TeamTec OGS 4000 / Capacity 500 kW
GMDSS:
A3
Additional radio sets:
3 x NAVICO AXIS -250
20 x Motorola G0 340
1 x Dittel FSG-2T 9 (Portable Helicopter VHF)
Radars:
1 Furuno S – Band FAR 2117
1 Furuno X – Band FAR 2137S
GPS Navigator:
2 x Furuno GP – 150
Gyro Compass:
Bridge Gyro Compass:
Autopilot:
Cassens & Plath Type III
SIMRAD Robertson RGSC 12
Robertson AP9 MK3
Compass repeater - Tokimec
Speed Log:
1xFuruno DS80
Echo sounder:
1x Skipper GDS-101
Navtex/weather fax:
1x Furuno NX 700
Weather station
Shore Connection
Video Monitoring system:
CCTV – Radio Holland
Internal telephone/PA:
Vingtor VMP 430 / Vingtor VMP 603
Inmarsat C:
1x Furuno – FELCOM 15
1x Sailor DT-4646E
Data Modem:
Vsat GIS/MTN 320kbs
Norsat C
Helideck
CAP 437, BSL D 5-1 and HCA req. for Offshore Helidecks.
Maximum “D” value: 20.9 (single rotor)
Maximum take-off weight: 12.8 t
PO Box 500549
Dubai, UAE
1155 Dairy Ashford
Suite 206
Tel: +971 4 427 1700
Fax: +971 4 429 0644
www.sbexp.com
Tel: +1 281-556-1666
Fax: +1 281-556-5315
www.sbexp.com
Ariadne House
PO Box 58023
Tel: +357 2581 4416
Fax: +357 2581 4420
www.sbexp.com
Stortingsgaten 8
N-0161 Oslo, Norway
PO Box 1302 Vika
N-0112 Oslo, Norway
Tel: +47 22 40 27 00
Fax: +47 22 40 27 01
www.sbexp.com
SeaBird Exploration
Pacific Region
VBox 889340
Singapore 919191
Asia
Tel: +65 9180 2605
Fax: +65 6258 4120
www.sbexp.com
Vessel
Specification
Page |5
OHS 18001
FM 583618
Life Boat:
None
Life Rafts:
6 x 25 persons
MOB raft
1 x 6 persons
Rescue Boat:
1 x 12 man (Jet boat) Norsafe “Magnum 750”
Work Boat
1 x 6 man Norpower 22
Emergency radios:
3 Sailor RT - 2048
Life Boat radios:
GMDSS – Marconi Marine - 3
Fire pump:
2 - 120m³/h 10Bar
Emergency fire pump:
1
Fire Extinguisher:
75
CO2 System:
1
Streamer reel fire fighting:
FM200 Foam System
Storage reel fire fighting:
FM200 Foam System
Fire suits (BA-sets):
Air compressor:
2 x Draaeger
2 x Unitor
1
Smoke hoods:
47 x Sundstrom SR77-2
Line thrower:
Pains Wessex - 3
Survival suits:
64 Sterns and Viking
Life vests:
113
Life rings:
15
Work floating vest:
18 Crewsaver
Gas monitor:
1 Drager, 1 MSA , HL 2
Medical Equipment:
Complete Hospital
Resuscitators:
2
PO Box 500549
Dubai, UAE
1155 Dairy Ashford
Suite 206
Tel: +971 4 427 1700
Fax: +971 4 429 0644
www.sbexp.com
Tel: +1 281-556-1666
Fax: +1 281-556-5315
www.sbexp.com
Ariadne House
PO Box 58023
Tel: +357 2581 4416
Fax: +357 2581 4420
www.sbexp.com
Stortingsgaten 8
N-0161 Oslo, Norway
PO Box 1302 Vika
N-0112 Oslo, Norway
Tel: +47 22 40 27 00
Fax: +47 22 40 27 01
www.sbexp.com
SeaBird Exploration
Pacific Region
VBox 889340
Singapore 919191
Asia
Tel: +65 9180 2605
Fax: +65 6258 4120
www.sbexp.com
Vessel
Specification
Page |6
OHS 18001
FM 583618
2 HSSEQ management system
The vessel has a Management system (MS) based on the corporate MS structure for health, safety,
security, environment and quality which are fully auditable, compliant with and aligned to Corporate
OGP model, ISM / ISPS , OHSAS 18001 and ISO9001/14001.
All vessels conform to these to ensure Industry and regulatory compliance in all its worldwide
operational spheres.
These practical on-board systems cover (but not limited to)
1 Leadership and commitment
1.1 Mission Statement
1.2 Management activity
1.3 Plans and targets
2 Policies and strategic objectives
2.1 Strategic objectives
2.2 Policies
3 Organisation, resources and documentation
3.1 Organisational structure and responsibilities
3.2 Management representatives
3.3 Resources
3.4 Competence
3.5 Contractors and suppliers
3.6 Communication
3.7 Documentation and its control
4 Evaluation and risk management
4.1 Identification of hazards and effects
4.2 Evaluation
4.3 Recording of hazards and effects
4.4 Objectives and performance criteria
4.5 Risk reduction measures
5 Planning
5.1 General
5.2 Asset integrity
5.3 Manuals
5.4 Procedures
5.5 Management of change
5.6 Contingency and emergency planning
5.7 Checklists
5.8 Project planning
6 Implementation and monitoring
6.1 Activities and tasks
6.2 Monitoring
6.3 Records
6.4 Non-compliance and corrective actions
6.5 Incident management
7 Auditing and reviewing
7.1 Auditing
7.2 Reviewing
Access to Vessel and Corporate Management System is thru the web based SeaArc and SeaNet
Interfaces. Two way replication over the vsat link insures that systems in the office and all vessels are
always synchronised and up-to-date. Access is available throughout the vessel with job specific
access granted to on-board clients.
PO Box 500549
Dubai, UAE
1155 Dairy Ashford
Suite 206
Tel: +971 4 427 1700
Fax: +971 4 429 0644
www.sbexp.com
Tel: +1 281-556-1666
Fax: +1 281-556-5315
www.sbexp.com
Ariadne House
PO Box 58023
Tel: +357 2581 4416
Fax: +357 2581 4420
www.sbexp.com
Stortingsgaten 8
N-0161 Oslo, Norway
PO Box 1302 Vika
N-0112 Oslo, Norway
Tel: +47 22 40 27 00
Fax: +47 22 40 27 01
www.sbexp.com
SeaBird Exploration
Pacific Region
VBox 889340
Singapore 919191
Asia
Tel: +65 9180 2605
Fax: +65 6258 4120
www.sbexp.com
Vessel
Specification
Page |7
OHS 18001
FM 583618
3 Planned Maintenance and Spare Part Control System
M/V Harrier Explorer uses the TM-MASTER database system for planned maintenance and
spare part control for marine systems.
The marine department has created a database of all components containing details of
component name, maker, type, serial number, basic specifications and other contact
information.
Component suppliers can be accessed, supplier details updated and new ones added.
The system allows spare part tracking and order processing. Spare parts are linked to
each component; details include spare parts group for that component, spare parts in
each group, spare parts name and location, number of parts in stock and ordered,
supplier details.
The system displays planned maintenance routines for each component, including
information on job types and description, job numbers, job intervals and (colour-coded)
Next Due Date, running hours count and spare parts requirements.
The history for any specified job or component may be viewed and also reports on spare
part consumption. Furthermore, it is possible to write a service report independent of the
regular jobs scheduled for each component.
TM Master is also used by all Seismic departments for asset tracking, planned
maintenance, spare part tracking and order processing via TM Procurement
TM Master ® is the main product of Tero Marine AS. It is a Windows based Planned
Maintenance and Spare Part Control System for Ship Management with the following
main functions:
•
Equipment and Inventory control
•
Spare part stock control
•
Purchase and order processing
•
Maintenance planning with work order processing and reporting
•
Maintenance and service history, including conditions, reasons, symptoms,
man-hours, free text- and standard forms-reporting
•
Analysis of maintenance history
•
Survey and certificate control
TM Procurement is a cost and time saving purchasing system, tailored to the needs of the
maritime industry. The module, which is fully integrated in TM Master, is easily scalable
and streamlines the entire procurement process from requisition to delivery and
payment.
PO Box 500549
Dubai, UAE
1155 Dairy Ashford
Suite 206
Tel: +971 4 427 1700
Fax: +971 4 429 0644
www.sbexp.com
Tel: +1 281-556-1666
Fax: +1 281-556-5315
www.sbexp.com
Ariadne House
PO Box 58023
Tel: +357 2581 4416
Fax: +357 2581 4420
www.sbexp.com
Stortingsgaten 8
N-0161 Oslo, Norway
PO Box 1302 Vika
N-0112 Oslo, Norway
Tel: +47 22 40 27 00
Fax: +47 22 40 27 01
www.sbexp.com
SeaBird Exploration
Pacific Region
VBox 889340
Singapore 919191
Asia
Tel: +65 9180 2605
Fax: +65 6258 4120
www.sbexp.com
Vessel
Specification
Page |8
OHS 18001
FM 583618
4 Positioning Systems
4.1 Integrated Navigation System
Seapro Nav is a comprehensive integrated seismic navigation system with a modular design and off
the shelf hardware allowing customers to quickly reap the benefits of any innovations in navigational
techniques. Sercel , the largest seismic equipment manufacturer, provides 24 hours system support
and are committed to a policy of continuous improvement to keep pace with ever increasing
positioning and quality control demands. SeaPro Nav coupled with SeaPro Resolve provide customers
with an extreamly powerfull package for cost-effective on-board integrated navigation, incorporating
position quality control to meet Survey needs. SeaPro Nav architecture allows fast adoption of new
seismic techniques and incorporates Sophisticated alarms based on GIS technologies
Type
2D Integrated Navigation System
Model
Sercel SeaPro Nav
Manufacturer
Sercel France
Program Version
1.7 2D
Gyro Compass
2 X TSS Meridian Survey
Echo sounder
Kongsberg Simrad EA400 200,38kHz
Draft Correction
Yes
Shot Interval, nominal
Customer specified
Line mode
Grid, Rhumb or Great Circle
Projection
Selectable between UTM and TM.
Working Spheroid
Job Specified
Semi-major axis
Job Specified
Inverse Flattening
Job Specified
Working Datum Used
Job Specified
PO Box 500549
Dubai, UAE
1155 Dairy Ashford
Suite 206
Tel: +971 4 427 1700
Fax: +971 4 429 0644
www.sbexp.com
Tel: +1 281-556-1666
Fax: +1 281-556-5315
www.sbexp.com
Ariadne House
PO Box 58023
Tel: +357 2581 4416
Fax: +357 2581 4420
www.sbexp.com
Stortingsgaten 8
N-0161 Oslo, Norway
PO Box 1302 Vika
N-0112 Oslo, Norway
Tel: +47 22 40 27 00
Fax: +47 22 40 27 01
www.sbexp.com
SeaBird Exploration
Pacific Region
VBox 889340
Singapore 919191
Asia
Tel: +65 9180 2605
Fax: +65 6258 4120
www.sbexp.com
Vessel
Specification
Page |9
OHS 18001
FM 583618
4.2 GNSS GPS Positioning
The VERIPOS Apex service is the latest, global, high-accuracy GNSS positioning service designed to
meet all offshore positioning and navigation applications. Apex is complementary to the VERIPOS
Ultra service and provides decimetre level accuracy. Each service operates independently. Apex uses
Precise Point Positioning
(PPP) – an absolute positioning technique which corrects or models all GNSS error sources, i.e. GPS
satellite orbit and clocks, tropospheric, ionospheric and multipath errors. The PPP technique consists
of a single set of ‘globally applicable’ corrections to the satellite orbits and clocks, so position
accuracy is maintained regardless of user location.
VERIPOS operates its own orbit and clock determination system (OCDS) which derives real-time
corrections for all satellites in the GPS constellation using proprietary algorithms. The OCDS uses data
from the
VERIPOS reference station network with multiple and redundant OCDS systems running in VERIPOSoperated Network Control Centres in Aberdeen and Singapore. These stations are independent from
the reference stations used by JPL to derive the orbit and clock corrections used by Ultra. Apex is
broadcast alongside Ultra via seven geostationary communications satellites to ensure availability
and service redundancy.
Manufacturer
Subsea 7 Veripos
Model
Veripos LD2 Ultra / Apex, Dual Redundant Systems
Type
GNSS with fall back to Ultra GNSS or Standard +/Standard Solutions
Position Type
Precise Point Positioning
Observations Used
L1/L2 carrier phase
Availability
Worldwide
Typical Latency
2 Seconds
Normal Vertical Accuracy
20cm (95%)
Normal Horizontal Accuracy
20cm (95%)
GPS Gyro
Asterx Veripos computed
Gyro Accuracy
0.1 Degrees
QC
Veripos VerifyQC, FGPS
Type
PC based QC system
PO Box 500549
Dubai, UAE
1155 Dairy Ashford
Suite 206
Tel: +971 4 427 1700
Fax: +971 4 429 0644
www.sbexp.com
Tel: +1 281-556-1666
Fax: +1 281-556-5315
www.sbexp.com
Ariadne House
PO Box 58023
Tel: +357 2581 4416
Fax: +357 2581 4420
www.sbexp.com
Stortingsgaten 8
N-0161 Oslo, Norway
PO Box 1302 Vika
N-0112 Oslo, Norway
Tel: +47 22 40 27 00
Fax: +47 22 40 27 01
www.sbexp.com
SeaBird Exploration
Pacific Region
VBox 889340
Singapore 919191
Asia
Tel: +65 9180 2605
Fax: +65 6258 4120
www.sbexp.com
Vessel
Specification
P a g e | 10
OHS 18001
FM 583618
4.3 RGPS
Vessel utilizes Seamap's Buoylink RGPS system for position aiding of source arrays and tailbuoys. The
Seamap Buoylink Ex is a RGPS based system capable of providing sub meter positioning of seismic
gun floats, tailbuoys and other remote vehicles through the employment of data transmission by
either cable or UHF radio telemetry or both simultaneously.
A reference GPS receiver is installed on the vessel to provide a reference position. The processing PC
will calculate a range and bearing to each remote module using the GPS pseudo range and carrier
phase data. Processed and raw data may be output to the vessels integrated navigation system as
well as stored on the processing PC.
Manufacturer / Model
GPS Receivers
Range
Frequency
RGPS Module housing
Operator Console
SeaMap / Buoylink EX
Novatel GPS receivers in master and each remote
Radio Source Pod >1Km, Tailbuoy Pod >12Km
902 to 928MHz (Spread spectrum) @ 1 watt
High Strength Delrin® Plastic
Windows XP PC, RtkNav RGPS Software
4.4 Streamer Positioning
During 2D Operations Offset is determined by measuring the distance from the geometrical centre of
the source to the centre of first the group. Using a single gun, this is done by measuring the time,
from when the gun fires, using the Gun Sensor, to when the pulse reaches the first water break.
Taking into account the distance from the near-field hydrophone to the Gun, the hydrophone might
be used instead of the Gun Sensor.
4.4.1 Streamer Control and Monitoring
The DigiCourse System 3 PCS system controls the depth of the streamer while providing the
navigation INS system with depth and compass data.
Manufacturer
ION DigiCourse
Model
System 3 PCS
Software Version
Sys3 V.6.01
Modem, Model
SYS 3 PCS
4.4.2 Cable Depth Control / Heading Sensor
The Model 5011 Compass Bird has a Model 321 Heading Sensor in the body of the unit. This allows
depth, temperature and heading data, plus depth-keeping ability to be derived from just one
externally mounted device.
The assembly is streamlined to minimise flow-inducted noise generation, and is designed for
compatibility with existing mounting hardware and communication coils. The unit is battery
powered, and supports a number of functions for improved cable depth control.
Communication with up to 63 DigiBIRDs occurs over a single twisted pair transmission line, using
traditional inductive coupling techniques in a 27 kHz FSK communication link.
The DigiBIRD supports a variety of command and data acquisition functions, including:
•
Setting cable running depth
•
Reporting current depth and temperature
•
Reporting battery usage in hours and minutes
PO Box 500549
Dubai, UAE
1155 Dairy Ashford
Suite 206
Tel: +971 4 427 1700
Fax: +971 4 429 0644
www.sbexp.com
Tel: +1 281-556-1666
Fax: +1 281-556-5315
www.sbexp.com
Ariadne House
PO Box 58023
Tel: +357 2581 4416
Fax: +357 2581 4420
www.sbexp.com
Stortingsgaten 8
N-0161 Oslo, Norway
PO Box 1302 Vika
N-0112 Oslo, Norway
Tel: +47 22 40 27 00
Fax: +47 22 40 27 01
www.sbexp.com
SeaBird Exploration
Pacific Region
VBox 889340
Singapore 919191
Asia
Tel: +65 9180 2605
Fax: +65 6258 4120
www.sbexp.com
Vessel
Specification
P a g e | 11
OHS 18001
FM 583618
•
Reporting wing angle with a resolution of .1 degree
•
Providing ballast information
Using a seawater port, the bird monitors depth over a range of 0 - 400 feet (122 meters), with a
resolution of 0.1 feet and absolute accuracy of up to ± 0.5 feet. Operator controlled parameters can
maintain depth to ± 0.5 feet or lengthen battery life from 2000 to 5000 hours. Once programmed
with an operating depth, the bird operates autonomously to supply sufficient force to control cable
depth. In addition, the control algorithm parameters may be altered under software control to
respond to changing environmental or operational conditions.
Emergency surface or emergency dive facilities are provided in the System 3 Operation Station.
Manufacturer
ION DigiCourse
Mechanical:
Weight 5011
Length
6.1 lb or 2.8 Kg in sea water
48.2 inches (1.2 meters)
Cells
SLB 150
Life
150 days
Type
Serial FSK
Communication:
Frequency
27 Mhz
Data Rate
2400 Bits/sec
Diving plane:
Lift
35 pounds (15.9 Kg) at 5 knots
Airfoil
NACA 651-012 airfoil section
Aspect ratio
2.0
Wing Span
19 inches (48 cm)
Surface area
140 sq inches (903 sq.cm)
Depth Sensor:
Operating range
to 400 feet (122 m)
Accuracy
+/- 0.5 feet (0.15 m)
Resolution
+/- 0.1 feet (0.03 m)
Resolution
0.3 degrees
Compass:
Accuracy
+/- 0.5 degrees
Sampling
0.3 to 6 seconds
Averaging
0,3,7,15,31 samples
5 Streamer System
5.1 Recording System
Vessel is equipped with an ION DigiSTREAMER, Marine 24 bit recording system and Gel
Filled Solid Streamer. System is capable of zero dead time recording and maintained to
the latest software revision level thru maintenance agreements with the manufacturer. A
PO Box 500549
Dubai, UAE
1155 Dairy Ashford
Suite 206
Tel: +971 4 427 1700
Fax: +971 4 429 0644
www.sbexp.com
Tel: +1 281-556-1666
Fax: +1 281-556-5315
www.sbexp.com
Ariadne House
PO Box 58023
Tel: +357 2581 4416
Fax: +357 2581 4420
www.sbexp.com
Stortingsgaten 8
N-0161 Oslo, Norway
PO Box 1302 Vika
N-0112 Oslo, Norway
Tel: +47 22 40 27 00
Fax: +47 22 40 27 01
www.sbexp.com
SeaBird Exploration
Pacific Region
VBox 889340
Singapore 919191
Asia
Tel: +65 9180 2605
Fax: +65 6258 4120
www.sbexp.com
Vessel
Specification
P a g e | 12
OHS 18001
FM 583618
complete set of online QC displays and inbuilt test set insure the system is always
performing above the manufacturer recommended specification.
Manufacturer
ION Maine Imaging Systems
Type
DigiSTREAMER
Max. number of streamers
Single Streamer
Max. number of channels / streamer
12Km Streamer, 960 Traces
Auxiliary channels
16 or 32
Channels per Section
8
Preamplifier gain
0, 12, 24, or 36dB
Sample rate
0.5, 1.0, 2.0 or 4.0 milliseconds
Lo-cut Filter type
2 Hz @ 6 dB/octave; single-pole; analog / selectable,
digital, IIR filters in DigiSTREAMER recorder
Hi Cut filter
1 ms 429 Hz (574 dB/octave & greater than –130 dB
at Nyquist)
at Nyquist)
at Nyquist)
5.2 Storage System
All seismic data is written to IBM 3592 cartridge drives. DataBuffers are used to insure any tapedrive
failures do not result in loss of data.
Tape stations, manufacture
IBM 3592
Recording Media
IBM 3592 Cartridge
Data Transfer Rate
400MB/sec Burst, 100MB/sec Standard
Capacity
Unformatted: 300 GB or 60 GB economy chartridge
Recording Format
SEG D rev 1
5.3 Streamer
Vessel uses Gel Filled Solid ION DigiSTREAMER streamer, Sections have a diameter no bigger than 53
mm. Streamer phones are arranged in a Linear array; utilizing a proprietary spacing scheme to reduce
noise. Each section is 100m in length and incorporates Teledyne T-2BX style; water-resistant
Hydrophones. Sections are repairable worldwide at anyone of the Teledyne repair facilities.
Active streamer length
1 X 12,000m
Number of channels
960
Channel numbering
Trace 1 at head (Vessel)
Streamer Type
ION DigiSTREAMER
Streamer manufacturer
ION Marine Imaging Systems
Group length
proprietary spacing scheme to reduce noise
Group Interval
12.5 m Centre to centre group
Hydrophone type
Teledyne T-2BX style; water-resistant
Groups per section
8
Hydrophones per group
8
PO Box 500549
Dubai, UAE
1155 Dairy Ashford
Suite 206
Tel: +971 4 427 1700
Fax: +971 4 429 0644
www.sbexp.com
Tel: +1 281-556-1666
Fax: +1 281-556-5315
www.sbexp.com
Ariadne House
PO Box 58023
Tel: +357 2581 4416
Fax: +357 2581 4420
www.sbexp.com
Stortingsgaten 8
N-0161 Oslo, Norway
PO Box 1302 Vika
N-0112 Oslo, Norway
Tel: +47 22 40 27 00
Fax: +47 22 40 27 01
www.sbexp.com
SeaBird Exploration
Pacific Region
VBox 889340
Singapore 919191
Asia
Tel: +65 9180 2605
Fax: +65 6258 4120
www.sbexp.com
Vessel
Specification
P a g e | 13
OHS 18001
FM 583618
Group sensitivity
18.2 V/bar
Operating depth
Client specified
Active section length (nominal)
100 metre
Active section Diameter
53 mm
5.4 Automatic Streamer Retrievers
Seismic streamers are equipped with Streamer Recovery Devices designed to aid in the location and
recover of the streamer in the event of a streamer incident.
Manufacture
Concord Technologies, Inc., Houston; USA
Model
SRD-500S recovery device
No. in use per 6000 m streamer
10
Release depth
48 metres
6 Energy Source
6.1 Source Array Configuration
Vessel is equipped with six soft float sub-arrays designed to be configured as a single 2D array or Dual
3D arrays.
Number of arrays
Single or Dual Array
Type
BOLT Technologies LLXT Air-Guns
No. sub-arrays
6 sub-arrays
Air Gun type
BOLT 1900 LLXT
Volume
Client specified
Gun Depth
Client specified, variable by depth rope
Towing width
Client specified, variable by vane rigging
Seismic Offset
Client specified, 120m Standard
Nominal working pressure
2000 psi
6.2 Air Gun Controller System
Manufacturer
SeaMap
Model
SeaMap GunLink 2000
No of guns
System configured for 96 guns, 6 GCUs
Input gain
Programmable
Parameter Back-up
Hard Disk
Operator Consoles
Observer 2 X 21" , Remote 2 X 21”
Synchronisation model
Automatic Individual
Synchronisation
Typical +/- 1.00 msec
Resolution
0.1 msec
Timing method
Positive threshold Peak Detetct
PO Box 500549
Dubai, UAE
1155 Dairy Ashford
Suite 206
Tel: +971 4 427 1700
Fax: +971 4 429 0644
www.sbexp.com
Tel: +1 281-556-1666
Fax: +1 281-556-5315
www.sbexp.com
Ariadne House
PO Box 58023
Tel: +357 2581 4416
Fax: +357 2581 4420
www.sbexp.com
Stortingsgaten 8
N-0161 Oslo, Norway
PO Box 1302 Vika
N-0112 Oslo, Norway
Tel: +47 22 40 27 00
Fax: +47 22 40 27 01
www.sbexp.com
SeaBird Exploration
Pacific Region
VBox 889340
Singapore 919191
Asia
Tel: +65 9180 2605
Fax: +65 6258 4120
www.sbexp.com
Vessel
Specification
P a g e | 14
OHS 18001
FM 583618
6.2.1 Source Triggering
The sequence of events is initiated by the navigation INS generating a pulse, starting the Digi
STREAMER recording instruments and SeaMap GunLink 2000 System to fire the airguns. The SeaMap
GunLink 2000 sends a time break to the INS once the source has fired. Gunlink is set to fire the
source after a preset delay usually of 40ms.
6.2.2 Control Algorithm
Signals from gun timing sensor inputs, firing solenoid currents and near field hydrophones are
individually digitised and stored. The system software then determines the gun firing times using gun
manufacturer’s specified timing method allied to SeaMap’s “Smart Pick” correlation software if
required. All gun timing parameters for all guns are recorded to a SQL database on the host PC hard
disk for subsequent further analysis if required.
6.3 Source Positioning
The source is positioned using a SeaMap BuoyLink RGPS system with ruggedized RGPS
pods located on the tail end of each sub-array. The centre of source is calculated by
SeaPro Nav based on the range & bearing information provided by the RGPS pods.
6.4 Towing techniques
The airguns on each sub array are suspended on gun plates hanging from a flexible float.
Separation between each array is achieved by adjusting the separation ropes between
arrays and the towing ropes to the deflector wide tow ropes. All arrays are towed from
the wide tow ropes if desired.
6.5 Gun Depth Transducer System
The Gun Depth Transducer System provides an accurate and reliable method for
determining the depth of seismic source. The two-wire, frequency-modulated devices are
mounted in close proximity to the air gun and report depth to the boat either
continuously or periodically in sequential mode when used in multiplexed system. All
enabled gun depths are recorded for every shot to a SQL database on the host PC hard
disk for subsequent analysis if required.
6.6 Compressor Plant
Vessel is equipped with three LMF compressors with its standard array allowing only one compressor
to be run during production and the other compressors to be on standby. During the use of High
Volume arrays two compressors can be run with one unit on standby.
Compressors
3 x LMF 51/138-207-D
Manufacturer
LMF
Type
LMF 51
Output Pressure
207 bars/ 3000 psi
Output Capacity
3 x 1801 CFM.
PO Box 500549
Dubai, UAE
1155 Dairy Ashford
Suite 206
Tel: +971 4 427 1700
Fax: +971 4 429 0644
www.sbexp.com
Tel: +1 281-556-1666
Fax: +1 281-556-5315
www.sbexp.com
Ariadne House
PO Box 58023
Tel: +357 2581 4416
Fax: +357 2581 4420
www.sbexp.com
Stortingsgaten 8
N-0161 Oslo, Norway
PO Box 1302 Vika
N-0112 Oslo, Norway
Tel: +47 22 40 27 00
Fax: +47 22 40 27 01
www.sbexp.com
SeaBird Exploration
Pacific Region
VBox 889340
Singapore 919191
Asia
Tel: +65 9180 2605
Fax: +65 6258 4120
www.sbexp.com
Vessel
Specification
P a g e | 15
OHS 18001
FM 583618
6.7 Pressure monitoring & Control
Each Sub Array is fitted with a Pressure Transducer to monitor the individual Sub Arrays Pressure at
Shot time. A pressure transducer is also mounted at the main manifold. Air pressure is monitored
and recorded continuously throughout the line by the Gunlink 2000 system as well as the Navigation
INS.
7 Navigation Processing & QC
SeisPos is a Windows based program used to perform processing of raw navigation data, both 2D &
3D, for seismic surveys from UKOOA P2 raw data format to UKOOA P1/90 final data format. SeisPos
comprises a number of discrete modules which, executed in turn, form a logical processing flow:
Input: Builds a proprietary database of network and observation data from raw data files
recorded in UKOOA P2/91 and P2/94 formats. Performs format compliance checking and
data integrity checks, taking advantage of redundant information.
Precondition: Pre-conditions raw data to eliminate outliers and reduce noise.
Database: Fast bespoke binary database of header information, raw and processed data.
Network Adjustment: Multi-vessel, multi-streamer. Fully integrated weighted least squares
solution.
Output: Outputs user configurable positioning data in the industry standard UKOOA P1/90
format or Shell Processing Support (SPS) format.
Quality Control: Interactive time series plots of all adjustment QC data
P1Tools
is a Windows based program used to perform Quality Control of navigation data for
seismic surveys recorded in the industry standard UKOOA P1/90 format, and which also provides an
extensive set of utilities relating to P1/90 and Shell Processing Support (SPS) datasets:
QC Offsets and Integrity:Computes ranges between pairs of nodes as configured by the user
QC Nodes: Computes shot to shot movement and depth of nodes configured by the user
Compare: Performs shot by shot comparison of positions and depths between two P1/90
files for nodes configured by the user
Trend Analysis: Line-by-line time series plots of:
-Node offsets
-Node movement
-P1/90 Comparison
Statistical Testing: Application of user defined acceptance criteria to:
-Node offsets
-Node movement
-P1/90 Comparison
Replay: Interactive graphical replay of P1/90
PO Box 500549
Dubai, UAE
1155 Dairy Ashford
Suite 206
Tel: +971 4 427 1700
Fax: +971 4 429 0644
www.sbexp.com
Tel: +1 281-556-1666
Fax: +1 281-556-5315
www.sbexp.com
Ariadne House
PO Box 58023
Tel: +357 2581 4416
Fax: +357 2581 4420
www.sbexp.com
Stortingsgaten 8
N-0161 Oslo, Norway
PO Box 1302 Vika
N-0112 Oslo, Norway
Tel: +47 22 40 27 00
Fax: +47 22 40 27 01
www.sbexp.com
SeaBird Exploration
Pacific Region
VBox 889340
Singapore 919191
Asia
Tel: +65 9180 2605
Fax: +65 6258 4120
www.sbexp.com
Vessel
Specification
P a g e | 16
OHS 18001
FM 583618
SeisPos
P1 Tools
8 Seismic QC Processing System
Vessel is equipped with a processing system capable of performing 2D QC of vessel data. System can
be upgraded as required to perform additional processing.
9 Gravity Data Acquisition
Not installed at this time.
An industry standard system can be provided as required.
10 Velocity Meter System
Not Installed at this time.
PO Box 500549
Dubai, UAE
1155 Dairy Ashford
Suite 206
Tel: +971 4 427 1700
Fax: +971 4 429 0644
www.sbexp.com
Tel: +1 281-556-1666
Fax: +1 281-556-5315
www.sbexp.com
Ariadne House
PO Box 58023
Tel: +357 2581 4416
Fax: +357 2581 4420
www.sbexp.com
Stortingsgaten 8
N-0161 Oslo, Norway
PO Box 1302 Vika
N-0112 Oslo, Norway
Tel: +47 22 40 27 00
Fax: +47 22 40 27 01
www.sbexp.com
SeaBird Exploration
Pacific Region
VBox 889340
Singapore 919191
Asia
Tel: +65 9180 2605
Fax: +65 6258 4120
www.sbexp.com
Vessel
Specification
P a g e | 17
OHS 18001
FM 583618
11 Vessel diagrams
PO Box 500549
Dubai, UAE
1155 Dairy Ashford
Suite 206
Tel: +971 4 427 1700
Fax: +971 4 429 0644
www.sbexp.com
Tel: +1 281-556-1666
Fax: +1 281-556-5315
www.sbexp.com
Ariadne House
PO Box 58023
Tel: +357 2581 4416
Fax: +357 2581 4420
www.sbexp.com
Stortingsgaten 8
N-0161 Oslo, Norway
PO Box 1302 Vika
N-0112 Oslo, Norway
Tel: +47 22 40 27 00
Fax: +47 22 40 27 01
www.sbexp.com
SeaBird Exploration
Pacific Region
VBox 889340
Singapore 919191
Asia
Tel: +65 9180 2605
Fax: +65 6258 4120
www.sbexp.com
Polar Prince
GENERAL VESSEL PARTICULARS
Built: 1959
Major refit 1985
Owners: GX Technology Canada Ltd. Calgary Alberta
Flag: Canada
Certification: Transport Canada Marine Safety & DNV
Length: 67.06 m
Breadth: 15 m
Draft: 5 m
Freeboard: 1.6 m
Gross Tonnage: 2152 Tonnes
Net Tonnage: 613 Tonnes
Cruising Speed: 11 kts
Max. Speed: 14.5 kts
Compliment: 52 souls
Helicopter flight deck with retractable hanger
CARGO:
Hold 1: 427.84 m^3 Hatch 1: 5.5 x 3.5 m
Hold 2: 473 m^3 Hatch 2: 5.5 x 5.5 m
Hatch covers: MacGregor patent folding covers
ENGINEERING:
Propulsion: Diesel Electric driving 2 fixed pitch propellers
Power: 3820 k Watts (5123 hp)
Engines: 4 Morse-Fairbanks 38 D 8 1/8 Diesels
Service Generators: 3 Caterpillar 3408
Emergency Generators: Deutz A6 M816
Bubbler: Caterpillar 3512 DI
Steering: Single rudder mounted between propellers
Bubbler system can be used as a bow thruster
CAPACITY:
DIESEL OIL CAPACITIES
COMPARTMENT
98% FULL CUBIC METERS
FWD. DEEP TANK
99.87
NO. 1 DOUBLE BOTTOM (P)
26.93
NO. 1 DOUBLE BOTTOM (S)
26.93
50.32
50.32
FLUME TANK UPPER
75.86
FLUME TANK LOWER
69.02
DEEP TANK (P)
131.62
DEEP TANK (S)
132.3
SETTLING TANK (P)
16.93
SETTLING TANK (S)
16.25
EMERGENCY GEN. TANK
0.47
F.O. DAY TANK (P)
2.32
F.O. DAY TANK (S)
2.32
TOTAL
701.46
WATER BALLAST CAPACITIES
COMPARTMENT
FORE PEAK
60.37
FWD DEEP TANK
101.91
27.5
27.5
FLUME TANK UPPER
77.41
FLUME TANK LOWER
70.43
NO. 4 DOUBLE BOTTOM
50.74
AFT PEAK
80.76
TOTAL
496.62
FRESH WATER CAPACITIES
COMPARTMENT
FLUME TANK UPPER
77.41
FLUME TANK LOWER
70.43
71.92
71.92
WB TANK AFT
16.82
NO. 4 DOUBLE BOTTOM
50.74
TOTAL
359.24
CARGO CAPACITIES
CUBIC METERS
NO. 1 TWEEN DECKS
246.47
NO. 1 HOLD
181.37
NO. 2 HOLD
473
TOTAL
900.84
MISC TANKS
COMPARTMENT
HELICOPTER FUEL TANK
5.15
LUBE OIL 218 GAL (P)
0.97
4.62
LUBE OIL 1050 GAL (S)
4.62
1.36
LUBE OIL 314 GAL (S)
1.36
BUBBLER DAY TANK
2.04
TOTAL
20.12
STORES & PROVISIONS
COMPARTMENT
CUBIC METERS
COOL ROOMS (UPPER DK)
26.96
COLD ROOM (UPPER DK)
14.27
HANDLING ROOM (LOWER DK)
6.37
GENERATOR (P) (LOWER DK)
61.11
CENTRAL STORE (S) (LOWER DK)
78.64
R.O. STORE (UPPER DK)
7.25
LAMP-PAINT RM. (UPPER DK)
22.43
BOSUN'S STORE (UPPER DK)
22.43
FWD STORE
61.5
TOTAL
300.96
NAVIGATION ELECTRONICS:
GYRO COMPASS: Sperry mark 37 mod D and mark 37 mod D E
Magnetic compass
GPS: Trimble Navigation NT 200D GPS
Furuno GPS Navigator GP-150
Full GMDSS suite for sea area A3
AIS: JRC JHC 182
RADAR: S band: Sperry Rascar -29 CP
X band: Sperry 4016 X-59 CP
ARPA: Sperry Rascar
LIFTING GEAR:
HIAB 180 Seacrane mounted between hatch No. 1 and hatch No. 2 SWL 10 – 1 Tonne
HIAB 180 Seacrane mounted on stbd boat deck SWL 10 – 1 Tonne
Tugger winch port side aft of No. 2 hatch
GROUND TACKLE:
Forward windlass: two 2T Byers Improved anchors
Aft windlass: 0.5 T Byers Improved anchor on wire rope
Spare anchor: 2T Byers Improved anchor
APPENDIX B:
REVIEW OF THE EFFECTS OF AIRGUN SOUNDS ON MARINE MAMMALS 1
1
By W. John Richardson and Valerie D. Moulton, with subsequent updates (to Feb. 2013) by WJR, VDM,
Meike Holst and others, especially Patrick Abgrall, William E. Cross, and Mari A. Smultea, all of LGL Ltd.,
environmental research associates.
Table of Contents
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.
REVIEW OF THE EFFECTS OF AIRGUN SOUNDS ON MARINE MAMMALS ............................................ 1
1.1
Categories of Noise Effects .................................................................................................... 1
1.2
Hearing Abilities of Marine Mammals ................................................................................ 1
1.2.1 Toothed Whales (Odontocetes) ..................................................................................... 2
1.2.2 Baleen Whales (Mysticetes) .......................................................................................... 2
1.2.3 Seals and Sea Lions (Pinnipeds) .................................................................................... 3
1.2.4 Manatees and Dugong (Sirenians) ................................................................................. 3
1.2.5 Sea Otter and Polar Bear ............................................................................................... 4
1.3
Characteristics of Airgun Sounds ........................................................................................ 4
1.4
Masking Effects of Airgun Sounds ....................................................................................... 6
1.5
Disturbance by Seismic Surveys ........................................................................................... 7
1.5.1 Baleen Whales ............................................................................................................... 9
1.5.2 Toothed Whales ........................................................................................................... 15
1.5.3 Pinnipeds ..................................................................................................................... 21
1.5.4 Sirenians, Sea Otter and Polar Bear ............................................................................. 23
1.6.
Hearing Impairment and Other Physical Effects of Seismic Surveys............................. 24
1.6.1 Temporary Threshold Shift (TTS) ............................................................................... 25
1.6.2 Permanent Threshold Shift (PTS) ................................................................................ 30
1.6.3 Strandings and Mortality ............................................................................................. 32
1.6.4 Non-Auditory Physiological Effects............................................................................ 33
1.7
Literature Cited ................................................................................................................... 34
iii
Appendix B. Airgun Sounds and Marine Mammals
1. REVIEW OF THE EFFECTS OF AIRGUN SOUNDS ON MARINE MAMMALS
The following subsections review relevant information concerning the potential effects of
airguns on marine mammals. Because this review is intended to be of general usefulness, it includes
references to types of marine mammals that will not be found in some specific regions.
1.1
Categories of Noise Effects
The effects of noise on marine mammals are highly variable, and can be categorized as follows
(adapted from Richardson et al. 1995):
1. The noise may be too weak to be heard at the location of the animal, i.e., lower than the prevailing ambient noise level, the hearing threshold of the animal at relevant frequencies, or
both;
2. The noise may be audible but not strong enough to elicit any overt behavioural response, i.e.,
the mammal may tolerate it, either without or with some deleterious effects (e.g., masking,
stress);
3. The noise may elicit behavioural reactions of variable conspicuousness and variable relevance
to the well being of the animal; these can range from subtle effects on respiration or other
behaviours (detectable only by statistical analysis) to active avoidance reactions;
4. Upon repeated exposure, animals may exhibit diminishing responsiveness (habituation), or
disturbance effects may persist; the latter is most likely with sounds that are highly variable in
characteristics, unpredictable in occurrence, and associated with situations that the animal
perceives as a threat;
5. Any man-made noise that is strong enough to be heard has the potential to reduce (mask) the
ability of marine mammals to hear natural sounds at similar frequencies, including calls from
conspecifics, echolocation sounds of odontocetes, and environmental sounds such as surf
noise or (at high latitudes) ice noise. Intermittent airgun or sonar pulses would cause strong
masking for only a small proportion of the time, given the short duration of these pulses
relative to the inter-pulse intervals. Mammal calls and other sounds are often audible during
the intervals between pulses, but mild to moderate masking may occur during that time
because of reverberation.
6. Very strong sounds have the potential to cause temporary or permanent reduction in hearing
sensitivity, or other physical or physiological effects. Received sound levels must far exceed
the animal’s hearing threshold for any temporary threshold shift to occur. Received levels
must be even higher for a risk of permanent hearing impairment.
1.2
Hearing Abilities of Marine Mammals
The hearing abilities of marine mammals are functions of the following (Richardson et al.
1995; Au et al. 2000):
1. Absolute hearing threshold at the frequency in question (the level of sound barely audible in
the absence of ambient noise). The “best frequency” is the frequency with the lowest absolute
threshold.
2. Critical ratio (the signal-to-noise ratio required to detect a sound at a specific frequency in the
presence of background noise around that frequency).
3. The ability to determine sound direction at the frequencies under consideration.
4. The ability to discriminate among sounds of different frequencies and intensities.
Marine mammals rely heavily on the use of underwater sounds to communicate and to gain
information about their surroundings. Experiments and monitoring studies also show that they hear
1
and may react to many man-made sounds including sounds made during seismic exploration
(Richardson et al. 1995; Gordon et al. 2004; Nowacek et al. 2007; Tyack 2008).
1.2.1
Toothed Whales (Odontocetes)
Hearing abilities of some toothed whales (odontocetes) have been studied in detail (reviewed in
Chapter 8 of Richardson et al. [1995] and in Au et al. [2000]). Hearing sensitivity of several species
has been determined as a function of frequency. The small to moderate-sized toothed whales whose
hearing has been studied have relatively poor hearing sensitivity at frequencies below 1 kHz, but
extremely good sensitivity at, and above, several kHz. There are few data on the absolute hearing
thresholds of most of the larger, deep-diving toothed whales. Nonetheless, Ridgway and Carden
(2001) reported on the hearing sensitivity of a neonate sperm whale, and there are now several studies
on the hearing thresholds of beaked whales. Cook et al. (2006) found that a stranded juvenile
Gervais’ beaked whale showed evoked potentials from 5 kHz up to 80 kHz (the entire frequency
range that was tested), with best sensitivity at 40–80 kHz. An adult Gervais’ beaked whale had a
similar upper cutoff frequency (80–90 kHz; Finneran et al. 2009). For a sub-adult Blainville’s beaked
whale, Pacini et al. (2011) reported the best hearing range to be 40 to 50 kHz.
Most of the odontocete species have been classified as belonging to the “mid-frequency” (MF)
hearing group, and the MF odontocetes (collectively) have functional hearing from about 150 Hz to
160 kHz (Southall et al. 2007). However, individual species may not have quite so broad a functional
frequency range. Very strong sounds at frequencies slightly outside the functional range may also be
detectable. The remaining odontocetes―the porpoises, river dolphins, and members of the genera
Cephalorhynchus and Kogia―are distinguished as the “high frequency” (HF) hearing group. They
have functional hearing from about 200 Hz to 180 kHz (Southall et al. 2007).
Airguns produce a small proportion of their sound at mid- and high-frequencies, although at
progressively lower levels with increasing frequency. In general, most of the energy in the sound
pulses emitted by airgun arrays is at low frequencies; strongest spectrum levels are below 200 Hz,
with considerably lower spectrum levels above 1000 Hz, and smaller amounts of energy emitted up to
~150 kHz (Goold and Fish 1998; Sodal 1999; Goold and Coates 2006; Potter et al. 2007).
Belugas hear best at frequencies of ~20–100 kHz. The hearing threshold increase progressively
(poorer hearing) outside of this 20–100 kHz range. Belugas are capable of hearing seismic and
vessel-generated sounds at lower frequencies, but those sounds are not within their best hearing range.
Sounds need to be at or above the hearing threshold to be readily detectable. Sounds must also be at
or greater than ambient noise levels in order to be detected. There are no specific hearing data for
narwhals, but it is assumed that belugas and narwhals have similar hearing abilities because of their
taxonomic similarity; the two are the only species in the family Monodontidae.
Despite the relatively poor sensitivity of small odontocetes at the low frequencies that
contribute most of the energy in pulses of sound from airgun arrays, airgun sounds are sufficiently
strong, and contain sufficient mid- and high-frequency energy, that their received levels sometimes
remain above the hearing thresholds of odontocetes at distances out to several tens of kilometres
(Richardson and Würsig 1997). There is no evidence that most small odontocetes react to airgun
pulses at such long distances. However, beluga whales do seem quite responsive at intermediate
distances (10–20 km) where sound levels are well above the ambient noise level (see below).
In summary, even though odontocete hearing is relatively insensitive to the predominant low
frequencies produced by airguns, sounds from airgun arrays are audible to odontocetes, sometimes to
distances of 10s of kilometres.
1.2.2
Baleen Whales (Mysticetes)
The hearing abilities of baleen whales (mysticetes) have not been studied directly. Behavioural
and anatomical evidence indicates that they hear well at frequencies below 1 kHz (Richardson et al.
2
1995; Ketten 2000). Frankel (2005) noted that gray whales reacted to a 21–25 kHz whale-finding
sonar. Some baleen whales react to pinger sounds up to 28 kHz, but not to pingers or sonars emitting
sounds at 36 kHz or above (Watkins 1986). In addition, baleen whales produce sounds at frequencies
up to 8 kHz and, for humpbacks, with components to >24 kHz (Au et al. 2006). The anatomy of the
baleen whale inner ear seems to be well adapted for detection of low-frequency sounds (Ketten 1991,
1992, 1994, 2000; Parks et al. 2007b). Although humpbacks and minke whales (Berta et al. 2009)
may have some auditory sensitivity to frequencies above 22 kHz, for baleen whales as a group, the
functional hearing range is thought to be about 7 Hz to 22 kHz or possibly 25 kHz; baleen whales are
said to constitute the “low-frequency” (LF) hearing group (Southall et al. 2007; Scholik-Schlomer
2012). The absolute sound levels that they can detect below 1 kHz are probably limited by increasing
levels of natural ambient noise at decreasing frequencies (Clark and Ellison 2004). Ambient noise
levels are higher at low frequencies than at mid frequencies. At frequencies below 1 kHz, natural
ambient levels tend to increase with decreasing frequency.
The hearing systems of baleen whales are undoubtedly more sensitive to low-frequency sounds
than are the ears of the small toothed whales that have been studied directly. Thus, baleen whales are
likely to hear airgun pulses farther away than can small toothed whales and, at closer distances, airgun
sounds may seem more prominent to baleen than to toothed whales. However, baleen whales have
commonly been seen well within the distances where seismic (or other source) sounds would be
detectable and often show no overt reaction to those sounds. Behavioural responses by baleen whales
to seismic pulses have been documented, but received levels of pulsed sounds necessary to elicit
behavioural reactions are typically well above the minimum levels that the whales are assumed to
detect (see below).
1.2.3
Seals and Sea Lions (Pinnipeds)
Underwater audiograms have been obtained for several species of phocids, otariids, and the
walrus (reviewed in Richardson et al. 1995: 211ff; Kastak and Schusterman 1998, 1999; Kastelein et
al. 2002, 2009). The functional hearing range for pinnipeds in water is considered to extend from 75
Hz to 75 kHz (Southall et al. 2007), although some individual species―especially the eared seals―do
not have that broad an auditory range (Richardson et al. 1995). In comparison with odontocetes,
pinnipeds tend to have lower best frequencies, lower high-frequency cutoffs, better auditory
sensitivity at low frequencies, and poorer sensitivity at the best frequency.
At least some of the phocid seals have better sensitivity at low frequencies (≤1 kHz) than do
odontocetes. Below 30–50 kHz, the hearing thresholds of most species tested are essentially flat
down to ~1 kHz, and range between 60 and 85 dB re 1 µPa. Measurements for harbour seals indicate
that, below 1 kHz, their thresholds under quiet background conditions deteriorate gradually with
decreasing frequency to ~75 dB re 1 µPa at 125 Hz (Kastelein et al. 2009).
For the otariid (eared) seals, the high frequency cutoff is lower than for phocinids, and
sensitivity at low frequencies (e.g., 100 Hz) is poorer than for seals (harbour seal).
1.2.4
Manatees and Dugong (Sirenians)
The West Indian manatee can apparently detect sounds and low-frequency vibrations from 15
Hz to 46 kHz, based on a study involving behavioural testing methods (Gerstein et al. 1999, 2004). A
more recent study found that, in one Florida manatee, auditory sensitivity extended up to 90.5 kHz
(Bauer et al. 2009). Thus, manatees may hear, or at least detect, sounds in the low-frequency range
where most seismic energy is released. It is possible that they are able to feel these low-frequency
sounds using vibrotactile receptors or because of resonance in body cavities or bone conduction.
Based on measurements of evoked potentials, manatee hearing is apparently best around 1–1.5
kHz (Bullock et al. 1982). However, behavioural tests suggest that best sensitivities are at 6–20 kHz
(Gerstein et al. 1999) or 8–32 kHz (Bauer et al. 2009). The ability to detect high frequencies may be
3
an adaptation to shallow water, where the propagation of low frequency sound is limited (Gerstein et
al. 1999, 2004).
1.2.5
Sea Otter and Polar Bear
No data are available on the hearing abilities of sea otters (Ketten 1998), although the in-air
vocalizations of sea otters have most of their energy concentrated at 3–8 kHz (McShane et al. 1995;
Thomson and Richardson 1995; Ghoul and Reichmuth 2012). Sea otter vocalizations are considered
to be most suitable for short-range communication among individuals (McShane et al. 1995).
However, Ghoul et al. (2009) noted that the in-air “screams” of sea otters are loud signals (source
level of 93–118 dB re 20 µPapk) that may be used over larger distances; screams have a frequency of
maximum energy ranging from 2 to 8 kHz. In-air audiograms for two river otters indicate that this
related species has its best hearing sensitivity at the relatively high frequency of 16 kHz, with some
sensitivity from about 460 Hz to 33 kHz (Gunn 1988). However, these data apply to a different
species of otter, and to in-air rather than underwater hearing. Recent data for the sea otter suggest that
in-air hearing extends from below 125 Hz to at least 32 kHz (Ghoul and Reichmuth 2012).
Data on the specific hearing capabilities of polar bears are limited. A recent study of the in-air
hearing of polar bears applied the auditory evoked potential method while tone pips were played to
anesthetized bears (Nachtigall et al. 2007). Hearing was tested in ½ octave steps from 1 to 22.5 kHz,
and best hearing sensitivity was found between 11.2 and 22.5 kHz. Although low-frequency hearing
was not studied, the data suggested that medium- and some high-frequency sounds may be audible to
polar bears. However, polar bears’ usual behaviour (e.g., remaining on the ice, at or near the water
surface, or on land) reduces or avoids exposure to underwater sounds.
1.3
Characteristics of Airgun Sounds
Airguns function by venting high-pressure air into the water. The pressure signature of an
individual airgun consists of a sharp rise and then fall in pressure, followed by several positive and
negative pressure excursions caused by oscillation of the resulting air bubble. The sizes, arrangement,
and firing times of the individual airguns in an array are designed and synchronized to suppress the
pressure oscillations subsequent to the first cycle. The resulting downward-directed pulse has a
duration of only 10–20 ms, with only one strong positive and one strong negative peak pressure
(Caldwell and Dragoset 2000). Most energy emitted from airguns is at relatively low frequencies.
For example, typical high-energy airgun arrays emit most energy at 10–120 Hz. However, the pulses
contain significant energy up to 500–1000 Hz and some energy at higher frequencies (Goold and Fish
1998; Potter et al. 2007). Studies in the Gulf of Mexico have shown that the horizontally-propagating
sound can contain significant energy above the frequencies that airgun arrays are designed to emit
(DeRuiter et al. 2006; Madsen et al. 2006; Tyack et al. 2006a). Energy at frequencies up to 150 kHz
was found in tests of single 60-in3 and 250-in3 airguns (Goold and Coates 2006). Nonetheless, the
predominant energy is at low frequencies.
The pulsed sounds associated with seismic exploration have higher peak levels than other
industrial sounds (except those from explosions) to which whales and other marine mammals are
routinely exposed. The nominal source levels of the 2- to 36-airgun arrays used by Lamont-Doherty
Earth Observatory (L-DEO) from the R/V Maurice Ewing (now retired) and R/V Marcus G. Langseth
(36 airguns) are 236–265 dB re 1 µPap–p. These are the nominal source levels applicable to downward
propagation. The effective source levels for horizontal propagation are lower than those for
downward propagation when the source consists of numerous airguns spaced apart from one another.
Explosions are the only man-made sources with effective source levels as high as (or higher than) a
large array of airguns. However, high-power sonars can have source pressure levels as high as a small
array of airguns, and signal duration can be longer for a sonar than for an airgun array, making the
source energy levels of some sonars more comparable to those of airgun arrays.
4
Several important mitigating factors need to be kept in mind. (1) Airgun arrays produce intermittent sounds, involving emission of a strong sound pulse for a small fraction of a second followed
by several seconds of near silence. In contrast, some other sources produce sounds with lower peak
levels, but their sounds are continuous or discontinuous but continuing for longer durations than
seismic pulses. (2) Airgun arrays are designed to transmit strong sounds downward through the
seafloor, and the amount of sound transmitted in near-horizontal directions is considerably reduced.
Nonetheless, they also emit sounds that travel horizontally toward non-target areas. (3) An airgun
array is a distributed source, not a point source. The nominal source level is an estimate of the sound
that would be measured from a theoretical point source emitting the same total energy as the airgun
array. That figure is useful in calculating the expected received levels in the far field, i.e., at moderate
and long distances, but not in the near field. Because the airgun array is not a single point source,
there is no one location within the near field (or anywhere else) where the received level is as high as
the nominal source level.
The strengths of airgun pulses can be measured in different ways, and it is important to know
which method is being used when interpreting quoted source or received levels. Geophysicists
usually quote peak-to-peak (p-p) levels, in bar-metres or (less often) dB re 1 μPa · m. The peak (=
zero-to-peak, or 0-p) level for the same pulse is typically ~6 dB less. In the biological literature,
levels of received airgun pulses are often described based on the “average” or “root-mean-square”
(rms) level, where the average is calculated over the duration of the pulse. The rms value for a given
airgun pulse is typically ~10 dB lower than the peak level, and 16 dB lower than the peak-to-peak
value (Greene 1997; McCauley et al. 1998, 2000a). A fourth measure that is increasingly used is the
energy, or Sound Exposure Level (SEL), in dB re 1 μPa2 · s. Because the pulses, even when stretched
by propagation effects (see below), are usually <1 s in duration, the numerical value of the energy is
usually lower than the rms pressure level. However, the units are different. 2 Because the level of a
given pulse will differ substantially depending on which of these measures is being applied, it is
important to be aware which measure is in use when interpreting any quoted pulse level. In the past,
the U.S. National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) has commonly referred to rms levels when
discussing levels of pulsed sounds that might “harass” marine mammals.
Seismic sound pulses received at any given point will arrive via a direct path, indirect paths that
include reflection from the sea surface and bottom, and often indirect paths including segments
through the bottom sediments. Sounds propagating via indirect paths travel longer distances and often
arrive later than sounds arriving via a direct path. (However, sound traveling in the bottom may travel
faster than that in the water, and thus may, in some situations, arrive slightly earlier than the direct
arrival despite traveling a greater distance.) These variations in travel time have the effect of
lengthening the duration of the received pulse, or may cause two or more received pulses from a
single emitted pulse. Near the source, the predominant part of a seismic pulse is ~10–20 ms in
duration. In comparison, the pulse duration as received at long horizontal distances can be much
greater. For example, for one airgun array operating in the Beaufort Sea, pulse duration was ~300 ms
at a distance of 8 km, 500 ms at 20 km, and 850 ms at 73 km (Greene and Richardson 1988).
The rms level for a given pulse (when measured over the duration of that pulse) depends on the
extent to which propagation effects have “stretched” the duration of the pulse by the time it reaches
2
The rms value for a given airgun array pulse, as measured at a horizontal distance on the order of 0.1 km to 1–
10 km in the units dB re 1 μPa, usually averages 10–15 dB higher than the SEL value for the same pulse
measured in dB re 1 μPa2 · s (e.g., Greene 1997). However, there is considerable variation, and the difference
tends to be larger close to the airgun array, and less at long distances (Blackwell et al. 2007; MacGillivray and
Hannay 2007a,b). In some cases, generally at longer distances, pulses are “stretched” by propagation effects
to the extent that the rms and SEL values (in the respective units mentioned above) become very similar (e.g.,
MacGillivray and Hannay 2007a,b).
5
the receiver (e.g., Madsen 2005). As a result, the rms values for various received pulses are not
perfectly correlated with the SEL (energy) values for the same pulses. There is increasing evidence
that biological effects are more directly related to the received energy (e.g., to SEL) than to the rms
values averaged over pulse duration (Southall et al. 2007). However, there is also recent evidence that
auditory effect in a given animal is not a simple function of received acoustic energy. Frequency,
duration of the exposure, and occurrence of gaps within the exposure can also influence the auditory
effect (Mooney et al. 2009a; Finneran and Schlundt 2010, 2011; Finneran et al. 2010a,b; Finneran
2012).
Another important aspect of sound propagation is that received levels of low-frequency
underwater sounds diminish close to the surface because of pressure-release and interference
phenomena that occur at and near the surface (Urick 1983; Richardson et al. 1995; Potter et al. 2007).
Paired measurements of received airgun sounds at depths of 3 vs. 9 or 18 m have shown that received
levels are typically several decibels lower at 3 m (Greene and Richardson 1988). For a mammal
whose auditory organs are within 0.5 or 1 m of the surface, the received level of the predominant lowfrequency components of the airgun pulses would be further reduced. In deep water, the received
levels at deep depths can be considerably higher than those at relatively shallow (e.g., 18 m) depths
and the same horizontal distance from the airguns (Tolstoy et al. 2004a,b).
Pulses of underwater sound from open-water seismic exploration are often detected 50–100 km
from the source location, even during operations in nearshore waters (Greene and Richardson 1988;
Burgess and Greene 1999). At those distances, the received levels are usually low, <120 dB re 1 µPa
on an approximate rms basis. However, faint seismic pulses are sometimes detectable at even greater
ranges (e.g., Bowles et al. 1994; Fox et al. 2002). In fact, low-frequency airgun signals sometimes
can be detected thousands of kilometres from their source. For example, sound from seismic surveys
conducted offshore of Nova Scotia, the coast of western Africa, and northeast of Brazil were reported
as a dominant feature of the underwater noise field recorded along the mid-Atlantic ridge (Nieukirk et
al. 2004).
1.4
Masking Effects of Airgun Sounds
Masking is the obscuring of sounds of interest by interfering sounds, generally at similar frequencies. Introduced underwater sound will, through masking, reduce the effective communication
distance of a marine mammal species • if the frequency of the source is close to that used as a signal
by the marine mammal, and • if the anthropogenic sound is present for a significant fraction of the
time (Richardson et al. 1995; Clark et al. 2009). Conversely, if little or no overlap occurs between the
introduced sound and the frequencies used by the species, communication or echolocation is not
expected to be disrupted (e.g., Au 2008). Also, if the introduced sound is present only infrequently,
communication is not expected to be disrupted much if at all. The biological repercussions of a loss
of communication space, to the extent that this occurs, are unknown.
The duty cycle of airguns is low; the airgun sounds are pulsed, with relatively quiet periods
between pulses. In most situations, strong airgun sound will only be received for a brief period (<1 s),
with these sound pulses being separated by at least several seconds of relative silence, and longer in
the case of deep-penetration surveys or refraction surveys. A single airgun array would cause strong
masking in only one situation: When propagation conditions are such that sound from each airgun
pulse reverberates strongly and persists for much or all of the interval up to the next airgun pulse (e.g.,
Simard et al. 2005; Clark and Gagnon 2006). Situations with prolonged strong reverberation are
infrequent, in our experience. However, it is common for reverberation to cause some lesser degree
of elevation of the background level between airgun pulses (e.g., Gedamke 2011; Guerra et al. 2011),
and this weaker reverberation presumably reduces the detection range of calls and other natural
sounds to some degree. Based on measurements in deep water of the Southern Ocean, Gedamke
(2011) estimated that the slight elevation of background levels during intervals between pulses
6
reduced blue and fin whale communication space by as much as 36 to 51% when a seismic survey
was operating 450–2800 km away. Klinck et al. (2012), based on data from Fram Strait and the
Greenland Sea, also found reverberation effects between airgun pulses. Nieukirk et al. (2012) and
Blackwell et al. (2013) noted the potential for masking effects from seismic surveys on large whales.
Although masking effects of pulsed sounds on marine mammal calls and other natural sounds
are expected to be limited, there are few specific studies on this. Some whales continue calling in the
presence of seismic pulses and whale calls often can be heard between the seismic pulses (e.g., Richardson et al. 1986; McDonald et al. 1995; Greene et al. 1999a,b; Nieukirk et al. 2004, 2012; Smultea
et al. 2004; Holst et al. 2005a,b, 2006, 2011; Dunn and Hernandez 2009; Cerchio et al. 2011; Klinck
et al. 2012). However, some of these studies found evidence of reduced calling (or at least reduced
call detection rates) in the presence of seismic pulses. One report indicates that calling fin whales
distributed in a part of the North Atlantic went silent for an extended period starting soon after the
onset of a seismic survey in the area (Clark and Gagnon 2006). It is not clear from that paper whether
the whales ceased calling because of masking, or whether this was a behavioural response not directly
involving masking. Also, bowhead whales in the Beaufort Sea apparently decrease their calling rates
in response to seismic operations, although movement out of the area also contributes to the lower call
detection rate (Blackwell et al. 2009a,b, 2010, 2011, 2013). In contrast, Di Iorio and Clark (2010)
found that blue whales in the St. Lawrence Estuary increased their call rates during operations by a
lower-energy seismic source. The sparker used during the study emitted frequencies of 30–450 Hz
with a relatively low source level of 193 dB re 1 μPapk-pk.
Among the odontocetes, there has been one report that sperm whales ceased calling when
exposed to pulses from a very distant seismic ship (Bowles et al. 1994). However, more recent
studies of sperm whales found that they continued calling in the presence of seismic pulses (Madsen
et al. 2002; Tyack et al. 2003; Smultea et al. 2004; Holst et al. 2006, 2011; Jochens et al. 2008).
Madsen et al. (2006) noted that airgun sounds would not be expected to cause significant masking of
sperm whale calls given the intermittent nature of airgun pulses. (However, some limited masking
would be expected due to reverberation effects, as noted above.) Dolphins and porpoises are also
commonly heard calling while airguns are operating (Gordon et al. 2004; Smultea et al. 2004; Holst et
al. 2005a,b, 2011; Potter et al. 2007). Masking effects of seismic pulses are expected to be negligible
in the case of the smaller odontocetes, given the intermittent nature of seismic pulses plus the fact that
sounds important to them are predominantly at much higher frequencies than are the dominant
components of airgun sounds.
Pinnipeds, sirenians and sea otters have best hearing sensitivity and/or produce most of their
sounds at frequencies higher than the dominant components of airgun sound, but there is some
overlap in the frequencies of the airgun pulses and the calls. However, the intermittent nature of
airgun pulses presumably reduces the potential for masking.
Some cetaceans are known to increase the source levels of their calls in the presence of
elevated sound levels, shift their peak frequencies in response to strong sound signals, or otherwise
modify their vocal behaviour in response to increased noise (Dahlheim 1987; Au 1993; reviewed in
Richardson et al. 1995:233ff, 364ff; also Lesage et al. 1999; Terhune 1999; Nieukirk et al. 2005;
Scheifele et al. 2005; Parks et al. 2007a, 2009, 2011; Hanser et al. 2009; Holt et al. 2009; Di Iorio and
Clark 2010; McKenna 2011; Castellote et al. 2012; Melcón et al. 2012; Risch et al. 2012). It is not
known how often these types of responses occur upon exposure to airgun sounds. If cetaceans
exposed to airgun sounds sometimes respond by changing their vocal behaviour, this adaptation,
along with directional hearing and preadaptation to tolerate some masking by natural sounds (Richardson et al. 1995), would all reduce the importance of masking by seismic pulses.
1.5
Disturbance by Seismic Surveys
Disturbance includes a variety of effects, including subtle to conspicuous changes in behaviour,
7
movement, and displacement. In the terminology of the 1994 amendments to the U.S. Marine
Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), seismic noise could cause “Level B” harassment of certain marine
mammals. Level B harassment is defined as “...disruption of behavioural patterns, including, but not
limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering”.
There has been debate regarding how substantial a change in behaviour or mammal activity is
required before the animal should be deemed to be “taken by Level B harassment”. NMFS has stated
that
“…a simple change in a marine mammal’s actions does not always rise to the level of
disruption of its behavioural patterns. … If the only reaction to the [human] activity on the part
of the marine mammal is within the normal repertoire of actions that are required to carry out
that behavioural pattern, NMFS considers [the human] activity not to have caused a disruption
of the behavioural pattern, provided the animal’s reaction is not otherwise significant enough to
be considered disruptive due to length or severity. Therefore, for example, a short-term change
in breathing rates or a somewhat shortened or lengthened dive sequence that are within the
animal’s normal range and that do not have any biological significance (i.e., do no disrupt the
animal’s overall behavioural pattern of breathing under the circumstances), do not rise to a
level requiring a small take authorization.” (NMFS 2001, p. 9293).
Based on this guidance from NMFS, and on NRC (2005), simple exposure to sound, or brief reactions
that do not disrupt behavioural patterns in a potentially significant manner, do not constitute
harassment or “taking”. In this analysis, we interpret “potentially significant” to mean in a manner
that might have deleterious effects on the well-being of individual marine mammals or their
populations.
Even with this guidance, there are difficulties in defining what marine mammals should be
counted as “taken by harassment”. Available detailed data on reactions of marine mammals to airgun
sounds (and other anthropogenic sounds) are limited to relatively few species and situations (see
Richardson et al. 1995; Gordon et al. 2004; Nowacek et al. 2007; Southall et al. 2007). Behavioural
reactions of marine mammals to sound are difficult to predict in the absence of site- and contextspecific data. Reactions to sound, if any, depend on species, state of maturity, experience, current
activity, reproductive state, time of day, and many other factors (Richardson et al. 1995; Wartzok et
al. 2004; Southall et al. 2007; Weilgart 2007; Ellison et al. 2012). If a marine mammal reacts to an
underwater sound by changing its behaviour or moving a small distance, the impacts of the change are
unlikely to be significant to the individual, let alone the stock or population. However, if a sound
source displaces marine mammals from an important feeding or breeding area for a prolonged period,
impacts on individuals and populations could be significant (e.g., Lusseau and Bejder 2007; Weilgart
2007). Also, various authors have noted that some marine mammals that show no obvious avoidance
or behavioural changes may still be adversely affected by noise (Brodie 1981; Richardson et al.
1995:317ff; Romano et al. 2004; Weilgart 2007; Wright et al. 2009, 2011). For example, some
research suggests that animals in poor condition or in an already stressed state may not react as
strongly to human disturbance as would more robust animals (e.g., Beale and Monaghan 2004).
Studies of the effects of seismic surveys have focused almost exclusively on the effects on
individual species or related groups of species, with little scientific or regulatory attention being given
to broader community-level issues. Parente et al. (2007) suggested that the diversity of cetaceans near
the Brazil coast was reduced during years with seismic surveys. However, a preliminary account of a
more recent analysis suggests that the trend did not persist when additional years were considered
(Britto and Silva Barreto 2009).
Given the many uncertainties in predicting the quantity and types of impacts of sound on
marine mammals, it is common practice to estimate how many mammals would be present within a
particular distance of human activities and/or exposed to a particular level of anthropogenic sound. In
8
most cases, this approach likely overestimates the numbers of marine mammals that would be affected
in some biologically important manner. One of the reasons for this is that the selected
distances/isopleths are based on limited studies indicating that some animals exhibited short-term
reactions at this distance or sound level, whereas the calculation assumes that all animals exposed to
this level would react in a biologically significant manner.
The definitions of “taking” in the U.S. MMPA, and its applicability to various activities, were
slightly altered in November 2003 for military and federal scientific research activities. Also, NMFS
is proposing to replace current Level A and B harassment criteria with guidelines based on exposure
characteristics that are specific to particular groups of mammal species and to particular sound types
(NMFS 2005; Scholik-Schlomer 2012). Recently, a committee of specialists on noise impact issues
has proposed new science-based impact criteria (Southall et al. 2007). Thus, for projects subject to
U.S. jurisdiction, changes in procedures may be required in the near future.
The sound criteria used to estimate how many marine mammals might be disturbed to some
biologically significant degree by seismic survey activities are primarily based on behavioural
observations of a few species. Detailed studies have been done on humpback, gray, bowhead, and
sperm whales, and on ringed seals. Less detailed data are available for some other species of baleen
whales and small toothed whales, but for many species there are no data on responses to marine
seismic surveys.
1.5.1
Baleen Whales
Baleen whales generally tend to avoid operating airguns, but avoidance radii are quite variable
among species, locations, whale activities, oceanographic conditions affecting sound propagation, etc.
(reviewed in Richardson et al. 1995; Gordon et al. 2004). Whales are often reported to show no overt
reactions to pulses from large arrays of airguns at distances beyond a few kilometres, even though the
airgun pulses remain well above ambient noise levels out to much longer distances. However, baleen
whales exposed to strong sound pulses from airguns often react by deviating from their normal
migration route and/or interrupting their feeding and moving away. Some of the major studies and
reviews on this topic are Malme et al. (1984, 1985, 1988); Richardson et al. (1986, 1995, 1999);
Ljungblad et al. (1988); Richardson and Malme (1993); McCauley et al. (1998, 2000a,b); Miller et al.
(1999, 2005); Gordon et al. (2004); Stone and Tasker (2006); Johnson et al. (2007); Nowacek et al.
(2007); Weir (2008a); and Moulton and Holst (2010). Although baleen whales often show only slight
overt responses to operating airgun arrays (Stone and Tasker 2006; Weir 2008a), strong avoidance
reactions by several species of mysticetes have been observed at ranges up to 6–8 km and
occasionally as far as 20–30 km from the source vessel when large arrays of airguns were used.
Experiments with a single airgun showed that bowhead, humpback and gray whales all showed
localized avoidance to a single airgun of 20–100 in3 (Malme et al. 1984, 1985, 1986, 1988;
Richardson et al. 1986; McCauley et al. 1998, 2000a,b).
Studies of gray, bowhead, and humpback whales have shown that seismic pulses with received
levels of 160–170 dB re 1 µParms seem to cause obvious avoidance behaviour in a substantial portion
of the animals exposed (Richardson et al. 1995). In many areas, seismic pulses from large arrays of
airguns diminish to those levels at distances ranging from 4–15 km from the source. More recent
studies have shown that some species of baleen whales (bowheads and humpbacks in particular) at
times show strong avoidance at received levels lower than 160–170 dB re 1 μParms. The largest
avoidance radii involved migrating bowhead whales, which avoided an operating seismic vessel by
20–30 km (Miller et al. 1999; Richardson et al. 1999). In the cases of migrating bowhead (and gray)
whales, the observed changes in behaviour appeared to be of little or no biological consequence to the
animals—they simply avoided the sound source by displacing their migration route to varying
degrees, but within the natural boundaries of the migration corridors (Malme et al. 1984; Malme and
Miles 1985; Richardson et al. 1995). Feeding bowhead whales, in contrast to migrating whales, show
9
much smaller avoidance distances (Miller et al. 2005; Harris et al. 2007), presumably because moving
away from a food concentration has greater cost to the whales than does a course deviation during
migration.
The following subsections provide more details on the documented responses of particular
species and groups of baleen whales to marine seismic operations.
Humpback Whale
Responses of humpback whales to seismic surveys have been studied during migration, on the
summer feeding grounds, and on Angolan winter breeding grounds; there has also been discussion of
effects on the Brazilian wintering grounds. McCauley et al. (1998, 2000a) studied the responses of
migrating humpback whales off Western Australia to a full-scale seismic survey with a 16-airgun
2678-in3 array, and to a single 20 in3 airgun with a (horizontal) source level of 227 dB re 1 µPa · mp-p.
They found that the overall distribution of humpbacks migrating through their study area was
unaffected by the full-scale seismic program, although localized displacement varied with pod
composition, behaviour, and received sound levels. Observations were made from the seismic vessel,
from which the maximum viewing distance was listed as 14 km. Avoidance reactions (course and
speed changes) began at 4–5 km for traveling pods, with the closest point of approach (CPA) being 3–
4 km at an estimated received level of 157–164 dB re 1 µParms (McCauley et al. 1998, 2000a). A
greater stand-off range of 7–12 km was observed for more sensitive resting pods (cow-calf pairs;
McCauley et al. 1998, 2000a). The mean received level for initial avoidance of an approaching airgun
was 140 dB re 1 µParms for humpback pods containing females, and at the mean CPA distance the
received level was 143 dB re 1 µParms. One startle response was reported at 112 dB re 1 µParms. The
initial avoidance response generally occurred at distances of 5–8 km from the airgun array and 2 km
from the single airgun. However, some individual humpback whales, especially males, approached
within distances of 100–400 m, where the maximum received level was 179 dB re 1 µParms. The
McCauley et al. (1998, 2000a,b) studies show evidence of greater avoidance of seismic airgun sounds
by pods with females than by other pods during humpback migration off Western Australia. Studies
examining the behavioural response of humpback whales off Eastern Australia to airguns are
currently underway (Cato et al. 2011, 2012).
Humpback whales on their summer feeding grounds in southeast Alaska did not exhibit
persistent avoidance when exposed to seismic pulses from a 1.64-L (100 in3) airgun (Malme et al.
1985). Some humpbacks seemed “startled” at received levels of 150–169 dB re 1 µPa. Malme et al.
(1985) concluded that there was no clear evidence of avoidance, despite the possibility of subtle
effects, at received levels up to 172 re 1 µPa on an approximate rms basis. However, Moulton and
Holst (2010) reported that, during seismic surveys in the Northwest Atlantic that used 24–32 airguns
with a total volume of up to 5085 in3, humpback whales had significantly lower sighting rates and
were most often seen swimming away from the vessel during seismic periods compared with periods
when airguns were silent. In addition, humpbacks were, on average, seen 200 m farther from the
vessel during periods with than without seismic operations (Moulton and Holst 2010).
Among wintering humpback whales off Angola (n = 52 useable groups), there were no
significant differences in encounter rates (sightings/hr) when a 24-airgun array (3147 in3 or 5085 in3)
was operating vs. silent (Weir 2008a). There was also no significant difference in the mean CPA
(closest observed point of approach) distance of the humpback sightings when airguns were on vs. off
(3050 m vs. 2700 m, respectively). Cerchio et al. (2011) suggested that the breeding display of
humpback whales off Angola may be disrupted by seismic sounds, as singing activity declined with
increasing received levels.
It has been suggested that South Atlantic humpback whales wintering off Brazil may be
displaced or even strand upon exposure to seismic surveys (Engel et al. 2004). The evidence for this
was circumstantial and subject to alternative explanations (IAGC 2004). Also, the evidence was not
10
consistent with subsequent results from the same area of Brazil (Parente et al. 2006), or with direct
studies of humpbacks exposed to seismic surveys in other areas and seasons (see above). After
allowance for data from subsequent years, there was “no observable direct correlation” between
strandings and seismic surveys (IWC 2007, p. 236).
Bowhead Whale
Responsiveness of bowhead whales to seismic surveys can be quite variable depending on their
activity (feeding vs. migrating). Bowhead whales on their summer feeding grounds in the Canadian
Beaufort Sea showed no obvious reactions to pulses from seismic vessels at distances of 6–99 km and
received sound levels of 107–158 dB on an approximate rms basis (Richardson et al. 1986); their
general activities were indistinguishable from those of a control group. However, subtle but statistically significant changes in surfacing–respiration–dive cycles were evident upon statistical analysis
(also see Robertson et al. 2011). Bowheads usually did show strong avoidance responses when
seismic vessels approached within a few kilometres (~3–7 km) and when received levels of airgun
sounds were 152–178 dB (Richardson et al. 1986, 1995; Ljungblad et al. 1988; Miller et al. 2005).
They also moved away when a single airgun fired nearby (Richardson et al. 1986; Ljungblad et al.
1988). In one case, bowheads engaged in near-bottom feeding began to turn away from a 30-airgun
array with a source level of 248 dB re 1 μPa · m at a distance of 7.5 km, and swam away when it came
within ~2 km; some whales continued feeding until the vessel was 3 km away (Richardson et al.
1986). This work and subsequent summer studies in the same region by Miller et al. (2005) and
Harris et al. (2007) showed that many feeding bowhead whales tend to tolerate higher sound levels
than migrating bowhead whales (see below) before showing an overt change in behaviour. On the
summer feeding grounds, bowhead whales are often seen from the operating seismic ship, though
average sighting distances tend to be larger when the airguns are operating. Similarly, preliminary
analyses of recent data from the Alaskan Beaufort Sea indicate that bowheads feeding there during
late summer and autumn also did not display large-scale distributional changes in relation to seismic
operations (Christie et al. 2009; Koski et al. 2009). However, some individual bowheads apparently
begin to react at distances a few kilometres away, beyond the distance at which observers on the ship
can sight bowheads (Richardson et al. 1986; Citta et al. 2007). The feeding whales may be affected
by the sounds, but the need to feed may reduce the tendency to move away until the airguns are within
a few kilometres.
Migrating bowhead whales in the Alaskan Beaufort Sea seem more responsive to noise pulses
from a distant seismic vessel than are summering bowheads. Bowhead whales migrating west across
the Alaskan Beaufort Sea in autumn are unusually responsive, with substantial avoidance occurring
out to distances of 20–30 km from a medium-sized airgun source at received sound levels of around
120–130 dB re 1 µParms (Miller et al. 1999; Richardson et al. 1999; see also Manly et al. 2007). Those
results came from 1996–98, when a partially-controlled study of the effect of Ocean Bottom Cable
(OBC) seismic surveys on westward-migrating bowheads was conducted in late summer and autumn
in the Alaskan Beaufort Sea. At times when the airguns were not active, many bowheads moved into
the area close to the inactive seismic vessel. Avoidance of the area of seismic operations did not
persist beyond 12–24 h after seismic shooting stopped. Preliminary analysis of recent data on
traveling bowheads in the Alaskan Beaufort Sea also showed a stronger tendency to avoid operating
airguns than was evident for feeding bowheads (Christie et al. 2009; Koski et al. 2009).
Bowhead whale calls detected in the presence and absence of airgun sounds have been studied
extensively in the Beaufort Sea. Early work on the summering grounds in the Canadian Beaufort Sea
showed that bowheads continue to produce calls of the usual types when exposed to airgun sounds,
although numbers of calls detected may be somewhat lower in the presence of airgun pulses
(Richardson et al. 1986). Studies during autumn in the Alaskan Beaufort Sea, one in 1996–1998 and
another in 2007–2010, have shown that numbers of calls detected are significantly lower in the
11
presence than in the absence of airgun pulses (Greene et al. 1999a,b; Blackwell et al. 2009a,b, 2010,
2011, 2013; Koski et al. 2009; see also Nations et al. 2009). Blackwell et al. (2013) reported that call
detection rates in 2007 declined significantly where received levels from airgun sounds were 116–129
dB re 1 µPa; this decrease could have resulted from movement of the whales away from the area of
the seismic survey or a reduction in calling behaviour, or (most likely) a combination of the two.
Concurrent aerial surveys showed that there was strong avoidance of the operating airguns during the
1996–98 study, when most of the whales appeared to be migrating (Miller et al. 1999; Richardson et
al. 1999). In contrast, aerial surveys during 2007–2010 showed less consistent avoidance by the bowheads, many of which appeared to be feeding (Christie et al. 2009; Koski et al. 2009, 2011). The
reduction in call detection rates during periods of airgun operation may have been more dependent on
actual avoidance during the 1996–98 study and more dependent on reduced calling behaviour during
2007–2010, but further analysis of the recent data is ongoing.
A recent multivariate analysis of factors affecting the distribution of calling bowhead whales
during their fall migration in 2009 noted that the southern edge of the distribution of calling whales
was significantly closer to shore with increasing levels of airgun sound from a seismic survey a few
hundred kilometres to the east of the study area (i.e., behind the westward-migrating whales; McDonald et al. 2010, 2011). It was not known whether this statistical effect represented a stronger tendency
for quieting of the whales farther offshore in deeper water upon exposure to airgun sound, or an actual
inshore displacement of whales.
There are no data on reactions of bowhead whales to seismic surveys in winter or spring.
Gray Whale
Malme et al. (1986, 1988) studied the responses of feeding eastern gray whales to pulses from a
single 100-in3 airgun off St. Lawrence Island in the northern Bering Sea. They estimated, based on
small sample sizes, that 50% of feeding gray whales stopped feeding at an average received pressure
level of 173 dB re 1 µPa on an (approximate) rms basis, and that 10% of feeding whales interrupted
feeding at received levels of 163 dB re 1 µParms. Malme at al. (1986) estimated that an average
pressure level of 173 dB occurred at a range of 2.6–2.8 km from an airgun array with a source level of
250 dB re 1 µPapeak in the northern Bering Sea. These findings were generally consistent with the
results of studies conducted on larger numbers of gray whales migrating off California (Malme et al.
1984; Malme and Miles 1985) and western Pacific gray whales feeding off Sakhalin, Russia (Würsig
et al. 1999; Gailey et al. 2007; Johnson et al. 2007; Yazvenko et al. 2007a,b), along with a few data on
gray whales off British Columbia (Bain and Williams 2006).
Malme and Miles (1985) concluded that, during migration off California, gray whales showed
changes in swimming pattern with received levels of ~160 dB re 1 µPa and higher, on an approximate
rms basis. The 50% probability of avoidance was estimated to occur at a CPA distance of 2.5 km
from a 4000-in³ airgun array operating off central California. This would occur at an average received
sound level of ~170 dB re 1 µParms. Some slight behavioural changes were noted when approaching
gray whales reached the distances where received sound levels were 140 to 160 dB re 1 µParms, but
these whales generally continued to approach (at a slight angle) until they passed the sound source at
distances where received levels averaged ~170 dB re 1 µParms (Malme et al. 1984; Malme and Miles
1985).
There was no indication that western gray whales exposed to seismic noise were displaced from
their overall feeding grounds near Sakhalin Island during seismic programs in 1997 (Würsig et al.
1999) or 2001 (Johnson et al. 2007; Meier et al. 2007; Yazvenko et al. 2007a). However, there were
indications of subtle behavioural effects among whales that remained in the areas exposed to airgun
sounds (Würsig et al. 1999; Gailey et al. 2007; Weller et al. 2006a). Also, there was evidence of
localized redistribution of some individuals within the nearshore feeding ground so as to avoid close
approaches by the seismic vessel (Weller et al. 2002, 2006b; Yazvenko et al. 2007a). Despite the
12
evidence of subtle changes in some quantitative measures of behaviour and local redistribution of
some individuals, there was no apparent change in the frequency of feeding, as evident from mud
plumes visible at the surface (Yazvenko et al. 2007b). The 2001 seismic program involved an
unusually comprehensive combination of real-time monitoring and mitigation measures designed to
avoid exposing western gray whales to received levels of sound above about 163 dB re 1 μParms
(Johnson et al. 2007). The lack of strong avoidance or other strong responses was presumably in part
a result of the mitigation measures. Effects probably would have been more significant without such
intensive mitigation efforts.
Gray whales in British Columbia exposed to seismic survey sound levels up to ~170 dB re
1 μPa did not appear to be strongly disturbed (Bain and Williams 2006). The few whales that were
observed moved away from the airguns but toward deeper water where sound levels were said to be
higher due to propagation effects (Bain and Williams 2006).
Rorquals
Blue, sei, fin, and minke whales (all of which are members of the genus Balaenoptera) often
have been seen in areas ensonified by airgun pulses (Stone 2003; MacLean and Haley 2004; Stone
and Tasker 2006), and calls from blue and fin whales have been localized in areas with airgun
operations (e.g., McDonald et al. 1995; Dunn and Hernandez 2009; Castellote et al. 2012). Sightings
by observers on seismic vessels during 110 large-source seismic surveys off the U.K. from 1997 to
2000 suggest that, during times of good sightability, sighting rates for mysticetes (mainly fin and sei
whales) were similar when large arrays of airguns were shooting vs. silent (Stone 2003; Stone and
Tasker 2006). However, these whales tended to exhibit localized avoidance, remaining significantly
further (on average) from the airgun array during seismic operations compared with non-seismic
periods (P = 0.0057; Stone and Tasker 2006). The average CPA distances for baleen whales sighted
when large airgun arrays were operating vs. silent were about 1.6 vs. 1.0 km. Baleen whales, as a
group, were more often oriented away from the vessel while a large airgun array was shooting
compared with periods of no shooting (P <0.05; Stone and Tasker 2006). Similarly, Castellote et al.
(2012) reported that singing fin whales in the Mediterranean moved away from an operating airgun
array and avoided the area of operations for days after airgun activity had ceased. In addition, Stone
(2003) noted that fin/sei whales were less likely to remain submerged during periods of seismic
shooting.
During seismic surveys in the Northwest Atlantic, baleen whales as a group showed localized
avoidance of the operating array (Moulton and Holst 2010). Sighting rates were significantly lower
during seismic operations compared with non-seismic periods, baleen whales were seen on average 200
m farther from the vessel during airgun activities vs. non-seismic periods, and these whales more often
swam away from the vessel when seismic operations were underway compared with periods when no
airguns were operating (Moulton and Holst 2010). Blue whales were seen significantly farther from the
vessel during single airgun operations, ramp-up, and all other airgun operations compared with nonseismic periods (Moulton and Holst 2010). Similarly, the mean CPA distance for fin whales was
significantly farther during ramp up than during periods without airgun operations; there was also a
trend for fin whales to be sighted farther from the vessel during other airgun operations, but the
difference was not significant (Moulton and Holst 2010). Minke whales were seen significantly farther
from the vessel during periods with than without seismic operations (Moulton and Holst 2010). Minke
whales were also more likely to swim away and less likely to approach during seismic operations
compared to periods when airguns were not operating (Moulton and Holst 2010). However, MacLean
and Haley (2004) reported that minke whales occasionally approached active airgun arrays where
received sound levels were estimated to be near 170–180 dB re 1 µParms.
13
Discussion and Conclusions
Baleen whales generally tend to avoid operating airguns, but avoidance radii are quite variable.
Whales are often reported to show no overt reactions to airgun pulses at distances beyond a few
kilometers, even though the airgun pulses remain well above ambient noise levels out to much longer
distances. However, studies done since the late 1990s of migrating humpback and migrating bowhead
whales show reactions, including avoidance, that sometimes extend to greater distances than
documented earlier. Avoidance distances often exceed the distances at which boat-based observers
can see whales, so observations from the source vessel can be biased. Observations over broader
areas may be needed to determine the range of potential effects of some large-source seismic surveys
where effects on cetaceans may extend to considerable distances (Richardson et al. 1999; Bain and
Williams 2006; Moore and Angliss 2006). Longer-range observations, when required, can sometimes
be obtained via systematic aerial surveys or aircraft-based observations of behaviour (e.g.,
Richardson et al. 1986, 1999; Miller et al. 1999, 2005; Yazvenko et al. 2007a,b) or by use of
observers on one or more support vessels operating in coordination with the seismic vessel (e.g.,
Smultea et al. 2004; Johnson et al. 2007). However, the presence of other vessels near the source
vessel can, at least at times, reduce sightability of cetaceans from the source vessel (Beland et al.
2009), thus complicating interpretation of sighting data.
Some baleen whales show considerable tolerance of seismic pulses. However, when the pulses
are strong enough, avoidance or other behavioural changes become evident. Because responsiveness
is variable and the responses become less obvious with diminishing received sound level, it has been
difficult to determine the maximum distance (or minimum received sound level) at which reactions to
seismic become evident and, hence, how many whales are affected. Responsiveness depends on the
situation (Richardson et al. 1995; Ellison et al. 2012).
Studies of gray, bowhead, and humpback whales have determined that received levels of pulses
in the 160–170 dB re 1 µParms range seem to cause obvious avoidance behaviour in a substantial
fraction of the animals exposed. In many areas, seismic pulses diminish to these levels at distances
ranging from 4 to 15 km from the source. A substantial proportion of the baleen whales within such
distances may show avoidance or other strong disturbance reactions to the operating airgun array.
However, in other situations, various mysticetes tolerate exposure to full-scale airgun arrays operating
at even closer distances, with only localized avoidance and minor changes in activities. At the other
extreme, in migrating bowhead whales, avoidance often extends to considerably larger distances (20–
30 km) and lower received sound levels (120–130 dB re 1 μParms). Also, even in cases where there is
no conspicuous avoidance or change in activity upon exposure to sound pulses from distant seismic
operations, there are sometimes subtle changes in behaviour (e.g., surfacing–respiration–dive cycles)
that are only evident through detailed statistical analysis (e.g., Richardson et al. 1986; Gailey et al.
2007).
Mitigation measures for seismic surveys, especially nighttime seismic surveys, typically
assume that many marine mammals (at least baleen whales) tend to avoid approaching airguns, or the
seismic vessel itself, before being exposed to levels high enough for there to be any possibility of
injury. This assumes that the ramp-up (soft-start) procedure is used when commencing airgun
operations, to give whales near the vessel the opportunity to move away before they are exposed to
sound levels that might be strong enough to elicit TTS. As noted above, single-airgun experiments
with three species of baleen whales show that those species typically do tend to move away when a
single airgun starts firing nearby, which simulates the onset of a ramp up. The three species that
showed avoidance when exposed to the onset of pulses from a single airgun were gray whales (Malme et
al. 1984, 1986, 1988); bowhead whales (Richardson et al. 1986; Ljungblad et al. 1988); and humpback
whales (Malme et al. 1985; McCauley et al. 1998, 2000a,b). In addition, results from Moulton and Holst
(2010) showed that, during operations with a single airgun and during ramp-up, blue whales were seen
significantly farther from the vessel compared with periods without airgun operations. Since startup of a
14
single airgun is equivalent to the start of a ramp-up (=soft start), this strongly suggests that many baleen
whales will begin to move away during the initial stages of a ramp-up.
Data on short-term reactions by cetaceans to impulsive noises are not necessarily indicative of
long-term or biologically significant effects. It is not known whether impulsive sounds affect reproductive rate or distribution and habitat use in subsequent days or years. Castellote et al. (2012)
reported that fin whales avoided their potential winter ground for an extended period of time (at least
10 days) after seismic operations in the Mediterranean Sea had ceased. However, gray whales have
continued to migrate annually along the west coast of North America despite intermittent seismic
exploration (and much ship traffic) in that area for decades (Appendix A in Malme et al. 1984; Richardson et al. 1995), and there has been a substantial increase in the population over recent decades
(Allen and Angliss 2011). The western Pacific gray whale population did not seem affected by a
seismic survey in its feeding ground during a prior year (Johnson et al. 2007). Similarly, bowhead
whales have continued to travel to the eastern Beaufort Sea each summer despite seismic exploration
in their summer and autumn range for many years (Richardson et al. 1987), and their numbers have
increased notably (Allen and Angliss 2011). Bowheads also have been observed over periods of days
or weeks in areas ensonified repeatedly by seismic pulses (Richardson et al. 1987; Harris et al. 2007).
However, it is generally not known whether the same individual bowheads were involved in these
repeated observations (within and between years) in strongly ensonified areas. In any event, in the
absence of some unusual circumstances, the history of coexistence between seismic surveys and
baleen whales suggests that brief exposures to sound pulses from any single seismic survey are
unlikely to result in prolonged disturbance effects.
1.5.2
Toothed Whales
Little systematic information is available about reactions of toothed whales to noise pulses.
Few studies similar to the more extensive baleen whale/seismic pulse work summarized above have
been reported for toothed whales. However, there are recent systematic data on sperm whales (e.g.,
Gordon et al. 2006; Madsen et al. 2006; Winsor and Mate 2006; Jochens et al. 2008; Miller et al.
2009). There is also an increasing amount of information about responses of various odontocetes to
seismic surveys based on monitoring studies (e.g., Stone 2003; Smultea et al. 2004; Moulton and
Miller 2005; Bain and Williams 2006; Holst et al. 2006; Stone and Tasker 2006; Potter et al. 2007;
Hauser et al. 2008; Holst and Smultea 2008; Weir 2008a; Barkaszi et al. 2009; Richardson et al. 2009;
Moulton and Holst 2010).
Delphinids (Dolphins and similar) and Monodontids (Beluga)
Seismic operators and marine mammal observers on seismic vessels regularly see dolphins and
other small toothed whales near operating airgun arrays, but in general there is a tendency for most
delphinids to show some avoidance of operating seismic vessels (e.g., Goold 1996a,b,c; Calambokidis
and Osmek 1998; Stone 2003; Moulton and Miller 2005; Holst et al. 2006; Stone and Tasker 2006;
Weir 2008a; Richardson et al. 2009; Moulton and Holst 2010; see also Barkaszi et al. 2009). In most
cases, the avoidance radii for delphinids appear to be small, on the order of 1 km or less, and some
individuals show no apparent avoidance. Studies that have reported cases of small toothed whales
close to the operating airguns include Duncan (1985), Arnold (1996), Stone (2003), and Holst et al.
(2006). When a 3959 in3, 18-airgun array was firing off California, toothed whales behaved in a
manner similar to that observed when the airguns were silent (Arnold 1996). Some dolphins seem to
be attracted to the seismic vessel and floats, and some ride the bow wave of the seismic vessel even
when a large array of airguns is firing (e.g., Moulton and Miller 2005). Nonetheless, small toothed
whales more often tend to head away, or to maintain a somewhat greater distance from the vessel,
when a large array of airguns is operating than when it is silent (e.g., Stone and Tasker 2006; Weir
2008a; Moulton and Holst 2010; Barry et al. 2012).
15
The beluga is a species that (at least at times) shows long-distance avoidance of seismic
vessels. Aerial surveys conducted in the southeastern Beaufort Sea in summer found that sighting
rates of belugas were significantly lower at distances 10–20 km compared with 20–30 km from an
operating airgun array (Miller et al. 2005). The low number of beluga sightings by marine mammal
observers on the vessel seemed to confirm there was a strong avoidance response to the 2250 in3
airgun array. More recent seismic monitoring studies in the same area have confirmed that the apparent displacement effect on belugas extended farther than has been shown for other small odontocetes
exposed to airgun pulses (e.g., Harris et al. 2007). Narwhals are also known to be sensitive to human
activities and to react at long distances from vessels (Finley et al. 1990); however, there have been no
studies on the effects of seismic vessels on narwhals. Heide-Jørgensen et al. (2013) reported on three
ice entrapments of narwhals in Baffin Bay (2008, 2009 and 2010) subsequent to seismic surveys in
the area. They suggested that airgun sounds may have delayed the migration timing of narwhals,
thereby increasing the risk of entrapments in the ice; however, there was no direct evidence to support
this hypothesis.
Goold (1996a,b,c) studied the effects on common dolphins of 2D seismic surveys in the Irish
Sea. Passive acoustic surveys were conducted from the “guard ship” that towed a hydrophone. The
results indicated that there was a local displacement of dolphins around the seismic operation.
However, observations indicated that the animals were tolerant of the sounds at distances outside a 1km radius from the airguns (Goold 1996a). Initial reports of larger-scale displacement were later
shown to represent a normal autumn migration of dolphins through the area, and were not attributable
to seismic surveys (Goold 1996a,b,c).
Observers stationed on seismic vessels operating off the U.K. from 1997 to 2000 have provided
data on the occurrence and behaviour of various toothed whales exposed to seismic pulses (Stone
2003; Gordon et al. 2004; Stone and Tasker 2006). Dolphins of various species often showed more
evidence of avoidance of operating airgun arrays than has been reported previously for small
odontocetes. Sighting rates of white-sided dolphins, white-beaked dolphins, Lagenorhynchus spp.,
and all small odontocetes combined were significantly lower during periods when large-volume 3
airgun arrays were shooting. Except for the pilot whale and bottlenose dolphin, CPA distances for all
of the small odontocete species tested, including killer whales, were significantly farther from large
airgun arrays during periods of shooting compared with periods of no shooting. Pilot whales were
less responsive than other small odontocetes in the presence of seismic surveys (Stone and Tasker
2006). For small odontocetes as a group, and most individual species, orientations differed between
times when large airgun arrays were operating vs. silent, with significantly fewer animals traveling
towards and/or more traveling away from the vessel during shooting (Stone and Tasker 2006).
Observers’ records suggested that fewer cetaceans were feeding and fewer were interacting with the
survey vessel (e.g., bow-riding) during periods with airguns operating, and small odontocetes tended
to swim faster during periods of shooting (Stone and Tasker 2006). For most types of small
odontocetes sighted by observers on seismic vessels, the median CPA distance was ≥0.5 km larger
during airgun operations (Stone and Tasker 2006). Killer whales appeared to be more tolerant of
seismic shooting in deeper waters.
Data collected during seismic operations in other areas show similar patterns. A summary of
vessel-based monitoring data from the Gulf of Mexico during 2003–2008 showed that delphinids
were generally seen farther from the vessel during seismic than during non-seismic periods (based on
Barkaszi et al. 2009, excluding sperm whales). Similarly, during three NSF-funded L-DEO seismic
surveys that used a large 20–36 airgun array (~7000 in3), sighting rates of delphinids were lower and
initial sighting distances were farther away from the vessel during seismic than non-seismic periods
(Smultea et al. 2004; Holst et al. 2005a, 2006; Holst 2009; Richardson et al. 2009). Monitoring
3
Large volume means at least 1300 in3, with most (79%) at least 3000 in3.
16
results during a seismic survey in the Southeast Caribbean showed that the mean CPA of delphinids
was 991 m during seismic operations vs. 172 m when the airguns were not operational (Smultea et al.
2004). Surprisingly, nearly all acoustic detections via a towed passive acoustic monitoring (PAM)
array, including both delphinids and sperm whales, were made when the airguns were operating
(Smultea et al. 2004). Although the number of sightings during monitoring of a seismic survey off the
Yucatán Peninsula, Mexico, was small (n = 19), the results showed that the mean CPA distance of
delphinids there was 472 m during seismic operations vs. 178 m when the airguns were silent (Holst
et al. 2005a). The acoustic detection rates were nearly 5 times higher without than with seismic
operations (Holst et al. 2005a). During a seismic survey off Taiwan for which the sample size was
small (n = 14), Holst (2009) noted that the mean CPA distance of delphinids during seismic
operations (1698 m) was greater compared with non-seismic periods (888 m).
For two additional NSF-funded L-DEO seismic surveys in the Eastern Tropical Pacific, both
using a large 36-airgun array (~6600 in3), the results are less easily interpreted (Richardson et al.
2009). During both surveys, the delphinid detection rate was lower during seismic than during nonseismic periods, as found in various other projects, but the mean CPA distance of delphinids was
closer (not farther) during seismic periods (Hauser et al. 2008; Holst and Smultea 2008).
During seismic surveys in the Northwest Atlantic, delphinids as a group showed some localized
avoidance of the operating array (Moulton and Holst 2010). The mean initial detection distance was
significantly farther (by ca. 200 m) during seismic operations compared with non-seismic periods;
however, there was no significant difference between sighting rates (Moulton and Holst 2010). The
same results were evident when only long-finned pilot whales were considered.
Among Atlantic spotted dolphins off Angola (n = 16 useable groups), marked short-term and
localized displacement was found in response to seismic operations conducted with a 24-airgun array
(3147 in3 or 5085 in3) (Weir 2008a). Sample sizes were low, but CPA distances of dolphin
groups were significantly larger when airguns were on (mean 1080 m) vs. off (mean 209 m). No
Atlantic spotted dolphins were seen within 500 m of the airguns when they were operating, whereas
all sightings when airguns were silent occurred within 500 m, including the only recorded “positive
approach” behaviours.
Reactions of toothed whales to a single airgun or other small airgun source are not well documented, but tend to be less substantial than reactions to large airgun arrays (e.g., Stone 2003; Stone
and Tasker 2006). During 91 site surveys off the U.K. in 1997–2000, sighting rates of all small
odontocetes combined were significantly lower during periods the low-volume 4 airgun sources were
operating, and effects on orientation were evident for all species and groups tested (Stone and Tasker
2006). Results from four NSF-funded L-DEO seismic surveys using small arrays (up to 3 GI guns
and 315 in3) were inconclusive. During surveys in the Eastern Tropical Pacific (Holst et al. 2005b)
and in the Northwest Atlantic (Haley and Koski 2004), detection rates were slightly lower during
seismic compared to non-seismic periods. However, mean CPAs were closer during seismic
operations during one cruise (Holst et al. 2005b), and greater during the other cruise (Haley and Koski
2004). Interpretation of the data was confounded by the fact that survey effort and/or number of
sightings during non-seismic periods during both surveys was small. Results from another three
small-array surveys funded by NSF were even more variable (MacLean and Koski 2005; Smultea and
Holst 2008; Holst and Robertson 2009).
Weir (2008b) noted that a group of short-finned pilot whales initially showed an avoidance
response to ramp up of a large airgun array, but that this response was limited in time and space.
Moulton and Holst (2010) did not find any indications that long-finned pilot whales, or delphinids as a
group, responded to ramp-ups by moving away from the seismic vessel during surveys in the Northwest
4
For low volume arrays, maximum volume was 820 in3, with most (87%) ≤180 in3.
17
Atlantic (Moulton and Holst 2010). Although the ramp-up procedure is a widely-used mitigation
measure, it remains uncertain how effective it is at alerting marine mammals (especially odontocetes)
and causing them to move away from seismic operations (Weir 2008b).
Captive bottlenose dolphins and beluga whales exhibited changes in behaviour when exposed
to strong pulsed sounds similar in duration to those typically used in seismic surveys (Finneran et al.
2000, 2002, 2005). Finneran et al. (2002) exposed a captive bottlenose dolphin and beluga to single
impulses from a water gun (80 in3). As compared with airgun pulses, water gun impulses were
expected to contain proportionally more energy at higher frequencies because there is no significant
gas-filled bubble, and thus little low-frequency bubble-pulse energy (Hutchinson and Detrick 1984).
The captive animals sometimes vocalized after exposure and exhibited reluctance to station at the test
site where subsequent exposure to impulses would be implemented (Finneran et al. 2002). Similar
behaviours were exhibited by captive bottlenose dolphins and a beluga exposed to single underwater
pulses designed to simulate those produced by distant underwater explosions (Finneran et al. 2000). It
is uncertain what relevance these observed behaviours in captive, trained marine mammals exposed to
single transient sounds may have to free-ranging animals exposed to multiple pulses. In any event,
the animals tolerated rather high received levels of sound before exhibiting the aversive behaviours
mentioned above.
Odontocete responses (or lack of responses) to noise pulses from underwater explosions (as
opposed to airgun pulses) may be indicative of odontocete responses to very strong noise pulses.
During the 1950s, small explosive charges were dropped into an Alaskan river in attempts to scare
belugas away from salmon. Success was limited (Fish and Vania 1971; Frost et al. 1984). Small
explosive charges were “not always effective” in moving bottlenose dolphins away from sites in the
Gulf of Mexico where larger demolition blasts were about to occur (Klima et al. 1988). Odontocetes
may be attracted to fish killed by explosions, and thus attracted rather than repelled by “scare”
charges. Captive false killer whales showed no obvious reaction to single noise pulses from small
(10 g) charges; the received level was ~185 dB re 1 µPa (Akamatsu et al. 1993). Jefferson and Curry
(1994) reviewed several additional studies that found limited or no effects of noise pulses from small
explosive charges on killer whales and other odontocetes. Aside from the potential for causing
auditory impairment (see below), the tolerance to these charges may indicate a lack of effect, or the
failure to move away may simply indicate a stronger desire to feed, regardless of circumstances.
Phocoenids (Porpoises)
Porpoises, like delphinids, show variable reactions to seismic operations, and reactions
apparently depend on species. The limited available data suggest that harbour porpoises show
stronger avoidance of seismic operations than do Dall’s porpoises (Stone 2003; MacLean and Koski
2005; Bain and Williams 2006). In Washington State waters, the harbour porpoise―despite being
considered a high-frequency specialist―appeared to be the species affected by the lowest received
level of airgun sound (<145 dB re 1 μParms at a distance >70 km; Bain and Williams 2006). Similarly,
during seismic surveys with large airgun arrays off the U.K. in 1997–2000, there were significant
differences in directions of travel by harbour porpoises during periods when the airguns were shooting
vs. silent (Stone 2003; Stone and Tasker 2006). A captive harbour porpoise exposed to single sound
pulses from a small airgun showed aversive behaviour upon receipt of a pulse with received level
above 174 dB re 1 μPapk-pk or SEL >145 dB re 1 μPa2 · s (Lucke et al. 2009). In contrast, Dall’s
porpoises seem relatively tolerant of airgun operations (MacLean and Koski 2005; Bain and Williams
2006), although they too have been observed to avoid large arrays of operating airguns (Calambokidis
and Osmek 1998; Bain and Williams 2006). The apparent tendency for greater responsiveness in the
harbour porpoise is consistent with their relative responsiveness to boat traffic and some other
acoustic sources (Richardson et al. 1995; Southall et al. 2007).
18
Beaked Whales
There are very few data on the behavioural reactions of beaked whales to seismic surveys.
Most beaked whales tend to avoid approaching vessels of other types (e.g., Würsig et al. 1998) and/or
change their behaviour in response to vessel noise (e.g., Pirotta et al. 2012). They may dive for an
extended period when approached by a vessel (e.g., Kasuya 1986), although it is uncertain how much
longer such dives may be as compared to dives by undisturbed beaked whales, which also are often
quite long (Baird et al. 2006; Tyack et al. 2006b). In any event, it seems likely that most beaked
whales would also show strong avoidance of an approaching seismic vessel, regardless of whether or
not the airguns are operating. However, this has not been documented explicitly. In fact, during seismic surveys in the Northwest Atlantic, a group of Sowerby’s beaked whales and two groups of
unidentified beaked whales travelled towards the vessel when the airguns were active (Moulton and
Holst 2010). Also, northern bottlenose whales sometimes are quite tolerant of slow-moving vessels
not emitting airgun pulses (Reeves et al. 1993; Hooker et al. 2001). Detections (acoustic or visual) of
northern bottlenose whales have been made from seismic vessels during recent seismic surveys in the
Northwest Atlantic during periods with and without airgun operations (Potter et al. 2007; Moulton and
Miller 2005). Three of four groups of northern bottlenose whales sighted during seismic operations in
the Northwest Atlantic swam towards the vessel while the airguns were active (Moulton and Holst
2010). Visual and acoustic studies elsewhere indicated that some northern bottlenose whales
remained in the general area and continued to produce high-frequency clicks when exposed to sound
pulses from distant seismic surveys (Gosselin and Lawson 2004; Laurinolli and Cochrane 2005;
Simard et al. 2005).
There are increasing indications that some beaked whales tend to strand when military
exercises involving mid-frequency sonar operation are ongoing nearby (e.g., Simmonds and LopezJurado 1991; Frantzis 1998; NOAA and USN 2001; Jepson et al. 2003; Barlow and Gisiner 2006;
D’Amico et al. 2009; Filadelfo et al. 2009; see also the “Strandings and Mortality” subsection, later).
These strandings are apparently at least in part a disturbance response, although auditory or other
injuries or other physiological effects may also be a factor. Whether beaked whales would ever react
similarly to seismic surveys is unknown. Seismic survey sounds are quite different from those of the
sonars in operation during the above-cited incidents. No conclusive link has been established between
seismic surveys and beaked whale strandings. There was a stranding of two Cuvier’s beaked whales
in the Gulf of California (Mexico) in September 2002 when the R/V Maurice Ewing was conducting a
seismic survey in the general area (e.g., Malakoff 2002; Hildebrand 2005). However, NMFS did not
establish a cause and effect relationship between this stranding and the seismic survey activities
(Hogarth 2002). Cox et al. (2006) noted the “lack of knowledge regarding the temporal and spatial
correlation between the [stranding] and the sound source”. Hildebrand (2005) illustrated the
approximate temporal-spatial relationships between the stranding and the Ewing’s tracks, but the time
of the stranding was not known with sufficient precision for accurate determination of the CPA
distance of the whales to the Ewing. Another stranding of Cuvier’s beaked whales in the Galápagos
occurred during a seismic survey in April 2000; however “There is no obvious mechanism that
bridges the distance between this source and the stranding site” (Gentry [ed.] 2002).
Sperm Whales
All three species of sperm whales have been reported to show avoidance reactions to standard
vessels not emitting airgun sounds (e.g., Richardson et al. 1995; Würsig et al. 1998; McAlpine 2002;
Baird 2005). However, most studies of the sperm whale Physeter macrocephalus exposed to airgun
sounds indicate that this species shows considerable tolerance of airgun pulses. The whales usually
do not show strong avoidance (i.e., they do not leave the area) and they continue to call.
There were some early and limited observations suggesting that sperm whales in the Southern
Ocean ceased calling during some (but not all) times when exposed to weak noise pulses from
19
extremely distant (>300 km) seismic exploration. However, other operations in the area could also
have been a factor (Bowles et al. 1994). This “quieting” was suspected to represent a disturbance
effect, in part because sperm whales exposed to pulsed man-made sounds at higher frequencies often
cease calling (Watkins and Schevill 1975; Watkins et al. 1985). Also, there was an early preliminary
account of possible long-range avoidance of seismic vessels by sperm whales in the Gulf of Mexico
(Mate et al. 1994). However, this has not been substantiated by subsequent more detailed work in that
area (Gordon et al. 2006; Winsor and Mate 2006; Jochens et al. 2008; Miller et al. 2009).
Recent and more extensive data from vessel-based monitoring programs in U.K. waters and off
eastern Canada and Angola suggest that sperm whales in those areas show little evidence of avoidance
or behavioural disruption in the presence of operating seismic vessels (Stone 2003; Stone and Tasker
2006; Weir 2008a; Moulton and Holst 2010). Among sperm whales off Angola (n = 96
useable groups), there were no significant differences in encounter rates (sightings/hr) when a 24airgun array (3147 in3 or 5085 in3) was operating vs. silent (Weir 2008a). There was also no
significant difference in the CPA distances of the sperm whale sightings when airguns were on vs. off
(means 3039 m vs. 2594 m, respectively). Encounter rate tended to increase over the 10-month
duration of the seismic survey. Similarly, in the Northwest Atlantic, sighting rates and distances of
sperm whales did not differ between seismic and non-seismic periods (Moulton and Holst 2010). These
types of observations are difficult to interpret because the observers are stationed on or near the
seismic vessel, and may underestimate reactions by some of the more responsive animals, which may
be beyond visual range. However, these results do seem to show considerable tolerance of seismic
surveys by at least some sperm whales. Also, a study off northern Norway indicated that sperm
whales continued to call when exposed to pulses from a distant seismic vessel. Received levels of the
seismic pulses were up to 146 dB re 1 μPap-p (Madsen et al. 2002).
Similarly, a study conducted off Nova Scotia that analyzed recordings of sperm whale vocalizations at various distances from an active seismic program did not detect any obvious changes in the
distribution or behaviour of sperm whales (McCall Howard 1999).
Sightings of sperm whales by observers on seismic vessels operating in the Gulf of Mexico
during 2003–2008 were at very similar average distances regardless of the airgun operating conditions
(Barkaszi et al. 2009). For example, the mean sighting distance was 1839 m when the airgun array
was in full operation (n=612) vs. 1960 m when all airguns were off (n=66).
A controlled study of the reactions of tagged sperm whales to seismic surveys was done
recently in the Gulf of Mexico ― the Sperm Whale Seismic Study or SWSS (Gordon et al. 2006;
Madsen et al. 2006; Winsor and Mate 2006; Jochens et al. 2008; Miller et al. 2009). During SWSS,
D-tags (Johnson and Tyack 2003) were used to record the movement and acoustic exposure of eight
foraging sperm whales before, during, and after controlled exposures to sound from airgun arrays
(Jochens et al. 2008; Miller et al. 2009). Whales were exposed to maximum received sound levels of
111–147 dB re 1 μParms (131–162 dB re 1 μPapk-pk) at ranges of ~1.4–12.8 km from the sound source
(Miller et al. 2009). Although the tagged whales showed no discernible horizontal avoidance, some
whales showed changes in diving and foraging behaviour during full-array exposure, possibly
indicative of subtle negative effects on foraging (Jochens et al. 2008; Miller et al. 2009; Tyack 2009).
Two indications of foraging that they studied were oscillations in pitch and occurrence of
echolocation buzzes, both of which tend to occur when a sperm whale closes-in on prey.
"Oscillations in pitch generated by swimming movements during foraging dives were on average 6%
lower during exposure than during the immediately following post-exposure period, with all 7
foraging whales exhibiting less pitching (P = 0.014). Buzz rates, a proxy for attempts to capture prey,
were 19% lower during exposure…" (Miller et al. 2009). Although the latter difference was not
statistically significant (P = 0.141), the percentage difference in buzz rate during exposure vs. postexposure conditions appeared to be strongly correlated with airgun-whale distance (Miller et al. 2009:
Fig. 5; Tyack 2009).
20
Discussion and Conclusions
Dolphins and porpoises are often seen by observers on active seismic vessels, occasionally at
close distances (e.g., bow riding). However, some studies near the U.K., Newfoundland and Angola,
in the Gulf of Mexico, and off Central America have shown localized avoidance. Also, belugas
summering in the Canadian Beaufort Sea showed larger-scale avoidance, tending to avoid waters out
to 10–20 km from operating seismic vessels. In contrast, recent studies show little evidence of
conspicuous reactions by sperm whales to airgun pulses, contrary to earlier indications.
There are very few specific data on responses of beaked whales to seismic surveys, but it seems
likely that most if not all species show strong avoidance. There is increasing evidence that some
beaked whales may strand after exposure to strong noise from sonars. Whether they ever do so in
response to seismic survey noise is unknown. Northern bottlenose whales seem to continue to call
when exposed to pulses from distant seismic vessels.
Overall, odontocete reactions to large arrays of airguns are variable and, at least for delphinids
and some porpoises, seem to be confined to a smaller radius than has been observed for some
mysticetes. However, other data suggest that some odontocetes species, including belugas and
harbour porpoises, may be more responsive than might be expected given their poor low-frequency
hearing. Reactions at longer distances may be particularly likely when sound propagation conditions
are conducive to transmission of the higher-frequency components of airgun sound to the animals’
location (DeRuiter et al. 2006; Goold and Coates 2006; Tyack et al. 2006a; Potter et al. 2007).
For delphinids, and possibly the Dall’s porpoise, the available data suggest that a ≥170 dB re
1 µParms disturbance criterion (rather than ≥160 dB) would be appropriate. With a medium-to-large
airgun array, received levels typically diminish to 170 dB within 1–4 km, whereas levels typically
remain above 160 dB out to 4–15 km (e.g., Tolstoy et al. 2009). Reaction distances for delphinids are
more consistent with the typical 170 dB re 1 μParms distances. The 160 dB (rms) criterion currently
applied by NMFS was developed based primarily on data from gray and bowhead whales. Avoidance
distances for delphinids and Dall’s porpoises tend to be shorter than for those two mysticete species.
For delphinids and Dall’s porpoises, there is no indication of strong avoidance or other disruption of
behaviour at distances beyond those where received levels would be ~170 dB re 1 μParms.
1.5.3
Pinnipeds
Few studies of the reactions of pinnipeds to noise from open-water seismic exploration have
been published (for review of the early literature, see Richardson et al. 1995). However, pinnipeds
have been observed during a number of seismic monitoring studies. Monitoring in the Beaufort Sea
during 1996–2002 provided a substantial amount of information on avoidance responses (or lack
thereof) and associated behaviour. Additional monitoring of that type has been done in the Beaufort
and Chukchi Seas in 2006–2009. Pinnipeds exposed to seismic surveys have also been observed
during seismic surveys along the U.S. west coast. Some limited data are available on physiological
responses of pinnipeds exposed to seismic sound, as studied with the aid of radio telemetry. Also,
there are data on the reactions of pinnipeds to various other related types of impulsive sounds.
Early observations provided considerable evidence that pinnipeds are often quite tolerant of
strong pulsed sounds. During seismic exploration off Nova Scotia, gray seals exposed to noise from
airguns and linear explosive charges reportedly did not react strongly (J. Parsons in Greene et al.
1985). An airgun caused an initial startle reaction among South African fur seals but was ineffective
in scaring them away from fishing gear (Anonymous 1975). Pinnipeds in both water and air
sometimes tolerate strong noise pulses from non-explosive and explosive scaring devices, especially if
attracted to the area for feeding or reproduction (Mate and Harvey 1987; Reeves et al. 1996). Thus,
pinnipeds are expected to be rather tolerant of, or to habituate to, repeated underwater sounds from
distant seismic sources, at least when the animals are strongly attracted to the area.
21
In the U.K., a radio-telemetry study demonstrated short-term changes in the behaviour of
harbour (=common) and gray seals exposed to airgun pulses (Thompson et al. 1998). Harbour seals
were exposed to seismic pulses from a 90-in3 array (3 × 30 in3 airguns), and behavioural responses
differed among individuals. One harbour seal avoided the array at distances up to 2.5 km from the
source and only resumed foraging dives after seismic stopped. Another harbour seal exposed to the
same small airgun array showed no detectable behavioural response, even when the array was within
500 m. Gray seals exposed to a single 10-in3 airgun showed an avoidance reaction: they moved away
from the source, increased swim speed and/or dive duration, and switched from foraging dives to
predominantly transit dives. These effects appeared to be short-term as gray seals either remained in,
or returned at least once to, the foraging area where they had been exposed to seismic pulses. These
results suggest that there are interspecific as well as individual differences in seal responses to seismic
sounds.
Off California, visual observations from a seismic vessel showed that California sea lions
“typically ignored the vessel and array. When [they] displayed behaviour modifications, they often
appeared to be reacting visually to the sight of the towed array. At times, California sea lions were
attracted to the array, even when it was on. At other times, these animals would appear to be actively
avoiding the vessel and array” (Arnold 1996). In Puget Sound, sighting distances for harbour seals
and California sea lions tended to be larger when airguns were operating; both species tended to orient
away whether or not the airguns were firing (Calambokidis and Osmek 1998). Bain and Williams
(2006) also stated that their small sample of harbour seals and sea lions tended to orient and/or move
away upon exposure to sounds from a large airgun array.
Monitoring work in the Alaskan Beaufort Sea during 1996–2001 provided considerable
information regarding the behaviour of seals exposed to seismic pulses (Harris et al. 2001; Moulton
and Lawson 2002). Those seismic projects usually involved arrays of 6–16 airguns with total
volumes 560–1500 in3. Subsequent monitoring work in the Canadian Beaufort Sea in 2001–2002,
with a somewhat larger airgun system (24 airguns, 2250 in3), provided similar results (Miller et al.
2005). The combined results suggest that some seals avoid the immediate area around seismic
vessels. In most survey years, ringed seal sightings averaged somewhat farther away from the seismic
vessel when the airguns were operating than when they were not (Moulton and Lawson 2002). Also,
seal sighting rates at the water surface were lower during airgun array operations than during noairgun periods in each survey year except 1997. However, the avoidance movements were relatively
small, on the order of 100 m to (at most) a few hundreds of metres, and many seals remained within
100–200 m of the trackline as the operating airgun array passed by.
The operation of the airgun array had minor and variable effects on the behaviour of seals
visible at the surface within a few hundred metres of the airguns (Moulton and Lawson 2002). The
behavioural data indicated that some seals were more likely to swim away from the source vessel
during periods of airgun operations and more likely to swim towards or parallel to the vessel during
non-seismic periods. No consistent relationship was observed between exposure to airgun noise and
proportions of seals engaged in other recognizable behaviours, e.g., “looked” and “dove”. Such a
relationship might have occurred if seals seek to reduce exposure to strong seismic pulses, given the
reduced airgun noise levels close to the surface where “looking” occurs (Moulton and Lawson 2002).
Monitoring results from the Canadian Beaufort Sea during 2001–2002 were more variable
(Miller et al. 2005). During 2001, sighting rates of seals (mostly ringed seals) were similar during all
seismic states, including periods without airgun operations. However, seals tended to be seen closer
to the vessel during non-seismic than seismic periods. In contrast, during 2002, sighting rates of seals
were higher during non-seismic periods than seismic operations, and seals were seen farther from the
vessel during non-seismic compared to seismic activity (a marginally significant result). The
combined data for both years showed that sighting rates were higher during non-seismic periods
22
compared to seismic periods, and that sighting distances were similar during both seismic states.
Miller et al. (2005) concluded that seals showed very limited avoidance to the operating airgun array.
Vessel-based monitoring also took place in the Alaskan Chukchi and Beaufort seas during
2006–2008 (Funk et al. 2010). These observations indicate a tendency for phocid seals to exhibit
localized avoidance of the seismic source vessel when airguns are firing (Funk et al. 2010). In the
Chukchi Sea, seal sightings rates were greater without nearby seismic than from source vessels at
locations with received sound levels (RLs) ≥160 and 159–120 dB re 1 μParms. Also, sighting rates were
greater from source than monitoring vessels at locations with RLs <120 dB rms (Haley et al. 2010). In
the Beaufort Sea, seal sighting rates in areas with RLs ≥160 dB rms were also significantly higher from
monitoring than from seismic source vessels, and sighting rates were significantly higher from source
vessels in areas exposed to <120 compared to ≥160 dB rms (Savarese et al. 2010). In addition, seals
tended to stay farther away and swam away from source vessels more frequently than from monitoring
vessels when RLs were ≥160 dB rms. Over the three years, seal sighting rates were greater from
monitoring than source vessels at locations with received sound levels ≥160 and 159–120 dB rms,
whereas seal sighting rates were greater from source than monitoring vessels at locations with RLs <120
dB rms, suggesting that seals may be reacting to active airguns by moving away from the source vessel.
Walruses near operating seismic surveys tend to swim away from the vessel (Hannay et al.
2011). Walrus calls were monitored during a low-energy shallow-hazards survey in 2009 and a 3-D
seismic survey in 2010 (Hannay et al. 2010). During the shallow-hazard survey using a 40 in3 airgun,
walrus call detections stopped at SPLs >130 dB re 1 µParms and declined at lower SPLs. During the
large-array 3-D seismic survey, acoustic detections were negatively correlated with SPL at RLs of
110–140 dB, but no detections were made at SPLs >140 dB dB re 1 µParms. Hannay et al. (2011)
suggested that walruses likely reduced calling rates upon exposure to higher SPLs without leaving the
area.
In summary, visual monitoring from seismic vessels has shown only slight (if any) avoidance
of airguns by pinnipeds, and only slight (if any) changes in behaviour. These studies show that many
pinnipeds do not avoid the area within a few hundred metres of an operating airgun array. However,
based on the studies with large sample size, or observations from a separate monitoring vessel, or
radio telemetry, it is apparent that some phocid seals do show localized avoidance of operating
airguns. The limited nature of this tendency for avoidance is a concern. It suggests that one cannot
rely on pinnipeds to move away, or to move very far away, before received levels of sound from an
approaching seismic survey vessel approach those that may cause hearing impairment (see below).
1.5.4
Sirenians, Sea Otter and Polar Bear
We are not aware of any information on the reactions of sirenians to airgun sounds
Behaviour of sea otters along the California coast was monitored by Riedman (1983, 1984)
while they were exposed to a single 100 in3 airgun and a 4089 in3 airgun array. No disturbance
reactions were evident when the airgun array was as close as 0.9 km. Sea otters also did not respond
noticeably to the single airgun. These results suggest that sea otters may be less responsive to marine
seismic pulses than some other marine mammals, such as mysticetes and odontocetes (summarized
above). Also, sea otters spend a great deal of time at the surface feeding and grooming (Riedman
1983, 1984). While at the surface, the potential noise exposure of sea otters would be much reduced
by pressure-release and interference (Lloyd’s mirror) effects at the surface (Greene and Richardson
1988; Richardson et al. 1995).
Airgun effects on polar bears have not been studied. However, polar bears on the ice would be
largely unaffected by underwater sound. Sound levels received by polar bears in the water would be
attenuated because polar bears generally do not dive much below the surface and received levels of
airgun sounds are reduced near the surface because of the aforementioned pressure release and
interference effects at the water’s surface.
23
1.6.
Hearing Impairment and Other Physical Effects of Seismic Surveys
Temporary or permanent hearing impairment is a possibility when marine mammals are exposed to very strong sounds. Temporary threshold shift (TTS) has been demonstrated and studied in
certain captive odontocetes and pinnipeds exposed to strong sounds (reviewed in Southall et al. 2007).
However, there has been no specific documentation of TTS let alone permanent hearing damage, i.e.
permanent threshold shift (PTS), in free-ranging marine mammals exposed to sequences of airgun
pulses during realistic field conditions. Current NMFS policy regarding exposure of marine mammals
to high-level sounds is that cetaceans and pinnipeds should not be exposed to impulsive sounds ≥180
and 190 dB re 1 µParms, respectively (NMFS 2000). Those criteria have been used in establishing the
safety (=shut-down) radii planned for numerous seismic surveys conducted under U.S. jurisdiction.
However, those criteria were established before there was any information about the minimum
received levels of sounds necessary to cause auditory impairment in marine mammals. As discussed
below,
•
the 180-dB criterion for cetaceans is probably precautionary for at least some species
including bottlenose dolphin and beluga, i.e., lower than necessary to avoid temporary
auditory impairment let alone permanent auditory injury.
•
the 180-dB criterion may not be precautionary with regard to TTS in some other cetacean
species, including the harbour porpoise. Likewise, the 190-dB criterion for pinnipeds may
not be precautionary for all pinnipeds, although for pinnipeds the underlying data are indirect
and quite variable among species.
•
the likelihood of TTS (and probably also PTS) upon exposure to high-level sound appears to
be better correlated with the amount of acoustic energy received by the animal, measured by
the cumulative sound exposure level (SEL) in dB re 1 μPa2 ∙ s, than it is with maximum
received RMS pressure level in dB re 1 μParms.. SEL allows for exposure duration and/or
number of exposures; the maximum rms level does not. Thus, the current U.S. criteria do not
appear to be expressed in the most appropriate acoustic units.
•
low and moderate degrees of TTS, up to at least 30 dB of elevation of the threshold, are not
injury and do not constitute “Level A harassment” in U.S. MMPA terminology. Beyond that
level, TTS may grade into PTS (Le Prell 2012).
•
the minimum sound level necessary to cause permanent hearing impairment (“Level A harassment”) is higher, by a variable and generally unknown amount, than the level that induces
barely-detectable TTS.
•
the level associated with the onset of TTS is often considered to be a level below which there
is no danger of permanent damage. The actual PTS threshold is likely to be well above the
level causing onset of TTS (Southall et al. 2007).
Recommendations for new science-based noise exposure criteria for marine mammals,
frequency-weighting procedures, and related matters were published in early 2008 (Southall et al.
2007). Those recommendations have not, as of early 2013, been formally adopted by NMFS for use
in regulatory processes and during mitigation programs associated with seismic surveys. However,
some aspects of the recommendations have been taken into account in certain EISs and small-take
authorizations, and NMFS is moving toward adoption of new procedures taking at least some of the
Southall et al. recommendations into account (Scholik-Schlomer 2012). Preliminary information
about possible changes in the regulatory and mitigation requirements, and about the possible structure
of new criteria, was given by Wieting (2004) and NMFS (2005).
Several aspects of the monitoring and mitigation measures that are now often implemented
during seismic survey projects are designed to detect marine mammals occurring near the airgun
array, and to avoid exposing them to sound pulses that might, at least in theory, cause hearing
24
impairment. In addition, many cetaceans and (to a limited degree) pinnipeds show some avoidance of
the area where received levels of airgun sound are high enough such that hearing impairment could
potentially occur. In those cases, the avoidance responses of the animals themselves will reduce or
(most likely) avoid the possibility of hearing impairment.
Non-auditory physical effects may also occur in marine mammals exposed to strong
underwater pulsed sound. Possible types of non-auditory physiological effects or injuries that might
(in theory) occur include stress, neurological effects, bubble formation, and other types of organ or
tissue damage. It is possible that some marine mammal species (i.e., beaked whales) may be
especially susceptible to injury and/or stranding when exposed to strong pulsed sounds. The
following subsections summarize available data on noise-induced hearing impairment and nonauditory physical effects.
1.6.1
Temporary Threshold Shift (TTS)
TTS is the mildest form of hearing impairment that can occur during exposure to a strong
sound (Kryter 1985). While experiencing TTS, the hearing threshold rises and a sound must be
stronger in order to be heard. It is a temporary phenomenon, and (especially when mild) is not
considered to represent physical damage or “injury” (Southall et al. 2007; Le Prell 2012). Rather, the
onset of TTS is an indicator that, if the animal is exposed to higher levels of that sound, physical
damage is ultimately a possibility.
The magnitude of TTS depends on the level and duration of noise exposure, and to some degree
on frequency, among other considerations (Kryter 1985; Richardson et al. 1995; Southall et al. 2007).
For sound exposures at or somewhat above the TTS threshold, hearing sensitivity recovers rapidly
after exposure to the noise ends. Extensive studies on terrestrial mammal hearing in air show that
TTS can last from minutes or hours to (in cases of strong TTS) days. More limited data from
odontocetes and pinnipeds show similar patterns (e.g., Mooney et al. 2009a,b; Finneran et al. 2010a).
However, none of the published data concern TTS elicited by exposure to multiple pulses of sound
during operational seismic surveys (Southall et al. 2007).
Toothed Whales
There are empirical data on the sound exposures that elicit onset of TTS in captive bottlenose
dolphins, belugas, and two species of porpoise. The majority of these data concern non-impulse
sound, but there are some limited published data concerning TTS onset upon exposure to a single
pulse of sound from a watergun (Finneran et al. 2002). A detailed review of all TTS data from marine
mammals up to 2007 can be found in Southall et al. (2007). The following summarizes some of the
key results from odontocetes.
Recent information corroborates earlier expectations that the effect of exposure to strong
transient sounds is closely related to the total amount of acoustic energy that is received. Finneran et
al. (2005) examined the effects of tone duration on TTS in bottlenose dolphins. Bottlenose dolphins
were exposed to 3 kHz tones (non-impulsive) for periods of 1, 2, 4 or 8 s, with hearing tested at 4.5
kHz. For 1-s exposures, TTS occurred with SELs of 197 dB, and for exposures >1 s, SEL >195 dB
resulted in TTS (SEL is equivalent to energy flux, in dB re 1 μPa2 · s). At an SEL of 195 dB, the
mean TTS (4 min after exposure) was 2.8 dB. Finneran et al. (2005) suggested that an SEL of 195 dB
is the likely threshold for the onset of TTS in dolphins and belugas exposed to tones of durations 1–8
s (i.e., TTS onset occurs at a near-constant SEL, independent of exposure duration). That implies
that, at least for non-impulsive tones, a doubling of exposure time results in a 3 dB lower TTS
threshold.
The assumption that, in marine mammals, the occurrence and magnitude of TTS is a function
of cumulative acoustic energy (SEL) is probably an oversimplification (Finneran 2012). Kastak et al.
(2005) reported preliminary evidence from pinnipeds that, for prolonged non-impulse noise, higher
25
SELs were required to elicit a given TTS if exposure duration was short than if it was longer, i.e., the
results were not fully consistent with an equal-energy model to predict TTS onset. Mooney et al.
(2009a) showed this in a bottlenose dolphin exposed to octave-band non-impulse noise ranging from
4 to 8 kHz at SPLs of 130 to 178 dB re 1 µPa for periods of 1.88 to 30 min. Higher SELs were
required to induce a given TTS if exposure duration was short than if it was longer. Exposure of the
aforementioned bottlenose dolphin to a sequence of brief sonar signals showed that, with those brief
(but non-impulse) sounds, the received energy (SEL) necessary to elicit TTS was higher than was the
case with exposure to the more prolonged octave-band noise (Mooney et al. 2009b). Those authors
concluded that, when using (non-impulse) acoustic signals of duration ~0.5 s, SEL must be at least
210–214 dB re 1 μPa2 · s to induce TTS in the bottlenose dolphin. Popov et al. (2011) examined the
effects of fatiguing noise on the hearing threshold of Yangtze finless porpoises when exposed to
frequencies of 32–128 kHz at 140–160 dB re 1 µPa for 1‒30 min. They found that an exposure of
higher level and shorter duration produced a higher TTS than an exposure of equal SEL but of lower
level and longer duration.
On the other hand, the TTS threshold for odontocetes exposed to a single impulse from a
watergun (Finneran et al. 2002) appeared to be somewhat lower than for exposure to non-impulse
sound. This was expected, based on evidence from terrestrial mammals showing that broadband
pulsed sounds with rapid rise times have greater auditory effect than do non-impulse sounds (Southall
et al. 2007). The received energy level of a single seismic pulse that caused the onset of mild TTS in
the beluga, as measured without frequency weighting, was ~186 dB re 1 µPa2 · s or 186 dB SEL
(Finneran et al. 2002). 5 The rms level of an airgun pulse (in dB re 1 μPa measured over the duration
of the pulse) is typically 10–15 dB higher than the SEL for the same pulse when received within a few
kilometres of the airguns. Thus, a single airgun pulse might need to have a received level of ~196–
201 dB re 1 µParms in order to produce brief, mild TTS. Exposure to several strong seismic pulses that
each has a flat-weighted received level near 190 dBrms (175–180 dB SEL) could result in cumulative
exposure of ~186 dB SEL (flat-weighted) or ~183 dB SEL (Mmf-weighted), and thus slight TTS in a
small odontocete. That assumes that the TTS threshold upon exposure to multiple pulses is (to a first
approximation) a function of the total received pulse energy, without allowance for any recovery
between pulses. However, recent data have shown that the SEL required for TTS onset to occur
increases with intermittent exposures, with some auditory recovery during silent periods between
signals (Finneran et al. 2010b; Finneran and Schlundt 2011). For example, Finneran et al. (2011)
reported no measurable TTS in bottlenose dolphins after exposure to 10 impulses from a seismic
airgun with a cumulative SEL of ~195 dB re 1 µPa2 · s.
The conclusion that the TTS threshold is higher for non-impulse sound than for impulse sound
is somewhat speculative. The available TTS data for a beluga exposed to impulse sound are
extremely limited, and the TTS data from the beluga and bottlenose dolphin exposed to non-pulse
sound pertain to sounds at 3 kHz and above. Follow-on work has shown that the SEL necessary to
elicit TTS can depend substantially on frequency, with susceptibility to TTS increasing with
increasing frequency above 3 kHz (Finneran and Schlundt 2010, 2011; Finneran 2012).
The above TTS information for odontocetes is derived from studies on the bottlenose dolphin
and beluga. There have been no studies of narwhal hearing impairment attributable to airgun sounds.
For the one harbour porpoise tested, the received level of airgun sound that elicited onset of TTS was
lower. The animal was exposed to single pulses from a small (20 in3) airgun, and auditory evoked
potential methods were used to test the animal’s hearing sensitivity at frequencies of 4, 32, or 100 kHz
after each exposure (Lucke et al. 2009). Based on the measurements at 4 kHz, TTS occurred upon
5
If the low-frequency components of the watergun sound used in the experiments of Finneran et al. (2002) are
downweighted as recommended by Southall et al. (2007) using their Mmf-weighting curve, the effective
exposure level for onset of mild TTS was 183 dB re 1 μPa2 · s (Southall et al. 2007).
26
exposure to one airgun pulse with received level ~200 dB re 1 μPapk-pk or an SEL of 164.3 dB re
1 µPa2 · s. If these results from a single animal are representative, it is inappropriate to assume that
onset of TTS occurs at similar received levels in all odontocetes (cf. Southall et al. 2007). Some
cetaceans may incur TTS at lower sound exposures than are necessary to elicit TTS in the beluga or
bottlenose dolphin.
Insofar as we are aware, there are no published data confirming that the auditory effect of a
sequence of airgun pulses received by an odontocete is a function of their cumulative energy.
Southall et al. (2007) consider that to be a reasonable, but probably somewhat precautionary,
assumption. It is precautionary because, based on data from terrestrial mammals, one would expect
that a given energy exposure would have somewhat less effect if separated into discrete pulses, with
potential opportunity for partial auditory recovery between pulses. However, as yet there has been
little study of the rate of recovery from TTS in marine mammals, and in humans and other terrestrial
mammals the available data on recovery are quite variable. Southall et al. (2007) concluded
that―until relevant data on recovery are available from marine mammals―it is appropriate not to
allow for any assumed recovery during the intervals between pulses within a pulse sequence.
Additional data are needed to determine the received sound levels at which small odontocetes
would start to incur TTS upon exposure to repeated, low-frequency pulses of airgun sound with
variable received levels. To determine how close an airgun array would need to approach in order to
elicit TTS, one would (as a minimum) need to allow for the sequence of distances at which airgun
shots would occur, and for the dependence of received SEL on distance in the region of the seismic
operation (e.g., Erbe and King 2009; Breitzke and Bohlen 2010; Laws 2012). At the present state of
knowledge, it is also necessary to assume that the effect is directly related to total received energy
even though that energy is received in multiple pulses separated by gaps. The lack of data on the
exposure levels necessary to cause TTS in toothed whales when the signal is a series of pulsed
sounds, separated by silent periods, remains a data gap, as is the lack of published data on TTS in
odontocetes other than the beluga, bottlenose dolphin, and porpoise.
Baleen Whales
There are no data, direct or indirect, on levels or properties of sound that are required to induce
TTS in any baleen whale. The frequencies to which mysticetes are most sensitive are assumed to be
lower than those to which odontocetes are most sensitive, and natural background noise levels at those
low frequencies tend to be higher. As a result, auditory thresholds of baleen whales within their
frequency band of best hearing are believed to be higher (less sensitive) than are those of odontocetes
at their best frequencies (Clark and Ellison 2004). From this, it is suspected that received levels
causing TTS onset may also be higher in mysticetes (Southall et al. 2007). However, based on preliminary simulation modeling that attempted to allow for various uncertainties in assumptions and
variability around population means, Gedamke et al. (2011) suggested that some baleen whales whose
closest point of approach to a seismic vessel is 1 km or more could experience TTS.
In practice during seismic surveys, few if any cases of TTS are expected given the strong likelihood that baleen whales would avoid the approaching airguns (or vessel) before being exposed to
levels high enough for there to be any possibility of TTS (see above for evidence concerning
avoidance responses by baleen whales). This assumes that the ramp-up (soft-start) procedure is used
when commencing airgun operations, to give whales near the vessel the opportunity to move away
before they are exposed to sound levels that might be strong enough to elicit TTS. As discussed
earlier, single-airgun experiments with bowhead, gray, and humpback whales show that those species
do tend to move away when a single airgun starts firing nearby, which simulates the onset of a ramp
up.
27
Pinnipeds
In pinnipeds, TTS thresholds associated with exposure to brief pulses (single or multiple) of
underwater sound have not been measured. Two California sea lions did not incur TTS when exposed
to single brief pulses with received levels of ~178 and 183 dB re 1 µParms and total energy fluxes of
161 and 163 dB re 1 μPa2 · s (Finneran et al. 2003). However, initial evidence from more prolonged
(non-pulse and pulse) exposures suggested that some pinnipeds (harbour seals in particular) incur TTS
at somewhat lower received levels than do small odontocetes exposed for similar durations (Kastak et
al. 1999, 2005; Ketten et al. 2001; Kastelein et al. 2011). Kastak et al. (2005) reported that the
amount of threshold shift increased with increasing SEL in a California sea lion and harbour seal.
They noted that, for non-impulse sound, doubling the exposure duration from 25 to 50 min (i.e., a +3
dB change in SEL) had a greater effect on TTS than an increase of 15 dB (95 vs. 80 dB) in exposure
level. Mean threshold shifts ranged from 2.9–12.2 dB, with full recovery within 24 hr (Kastak et al.
2005). Kastak et al. (2005) suggested that, for non-impulse sound, SELs resulting in TTS onset in
three species of pinnipeds may range from 183 to 206 dB re 1 μPa2 · s, depending on the absolute
hearing sensitivity.
As noted above for odontocetes, it is expected that—for impulse as opposed to non-impulse
sound—the onset of TTS would occur at a lower cumulative SEL given the assumed greater auditory
effect of broadband impulses with rapid rise times. The threshold for onset of mild TTS upon
exposure of a harbour seal to impulse sounds has been estimated indirectly as being an SEL of ~171
dB re 1 μPa2 · s (Southall et al. 2007). That would be approximately equivalent to a single pulse with
received level ~181–186 dB re 1 μParms, or a series of pulses for which the highest rms values are a
few dB lower.
At least for non-impulse sounds, TTS onset occurs at appreciably higher received levels in California sea lions and northern elephant seals than in harbour seals (Kastak et al. 2005). Thus, the
former two species would presumably need to be closer to an airgun array than would a harbour seal
before TTS is a possibility. Insofar as we are aware, there are no data to indicate whether the TTS
thresholds of other pinniped species are more similar to those of the harbour seal or to those of the
two less-sensitive species.
Sirenians, Sea Otter and Polar Bear
There are no available data on TTS in sea otters and polar bears. However, TTS is unlikely to
occur in sea otters or polar bears if they are on the water surface, given the pressure release and
Lloyd’s mirror effects at the water’s surface. Furthermore, sea otters tend to inhabit shallow coastal
habitats where large seismic survey vessels towing large spreads of streamers may be unable to
operate. TTS is also considered unlikely to occur in sirenians as a result of exposure to sounds from a
seismic survey. They, like sea otters, tend to inhabit shallow coastal habitats and rarely range far
from shore, whereas seismic survey vessels towing large arrays of airguns and (usually) even larger
arrays of streamers normally must remain farther offshore because of equipment clearance and maneuverability limitations. Exposures of sea otters and sirenians to seismic surveys are more likely to
involve smaller seismic sources that can be used in shallow and confined waters. The impacts of
these are inherently less than would occur from a larger source of the types often used farther
offshore.
Likelihood of Incurring TTS
Most cetaceans show some degree of avoidance of seismic vessels operating an airgun array
(see above). It is unlikely that these cetaceans would be exposed to airgun pulses at a sufficiently
high level for a sufficiently long period to cause more than mild TTS, given the relative movement of
the vessel and the marine mammal. TTS would be more likely in any odontocetes that bow- or wakeride or otherwise linger near the airguns. However, while bow- or wake-riding, odontocetes would be
28
at the surface and thus not exposed to strong sound pulses given the pressure-release and Lloyd
Mirror effects at the surface. But if bow- or wake-riding animals were to dive intermittently near
airguns, they would be exposed to strong sound pulses, possibly repeatedly.
If some cetaceans did incur mild or moderate TTS through exposure to airgun sounds in this
manner, this would very likely be a temporary and reversible phenomenon. However, even a
temporary reduction in hearing sensitivity could be deleterious in the event that, during that period of
reduced sensitivity, a marine mammal needed its full hearing sensitivity to detect approaching
predators, or for some other reason.
Some pinnipeds show avoidance reactions to airguns, but their avoidance reactions are
generally not as strong or consistent as those of cetaceans. Pinnipeds occasionally seem to be
attracted to operating seismic vessels. There are no specific data on TTS thresholds of pinnipeds
exposed to single or multiple low-frequency pulses. However, given the indirect indications of a
lower TTS threshold for the harbour seal than for odontocetes exposed to impulse sound (see above),
it is possible that some pinnipeds close to a large airgun array could incur TTS.
NMFS (1995, 2000) concluded that cetaceans should not be exposed to pulsed underwater
noise at received levels >180 dB re 1 µParms. The corresponding limit for pinnipeds has been set by
NMFS at 190 dB, although the HESS Team (HESS 1999) recommended a 180-dB limit for pinnipeds
in California. The 180 and 190 dB re 1 µParms levels have not been considered to be the levels above
which TTS might occur. Rather, they were the received levels above which, in the view of a panel of
bioacoustics specialists convened by NMFS before TTS measurements for marine mammals started to
become available, one could not be certain that there would be no injurious effects, auditory or
otherwise, to marine mammals. As summarized above, data that are now available imply that TTS is
unlikely to occur in various odontocetes (and probably mysticetes as well) unless they are exposed to
a sequence of several airgun pulses stronger than 190 dB re 1 µParms. On the other hand, for the
harbour seal, harbour porpoise, and perhaps some other species, TTS may occur upon exposure to one
or more airgun pulses whose received level equals the NMFS “do not exceed” value of 190 dB re 1
μParms. That criterion corresponds to a single-pulse SEL of 175–180 dB re 1 μPa2 · s in typical
conditions, whereas TTS is suspected to be possible in harbour seals and harbour porpoises with a
cumulative SEL of ~171 and ~164 dB re 1 μPa2 · s, respectively.
It has been shown that most large whales and many smaller odontocetes (especially the harbour
porpoise) show at least localized avoidance of ships and/or seismic operations (see above). Even
when avoidance is limited to the area within a few hundred metres of an airgun array, that should
usually be sufficient to avoid TTS based on what is currently known about thresholds for TTS onset in
cetaceans. In addition, ramping up airgun arrays, which is standard operational protocol for many
seismic operators, should allow cetaceans near the airguns at the time of startup (if the sounds are
aversive) to move away from the seismic source and to avoid being exposed to the full acoustic output
of the airgun array (see above). Thus, most baleen whales likely will not be exposed to high levels of
airgun sounds provided the ramp-up procedure is applied. Likewise, many odontocetes close to the
trackline are likely to move away before the sounds from an approaching seismic vessel become
sufficiently strong for there to be any potential for TTS or other hearing impairment. Therefore, there
is little potential for baleen whales or odontocetes that show avoidance of ships or airguns to be close
enough to an airgun array to experience TTS. In the event that a few individual cetaceans did incur
TTS through exposure to strong airgun sounds, this is a temporary and reversible phenomenon unless
the exposure exceeds the TTS-onset threshold by a sufficient amount for PTS to be incurred (see
below). If TTS but not PTS were incurred, it would most likely be mild, in which case recovery is
expected to be quick (probably within minutes).
29
1.6.2
Permanent Threshold Shift (PTS)
When PTS occurs, there is physical damage to the sound receptors in the ear. In some cases,
there can be total or partial deafness, whereas in other cases, the animal has an impaired ability to hear
sounds in specific frequency ranges (Kryter 1985). Physical damage to a mammal’s hearing
apparatus can occur if it is exposed to sound impulses that have very high peak pressures, especially if
they have very short rise times. (Rise time is the interval required for sound pressure to increase from
the baseline pressure to peak pressure.)
There is no specific evidence that exposure to pulses of airgun sound can cause PTS in any
marine mammal, even with large arrays of airguns. However, given the likelihood that some
mammals close to an airgun array might incur at least mild TTS (see above), there has been further
speculation about the possibility that some individuals occurring very close to airguns might incur
PTS (e.g., Richardson et al. 1995, p. 372ff; Gedamke et al. 2011). Single or occasional occurrences of
mild TTS are not indicative of permanent auditory damage, but repeated or (in some cases) single
exposures to a level well above that causing TTS onset might elicit PTS. In terrestrial animals,
exposure to sounds sufficiently strong to elicit a large TTS induces physiological and structural
changes in the inner ear, and at some high level of sound exposure, these phenomena become nonrecoverable (Le Prell 2012). At this level of sound exposure, TTS grades into PTS.
Relationships between TTS and PTS thresholds have not been studied in marine mammals, but
are assumed to be similar to those in humans and other terrestrial mammals (Southall et al. 2007).
Based on data from terrestrial mammals, a precautionary assumption is that the PTS threshold for
impulse sounds (such as airgun pulses as received close to the source) is at least 6 dB higher than the
TTS threshold on a peak-pressure basis, and probably >6 dB higher (Southall et al. 2007). The lowto-moderate levels of TTS that have been induced in captive odontocetes and pinnipeds during
controlled studies of TTS have been confirmed to be temporary, with no measurable residual PTS
(Kastak et al. 1999; Schlundt et al. 2000; Finneran et al. 2002, 2005; Nachtigall et al. 2003, 2004).
However, very prolonged exposure to sound strong enough to elicit TTS, or shorter-term exposure to
sound levels well above the TTS threshold, can cause PTS, at least in terrestrial mammals (Kryter
1985). In terrestrial mammals, the received sound level from a single non-impulsive sound exposure
must be far above the TTS threshold for any risk of permanent hearing damage (Kryter 1994;
Richardson et al. 1995; Southall et al. 2007). However, there is special concern about strong sounds
whose pulses have very rapid rise times. In terrestrial mammals, there are situations when pulses with
rapid rise times (e.g., from explosions) can result in PTS even though their peak levels are only a few
dB higher than the level causing slight TTS. The rise time of airgun pulses is fast, but not as fast as
that of an explosion.
Some factors that contribute to onset of PTS, at least in terrestrial mammals, are as follows:
•
exposure to single very intense sound,
•
fast rise time from baseline to peak pressure,
•
repetitive exposure to intense sounds that individually cause TTS but not PTS, and
•
recurrent ear infections or (in captive animals) exposure to certain drugs.
Cavanagh (2000) reviewed the thresholds used to define TTS and PTS. Based on this review
and SACLANT (1998), it is reasonable to assume that PTS might occur at a received sound level 20
dB or more above that inducing mild TTS. However, for PTS to occur at a received level only 20 dB
above the TTS threshold, the animal probably would have to be exposed to a strong sound for an
extended period, or to a strong sound with rather rapid rise time.
More recently, Southall et al. (2007) estimated that received levels would need to exceed the
TTS threshold by at least 15 dB, on an SEL basis, for there to be risk of PTS. Thus, for cetaceans
exposed to a sequence of sound pulses, they estimate that the PTS threshold might be an M-weighted
30
SEL (for the sequence of received pulses) of ~198 dB re 1 μPa2 · s (15 dB higher than the Mmfweighted TTS threshold, in a beluga, for a watergun impulse). Additional assumptions had to be
made to derive a corresponding estimate for pinnipeds, as the only available data on TTS-thresholds
in pinnipeds pertained to non-impulse sound (see above). Southall et al. (2007) estimated that the
PTS threshold could be a cumulative Mpw-weighted SEL of ~186 dB re 1 μPa2 · s in the case of a
harbour seal exposed to impulse sound. The PTS threshold for the California sea lion and northern
elephant seal would probably be higher given the higher TTS thresholds in those species. Southall et
al. (2007) also note that, regardless of the SEL, there is concern about the possibility of PTS if a
cetacean or pinniped received one or more pulses with peak pressure exceeding 230 or 218 dB re 1
μPa, respectively. Thus, PTS might be expected upon exposure of cetaceans to either SEL ≥198 dB re
1 μPa2 · s or peak pressure ≥230 dB re 1 μPa. Corresponding proposed dual criteria for pinnipeds (at
least harbour seals) are ≥186 dB SEL and ≥ 218 dB peak pressure (Southall et al. 2007).
These estimates are all first approximations, given the limited underlying data, numerous
assumptions, and species differences. Also, data have been published susbsequent to Southall et al.
(2007) indicating that, at least for non-pulse sounds, the “equal energy” model is not be entirely
correct―TTS and presumably PTS thresholds may depend somewhat on the duration over which
sound energy is accumulated, the frequency of the sound, whether or not there are gaps, and probably
other factors (Ketten 1994, 2012). PTS effects may also be influenced strongly by the health of the
receiver’s ear.
As described above for TTS, in estimating the amount of sound energy required to elicit the
onset of TTS (and PTS), it is assumed that the auditory effect of a given cumulative SEL from a series
of pulses is the same as if that amount of sound energy were received as a single strong sound. There
are no data from marine mammals concerning the occurrence or magnitude of a potential partial
recovery effect between pulses. In deriving the estimates of PTS (and TTS) thresholds quoted here,
Southall et al. (2007) made the precautionary assumption that no recovery would occur between
pulses.
The TTS section (above) concludes that exposure to several strong seismic pulses that each
have flat-weighted received levels near 190 dB re 1 μParms (175–180 dB re 1 μPa2 · s SEL) could
result in cumulative exposure of ~186 dB SEL (flat-weighted) or ~183 dB SEL (Mmf-weighted), and
thus slight TTS in a small odontocete. Allowing for the assumed 15 dB offset between PTS and TTS
thresholds, expressed on an SEL basis, exposure to several strong seismic pulses that each have flatweighted received levels near 205 dBrms (190–195 dB SEL) could result in cumulative exposure of
~198 dB SEL (Mmf-weighted), and thus slight PTS in a small odontocete. However, the levels of
successive pulses that will be received by a marine mammal that is below the surface as a seismic
vessel approaches, passes and moves away will tend to increase gradually and then decrease
gradually, with periodic decreases superimposed on this pattern when the animal comes to the surface
to breathe. To estimate how close an odontocete’s CPA distance would have to be for the cumulative
SEL to exceed 198 dB SEL (Mmf-weighted), one would (as a minimum) need to allow for the
sequence of distances at which airgun shots would occur, and for the dependence of received SEL on
distance in the region of the seismic operation (e.g., Erbe and King 2009).
It is unlikely that an odontocete would remain close enough to a large airgun array for
sufficiently long to incur PTS. There is some concern about bowriding odontocetes, but for animals
at or near the surface, auditory effects are reduced by Lloyd’s mirror and surface release effects. The
presence of the vessel between the airgun array and bow-riding odontocetes could also, in some but
probably not all cases, reduce the levels received by bow-riding animals (e.g., Gabriele and Kipple
2009). The TTS (and thus PTS) thresholds of baleen whales are unknown but, as an interim measure,
assumed to be no lower than those of odontocetes. Also, baleen whales generally avoid the
immediate area around operating seismic vessels, so it is unlikely that a baleen whale could incur PTS
from exposure to airgun pulses. The TTS (and thus PTS) thresholds of some pinnipeds (e.g., harbour
31
seal) as well as the harbour porpoise may be lower (Kastak et al. 2005; Southall et al. 2007; Lucke et
al. 2009; Kastelein et al. 2011, 2012). If so, TTS and potentially PTS may extend to a somewhat
greater distance for those animals. Again, Lloyd’s mirror and surface release effects will ameliorate
the effects for animals at or near the surface.
Although it is unlikely that airgun operations during most seismic surveys would cause PTS in
many marine mammals, caution is warranted given
•
the limited knowledge about noise-induced hearing damage in marine mammals, particularly
baleen whales, pinnipeds, and sea otters;
•
the seemingly greater susceptibility of certain species (e.g., harbour porpoise and harbour
seal) to TTS and presumably also PTS; and
•
the lack of knowledge about TTS and PTS thresholds in many species, including various
species closely related to the harbour porpoise and harbour seal.
The avoidance reactions of many marine mammals, along with commonly-applied monitoring and
mitigation measures (visual and passive acoustic monitoring, ramp ups, and power downs or shut
downs when mammals are detected within or approaching the “safety radii”), would reduce the
already-low probability of exposure of marine mammals to sounds strong enough to induce PTS.
1.6.3
Strandings and Mortality
Marine mammals close to underwater detonations of high explosives can be killed or severely
injured, and the auditory organs are especially susceptible to injury (Ketten et al. 1993; Ketten 1995).
However, explosives are no longer used in marine waters for commercial seismic surveys or (with
rare exceptions) for seismic research; they have been replaced by airguns and other non-explosive
sources. Airgun pulses are less energetic and have slower rise times, and there is no specific evidence
that they can cause serious injury, death, or stranding even in the case of large airgun arrays.
However, the association of mass strandings of beaked whales with naval exercises and, in one case, a
seismic survey (Malakoff 2002; Cox et al. 2006), has raised the possibility that beaked whales
exposed to strong “pulsed” sounds may be especially susceptible to injury and/or behavioural
reactions that can lead to stranding (e.g., Hildebrand 2005; Southall et al. 2007). Hildebrand (2005)
reviewed the association of cetacean strandings with high-intensity sound events and found that deepdiving odontocetes, primarily beaked whales, were by far the predominant (95%) cetaceans associated
with these events, with 2% mysticete whales (minke). However, as summarized below, there is no
definitive evidence that airguns can lead to injury, strandings, or mortality even for marine mammals
in close proximity to large airgun arrays.
Specific sound-related processes that lead to strandings and mortality are not well documented,
but may include (1) swimming in avoidance of a sound into shallow water; (2) a change in behaviour
(such as a change in diving behaviour that might contribute to tissue damage, gas bubble formation,
hypoxia, cardiac arrhythmia, hypertensive hemorrhage or other forms of trauma; (3) a physiological
change such as a vestibular response leading to a behavioural change or stress-induced hemorrhagic
diathesis, leading in tirne to tissue damage; and (4) tissue damage directly from sound exposure, such
as through acoustically mediated bubble formation and growth or acoustic resonance of tissues. Some
of these mechanisms are unlikely to apply in the case of impulse sounds. However, there are
increasing indications that gas-bubble disease (analogous to “the bends”), induced in supersaturated
tissue by a behavioural response to acoustic exposure, could be a pathologic mechanism for the
strandings and mortality of some deep-diving cetaceans exposed to sonar. The evidence for this
remains circumstantial and associated with exposure to naval mid-frequency sonar, not seismic
surveys (Cox et al. 2006; Southall et al. 2007; Kvadsheim et al. 2012).
Seismic pulses and mid-frequency sonar signals are quite different, and some mechanisms by
which sonar sounds have been hypothesized to affect beaked whales are unlikely to apply to airgun
32
pulses. Sounds produced by airgun arrays are broadband impulses with most of the energy below
1 kHz. Typical military mid-frequency sonars emit non-impulse sounds at frequencies of 2–10 kHz,
generally with a relatively narrow bandwidth at any one time (though the frequency may change over
time). Thus, it is not appropriate to assume that the effects of seismic surveys on beaked whales or
other species would be the same as the apparent effects of military sonar. For example, resonance
effects (Gentry 2002) and acoustically-mediated bubble-growth (Crum et al. 2005) are implausible in
the case of exposure to broadband airgun pulses. Nonetheless, evidence that sonar signals can, in
special circumstances, lead (at least indirectly) to physical damage and mortality (e.g., Balcomb and
Claridge 2001; NOAA and USN 2001; Jepson et al. 2003; Fernández et al. 2004, 2005; Hildebrand
2005; Cox et al. 2006) suggests that caution is warranted when dealing with exposure of marine
mammals to any high-intensity “pulsed” sound. One of the hypothesized mechanisms by which naval
sonars lead to strandings might, in theory, also apply to seismic surveys: If the strong sounds
sometimes cause deep-diving species to alter their surfacing–dive cycles in a way that causes bubble
formation in tissue, that hypothesized mechanism might apply to seismic surveys as well as midfrequency naval sonars. However, there is no specific evidence of this upon exposure to airgun
pulses.
There is no conclusive evidence of cetacean strandings or deaths at sea as a result of exposure
to seismic surveys. However, Gray and Van Waerebeek (2011) have suggested a cause-effect
relationship between a seismic survey off Liberia in 2009 and the erratic movement, postural
instability, and akinesia in a pantropical spotted dolphin based on spatially and temporally close
association with the airgun array. Additionally, a few cases of strandings in the general area where a
seismic survey was ongoing have led to speculation concerning a possible link between seismic
surveys and strandings. • Suggestions that there was a link between seismic surveys and strandings of
humpback whales in Brazil (Engel et al. 2004) were not well founded (IAGC 2004; IWC 2007). • In
Sept. 2002, there was a stranding of two Cuvier’s beaked whales in the Gulf of California, Mexico,
when the L-DEO seismic vessel R/V Maurice Ewing was operating a 20-airgun, 8490-in3 airgun array
in the general area. The evidence linking the stranding to the seismic survey was inconclusive and not
based on any physical evidence (Hogarth 2002; Yoder 2002). The ship was also operating its
multibeam echosounder at the same time, but this had much less potential than the aforementioned
naval sonars to affect beaked whales, given its downward-directed beams, much shorter pulse
durations, and lower duty cycle. Nonetheless, the Gulf of California incident plus the beaked whale
strandings near naval exercises involving use of mid-frequency sonar suggest a need for caution in
conducting seismic surveys in areas occupied by beaked whales until more is known about effects of
seismic surveys on those species (Hildebrand 2005).
1.6.4
Non-Auditory Physiological Effects
Based on evidence from terrestrial mammals and humans, sound is a potential source of stress
(Wright and Kuczaj 2007; Wright et al. 2007a,b, 2009, 2011). However, almost no information is
available on sound-induced stress in marine mammals, or on its potential (alone or in combination
with other stressors) to affect the long-term well-being or reproductive success of marine mammals
(Fair and Becker 2000; Hildebrand 2005; Wright et al. 2007a,b). Hatch and Fristrup (2009) suggested
that problems associated with chronic noise may compromise physiological function, and may
decrease the use of biologically important areas. Such long-term effects, if they occur, would be
mainly associated with chronic noise exposure, which is characteristic of some seismic surveys and
exposure situations (e.g., McCauley et al. 2000a:62ff; Nieukirk et al. 2012) but not of some others.
Available data on potential stress-related impacts of anthropogenic noise on marine mammals
are extremely limited, and additional research on this topic is needed. We know of three specific
studies of noise-induced stress in marine mammals. (1) Romano et al. (2004) examined the effects of
single underwater impulse sounds from a seismic water gun (source level up to 228 dB re 1 µPa · mp–
33
and single short-duration pure tones (sound pressure level up to 201 dB re 1 μPa) on the nervous
and immune systems of a beluga and a bottlenose dolphin. They found that neural-immune changes
to noise exposure were minimal. Although levels of some stress-released substances (e.g.,
catecholamines) changed significantly with exposure to sound, levels returned to baseline after 24 hr.
(2) During playbacks of recorded drilling noise to four captive beluga whales, Thomas et al. (1990)
found no changes in blood levels of stress-related hormones. Long-term effects were not measured,
and no short-term effects were detected. For both of the aforementioned studies, caution is necessary
when extrapolating these results to wild animals and to real-world situations given the small sample
sizes, use of captive animals, and other technical limitations of the two studies. (3) Rolland et al.
(2012) suggested that ship noise causes increased stress in right whales; they showed that baseline
levels of stress-related faecal hormone metabolites decreased in North Atlantic right whales with a
6 dB decrease in underwater noise from vessels during the period after 11 September 2001.
p)
Aside from stress, other types of physiological effects that might, in theory, be involved in
beaked whale strandings upon exposure to naval sonar (Cox et al. 2006), such as resonance and gas
bubble formation, have not been demonstrated and are not expected upon exposure to airgun pulses
(see preceding subsection). If seismic surveys disrupt diving patterns of deep-diving species, this
might perhaps result in bubble formation and a form of “the bends”, as speculated to occur in beaked
whales exposed to sonar. However, there is no specific evidence that exposure to airgun pulses has
this effect.
In summary, very little is known about the potential for seismic survey sounds (or other types
of strong underwater sounds) to cause non-auditory physiological effects in marine mammals. Such
effects, if they occur at all, would presumably be limited to short distances and to activities that
extend over a prolonged period. The available data do not allow identification of a specific exposure
level above which non-auditory effects can be expected (Southall et al. 2007), or any meaningful
quantitative predictions of the numbers (if any) of marine mammals that might be affected in these
ways.
1.7
Literature Cited
Akamatsu, T., Y. Hatakeyama, and N. Takatsu. 1993. Effects of pulsed sounds on escape behavior of false
killer whales. Nipp. Suis. Gakkaishi 59(8):1297-1303.
Allen, B.M. and R.P. Angliss. 2011. Alaska marine mammal stock assessments, 2010. U.S. Dep. Commer.,
NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-AFSC-223. 292 p.
Anonymous. 1975. Phantom killer whales. S. Afr. Ship. News & Fishing Indus. Rev. 30(7):50-53.
Arnold, B.W. 1996. Visual monitoring of marine mammal activity during the Exxon 3-D seismic survey:
Santa Ynez unit, offshore California 9 November to 12 December 1995. Rep. from Impact Sciences
Inc., San Diego, CA, for Exxon Co., U.S.A., Thousand Oaks, CA. 20 p.
Au, W.W.L. 1993. The Sonar of Dolphins. Springer-Verlag, New York, NY. 277 p.
Au, W.W.L. 2008. The effects of noise on echolocating odontocetes. Bioacoustics:17(1-3):155-158.
Au, W.W.L., A.N. Popper, and R.R. Fay. 2000. Hearing by Whales and Dolphins. Springer Handbook of
Auditory Res. Vol. 12. Springer-Verlag, New York, NY. 458 p.
Au, W.W.L., A.A. Pack, M.O. Lammers, L.M. Herman, M.H. Deakos, and K. Andrews. 2006. Acoustic
properties of humpback whale songs. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 120(2):1103-1110.
Backus, R.H. and W.E. Schevill. 1966. Physeter clicks. p. 510-528 in K.S. Norris (ed.), Whales, dolphins, and
porpoises. Univ. Calif. Press, Berkeley, CA. 789 p
Bain, D.E. and R. Williams. 2006. Long-range effects of airgun noise on marine mammals: responses as a
function of received sound level and distance. Paper SC/58/E35 presented to the IWC Scient. Commit.,
IWC Annu. Meet., 1-13 June, St. Kitts.
Baird, R.W. 2005. Sightings of dwarf (Kogia sima) and pygmy (K. breviceps) sperm whales from the main
Hawaiian Islands. Pacific Sci. 59(3):461-466.
34
Baird, R.W., D.L. Webster, D.J. McSweeney, A.D. Ligon, G.S. Schorr, and J. Barlow. 2006. Diving behavior
and ecology of Cuvier’s (Ziphius cavirostris) and Blainville’s (Mesoplodon densirostris) beaked whales
in Hawaii. Can. J. Zool. 84(8):1120-1128.
Balcomb, K.C., III and D.E. Claridge. 2001. A mass stranding of cetaceans caused by naval sonar in the
Bahamas. Bahamas J. Sci. 8(2):2-12.
Barkaszi, M.J., D.M. Epperson, and B. Bennett. 2009. Six-year compilation of cetacean sighting data collected
during commercial seismic survey mitigation observations throughout the Gulf of Mexico, USA. p. 2425 In: Abstr. 18th Bienn. Conf. Biol. Mar. Mamm., Québec, Oct. 2009. 306 p.
Barlow, J. and R. Gisiner. 2006. Mitigating, monitoring and assessing the effects of anthropogenic sound on
beaked whales. J. Cetac. Res. Manage. 7(3):239-249.
Barry, S.B., A.C. Cucknell and N. Clark. 2012. A direct comparison of bottlenose dolphin and common
dolphin behaviour during seismic surveys when airguns are and are not being utilised. p. 273-276 In:
A.N. Popper and A. Hawkins (eds.), The effects of noise on aquatic life. Springer, New York. 695 p.
Bauer, G.B., J.C. Gaspard, K. Dziuk, A. Cardwell, L. Read, R.L. Reep, and D.A. Mann. 2009. The manatee
audiogram and auditory critical ratios. p. 27-28 In: Abstr. 18th Bienn. Conf. Biol. Mar. Mamm.,
Québec, Canada, Oct. 2009. 306 p.
Beale, C.M. and P. Monaghan. 2004. Behavioural responses to human disturbance: a matter of choice? Anim.
Behav. 68(5):1065-1069.
Beland, J.A., B. Haley, C.M. Reiser, D.M. Savarese, D.S. Ireland and D.W. Funk. 2009. Effects of the
presence of other vessels on marine mammal sightings during multi-vessel operations in the Alaskan
Chukchi Sea. p. 29 In: Abstr. 18th Bienn. Conf. Biol. Mar. Mamm., Québec, Oct. 2009:29. 306 p.
Berta, A., R. Racicot and T. Deméré. 2009. The comparative anatomy and evolution of the ear in Balaenoptera
mysticetes. p. 33 In: Abstr. 18th Bienn. Conf. Biol. Mar. Mamm., Québec, Oct. 2009. 306 p.
Blackwell, S.B., C.R. Greene, T.L. McDonald, C.S. Nations, R.G. Norman, and A. Thode. 2009a. Beaufort Sea
bowhead whale migration route study. Chapter 8 In: D.S. Ireland, D.W. Funk, R. Rodrigues, and W.R.
Koski (eds.). 2009. Joint Monitoring Program in the Chukchi and Beaufort seas, open water seasons,
2006-2007. LGL Alaska Rep. P971-2. Rep. from LGL Alaska Res. Assoc. Inc. (Anchorage, AK) et al.
for Shell Offshore Inc. (Anchorage, AK) et al. 485 p. plus appendices.
Blackwell, S.B., C.S. Nations, T.L. McDonald, A.M. Thode, K.H. Kim, C.R. Greene, and M.A. Macrander.
2009b. Effects of seismic exploration activities on the calling behavior of bowhead whales in the
Alaskan Beaufort Sea. p. 35 In: Abstr. 18th Bienn. Conf. Biol. Mar. Mamm., Québec, Oct. 2009. 306
p.
Blackwell, S.B., C.S. Nations, T.L. McDonald, A. Thode, K.H. Kim, Charles R. Greene, Jr., and A.M.
Macrander. 2010. Effects of seismic exploration activities on bowhead whale call distribution in the
Alaskan Beaufort Sea. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 127(3):1756.
Blackwell, S.B., T.L. McDonald, C.S. Nations, A.M. Thode, K.H. Kim, C.R. Greene, Jr., M. Guerra, D.
Mathias, and A.M. Macrander. 2011. Effects of seismic exploration activities on the calling behavior of
bowhead whales, Balaena mysticetus, in the Alaskan Beaufort Sea. p. 34 In: Abstr. 19th Bienn. Conf.
Biol. Mar. Mamm., Tampa, FL, 27 Nov.–2 Dec. 2011. 344 p.
Blackwell, S.B., C.S. Nations, T.L. McDonald, C.R. Greene, Jr., A.M. Thode, M. Guerra, and A.M. Macrander.
2013. Effects of airgun sounds on bowhead whale calling rates in the Alaskan Beaufort Sea. Mar.
Mamm. Sci. DOI: 10.1111/mms.12001.
Bowles, A.E., M. Smultea, B. Würsig, D.P. DeMaster, and D. Palka. 1994. Relative abundance and behavior of
marine mammals exposed to transmissions from the Heard Island Feasibility Test. J. Acoust. Soc. Am.
96(4):2469-2484.
Bullock, T.H., T.J. Oshea, and M.C. McClune. 1982. Auditory evoked-potentials in the West Indian manatee
(Sirenia, Trichechus manatus). J. Comp. Physiol. 148(4):547-554.
Britto, M.K. and A. Silva Barreto. 2009. Marine mammal diversity registered on seismic surveys in Brazil,
between 2000 and 2008. p. 41 In: Abstr. 18th Bienn. Conf. Biol. Mar. Mamm., Québec, Oct. 2009. 306
p.
Brodie, P.F. 1981. Energetic and behavioural considerations with respect to marine mammals and disturbance
35
from underwater noise. p. 287-290 In: N.M. Peterson (ed.), The question of sound from icebreaker
operations: Proceedings of a workshop. Arctic Pilot Proj., Petro-Canada, Calgary, Alb. 350 p.
Breitzke, M. and T. Bohlen. 2010. Modelling sound propagation in the Southern Ocean to estimate the acoustic
impact of seismic research surveys on marine mammals. Geophys. J. Int. 181(2):818-846.
Bullock, T.H., T.J. O’Shea, and M.C. McClune. 1982. Auditory evoked potentials in the West Indian manatee
(Sirenia: Trichechus manatus). J. Comp. Physiol. A 148(4):547-554.
Burgess, W.C. and C.R. Greene, Jr. 1999. Physical acoustics measurements. p. 3-1 to 3-63 In: W.J.
Richardson (ed.), Marine mammal and acoustical monitoring of Western Geophysical's open-water
seismic program in the Alaskan Beaufort Sea, 1998. LGL Rep. TA22303. Rep. from LGL Ltd., King
City, Ont., and Greeneridge Sciences Inc., Santa Barbara, CA, for Western Geophysical, Houston, TX,
and Nat. Mar. Fish. Serv., Anchorage, AK, and Silver Spring, MD. 390 p.
Calambokidis, J. and S.D. Osmek. 1998. Marine mammal research and mitigation in conjunction with air gun
operation for the USGS `SHIPS' seismic surveys in 1998. Rep. from Cascadia Res., Olympia, WA, for
U.S. Geol. Surv., Nat. Mar. Fish. Serv., and Minerals Manage. Serv.
Caldwell, J. and W. Dragoset. 2000. A brief overview of seismic air-gun arrays. Leading Edge 19(8):898902.
Castellote, M., C.W. Clark, and M.O. Lammers. 2012. Acoustic and behavioural changes by fin whales
(Balaenoptera physalus) in response to shipping and airgun noise. Biol. Conserv. 147(1):115-122.
Cato, D.H. M.J. Noad, R.A. Dunlop, R.D. McCauley, C.P. Salgado Kent, N.J. Gales, H. Kniest, J. Noad, and D.
Paton. 2011. Behavioral response of Australian humpback whales to seismic surveys. J. Acoust. Soc.
Am. 129(4):2396.
Cato, D.H., M.J. Noad, R.A. Dunlop, R.D. McCauley, N.J. Gales, C.P. Salgado Kent, H. Kniest, D. Paton,
K.C.S. Jenner, J. Noad, A.L. Maggi, I.M. Parnum, and A.J. Duncan. 2012. Project BRAHSS:
Behavioural response of Australian humpback whales to Seismic surveys. Proc. Australian Acoust.
Soc., Fremantle, WA, Nov. 2012. 7 p.
Cavanagh, R.C. 2000. Criteria and thresholds for adverse effects of underwater noise on marine animals.
AFRL-HE-WP-TR-2000-0092. Rep. from Science Applications Intern. Corp., McLean, VA, for Air
Force Res. Lab., Wright-Patterson AFB, OH.
Cerchio, S., S. Strindberg, T. Collins, C. Bennett, and H. Rosenbaum. 2011. Humpback whale singing activity
off northern Angola: an indication of the migratory cycle, breeding habitat and impact of seismic
surveys on singer number. p. 56 In: Abstr. 19th Bienn. Conf. Biol. Mar. Mamm., Tampa, FL, 27 Nov.–
2 Dec. 2011. 344 p.
Christie, K., C. Lyons, W.R. Koski, D.S. Ireland, and D.W. Funk. 2009. Patterns of bowhead whale occurrence
and distribution during marine seismic operations in the Alaskan Beaufort Sea. p. 55 In: Abstr. 18th
Bienn. Conf. Biol. Mar. Mamm., Québec, Canada, 12-16 Oct. 2009.
Citta, J.J., L.T. Quakenbush, R.J. Small, and J.C. George. 2007. Movements of a tagged bowhead whale in the
vicinity of a seismic survey in the Beaufort Sea. Poster Paper, Soc. Mar. Mammal. 17th Bienn. Meet.,
Cape Town, South Africa.
Clark, C.W. and W.T. Ellison. 2004. Potential use of low-frequency sounds by baleen whales for probing the
environment: Evidence from models and empirical measurements. p. 564-589 In: J.A. Thomas, C.F.
Moss and M. Vater (eds.), Echolocation in Bats and Dolphins. Univ. Chicago Press, Chicago, IL. 604
p.
Clark, C.W. and G.C. Gagnon. 2006. Considering the temporal and spatial scales of noise exposures from
seismic surveys on baleen whales. Intern. Whal. Commis. Working Pap. SC/58/E9. 9 p.
Clark, C.W., W.T. Ellison, B.L. Southall, L. Hatch, S.M. Van Parijs, A. Frankel, and D. Ponirakis. 2009.
Acoustic masking in marine ecosystems: intuitions, analysis, and implication. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser.
395:201-222.
Cook, M.L.H., R.A. Varela, J.D. Goldstein, S.D. McCulloch, G.D. Bossart, J.J. Finneran, D. Houser, and A.
Mann. 2006. Beaked whale auditory evoked potential hearing measurements. J. Comp. Physiol. A
192:489-495.
36
Cox, T.M., T.J. Ragen, A.J. Read, E. Vos, R.W. Baird, K. Balcomb, J. Barlow, J. Caldwell, T. Cranford, L.
Crum, A. D’Amico, G. D’Spain, A. Fernández, J. Finneran, R. Gentry, W. Gerth, F. Gulland, J.
Hildebrand, D. Houserp, R. Hullar, P.D. Jepson, D. Ketten, C.D. Macleod, P. Miller, S. Moore, D.C.
Mountain, D. Palka, P. Ponganis, S. Rommel, T. Rowles, B. Taylor, P. Tyack, D. Wartzok, R. Gisiner, J.
Meads, and L. Benner. 2006. Understanding the impacts of anthropogenic sound on beaked whales. J.
Cetac. Res. Manage. 7(3):177-187.
Crum, L.A., M.R. Bailey, J. Guan, P.R. Hilmo, S.G. Kargl, and T.J. Matula. 2005. Monitoring bubble growth
in supersaturated blood and tissue ex vivo and the relevance to marine mammal bioeffects. Acoustic
Res. Lett. Online 6(3):214-220.
Dahlheim, M.E. 1987. Bio-acoustics of the gray whale (Eschrichtius robustus). Ph.D. Dissertation, Univ.
British Columbia, Vancouver, BC. 315 p.
D’Amico, A., R.C. Gisiner, D.R. Ketten, J.A. Hammock, C. Johnson, P.L. Tyack, and J. Mead. 2009. Beaked
whales strandings and naval exercises. Aquat. Mamm. 35(4):452-472.
DeRuiter, S.L., P.L. Tyack, Y.-T. Lin, A.E. Newhall, J.F. Lynch, and P.J.O. Miller. 2006. Modeling acoustic
propagation of airgun array pulses recorded on tagged sperm whales (Physeter macrocephalus). J.
Acoust. Soc. Am. 120(6):4100-4114.
Di Iorio, L. and C.W. Clark. 2010. Exposure to seismic survey alters blue whale acoustic communication.
Biol. Lett. 6(1):51-54.
Duncan, P.M. 1985. Seismic sources in a marine environment. p. 56-88 In: Proceedings of the Workshop on
Effects of Explosives Use in the Marine Environment, Jan. 1985, Halifax, N.S. Tech. Rep. 5. Can. Oil
& Gas Lands Admin., Environ. Prot. Branch, Ottawa, Ont.
Dunn, R.A. and O. Hernandez. 2009. Tracking blue whales in the eastern tropical Pacific with an ocean-bottom
seismometer and hydrophone array. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 126(3):1084-1094.
Ellison, W.T., B.L. Southall, C.W. Clark and A.S. Frankel. 2012. A new context-based approach to assess
marine mammal behavioral responses to anthropogenic sounds. Conserv. Biol. 26(1):21-28.
Engel, M.H., M.C.C. Marcondes, C.C.A. Martins, F.O. Luna, R.P. Lima, and A. Campos. 2004. Are seismic
surveys responsible for cetacean strandings? An unusual mortality of adult humpback whales in
Abrolhos Bank, northeastern coast of Brazil. Paper SC/56/E28 presented to the IWC Scient. Commit.,
IWC Annu. Meet., 19-22 July, Sorrento, Italy.
Erbe, C. and A.R. King. 2009. Modeling cumulative sound exposure around marine seismic surveys. J.
Acoust. Soc. Am. 125(4):2443-2451.
Fair, P.A. and P.R. Becker. 2000. Review of stress in marine mammals. J. Aquat. Ecosyst. Stress Recov.
7:335-354.
Fernández, A., M. Arbelo, R. Deaville, I.A.P. Patterson, P. Castro, J.R. Baker, E. Degollada, H.M. Ross, P.
Herráez, A.M. Pocknell, E. Rodríguez, F.E. Howie, A. Espinosa, R.J. Reid, J.R. Jaber, V. Martin, A.A.
Cunningham, and P.D. Jepson. 2004. Pathology: whales, sonar and decompression sickness (reply).
Nature 428(6984, 15 Apr.). doi: 10.1038/nature02528a.
Fernández, A., J.F. Edwards, F. Rodriquez, A.E. de los Monteros, P. Herráez, P. Castro, J.R. Jaber, V. Martin,
and M. Arbelo. 2005. “Gas and fat embolic syndrome” involving a mass stranding of beaked whales
(Family Ziphiidae) exposed to anthropogenic sonar signals. Veterin. Pathol. 42(4):446-457.
Filadelfo, R., J. Mintz, E. Michlovich, A. D'Amico, P.L. Tyack and D.R. Ketten. 2009. Correlating military
sonar use with beaked whale mass strandings: what do the historical data show? Aquat. Mamm.
35(4):435-444.
Finley, K.J., Miller, G.W., Davis, R.A., Greene, C.R., 1990. Reactions of belugas, Delphinapterus leucas, and
narwhals, Monodon monoceros, to ice-breaking ships in the Canadian high arctic. Can. J. Fish. Aquat.
Sci. 224:97–117.
Finneran, J.J. 2012. Auditory effects of underwater noise in odontocetes. p. 197-202 In: A.N. Popper and A.
Hawkins (eds.), The effects of noise on aquatic life. Springer, New York, NY. 695 p.
Finneran, J.J. and C.E. Schlundt. 2004. Effects of intense pure tones on the behavior of trained odontocetes.
Tech. Rep. 1913. Space and Naval Warfare (SPAWAR) Systems Center, San Diego, CA. 15 p.
37
Finneran, J.J. and C.E. Schlundt. 2010. Frequency-dependent and longitudinal changes in noise-induced
hearing loss in a bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus) (L). J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 128(2):567-570.
Finneran, and C. Schlundt. 2011. Noise-induced temporary threshold shift in marine mammals. J. Acoust.
Soc. Am. 129(4):2432. [supplemented by oral presentation at the ASA meeting, Seattle, WA, May
2011].
Finneran, J.J., C.E. Schlundt, D.A. Carder, J.A. Clark, J.A. Young, J.B. Gaspin, and S.H. Ridgway. 2000.
Auditory and behavioral responses of bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) and beluga whale
(Delphinapterus leucas) to impulsive sounds resembling distant signatures of underwater explosions. J.
Acoust. Soc. Am. 108(1):417-431.
Finneran, J.J., C.E. Schlundt, R. Dear, D.A. Carder, and S.H. Ridgway. 2002. Temporary shift in masked
hearing thresholds in odontocetes after exposure to single underwater impulses from a seismic watergun.
J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 111(6):2929-2940.
Finneran, J.J., R. Dear, D.A. Carder, and S.H. Ridgway. 2003. Auditory and behavioral responses of California
sea lions (Zalophus californianus) to single underwater impulses from an arc-gap transducer. J. Acoust.
Soc. Am. 114(3):1667-1677.
Finneran, J.J., D.A. Carder, C.E. Schlundt, and S.H. Ridgway. 2005. Temporary threshold shift in bottlenose
dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) exposed to mid-frequency tones. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 118(4):2696-2705.
Finneran, J.J., D.S. Houser, B. Mase-Guthrie, R.Y. Ewing and R.G. Lingenfelser. 2009. Auditory evoked
potentials in a stranded Gervais’ beaked whale (Mesoplodon europaeus). J. Acoust. Soc. Am.
126(1):484-490.
Finneran, J.J., D.A. Carder, C.E. Schlundt and R.L. Dear. 2010a. Growth and recovery of temporary threshold
shift (TTS) at 3 kHz in bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus). J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 127(5):32563266.
Finneran, J.J., D.A. Carder, C.E. Schlundt and R.L. Dear. 2010b. Temporary threshold shift in a bottlenose
dolphin (Tursiops truncatus) exposed to intermittent tones. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 127(5):3267-3272.
Finneran, J.J., J.S. Trickey, B.K. Branstetter, C.E. Schlundt, and K. Jenkins. 2011. Auditory effects of multiple
underwater impulses on bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus). J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 130(4):2561.
Fish, J.F. and J.S. Vania. 1971. Killer whale, Orcinus orca, sounds repel white whales, Delphinapterus leucas.
Fish. Bull. 69(3):531-535.
Fox, C.G., R.P. Dziak, and H. Matsumoto. 2002. NOAA efforts in monitoring of low-frequency sound in the
global ocean. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 112(5, Pt. 2):2260 (Abstract).
Frankel, A. 2005. Gray whales hear and respond to a 21-25 kHz high-frequency whale-finding sonar. p. 97 In:
Abstr. 16th Bienn. Conf. Biol. Mar. Mamm., San Diego, CA, Dec. 2005. 306 p.
Frantzis, A. 1998. Does acoustic testing strand whales? Nature 392(6671):29.
Frost, K.J., L.F. Lowry, and R.R. Nelson. 1984. Belukha whale studies in Bristol Bay, Alaska. p. 187-200 In:
B.R. Melteff and D.H. Rosenberg (eds.), Proceedings of the Workshop on Biological Interactions among
Marine Mammals and Commercial Fisheries in the Southeastern Bering Sea, Oct. 1983, Anchorage,
AK. Univ. Alaska Sea Grant Rep. 84-1. Univ. Alaska, Fairbanks, AK.
Funk, D.W., D.S. Ireland, R. Rodrigues, and W.R. Koski (eds.). 2010. Joint monitoring program in the
Chukchi and Beaufort Seas, open water seasons, 2006-2008. LGL Alaska Rep. P1050-2. Rep. from
LGL Alaska Res. Assoc. Inc. (Anchorage, AK) et al. for Shell Offshore Inc., other Industry contributors,
U.S. Nat. Mar. Fish. Serv., and U.S. Fish Wildl. Serv. 506 p.
Gabriele, C.M. and B. Kipple. 2009. Measurements of near-surface, near-bow underwater sound from cruise
ships. p. 86 In: Abstr. 18th Bienn. Conf. Biol. Mar. Mamm., Québec, Oct. 2009. 306 p.
Gailey, G., B. Würsig, and T.L. McDonald. 2007. Abundance, behavior, and movement patterns of western
gray whales in relation to a 3-D seismic survey, northeast Sakhalin Island, Russia. Environ. Monit.
Assessm. 134(1-3):75-91.
Gedamke, J. 2011. Ocean basin scale loss of whale communication space: potential impacts of a distant
seismic survey. p. 105-106 In: Abstr. 19th Bienn. Conf. Biol. Mar. Mamm., Tampa, FL, 27 Nov.–2
Dec. 2011. 344 p.
38
Gedamke, J., N. Gales, and S. Frydman. 2011. Assessing risk of baleen whale hearing loss from seismic
surveys: the effects of uncertainty and individual variation. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 129(1):496-506.
Gentry, R. (ed.). 2002. Report of the workshop on acoustic resonance as a source of tissue trauma in cetaceans.
April 24 and 25, Silver Spring, MD. Nat. Mar. Fish. Serv. 19 p. Accessed on 19 November 2011 at
http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/acoustics/cetaceans.pdf.
Gerstein, E.R., L.A. Gerstein, S.E. Forsythe, and J.E. Blue. 1999. The underwater audiogram of a West Indian
manatee (Trichechus manatus). J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 105(6):3575-3583.
Gerstein, E., L. Gerstein, S. Forsythe and J. Blue. 2004. Do manatees utilize infrasonic communication or
detection? J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 115(5, Pt. 2):2554-2555 (Abstract).
Ghoul, A. and C. Reichmuth. 2012. Sound production and reception in southern sea otters (Enhydra lutris
nereis). p. 157-159 In: A.N. Popper and A. Hawkins (eds.), The effects of noise on aquatic life.
Springer, New York. 695 p.
Ghoul, A., C. Reichmuth, and J. Mulsow. 2009. Source levels and spectral analysis of southern sea otter
(Enhydra lutris nereis) scream vocalizations. p. 90 In: Abstr. 18th Bienn. Conf. Biol. Mar. Mamm.,
Québec, Canada, Oct. 2009. 306 p.
Goold, J.C. 1996a. Acoustic assessment of common dolphins off the West Wales coast, in conjunction with
16th round seismic surveying. Rep. from School of Ocean Sciences, Univ. Wales, Bangor, Wales, for
Chevron UK Ltd., Repsol Exploration (UK) Ltd., and Aran Energy Exploration Ltd. 22 p.
Goold, J.C. 1996b. Acoustic assessment of populations of common dolphin Delphinus delphis in conjunction
with seismic surveying. J. Mar. Biol. Assoc. U.K. 76:811-820.
Goold, J.C. 1996c. Acoustic cetacean monitoring off the west Wales coast. Rep. from School of Ocean
Sciences, Univ. Wales, Bangor, Wales, for Chevron UK Ltd, Repsol Explor. (UK) Ltd, and Aran Energy
Explor. Ltd. 20 p.
Goold, J.C. and R.F.W. Coates. 2006. Near source, high frequency air-gun signatures. Paper SC/58/E30
presented to the IWC Scient. Commit., IWC Annu. Meet., 1-13 June, St. Kitts.
Goold, J.C. and P.J. Fish. 1998. Broadband spectra of seismic survey air-gun emissions, with reference to
dolphin auditory thresholds. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 103(4):2177-2184.
Gordon, J., D. Gillespie, J. Potter, A. Frantzis, M.P. Simmonds, R. Swift, and D. Thompson. 2004. A review of
the effects of seismic surveys on marine mammals. Mar. Technol. Soc. J. 37(4):16-34.
Gordon, J., R. Antunes, N. Jaquet and B. Würsig. 2006. An investigation of sperm whale headings and surface
behaviour before, during and after seismic line changes in the Gulf of Mexico. Intern. Whal. Comm.
Working Pap. SC/58/E45. 10 p.
Gosselin, J.-F. and J. Lawson. 2004. Distribution and abundance indices of marine mammals in the Gully and
two adjacent canyons of the Scotian Shelf before and during nearby hydrocarbon seismic exploration
programmes in April and July 2003. Res. Doc. 2004/133. Can. Sci. Advis. Secretariat, Fisheries &
Oceans
Canada.
24
p.
Available
at
http://www.dfompo.gc.ca/csas/Csas/DocREC/2004/RES2004_133_e.pdf
Gray, H. and K. Van Waerebeek. 2011. Postural instability and akinesia in a pantropical spotted dolphin,
Stenella attenuata, in proximity to operating airguns of a geophysical seismic vessel. J. Nature
Conserv. 19(6): 363-367.
Greene, C.R., Jr. 1997. Physical acoustics measurements. p. 3-1 to 3-63 In: W.J. Richardson (ed.), Northstar
marine mammal monitoring program, 1996: marine mammal and acoustical monitoring of a seismic
program in the Alaskan Beaufort Sea. LGL Rep. 2121-2. Rep. from LGL Ltd., King City, Ont., and
Greeneridge Sciences Inc., Santa Barbara, CA, for BP Explor. (Alaska) Inc., Anchorage, AK, and Nat.
Mar. Fish. Serv., Anchorage, AK, and Silver Spring, MD. 245 p.
Greene, C.R., Jr. and W.J. Richardson. 1988. Characteristics of marine seismic survey sounds in the Beaufort
Sea. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 83(6):2246-2254.
Greene, G.D., F.R. Engelhardt, and R.J. Paterson (eds.). 1985. Proceedings of the Workshop on Effects of
Explosives Use in the Marine Environment, Jan. 1985, Halifax, NS. Tech. Rep. 5. Can. Oil & Gas
Lands Admin., Environ. Prot. Branch, Ottawa, Ont.
39
Greene, C.R., Jr., N.S. Altman, and W.J. Richardson. 1999a. Bowhead whale calls. p. 6-1 to 6-23 In: W.J.
Richardson (ed.), Marine mammal and acoustical monitoring of Western Geophysical's open-water
seismic program in the Alaskan Beaufort Sea, 1998. LGL Rep. TA2230-3. Rep. from LGL Ltd., King
Greene, C.R., Jr., N.S. Altman and W.J. Richardson. 1999b. The influence of seismic survey sounds on
bowhead whale calling rates. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 106(4, Pt. 2):2280 (Abstract).
Guerra, M., A.M. Thode, S.B. Blackwell and M. Macrander. 2011. Quantifying seismic survey reverberation
off the Alaskan North Slope. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 130(5):3046-3058.
Gunn, L.M. 1988. A behavioral audiogram of the North American river otter (Lutra canadensis). M.S. thesis,
San Diego State Univ., San Diego, CA. 40 p.
Haley, B., and W.R. Koski. 2004. Marine mammal monitoring during Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory’s
seismic program in the Northwest Atlantic Ocean, July–August 2004. LGL Rep. TA2822-27. Rep.
from LGL Ltd., King City, Ont., for Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, Columbia Univ., Palisades,
NY, and Nat. Mar. Fish. Serv., Silver Spring, MD. November. 80 p.
Haley, B., J. Beland, D.S. Ireland, R. Rodrigues, and D.M. Savarese. 2010. Chukchi Sea vessel-based
monitoring program. Chapter 3. In: D.W. Funk, D.S. Ireland, R. Rodrigues, and W.R. Koski (eds.),
Joint monitoring program in the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas, open water seasons, 2006–2008. LGL
Alaska Rep. P1050-2. Rep. from LGL Alaska Res. Assoc. Inc. (Anchorage, AK) et al. for Shell Offshore
Inc., other Industry contributors, U.S. Nat. Mar. Fish. Serv., and U.S. Fish Wildl. Serv. 506 p.
Hannay, D.E., J, Delarue, and B. Martin. 2011. Effects of airgun sounds on Pacific walrus (Odobenus
rosmarus divergens) calling behavior. p. 122 In: Abstr. 19th Bienn. Conf. Biol. Mar. Mamm., Tampa,
FL, 27 Nov.–2 Dec. 2011. 344 p.
Hanser, S.F., L.R. Doyle, A.R. Szabo, F.A. Sharpe and B. McCowan. 2009. Bubble-net feeding humpback
whales in Southeast Alaska change their vocalization patterns in the presence of moderate vessel noise.
p. 105 In: Abstr. 18th Bienn. Conf. Biol. Mar. Mamm., Québec, Canada, Oct. 2009. 306 p.
Harris, R.E., G.W. Miller, and W.J. Richardson. 2001. Seal responses to airgun sounds during summer seismic
surveys in the Alaskan Beaufort Sea. Mar. Mamm. Sci. 17:795-812.
Harris, R.E., [R.E.] T. Elliott, and R.A. Davis. 2007. Results of mitigation and monitoring program, Beaufort
Span 2-D marine seismic program, open-water season 2006. LGL Rep. TA4319-1. Rep. from LGL
Ltd., King City, Ont., for GX Technol. Corp., Houston, TX. 48 p.
Hatch, L.T. and K.M. Fristrup. 2009. No barrier at the boundaries: implementing regional frameworks for
noise management in protected natural areas. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 395:223-244.
Hauser, D.D.W., M Holst, and V.D. Moulton. 2008. Marine mammal and sea turtle monitoring during LamontDoherty Earth Observatory’s marine seismic program in the Eastern Tropical Pacific, April–August
2008. LGL Rep. TA4656/7-1. Rep. from LGL Ltd., King City., Ont., and St. John’s, Nfld, for LamontDoherty Earth Observatory of Columbia Univ., Palisades, NY, and Nat. Mar. Fish. Serv., Silver Spring,
MD. 98 p.
Heide-Jørgensen, M.P., R.G. Hansen, K. Westdal, R.R. Reeves, and A. Mosbech. 2013. Narwhals and seismic
exploration: is seismic noise increasing the risk of ice entrapments? Biol. Conserv. 158(1):50-54.
HESS Team. 1999. High Energy Seismic Survey review process and interim operational guidelines for marine
surveys offshore Southern California. Rep. from High Energy Seismic Survey Team for Calif. State
Lands Commis. and Minerals Manage. Serv., Camarillo, CA. 39 p. + Appendices.
Available at www.mms.gov/omm/pacific/lease/fullhessrept.pdf
Hildebrand, J.A. 2005. Impacts of anthropogenic sound. p. 101-124 In: J.E. Reynolds, W.F. Perrin, R.R.
Reeves, S. Montgomery, and T. Ragen (eds.), Marine Mammal Research: Conservation Beyond Crisis.
Johns Hopkins Univ. Press, Baltimore, MD. 223 p.
Hogarth, W.T. 2002. Declaration of William T. Hogarth in opposition to plaintiff’s motion for temporary
restraining order, 23 Oct. Civ. No. 02-05065-JL. U.S. District Court, Northern District of Calif., San
Francisco Div.
40
Holst, M. 2009. Marine mammal and sea turtle monitoring during Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory’s
TAIGER marine seismic program near Taiwan, April-July 2009. LGL Rep. TA4553-4. Rep. from LGL
Ltd., King City, Ont., for Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia Univ., Palisades, NY, and
Nat. Mar. Fish. Serv., Silver Spring, MD. 103 p.
Holst, M. and F.C. Robertson. 2009. Marine mammal and sea turtle monitoring during a Rice University
seismic survey in the Northwest Atlantic Ocean, August 2009. LGL Rep. TA4760-3. Rep. from LGL
Ltd., King City, Ont., for Rice Univ., Houston, TX, Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia
Univ., Palisades, NY, and Nat. Mar. Fish. Serv., Silver Spring, MD. 66 p.
Holst, M. and M.A. Smultea. 2008. Marine mammal and sea turtle monitoring during Lamont-Doherty Earth
Observatory’s marine seismic program off Central America, February – April 2008. LGL Rep.
TA4342-3. Rep. from LGL Ltd., King City, Ont., for Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia
Holst, M., M.A. Smultea, W.R. Koski, and B. Haley. 2005a. Marine mammal and sea turtle monitoring during
Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory’s marine seismic program off the Northern Yucatán Peninsula in the
Southern Gulf of Mexico, January–February 2005. LGL Rep. TA2822-31. Rep. from LGL Ltd., King
City, Ont., for Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia Univ., Palisades, NY, and Nat. Mar.
Fish Serv., Silver Spring, MD.
Holst, M., M.A. Smultea, W.R. Koski, and B. Haley. 2005b. Marine mammal and sea turtle monitoring during
Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory’s marine seismic program in the Eastern Tropical Pacific Ocean off
Central America, November–December 2004. LGL Rep. TA2822-30. Rep. from LGL Ltd., King City,
Ont., for Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia Univ., Palisades, NY, and Nat. Mar. Fish.
Serv., Silver Spring, MD.
Holst, M., W.J. Richardson, W.R. Koski, M.A. Smultea, B. Haley, M.W. Fitzgerald, and M. Rawson. 2006.
Effects of large- and small-source seismic surveys on marine mammals and sea turtles. Eos, Trans. Am.
Geophys. Union 87(36), Joint Assembly Suppl., Abstract OS42A-01. 23-26 May, Baltimore, MD.
Holst, M., J. Beland, B. Mactavish, J. Nicolas, B. Hurley, B. Dawe, G. Caltavuturo, C. Fossati, and G. Pavan.
2011. Visual-acoustic survey of cetaceans during a seismic study near Taiwan, April–July 2009. p. 134
In: Abstr. 19th Bienn. Conf. Biol. Mar. Mamm., Tampa, FL, 27 Nov.–2 Dec. 2011. 344 p.
Holt, M.M., D.P. Noren, V. Veirs, C.K. Emmons, and S. Veirs. 2009. Speaking up: Killer whales (Orcinus
orca) increase their call amplitude in response to vessel noise. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 125(1):EL27-EL32.
Hooker, S.K., R.W. Baird, S. Al-Omari, S. Gowans, and H. Whitehead. 2001. Behavioral reactions of northern
bottlenose whales (Hyperoodon ampullatus) to biopsy darting and tag attachment procedures. Fish.
Bull. 99(2):303-308.
Hutchinson, D.R. and R.S. Detrick. 1984. Water gun vs. air gun: a comparison. Mar. Geophys. Res.
6(3):295-310.
IAGC. 2004. Further analysis of 2002 Abrolhos Bank, Brazil humpback whale strandings coincident with
seismic surveys. Intern. Assoc. Geophys. Contractors, Houston, TX. 12 p.
Ireland, D., M. Holst, and W.R. Koski. 2005. Marine mammal monitoring during Lamont-Doherty Earth
Observatory’s seismic program off the Aleutian Islands, Alaska, July-August 2005. LGL Rep. TA40893. Rep. from LGL Ltd., King City, Ont., for Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia Univ.,
Palisades, NY, and Nat. Mar. Fish. Serv., Silver Spring, MD. 67 p.
IWC. 2007. Report of the standing working group on environmental concerns. Annex K to Report of the
Scientific Committee. J. Cetac. Res. Manage. 9(Suppl.):227-260.
Jefferson, T.A. and B.E. Curry. 1994. Review and evaluation of potential acoustic methods of reducing or eliminating marine mammal-fishery interactions. Rep. from the Mar. Mamm. Res. Progr., Texas A & M
Univ., College Station, TX, for U.S. Mar. Mamm. Commis., Washington, DC. 59 p. NTIS PB95100384.
Jepson, P.D., M. Arbelo, R. Deaville, I.A.P. Patterson, P. Castro, J.R. Baker, E. Degollada, H.M. Ross, P.
Herráez, A.M. Pocknell, F. Rodríguez, F.E. Howie, A. Espinosa, R.J. Reid, J.R. Jaber, V. Martin, A.A.
Cunningham, and A. Fernández. 2003. Gas-bubble lesions in stranded cetaceans. Nature
425(6958):575-576.
41
Jochens, A., D. Biggs, K. Benoit-Bird, D. Engelhaupt, J. Gordon, C. Hu, N. Jaquet, M. Johnson, R. Leben, B.
Mate, P. Miller, J. Ortega-Ortiz, A. Thode, P. Tyack, and B. Würsig. 2008. Sperm whale seismic study
in the Gulf of Mexico/Synthesis report. OCS Study MMS 2008-006. Rep. from Dep. Oceanogr., Texas
A & M Univ., College Station, TX, for U.S. Minerals Manage. Serv., Gulf of Mexico OCS Reg., New
Orleans, LA. 323 p.
Johnson, M.P. and P.L. Tyack. 2003. A digital acoustic recording tag for measuring the response of wild
marine mammals to sound. IEEE J. Oceanic Eng. 28(1):3-12.
Johnson, S.R., W.J. Richardson, S.B. Yazvenko, S.A. Blokhin, G. Gailey, M.R. Jenkerson, S.K. Meier, H.R.
Melton, M.W. Newcomer, A.S. Perlov, S.A. Rutenko, B. Würsig, C.R. Martin, and D.E. Egging. 2007.
A western gray whale mitigation and monitoring program for a 3-D seismic survey, Sakhalin Island,
Russia. Environ. Monit. Assessm. 134(1-3):1-19.
Kastak, D. and R.J. Schusterman. 1998. Low-frequency amphibious hearing in pinnipeds: methods,
measurements, noise, and ecology. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 103(4):2216-2228.
Kastak, D. and R.J. Schusterman. 1999. In-air and underwater hearing sensitivity of a northern elephant seal
(Mirounga angustirostris). Can. J. Zool. 77(11):1751-1758.
Kastak, D., R.L. Schusterman, B.L. Southall, and C.J. Reichmuth. 1999. Underwater temporary threshold shift
induced by octave-band noise in three species of pinnipeds. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 106(2):1142-1148.
Kastak, D., B.L. Southall, R.J. Schusterman, and C. Reichmuth Kastak. 2005. Underwater temporary threshold
shift in pinnipeds: effects of noise level and duration. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 118(5):3154-3163.
Kastelein, R.A., P. Mosterd, B. van Santen, M. Hagedoorn, and D. de Haan. 2002. Underwater audiogram of a
Pacific walrus (Odobenus rosmarus divergens) measured with narrow-band frequency-modulated
signals. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 112(5):2173-2182.
Kastelein, R.A., W.C. Verboom, N. Jennings, and D. de Haan. 2008. Behavioral avoidance threshold level of a
harbor porpoise (Phocoena phocoena) for a continuous 50 kHz pure tone (L). J. Acoust. Soc. Am.
123(4): 1858-1861.
Kastelein, R.A., P.J. Wensveen, L. Hoek, W.C. Verboom and J.M. Terhune. 2009. Underwater detection of
tonal signals between 0.125 and 100 kHz by harbor seals (Phoca vitulina). J. Acoust. Soc. Am.
125(2):1222-1229.
Kastelein, R., R. Gransier, R. van Mierlo, L. Hoek, and C. de Jong. 2011. Temporary hearing threshold shifts
and recovery in a harbor porpoise (Phocoena phocoena) and harbor seals (Phoca vitulina) exposed to
white noise in a 1/1-octave band around 4 kHz. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 129(4):2432.
Kastelein, R., R. Gransier, L. Hoek, and J. Olthuis. 2012. Temporary threshold shifts and recovery in a harbor
porpoise (Phocoena phocoena) after octave-band noise at 4 kHz. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 132(5):35253537.
Kasuya, T. 1986. Distribution and behavior of Baird's beaked whales off the Pacific coast of Japan. Sci. Rep.
Whales Res. Inst. 37:61-83.
Ketten, D.R. 1991. The marine mammal ear: specializations for aquatic audition and echolocation. p. 717-750
In: D. Webster, R. Fay and A. Popper (eds.), The Biology of Hearing. Springer-Verlag, Berlin.
Ketten, D.R. 1992. The cetacean ear: form, frequency, and evolution. p. 53-75 In: J.A. Thomas, R.A.
Kastelein, and A. Ya Supin (eds.), Marine Mammal Sensory Systems. Plenum, New York, NY.
Ketten, D.R. 1994. Functional analysis of whale ears: adaptations for underwater hearing. IEEE Proc.
Underwater Acoust. 1:264-270.
Ketten, D.R. 1995. Estimates of blast injury and acoustic trauma zones for marine mammals from underwater
explosions. p. 391-407 In: R.A. Kastelein, J.A. Thomas, and P.E. Nachtigall (eds.), Sensory Systems of
Aquatic Mammals. De Spil Publishers, Woerden, Netherlands. 588 p.
Ketten, D.R. 1998. Marine mammal auditory systems: a summary of audiometric and anatomical data and its
implications for underwater acoustic impacts. NOAA Tech. Memo. NOAA-TM-NMFS-SWFSC-256.
Southwest Fisheries Sci. Cent., La Jolla, CA. 74 p.
Ketten, D.R. 2000. Cetacean ears. p. 43-108 In: W.W.L. Au, A.N. Popper, and R.R. Fay (eds.), Hearing by
Whales and Dolphins. Springer-Verlag, New York, NY. 485 p.
42
Ketten, D.R. 2012. Marine mammal auditory system noise impacts: evidence and incidence. p. 207-212 In:
A.N. Popper and A. Hawkins (eds.), The effects of noise on aquatic life. Springer, New York. 695 p.
Ketten, D.R., J. Lien and S. Todd. 1993. Blast injury in humpback whale ears: evidence and implications.
J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 94(3, Pt. 2):1849-1850 (Abstract).
Ketten, D.R., J. O'Malley, P.W.B. Moore, S. Ridgway, and C. Merigo. 2001. Aging, injury, disease, and noise
in marine mammal ears. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 110(5, Pt. 2):2721 (Abstract).
Klima, E.F., G.R. Gitschlag, and M.L. Renaud. 1988. Impacts of the explosive removal of offshore petroleum
platforms on sea turtles and dolphins. Mar. Fish. Rev. 50(3):33-42.
Klinck, H., S.L. Nieukirk, D.K. Mellinger, K. Klinck, H. Matsumoto, and R.P. Dziak. 2012. Seasonal presence
of cetaceans and ambient noise levels in polar waters of the North Atlantic. J. Acoust. Soc. Am.
132(3):EL176-EL181.
Koski, W.R., D.W. Funk, D.S. Ireland, C. Lyons, K. Christie, A.M. Macrander and S.B. Blackwell. 2009. An
update on feeding by bowhead whales near an offshore seismic survey in the central Beaufort Sea.
Intern. Whal. Comm. Working Pap. SC/61/BRG3. 15 p.
Koski, W.R., J.R. Brandon, D.S. Ireland, D. Funk, A.M. Macrander, and S.B. Blackwell. 2011. Aerial sighting
distributions of bowhead whales in the central Beaufort Sea relative to seismic activity during 2007,
2008 and 2010. p. 162 In: Abstr. 19th Bienn. Conf. Biol. Mar. Mamm., Tampa, FL, 27 Nov. –2 Dec.
2011. 344 p.
Kraus, S., A. Read, A. Solov, K. Baldwin, T. Spradlin, E. Anderson, and J. Williamson. 1997. Acoustic alarms
reduce porpoise mortality. Nature 388(6642):525.
Kryter, K.D. 1985. The Effects of Noise on Man. 2nd ed. Academic Press, Orlando, FL. 688 p.
Kryter, K.D. 1994. The Handbook of Hearing and the Effects of Noise. Academic Press, Orlando, FL. 673 p.
Kvadsheim, P.H., P.J.O. Miller, P.L. Tyack, L.D. Sivle, F.P.A. Lam, and A. Fahlman. 2012. Estimated tissue
and blood N2 levels and risk of decompression sickness in deep-, intermediate-, and shallow-diving
toothed whales during exposure to naval sonar.
Front, Physiol. 3(125) (14 p.).
doi:
10.3389/fphys.2012.00125.
Laurinolli, M.H. and N.A. Cochrane. 2005. Hydroacoustic analysis of marine mammal vocalization data from
ocean bottom seismometer mounted hydrophones in the Gully. p. 89-95 In: K. Lee, H. Bain and G.V.
Hurley (eds.), Acoustic monitoring and marine mammal surveys in The Gully and Outer Scotian Shelf
before and during active seismic surveys. Environ. Stud. Res. Funds Rep. 151. 154 p. Published 2007.
Laws, R. 2012. Cetacean hearing-damage zones around a seismic source. p. 473-476 In: A.N. Popper and A.
Hawkins (eds.), The effects of noise on aquatic life. Springer, New York, NY. 695 p.
Le Prell, C.G. 2012. Noise-induced hearing loss: from animal models to human trials. p. 191-195 In: A.N.
Popper and A. Hawkins (eds.), The effects of noise on aquatic life. Springer, New York, NY. 695 p.
Lesage, V., C. Barrette, M.C.S. Kingsley, and B. Sjare. 1999. The effect of vessel noise on the vocal behavior
of belugas in the St. Lawrence River estuary, Canada. Mar. Mamm. Sci. 15(1):65-84.
Ljungblad, D.K., B. Würsig, S.L. Swartz, and J.M. Keene. 1988. Observations on the behavioral responses of
bowhead whales (Balaena mysticetus) to active geophysical vessels in the Alaskan Beaufort Sea. Arctic
41(3):183-194.
Lucke, K., U. Siebert, P.A. Lepper and M.-A. Blanchet. 2009. Temporary shift in masked hearing thresholds in
a harbor porpoise (Phocoena phocoena) after exposure to seismic airgun stimuli. J. Acoust. Soc. Am.
125(6):4060-4070.
Lusseau, D. and L. Bejder. 2007. The long-term consequences of short-term responses to disturbance experience from whalewatching impact assessment. Intern. J. Compar. Psychol. 20(2-3):228-236.
MacGillivray, A.O. and D. Hannay. 2007a. Summary of noise assessment. p. 3-1 to 3-21 In: Marine mammal
monitoring and mitigation during open water seismic exploration by ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc., in the
Chukchi Sea, July-October 2006. LGL Rep. P903-2 (Jan. 2007). Rep. from LGL Alaska Res. Assoc.
Inc., Anchorage, AK, and JASCO Res. Ltd., Victoria, B.C., for ConocoPhillips Alaska Inc., Anchorage,
AK, and Nat. Mar. Fish. Serv., Silver Spring, MD. 116 p.
43
MacGillivray, A. and D. Hannay. 2007b. Field measurements of airgun array sound levels. p. 4-1 to 4-19 In:
Marine mammal monitoring and mitigation during open water seismic exploration by GX Technology in
the Chukchi Sea, October-November 2006: 90-day report. LGL Rep. P891-1 (Feb. 2007). Rep. from
LGL Alaska Res. Assoc. Inc., Anchorage, AK, and JASCO Res. Ltd., Victoria, B.C., for GX
Technology, Houston, TX, and Nat. Mar. Fish. Serv., Silver Spring, MD. 118 p.
MacLean, S.A. and B. Haley. 2004. Marine mammal monitoring during Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory's
seismic study in the Støregga Slide area of the Norwegian Sea, August–September 2003. LGL Rep.
TA2822-20. Rep. from LGL Ltd., King City, Ont., for Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia
MacLean, S.A. and W.R. Koski. 2005. Marine mammal monitoring during Lamont-Doherty Earth
Observatory’s seismic program in the Gulf of Alaska, August–September 2004. LGL Rep. TA2822-28.
Rep. from LGL Ltd., King City, Ont., for Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia Univ.,
Palisades, NY, and Nat. Mar. Fish. Serv., Silver Spring, MD. 102 p.
Madsen, P.T. 2005. Marine mammals and noise: problems with root mean square sound pressure levels for
transients. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 117(6):3952-3957.
Madsen, P.T., B. Mohl, B.K. Nielsen, and M. Wahlberg. 2002. Male sperm whale behavior during exposures
to distant seismic survey pulses. Aquat. Mamm. 28(3):231-240.
Madsen, P.T., M. Johnson, P.J.O. Miller, N. Aguilar de Soto, J. Lynch, and P.L. Tyack. 2006. Quantitative
measures of air gun pulses recorded on sperm whales (Physeter macrocephalus) using acoustic tags
during controlled exposure experiments. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 120(4):2366–2379.
Malakoff, D. 2002. Suit ties whale deaths to research cruise. Science 298(5594):722-723.
Malme, C.I. and P.R. Miles. 1985. Behavioral responses of marine mammals (gray whales) to seismic
discharges. p. 253-280 In: G.D. Greene, F.R. Engelhard, and R.J. Paterson (eds.), Proc. Workshop on
Effects of Explosives Use in the Marine Environment, Jan. 1985, Halifax, NS. Tech. Rep. 5. Can. Oil
& Gas Lands Admin., Environ. Prot. Br., Ottawa, Ont. 398 p.
Malme, C.I., P.R. Miles, C.W. Clark, P. Tyack, and J.E. Bird. 1984. Investigations of the potential effects of
underwater noise from petroleum industry activities on migrating gray whale behavior/Phase II: January
1984 migration. BBN Rep. 5586. Rep. from Bolt Beranek & Newman Inc., Cambridge, MA, for MMS,
Alaska OCS Region, Anchorage, AK. NTIS PB86-218377.
Malme, C.I., P.R. Miles, P. Tyack, C.W. Clark, and J.E. Bird. 1985. Investigation of the potential effects of
underwater noise from petroleum industry activities on feeding humpback whale behavior. BBN Rep.
5851; OCS Study MMS 85-0019. Rep. from BBN Labs Inc., Cambridge, MA, for MMS, Anchorage,
AK. NTIS PB86-218385.
Malme, C.I., B. Würsig, J.E. Bird, and P. Tyack. 1986. Behavioral responses of gray whales to industrial noise:
feeding observations and predictive modeling. BBN Rep. 6265. OCS Study MMS 88-0048. Outer
Contin. Shelf Environ. Assess. Progr., Final Rep. Princ. Invest., NOAA, Anchorage 56(1988): 393-600.
NTIS PB88-249008.
Malme, C.I., B. Würsig, B., J.E. Bird, and P. Tyack. 1988. Observations of feeding gray whale responses to
controlled industrial noise exposure. p. 55-73 In: W.M. Sackinger, M.O. Jeffries, J.L. Imm, and S.D.
Treacy (eds.), Port and Ocean Engineering Under Arctic Conditions. Vol. II. Symposium on Noise and
Marine Mammals. Univ. Alaska Fairbanks, Fairbanks, AK. 111 p.
Manly, B.F.J., V.D. Moulton, R.E. Elliott, G.W. Miller and W.J. Richardson. 2007. Analysis of covariance of
fall migrations of bowhead whales in relation to human activities and environmental factors, Alaskan
Beaufort Sea: Phase I, 1996-1998. LGL Rep. TA2799-2; OCS Study MMS 2005-033. Rep. from LGL
Ltd., King City, Ont., and WEST Inc., Cheyenne, WY, for U.S. Minerals Manage. Serv., Herndon, VA,
and Anchorage, AK. 128 p.
Mate, B.R. and J.T. Harvey. 1987. Acoustical deterrents in marine mammal conflicts with fisheries. ORESUW-86-001. Oregon State Univ., Sea Grant Coll. Prog., Corvallis, OR. 116 p.
Mate, B.R., K.M. Stafford, and D.K. Ljungblad. 1994. A change in sperm whale (Physeter macrocephalus)
distribution correlated to seismic surveys in the Gulf of Mexico. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 96(5, Pt. 2):32683269 (Abstract).
44
McAlpine, D.F. 2002. Pygmy and dwarf sperm whales. p. 1007-1009 In: W.F. Perrin, B. Würsig, and J.G.M.
Thewissen (eds.), Encyclopedia of Marine Mammals. Academic Press, San Diego, CA. 1414 p.
McCall Howard, M.P. 1999. Sperm whales Physeter macrocephalus in the Gully, Nova Scotia: Population,
distribution, and response to seismic surveying. B.Sc. (Honours) Thesis. Dalhousie Univ., Halifax, NS.
McCauley, R.D., M.-N. Jenner, C. Jenner, K.A. McCabe, and J. Murdoch. 1998. The response of humpback
whales (Megaptera novaeangliae) to offshore seismic survey noise: preliminary results of observations
about a working seismic vessel and experimental exposures. APPEA J. 38:692-707.
McCauley, R.D., J. Fewtrell, A.J. Duncan, C. Jenner, M.-N. Jenner, J.D. Penrose, R.I.T. Prince, A. Adhitya, J.
Murdoch, and K. McCabe. 2000a. Marine seismic surveys: Analysis of airgun signals; and effects of
air gun exposure on humpback whales, sea turtles, fishes and squid. Rep. from Centre for Marine
Science and Technology, Curtin Univ., Perth, Western Australia, for Australian Petrol. Produc. &
Explor. Association, Sydney, NSW. 188 p.
McCauley, R.D., J. Fewtrell, A.J. Duncan, M.-N. Jenner, M-N., C. Jenner, R.I.T. Prince, A. Adhitya, K.
McCabe and J. Murdoch. 2000b. Marine seismic surveys – a study of environmental implications.
APPEA J. 40: 692-708.
McDonald, M.A., J.A. Hildebrand, and S.C. Webb. 1995. Blue and fin whales observed on a seafloor array in
the Northeast Pacific. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 98(2, Pt. 1):712-721.
McDonald, T.L., W.J. Richardson, K.H. Kim, and S.B. Blackwell. 2010. Distribution of calling bowhead
whales exposed to underwater sounds from Northstar and distant seismic surveys, 2009. p. 6-1 to 6-38
In: W.J. Richardson (ed.), Monitoring of industrial sounds, seals, and bowhead whales near BP's
Northstar oil development, Alaskan Beaufort Sea: Comprehensive report for 2005–2009. LGL Rep.
P1133-6. Rep. from LGL Alaska Res. Assoc. Inc. (Anchorage, AK), Greeneridge Sciences Inc. (Santa
Barbara, CA), WEST Inc. (Cheyenne, WY) and Applied Sociocult. Res. (Anchorage, AK) for BP
Explor. (Alaska) Inc., Anchorage, AK. 265 p.
McDonald, T.L., W.J. Richardson, K.H. Kim, S.B. Blackwell, and B. Streever. 2011. Distribution of calling
bowhead whales exposed to multiple anthropogenic sound sources and comments on analytical methods.
p. 199 In: Abstr. 19th Bienn. Conf. Biol. Mar. Mamm., Tampa, FL, 27 Nov.–2 Dec. 2011. 344 p.
McKenna, M.F. 2011. Blue whale response to underwater noise from commercial ships. PhD Thesis, Univ.
California, San Diego. 218 p.
McShane, L.J., J.A. Estes, M.L. Riedman, and M.M. Staedler. 1995. Repertoire, structure, and individual
variation of vocalizations in the sea otter. J. Mammal. 76(2):414-427.
Meier, S.K., S.B. Yazvenko, S.A. Blokhin, P. Wainwright, M.K. Maminov, Y.M. Yakovlev, and M.W.
Newcomer. 2007. Distribution and abundance of western gray whales off northeastern Sakhalin Island,
Russia, 2001-2003. Environ. Monit. Assessm. 134(1-3):107-136.
Melcón, M.L., A.J. Cummins, S.M. Kerosky, L.K. Roche, S.M. Wiggins and J.A. Hildebrand. 2012. Blue
whales response to anthropogenic noise. PLoS ONE 7(2):e32681. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0032681.
Miller, G.W., R.E. Elliott, W.R. Koski, V.D. Moulton, and W.J. Richardson. 1999. Whales. p. 5-1 to 5-109 In:
W.J. Richardson (ed.), Marine mammal and acoustical monitoring of Western Geophysical's open-water
seismic program in the Alaskan Beaufort Sea, 1998. LGL Rep. TA2230-3. Rep. from LGL Ltd., King
Miller, G.W., V.D. Moulton, R.A. Davis, M. Holst, P. Millman, A. MacGillivray, and D. Hannay. 2005.
Monitoring seismic effects on marine mammals—southeastern Beaufort Sea, 2001-2002. p. 511-542 In:
S.L. Armsworthy, P.J. Cranford, and K. Lee (eds.), Offshore Oil and Gas Environmental Effects
Monitoring/Approaches and Technologies. Battelle Press, Columbus, OH.
Miller, P.J.O., M.P. Johnson, P.T. Madsen, N. Biassoni, M. Quero, and P.L. Tyack. 2009. Using at-sea
experiments to study the effects of airguns on the foraging behavior of sperm whales in the Gulf of
Mexico. Deep-Sea Res. I 56(7):1168-1181.
Mooney, T.A., P.E. Nachtigall, M. Breese, S. Vlachos, and W.W.L. Au. 2009a. Predicting temporary threshold
shifts in a bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus): the effects of noise level and duration. J. Acoust.
Soc. Am. 125(3):1816-1826.
45
Mooney, T.A., P.E. Nachtigall and S. Vlachos. 2009b. Sonar-induced temporary hearing loss in dolphins.
Biol. Lett. 4(4):565-567.
Moore, S.E. and Angliss, R.P. 2006. Overview of planned seismic surveys offshore northern Alaska, JulyOctober 2006. Paper SC/58/E6 presented to IWC Scient. Commit., IWC Annu. Meet., 1-13 June, St
Kitts.
Morton A.B. and H.K. Symonds. 2002. Displacement of Orcinus orca (L.) by high amplitude sound in British
Columbia, Canada. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 59(1):71-80
Moulton, V.D. and M. Holst. 2010. Effects of seismic survey sound on cetaceans in the Northwest Atlantic.
Environ. Stud. Res. Funds Rep. 182.
St. John’s, Nfld.
28 p.
Accessed at
http://www.esrfunds.org/pdf/182.pdf in February 2012.
Moulton, V.D. and J.W. Lawson. 2002. Seals, 2001. p. 3-1 to 3-48 In: W.J. Richardson (ed.), Marine mammal
and acoustical monitoring of WesternGeco’s open water seismic program in the Alaskan Beaufort Sea,
2001. LGL Rep. TA2564-4. Rep. from LGL Ltd., King City, Ont., and Greeneridge Sciences Inc.,
Santa Barbara, CA, for WesternGeco, Houston, TX, and Nat. Mar. Fish. Serv., Anchorage, AK, and
Silver Spring, MD. 95 p.
Moulton, V.D. and G.W. Miller. 2005. Marine mammal monitoring of a seismic survey on the Scotian Slope,
2003. p. 29-40 In: K. Lee, H. Bain, and G.V. Hurley (eds.), Acoustic monitoring and marine mammal
surveys in the Gully and outer Scotian Shelf before and during active seismic programs. Environ. Stud.
Res. Funds Rep. 151. 154 p (Published 2007).
Nachtigall, P.E., J.L. Pawloski, and W.W.L. Au. 2003. Temporary threshold shifts and recovery following
noise exposure in the Atlantic bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus). J. Acoust. Soc. Am.
113(6):3425-3429.
Nachtigall, P.E., A.Y. Supin, J. Pawloski, and W.W.L. Au. 2004. Temporary threshold shifts after noise
exposure in the bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus) measured using evoked auditory potentials.
Mar. Mamm. Sci. 20(4):673-687
Nachtigall, P.E., A.Y. Supin, M. Amundin, B. Röken,,T. Møller, A. Mooney, K.A. Taylor, and M. Yuen. 2007.
Polar bear Ursus maritimus hearing measured with auditory evoked potentials. J. Exp. Biol.
210(7):1116-1122.
Nations, C.S., S.B. Blackwell, K.H. Kim, A.M. Thode, C.R. Greene Jr., A.M. Macrander, and T.L. McDonald.
2009. Effects of seismic exploration in the Beaufort Sea on bowhead whale call distributions. J.
Acoust. Soc. Am. 126(4, Pt. 2):2230 (Abstract).
Nieukirk, S.L., K.M. Stafford, D.K. Mellinger, R.P. Dziak, and C.G. Fox. 2004. Low-frequency whale and
seismic airgun sounds recorded in the mid-Atlantic Ocean. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 115(4):1832-1843.
Nieukirk, S.L., D.K. Mellinger, J.A. Hildebrand, M.A. McDonald, and R.P. Dziak. 2005. Downward shift in
the frequency of blue whale vocalizations. p. 205 In: Abstr. 16th Bienn. Conf. Biol. Mar. Mamm., San
Diego, CA, 12-16 Dec. 2005.
Nieukirk, S.L., D.K. Mellinger, S.E. Moore, K. Klinck, and R.P. Dziak. 2012. Sounds from airguns and fin
whales recorded in the mid-Atlantic Ocean, 1999-2009. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 131(2):1102-1112.
NMFS. 1995. Small takes of marine mammals incidental to specified activities; offshore seismic activities in
southern California. Fed. Regist. 60(200):53753-53760.
NMFS. 2000. Small takes of marine mammals incidental to specified activities; marine seismic-reflection data
collection in southern California. Fed. Regist. 65(20):16374-16379.
NMFS. 2001. Small takes of marine mammals incidental to specified activities; oil and gas exploration drilling
activities in the Beaufort Sea/Notice of issuance of an incidental harassment authorization. Fed. Regist.
66(26):9291-9298.
NMFS. 2005. Endangered Fish and Wildlife; Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement.
Fed. Regist. 70(7):1871-1875.
NOAA and U.S. Navy. 2001. Joint interim report: Bahamas marine mammal stranding event of 15-16 March
2000. Nat. Mar. Fish. Serv., Silver Spring, MD, and Assistant Secretary of the Navy, Installations &
Environ., Washington, DC. 61 p. Available at http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/acoustics/reports.htm
46
Nowacek, D.P., L.H. Thorne, D.W. Johnston, and P.L. Tyack. 2007. Responses of cetaceans to anthropogenic
noise. Mammal Rev. 37(2):81-115.
NRC. 2005. Marine Mammal Populations and Ocean Noise: Determining When Noise Causes Biologically
Significant Effects. U. S. Nat. Res. Counc., Ocean Studies Board. (Authors D.W. Wartzok, J. Altmann,
W. Au, K. Ralls, A. Starfield, and P.L. Tyack). Nat. Acad. Press, Washington, DC. 126 p.
Pacini, A.F., P.E. Nachtigall, C.T. Quintos, T.D. Schofield, D.A. Look, G.A. Levine, and J.P.Turner. 2011.
Audiogram of a stranded Blainville’s beaked whale (Mesoplodon densirostris) measured using auditory
evoked potentials. J. Exp. Biol. 214(14):2409-2415.
Parente, C.L., M.C.C. Marcondes, and M.H. Engel. 2006. Humpback whale strandings and seismic surveys in
Brazil from 1999 to 2004. Intern. Whal. Comm. Working Pap. SC/58/E41. 16 p.
Parente, C.L., J.P. de Araújo and M.E. de Araújo. 2007. Diversity of cetaceans as tool in monitoring environmental impacts of seismic surveys. Biota Neotrop. 7(1):1-7.
Parks, S.E., C.W. Clark, and P.L. Tyack. 2007a. Short- and long-term changes in right whale calling behavior:
the potential effects of noise on acoustic communication. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 122(6):3725-3731.
Parks, S.E., D.R. Ketten, J.T. O'Malley and J. Arruda. 2007b. Anatomical predictions of hearing in the North
Atlantic right whale. Anat. Rec. 290(6):734-744.
Parks, S.E., I. Urazghildiiev and C.W. Clark. 2009. Variability in ambient noise levels and call parameters of
North Atlantic right whales in three habitat areas. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 125(2):1230-1239.
Parks, S.E. M. Johnson, D. Nowacek, and P.L. Tyack. 2011. Individual right whales call louder in increased
environmental noise. Biol. Lett. 7(1):33-35.
Pirotta, E., R. Milor, N. Quick, D. Moretti, N. Di Marzio, P. Tyack, I. Boyd, and G. Hastie. 2012. Vessel noise
affects beaked whale behavior: results of a dedicated acoustic response study. PLoS ONE 7(8):e42535.
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0042535.
Popov, V.V., A.Y. Supin, D. Wang, K. Wang, L. Dong, and S. Wang. 2011. Noise-induced temporary
threshold shift and recovery in Yangtze finless porpoises Neophocaena phocaenoides asiaeorientalis. J.
Acoust. Soc. Am. 130(1):574-584.
Potter, J.R., M. Thillet, C. Douglas, M.A. Chitre, Z. Doborzynski, and P.J. Seekings. 2007. Visual and passive
acoustic marine mammal observations and high-frequency seismic source characteristics recorded
during a seismic survey. IEEE J. Oceanic Eng. 32(2):469-483.
Reeves, R.R. 1992. Whale responses to anthropogenic sounds: A literature review. Sci. & Res. Ser. 47. New
Zealand Dep. Conserv., Wellington. 47 p.
Reeves, R.R., E. Mitchell, and H. Whitehead. 1993. Status of the northern bottlenose whale, Hyperoodon
ampullatus. Can. Field-Nat. 107(4):490-508.
Reeves, R.R., R.J. Hofman, G.K. Silber, and D. Wilkinson. 1996. Acoustic deterrence of harmful marine
mammal-fishery interactions: proceedings of a workshop held in Seattle, Washington, 20-22 March
1996. NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-OPR-10. Nat. Mar. Fish. Serv., Northwest Fisheries Sci. Cent.,
Seattle, WA. 70 p.
Richardson, W.J. and C.I. Malme. 1993. Man-made noise and behavioral responses. p. 631-700 In: J.J. Burns,
J.J. Montague, and C.J. Cowles (eds.), The Bowhead Whale. Spec. Publ. 2, Soc. Mar. Mammal.,
Lawrence, KS. 787 p.
Richardson, W.J. and B. Würsig. 1997. Influences of man-made noise and other human actions on cetacean
behaviour. Mar. Freshw. Behav. Physiol. 29(1-4):183-209.
Richardson, W.J., B. Würsig, and C.R. Greene. 1986. Reactions of bowhead whales, Balaena mysticetus, to
seismic exploration in the Canadian Beaufort Sea. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 79(4):1117-1128.
Richardson, W.J., R.A. Davis, C.R. Evans, D.K. Ljungblad, and P. Norton. 1987. Summer distribution of
bowhead whales, Balaena mysticetus, relative to oil industry activities in the Canadian Beaufort Sea,
1980-84. Arctic 40(2):93-104.
Richardson, W.J., C.R. Greene, Jr., C.I. Malme, and D.H. Thomson. 1995. Marine mammals and noise.
Academic Press, San Diego, CA. 576 p.
47
Richardson, W.J., G.W. Miller, and C.R. Greene, Jr. 1999. Displacement of migrating bowhead whales by
sounds from seismic surveys in shallow waters of the Beaufort Sea. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 106(4, Pt.
2):2281 (Abstract).
Richardson, W.J., M. Holst, W.R. Koski and M. Cummings. 2009. Responses of cetaceans to large-source
seismic surveys by Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory. p. 213 In: Abstr. 18th Bienn. Conf. Biol. Mar.
Mamm., Québec, Oct. 2009. 306 p.
Ridgway, S.H., and D.A. Carder. 2001. Assessing hearing and sound production in cetaceans not available for
behavioral audiograms: Experiences with sperm, pygmy sperm, and gray whales. Aquat. Mamm.
27:267–276.
Riedman, M.L. 1983. Studies of the effects of experimentally produced noise associated with oil and gas
exploration and development on sea otters in California. Rep. from Center for Coastal Marine Studies,
Univ. Calif., Santa Cruz, CA, for MMS, Anchorage, AK. 92 p. NTIS PB86-218575.
Riedman, M.L. 1984. Effects of sounds associated with petroleum industry activities on the behavior of sea
otters in California. p. D-1 to D-12 In: C.I. Malme, P.R. Miles, C.W. Clark, P. Tyack, and J.E. Bird.
Investigations of the potential effects of underwater noise form petroleum industry activities on
migrating gray whale behavior/Phase II: January 1984 migration. BBN Rep. 5586. Rep. from BBN
Inc., Cambridge, MA, for Minerals Manage. Serv. Anchorage, AK. NTIS PB86-218377.
Risch, D., P.J. Corkeron, W.T. Ellison and S.M. Van Parijs. 2012. Changes in humpback whale song
occurrence in response to an acoustic source 200 km away. PLoS One 7(1):e29741.
Robertson, F.C., W.R. Koski, T.A. Thomas, W.J. Richardson, and A.W. Trites, 2011. Exposure to seismic
operations affects bowhead behavior and sightability in the Alaskan Arctic. p. 254 In: Abstr. 19th
Bienn. Conf. Biol. Mar. Mamm., Tampa, FL, 27 Nov.–2 Dec. 2011. 344 p.
Rolland, R.M., S.E. Parks, K.E. Hunt, M. Castellote, P.J. Corkeron, D.P. Nowacek, S.K. Water and S.D. Kraus.
2012. Evidence that ship noise increases stress in right whales. Proc. R. Soc. B 279(1737):2363-2368.
Romano, T.A., M.J. Keogh, C.Kelly, P. Feng, L. Berk, C.E. Schlundt, D.A. Carder, and J.J. Finneran. 2004.
Anthropogenic sound and marine mammal health: measures of the nervous and immune systems before
and after intense sound exposure. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 61(7):1124-1134.
SACLANT. 1998. Estimation of cetacean hearing criteria levels. Section II, Chapter 7 In: SACLANTCEN
Bioacoustics Panel Summary Record and Report. Rep. from NATO Undersea Res. Center. Available at
http://enterprise.spawar.navy.mil/nepa/whales/pdf/doc2-7.pdf
Savarese, D.M., C.M. Reiser, D.S. Ireland, and R. Rodrigues. 2010. Beaufort Sea vessel-based monitoring
program. Chapter 6 In: D.W. Funk, D.S. Ireland, R. Rodrigues, and W.R. Koski (eds.), Joint monitoring
program in the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas, open water seasons, 2006-2008. LGL Alaska Rep. P1050-2.
Rep. from LGL Alaska Res. Assoc. Inc. (Anchorage, AK) et al. for Shell Offshore Inc., other Industry
contributors, U.S. Nat. Mar. Fish. Serv., and U.S. Fish Wildl. Serv. 506 p.
Scheifele, P.M., S. Andrew, R.A. Cooper, M. Darre, F.E. Musiek, and L. Max. 2005. Indication of a Lombard
vocal response in the St. Lawrence River beluga. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 117(3, Pt. 1):1486-1492.
Schlundt, C.E., J.J. Finneran, D.A. Carder, and S.H. Ridgway. 2000. Temporary shift in masking hearing
thresholds of bottlenose dolphins, Tursiops truncatus, and white whales, Delphinapterus leucas, after
exposure to intense tones. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 107(6):3496-3508.
Scholik-Schlomer, A.R. 2012. Status of NOAA’s guidelines for assessing impacts of anthropogenic sound on
marine life. p. 557-561 In: A.N. Popper and A. Hawkins (eds.), The effects of noise on aquatic life.
Springer, New York, NY. 695 p.
Simard, Y., F. Samaran and N. Roy. 2005. Measurement of whale and seismic sounds in the Scotian Gully and
adjacent canyons in July 2003. p. 97-115 In: K. Lee, H. Bain and C.V. Hurley (eds.), Acoustic
monitoring and marine mammal surveys in The Gully and Outer Scotian Shelf before and during active
seismic surveys. Environ. Stud. Res. Funds Rep. 151. 154 p (Published 2007).
Simmonds, M. P. and L.F. Lopez-Jurado. 1991. Whales and the military. Nature 351(6326):448.
Smultea, M.A. and M. Holst. 2008. Marine mammal monitoring during a University of Texas Institute for
Geophysics seismic survey in the Northeast Pacific Ocean, July 2008. LGL Rep. TA4584-2. Rep. from
48
LGL Ltd., King City, Ont., for Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia Univ., Palisades, NY,
and Nat. Mar. Fish. Serv., Silver Spring, MD. 80 p.
Smultea, M.A., M. Holst, W.R. Koski, and S. Stoltz. 2004. Marine mammal monitoring during LamontDoherty Earth Observatory's seismic program in the Southeast Caribbean Sea and adjacent Atlantic
Ocean, April-June 2004. LGL Rep. TA2822-26. Rep. from LGL Ltd., King City, Ont., for LamontDoherty Earth Observatory of Columbia Univ., Palisades, NY, and Nat. Mar. Fish. Serv., Silver Spring,
MD. 106 p.
Sodal, A. 1999. Measured underwater acoustic wave propagation from a seismic source. Proc. Airgun
Environmental Workshop, 6 July, London, UK.
Southall, B.L., A.E. Bowles, W.T. Ellison, J.J. Finneran, R.L. Gentry, C.R. Greene Jr., D. Kastak, D.R. Ketten,
J.H. Miller, P.E. Nachtigall, W.J. Richardson, J.A. Thomas, and P.L. Tyack. 2007. Marine mammal
noise exposure criteria: initial scientific recommendations. Aquat. Mamm. 33(4):411-522.
Stone, C.J. 2003. The effects of seismic activity on marine mammals in UK waters 1998-2000. JNCC Rep.
323. Joint Nature Conserv. Commit., Aberdeen, Scotland. 43 p.
Stone, C.J. and M.L. Tasker. 2006. The effects of seismic airguns on cetaceans in UK waters. J. Cetac. Res.
Manage. 8(3):255-263.
Terhune, J.M. 1999. Pitch separation as a possible jamming-avoidance mechanism in underwater calls of
bearded seals (Erignathus barbatus). Can. J. Zool. 77(7):1025-1034.
Thomas, J.A., R.A. Kastelein and F.T. Awbrey. 1990. Behavior and blood catecholamines of captive belugas
during playbacks of noise from an oil drilling platform. Zoo Biol. 9(5):393-402.
Thompson, D., M. Sjöberg, E.B. Bryant, P. Lovell, and A. Bjørge. 1998. Behavioural and physiological
responses of harbour (Phoca vitulina) and grey (Halichoerus grypus) seals to seismic surveys. p. 134
In: Abstr. 12th Bienn . Conf. and World Mar. Mamm. Sci. Conf., 20-25 Jan., Monte Carlo, Monaco.
160 p.
Thomson, D.H. and W.J. Richardson. 1995. Marine mammal sounds. p. 159-204 In: W.J. Richardson, C.R.
Greene, Jr., C.I. Malme, and D.H. Thomson. Marine Mammals and Noise. Academic Press, San Diego,
CA. 576 p.
Tolstoy, M., J. Diebold, S. Webb, D. Bohnenstiehl, and E. Chapp. 2004a. Acoustic calibration measurements.
Chapter 3 In: W.J. Richardson (ed.), Marine mammal and acoustic monitoring during Lamont-Doherty
Earth Observatory's acoustic calibration study in the northern Gulf of Mexico, 2003. Revised Rep. from
LGL Ltd., King City, Ont., for Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, Palisades, NY, and Nat. Mar. Fish.
Serv., Silver Spring, MD.
Tolstoy, M., J.B. Diebold, S.C. Webb, D.R. Bohenstiehl, E. Chapp, R.C. Holmes, and M. Rawson. 2004b.
Broadband calibration of R/V Ewing seismic sources. Geophys. Res. Let. 31:L14310. doi: 10.1029/
2004GL020234
Tolstoy, M., J. Diebold, L. Doermann, S. Nooner, S.C. Webb, D.R. Bohnenstiehl, T.J. Crone and R.C. Holmes.
2009. Broadband calibration of the R/V Marcus G. Langseth four-string seismic sources. Geochem.
Geophys. Geosyst. 10(8):1-15. Q08011.
Tyack, P.L. 2008. Implications for marine mammals of large-scale changes in the marine acoustic
environment. J. Mammal. 89(3):549-558.
Tyack, P.L. 2009. Human-generated sound and marine mammals. Phys. Today 62(11, Nov.):39-44.
Tyack, P., M. Johnson, and P. Miller. 2003. Tracking responses of sperm whales to experimental exposures of
airguns. p. 115-120 In: A.E. Jochens and D.C. Biggs (eds.), Sperm whale seismic study in the Gulf of
Mexico/Annual Report: Year 1. OCS Study MMS 2003-069. Rep. from Texas A&M Univ., College
Station, TX, for U.S. Minerals Manage. Serv., Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA.
Tyack, P.L., M.P. Johnson, P.T. Madsen, P.J. Miller, and J. Lynch. 2006a. Biological significance of acoustic
impacts on marine mammals: examples using an acoustic recording tag to define acoustic exposure of
sperm whales, Physeter catodon, exposed to airgun sounds in controlled exposure experiments. Eos,
Trans. Am. Geophys. Union 87(36), Joint Assembly Suppl., Abstract OS42A-02. 23-26 May, Baltimore,
MD.
49
Tyack, P.L., M. Johnson, N. Aguilar Soto, A. Sturlese, and P.T. Madsen. 2006b. Extreme diving of beaked
whales. J. Exp. Biol. 209(21):4238-4253.
Urick, R.J. 1983. Principles of Underwater Sound. 3rd ed. Peninsula Publ., Los Altos, CA. 423 p.
van der Woude, S. 2007. Assessing effects of an acoustic marine geophysical survey on the behaviour of
bottlenose dolphins Tursiops truncatis. In: Abstr. 17th Bienn. Conf. Biol. Mar. Mamm., 29 Nov.–3
Dec., Cape Town, South Africa.
Wartzok, D., A.N. Popper, J. Gordon, and J. Merrill. 2004. Factors affecting the responses of marine mammals
to acoustic disturbance. Mar. Technol. Soc. J. 37(4):6-15.
Watkins, W.A. 1977. Acoustic behavior of sperm whales. Oceanus 20(2):50-58.
Watkins, W.A. 1986. Whale reactions to human activities in Cape Cod waters. Mar. Mamm. Sci. 2(4):251262.
Watkins, W.A. and W.E. Schevill. 1975. Sperm whales (Physeter catodon) react to pingers. Deep-Sea Res.
22(3):123-129.
Watkins, W.A., K.E. Moore, and P. Tyack. 1985. Sperm whale acoustic behaviors in the southeast Caribbean.
Cetology 49:1-15.
Weilgart, L.S. 2007. A brief review of known effects of noise on marine mammals. Intern. J. Comp.
Psychol. 20:159-168.
Weir, C.R. 2008a. Overt responses of humpback whales (Megaptera novaeangliae), sperm whales (Physeter
macrocephalus), and Atlantic spotted dolphins (Stenella frontalis) to seismic exploration off Angola.
Aquat. Mamm. 34(1):71-83.
Weir, C.R. 2008b. Short-finned pilot whales (Globicephala macrorhynchus) respond to an airgun ramp-up
procedure off Gabon. Aquat. Mamm. 34(3):349-354.
Weller, D.W., Y.V. Ivashchenko, G.A. Tsidulko, A.M. Burdin, and R.L. Brownell, Jr. 2002. Influence of
seismic surveys on western gray whales off Sakhalin Island, Russia in 2001. Paper SC/54/BRG14, IWC,
Western Gray Whale Working Group Meet., 22-25 Oct., Ulsan, South Korea. 12 p.
Weller, D.W., S.H. Rickards, A.L. Bradford, A.M. Burdin, and R.L. Brownell, Jr. 2006a. The influence of
1997 seismic surveys on the behavior of western gray whales off Sakhalin Island, Russia. Paper
SC/58/E4 presented to the IWC Scient. Commit., IWC Annu. Meet., 1-13 June, St. Kitts.
Weller, D.W., G.A. Tsidulko, Y.V. Ivashchenko, A.M. Burdin and R.L. Brownell Jr. 2006b. A re-evaluation of
the influence of 2001 seismic surveys on western gray whales off Sakhalin Island, Russia. Paper
SC/58/E5 presented to the IWC Scient. Commit., IWC Annu. Meet., 1-13 June, St. Kitts.
Wieting, D. 2004. Background on development and intended use of criteria. p. 20 In: S. Orenstein, L.
Langstaff, L. Manning, and R. Maund (eds.), Advisory Committee on Acoustic Impacts on Marine
Mammals, Final Meet. Summary. Second Meet., April 28-30, 2004, Arlington, VA. Sponsored by the
Mar. Mamm. Commis., 10 Aug.
Winsor, M.H. and B.R. Mate. 2006. Seismic survey activity and the proximity of satellite tagged sperm
whales. Intern. Whal. Comm. Working Pap. SC/58/E16. 8 p.
Wright, A.J. and S. Kuczaj. 2007. Noise-related stress and marine mammals: An Introduction. Intern. J.
Comp. Psychol. 20(2-3):iii-viii.
Wright, A.J., N. Aguilar Soto, A.L. Baldwin, M. Bateson, C.M. Beale, C. Clark, T. Deak, E.F. Edwards,
A. Fernández, A. Godinho, L.T. Hatch, A. Kakuschke, D. Lusseau, D. Martineau, L.M. Romero, L.S.
Weilgart, B.A. Wintle, G. Notarbartolo-di-Sciara, and V. Martin. 2007a. Do marine mammals
experience stress related to anthropogenic noise? Intern. J. Comp. Psychol. 20(2-3):274-316.
Wright, A.J., N. Aguilar Soto, A.L. Baldwin, M. Bateson, C.M. Beale, C. Clark, T. Deak, E.F. Edwards,
A. Fernández, A. Godinho, L.T. Hatch, A. Kakuschke, D. Lusseau, D. Martineau, L.M. Romero, L.S.
Weilgart, B.A. Wintle, G. Notarbartolo-di-Sciara and V. Martin. 2007b. Anthropogenic noise as a
stressor in animals: A multidisciplinary perspective. Intern. J. Comp. Psychol. 20(2-3): 250-273.
Wright, A.J., T. Deak and E.C.M. Parsons. 2009. Concerns related to chronic stress in marine mammals.
Intern. Whal. Comm. Working Pap. SC/61/E16. 7 p.
50
Wright, A.J., T. Deak, and E.C.M. Parsons. 2011. Size matters: management of stress responses and chronic
stress in beaked whales and other marine mammals may require larger exclusion zones. Mar. Poll.
Bull. 63(1-4):5-9.
Würsig, B., S.K. Lynn, T.A. Jefferson, and K.D. Mullin. 1998. Behaviour of cetaceans in the northern Gulf of
Mexico relative to survey ships and aircraft. Aquat. Mamm. 24(1):41-50.
Würsig, B.G., D.W. Weller, A.M. Burdin, S.H. Reeve, A.L Bradford, S.A. Blokhin, and R.L Brownell, Jr.
1999. Gray whales summering off Sakhalin Island, Far East Russia: July-October 1997. A joint U.S.Russian scientific investigation. Final Report. Rep. from Texas A&M Univ., College Station, TX, and
Kamchatka Inst. Ecol. & Nature Manage., Russian Acad. Sci., Kamchatka, Russia, for Sakhalin Energy
Investment Co. Ltd and Exxon Neftegaz Ltd, Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk, Russia. 101 p.
Yazvenko, S.B., T.L. McDonald, S.A. Blokhin, S.R. Johnson, S.K. Meier, H.R. Melton, M.W. Newcomer, R.M.
Nielson, V.L. Vladimirov, and P.W. Wainwright. 2007a. Distribution and abundance of western gray
whales during a seismic survey near Sakhalin Island, Russia. Environ. Monit. Assessm. 134(1-3):4573.
Yazvenko, S. B., T.L. McDonald, S.A. Blokhin, S.R. Johnson, H.R. Melton, and M.W. Newcomer. 2007b.
Feeding activity of western gray whales during a seismic survey near Sakhalin Island, Russia. Environ.
Monit. Assessm. 134(1-3):93-106.
Yoder, J.A. 2002. Declaration James A. Yoder in opposition to plaintiff’s motion for temporary restraining
order, 28 October 2002. Civ. No. 02-05065-JL. U.S. District Court, Northern District of Calif., San
Francisco Div.
51
APPENDIX C:
REVIEW OF POTENTIAL EFFECTS OF AIRGUN SOUND ON FISH1
2
AND MARINE INVERTEBRATES
1
By John R. Christian and R.C. Bocking, LGL Ltd., environmental research associates (rev. Feb. 2013)
2
By John R. Christian, LGL Ltd., environmental research associates (rev. Feb. 2013)
ii
Table of Contents
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Fish...................................................................................................................................................... 1
2.
3.
1.1.
Acoustic Capabilities ......................................................................................................... 1
1.2
Potential Effects on Fish .................................................................................................... 3
1.2.1 Marine Fish .............................................................................................................. 3
1.2.2 Freshwater Fish........................................................................................................ 6
1.2.3 Anadromous Fish ..................................................................................................... 6
1.3
Indirect Effects on Fisheries .............................................................................................. 7
Marine Invertebrates..................................................................................................................... 8
2.1
Acoustic Capabilities ......................................................................................................... 9
2.1.1 Sound Production .................................................................................................... 9
2.1.2 Sound Detection ...................................................................................................... 9
2.2
Potential Effects ............................................................................................................... 10
2.2.1 Pathological Effects ............................................................................................... 10
2.2.2 Physiological Effects ............................................................................................. 12
2.2.3 Behavioural Effects ............................................................................................... 12
Literature Cited ........................................................................................................................... 14
3.1
Fish .................................................................................................................................. 14
3.2
Marine Invertebrates ........................................................................................................ 17
iii
Appendix C: Airgun Sounds and Fish and Marine Invertebrates
1. Fish
Here we review literature about the effects of airgun sounds on fish during seismic surveys.
The potential effect of seismic sounds on fish has been studied with a variety of taxa, including
marine, freshwater, and anadromous species (reviewed by Fay and Popper 2000; Ladich and Popper
2004; Hastings and Popper 2005; Popper and Hastings 2009a,b).
It is sometimes difficult to interpret studies on the effects of underwater sound on marine
animals because authors often do not provide enough information, including received sound levels,
source sound levels, and specific characteristics of the sound. Specific characteristics of the sound
include units and references, whether the sound is continuous or impulsive, and its frequency range.
Underwater sound pressure levels are typically reported as a number of decibels referenced to a
reference level, usually 1 micro-Pascal (µPa). However, the sound pressure dB number can represent
multiple types of measurements, including “zero to peak”, “peak to peak”, or averaged (“rms”).
Sound exposure levels (SEL) may also be reported as dB. The SEL is the integration of all the
acoustic energy contained within a single sound event. Unless precise measurement types are
reported, it can be impossible to directly compare results from two or more independent studies.
1.1. Acoustic Capabilities
Sensory systems, like those that allow for hearing, provide information about an animal’s
physical, biological, and social environments, in both air and water. Extensive work has been done to
understand the structures, mechanisms, and functions of animal sensory systems in aquatic
environments (Atema et al. 1988; Kapoor and Hara 2001; Collin and Marshall 2003). All fish species
have hearing and skin-based mechanosensory systems (inner ear and lateral line systems,
respectively) that provide information about their surroundings (Fay and Popper 2000). Fay (2009)
and some others refer to the ambient sounds to which fishes are exposed as ‘underwater soundscapes’.
Anthropogenic sounds can have important negative consequences for fish survival and reproduction if
they disrupt an individual’s ability to sense its soundscape, which often tells of predation risk, prey
items, or mating opportunities. Potential negative effects include masking of key environmental
sounds or social signals, displacement of fish from their habitat, or interference with sensory
orientation and navigation.
Fish hearing via the inner ear is typically restricted to low frequencies. As with other
vertebrates, fish hearing involves a mechanism whereby the beds of hair cells (Howard et al. 1988;
Hudspeth and Markin 1994) located in the inner ear are mechanically affected and cause a neural
discharge (Popper and Fay 1999). At least two major pathways for sound transmittance between
sound source and the inner ear have been identified for fish. The most primitive pathway involves
direct transmission to the inner ear’s otolith, a calcium carbonate mass enveloped by sensory hairs.
The inertial difference between the dense otolith and the less-dense inner ear causes the otolith to
stimulate the surrounding sensory hair cells. This motion differential is interpreted by the central
nervous system as sound.
The second transmission pathway between sound source and the inner ear of fish is via the
swim bladder, a gas-filled structure that is much less dense than the rest of the fish’s body. The swim
bladder, being more compressible and expandable than either water or fish tissue, will differentially
contract and expand relative to the rest of the fish in a sound field. The pulsating swim bladder
transmits this mechanical disturbance directly to the inner ear (discussed below). Such a secondary
source of sound detection could be more or less effective at stimulating the inner ear, depending on
the amplitude and frequency of the pulsation, and the distance and mechanical coupling between the
swim bladder and the inner ear (Popper and Fay 1993).
A recent paper by Popper and Fay (2011) discusses the designation of fish based on sound
detection capabilities. They suggest that the designations ‘hearing specialist’ and ‘hearing generalist’
1
no longer be used for fish because of their vague and sometimes contradictory definitions, and that
there is instead a range of hearing capabilities across species that is more like a continuum,
presumably based on the relative contributions of pressure to the overall hearing capabilities of a
species.
According to Popper and Fay (2011), one end of this continuum is represented by fish that only
detect particle motion because they lack pressure-sensitive gas bubbles (e.g., swim bladder). These
species include elasmobranchs (e.g., sharks) and jawless fish, and some teleosts including flatfish.
Fish at this end of the continuum are typically capable of detecting sound frequencies below 1500 Hz.
The other end of the fish hearing continuum is represented by fish with highly specialized
otophysic connections between pressure receptive organs, such as the swim bladder, and the inner ear.
These fish include some squirrelfish, mormyrids, herrings, and otophysan fish (freshwater fish with
Weberian apparatus, an articulated series of small bones that extend from the swim bladder to the
inner ear). Rather than being limited to 1.5 kHz or less in hearing, these fish can typically hear up to
several kHz. One group of fish in the anadromous herring sub-family Alosinae (shads and menhaden)
can detect sounds to well over 180 kHz (Mann et al. 1997, 1998, 2001). This could be the widest
hearing range of any vertebrate that has been studied to date. Whereas the specific reason for this
very high frequency hearing is not clear, there is strong evidence that this capability evolved for the
detection of the ultrasonic sounds produced by echolocating dolphins to enable the fish to detect and
avoid predation (Mann et al. 1997; Plachta and Popper 2003).
All other fish have hearing capabilities that fall somewhere between these two extremes of the
continuum. Some have unconnected swim bladders located relatively far from the inner ear (e.g.,
salmonids, tuna), whereas others have unconnected swim bladders located relatively close to the inner
ear (e.g., Atlantic cod Gadus morhua). There has also been the suggestion that Atlantic cod can
detect 38 kHz (Astrup and Møhl 1993). However, the general consensus was that this was not hearing
with the ear; probably the fish responding to exceedingly high-pressure signals of the 38-kHz source
through some other receptor in the skin, such as touch receptors (Astrup and Møhl 1998).
It is important to recognize that the swim bladder itself is not a sensory end organ, but rather an
intermediate part of the sound pathway between sound source and the inner ear of some fish. The
inner ear of fish is ultimately the organ that translates the particle displacement component into neural
signals for the brain to interpret as sound.
A third mechanosensory pathway found in most bony fish and elasmobranchs (cartilaginous
fish) involves the lateral line system. It too relies on sensitivity to water particle motion. The basic
sensory unit of the lateral line system is the neuromast, a bundle of sensory and supporting cells
whose projecting cilia, similar to those in the ears, are encased in a gelatinous cap. Neuromasts detect
distorted sound waves in the immediate vicinity of fish. Generally, fish use the lateral line system to
detect the particle displacement component of low frequency acoustic signals (up to 160–200 Hz)
over a distance of one to two body lengths. The lateral line is used in conjunction with other sensory
systems, including hearing (Sand 1981; Coombs and Montgomery 1999).
There has also been a study of the auditory sensitivity of settlement-stage fish. Using the
auditory brainstem response (ABR) technique in the laboratory, Wright et al. (2010) concluded that
larvae of coral reef species tested had significantly more sensitive hearing than the larvae of pelagic
species tested. All reef fish larvae and the larvae of one of the pelagic species detected frequencies in
the 100–2000 Hz range. The larvae of the one other pelagic species did not detect frequencies higher
than 800 Hz. The larvae of all coral and pelagic fish species exhibited best hearing at frequencies
between 100 and 300 Hz. These results suggested that settlement-stage larval reef fish could be able
to detect reef sounds at distances of 100s of metres. Other recent research also indicates that
settlement-stage larvae of coral reef fish could use sound as a cue to locate settlement sites (Leis et al.
2003; Tolimieri et al. 2004; Simpson et al. 2005; Leis and Locket 2005).
2
1.2 Potential Effects on Fish
Review papers on the effects of anthropogenic sources of underwater sound on fish have been
published (Popper 2009; Popper and Hastings 2009a,b). These papers consider various sources of
anthropogenic sound, including seismic airguns. For the purposes of this review, only the effects of
seismic airgun sound are considered.
1.2.1
Marine Fish
Evidence for airgun-induced damage to fish ears has come from studies using pink snapper
Pagrus auratus (McCauley et al. 2000a,b, 2003). In these experiments, fish were caged and exposed
to the sound of a single moving seismic airgun every 10 s over a period of 1 h and 41 min. The
source SPL at 1 m was ~223 dB re 1 µPa · mp-p, and the received SPLs were 165–209 dB re 1 µPap-p.
The sound energy was highest over the 20–70 Hz frequency range. The pink snapper were exposed to
more than 600 airgun discharges during the study. In some individual fish, the sensory epithelium of
the inner ear sustained extensive damage as indicated by ablated hair cells. Damage was more
extensive in fish examined 58 days post-exposure compared to those examined 18 h post-exposure.
There was no evidence of repair or replacement of damaged sensory cells up to 58 days postexposure. McCauley et al. (2000a,b, 2003) included the following caveats in the study reports: (1)
fish were caged and unable to swim away from the seismic source, (2) only one species of fish was
examined, (3) the impact on the ultimate survival of the fish is unclear, and (4) airgun exposure
specifics required to cause the observed damage were not obtained (i.e., a few high SPL signals or the
cumulative effect of many low to moderate SPL signals).
The fish exposed to sound from a single airgun in this study also exhibited startle responses to
short range start up and high-level airgun signals (i.e., with received SPLs of 182–195 dB re 1 µParms
(McCauley et al. 2000a,b). Smaller fish were more likely to display a startle response. Responses
were observed above received SPLs of 156–161 dB re 1 µParms. The occurrence of both startle
response (classic C-turn response) and alarm responses (e.g., darting movements, flash school
expansion, and fast swimming) decreased over time. Other observations included downward distributional shift that was restricted by the 10 m x 6 m x 3 m cages, increase in swimming speed, and the
formation of denser aggregations. Fish behaviour appeared to return to pre-exposure state 15–30 min
after cessation of seismic firing.
Pearson et al. (1992) investigated the effects of seismic airgun sound on the behaviour of
captive rockfish Sebastes sp. exposed to the sound of a single stationary airgun at a variety of
distances. The airgun used in the study had a source SPL of 223 dB re 1 µPa · m0-p, and measured
received SPLs were 137–206 dB re 1 µPa0-p. The authors reported that rockfish reacted to the airgun
sounds by exhibiting varying degrees of startle and alarm responses, depending on the species of
rockfish and the received SPL. Startle responses were observed at a minimum received SPL of 200
dB re 1 µPa0-p, and alarm responses occurred at a minimum received SPL of 177 dB re 1 µPa0-p.
Other observed behavioural changes included the tightening of schools, downward distributional shift,
and random movement and orientation. Some fish ascended in the water column and commenced to
mill (i.e., “eddy”) at increased speed, whereas others descended to the bottom of the enclosure and
remained motionless. Pre-exposure behaviour was reestablished 20–60 min after cessation of seismic
airgun discharge. Pearson et al. (1992) concluded that received SPL thresholds for overt rockfish
behavioural response and more subtle rockfish behavioural response are 180 dB re 1 µPa0-p and 161
dB re 1 µPa0-p, respectively.
Using an experimental hook and line fishery approach, Skalski et al. (1992)
potential effects of seismic airgun sound on the distribution and catchability of rockfish.
SPL of the single airgun used in the study was 223 dB re 1 µPa · m0-p, and the received
bases of the rockfish aggregations were 186–191 dB re 1 µPa0-p. Characteristics
3
studied the
The source
SPLs at the
of the fish
aggregations were assessed using echosounders. During long-term stationary seismic airgun
discharge, there was an overall downward shift in fish distribution. The authors also observed a
significant decline in total catch of rockfish during seismic discharge. It should be noted that this
experimental approach was different from an actual seismic survey, in that duration of exposure was
much longer.
In another study, caged European sea bass Dicentrarchus labrax were exposed to multiple discharges from a moving seismic airgun array with a source SPL of ~256 dB re 1 µPa · m0-p (unspecified
measure type) (Santulli et al. 1999). The airguns were discharged every 25 s during a 2-h period. The
minimum distance between fish and seismic source was 180 m. The authors did not report any
observed pathological injury to the sea bass. Blood was collected from both exposed fish (6-h postexposure) and control fish (6-h pre-exposure) and subsequently analyzed for cortisol, glucose, and
lactate levels. Levels of cortisol, glucose, and lactate were significantly higher in the sera of exposed
fish compared to sera of control fish. The elevated levels of all three chemicals returned to preexposure levels within 72 h of exposure (Santulli et al. 1999).
Santulli et al. (1999) also used underwater video cameras to monitor fish response to seismic
airgun discharge. Resultant video indicated slight startle responses by some of the sea bass when the
seismic airgun array discharged as far as 2.5 km from the cage. The proportion of sea bass that
exhibited startle response increased as the airgun sound source approached the cage. Once the seismic
array was within 180 m of the cage, the sea bass were densely packed at the middle of the enclosure,
exhibiting random orientation, and appearing more active than they had been under pre-exposure
conditions. Normal behaviour resumed about 2 h after airgun discharge nearest the fish (Santulli et al.
1999).
Boeger et al. (2006) reported observations of coral reef fish in field enclosures before, during,
and after exposure to seismic airgun sound. This Brazilian study used an array of eight airguns that
was presented to the fish as both a mobile sound source and a static sound source. Minimum
distances between the sound source and the fish cage were 0–7 m. Received sound levels were not
reported. Neither mortality nor external damage to the fish was observed in any of the experimental
scenarios. Most of the airgun array discharges resulted in startle responses, although these
behavioural changes lessened with repeated exposures, suggesting habituation.
Chapman and Hawkins (1969) investigated the reactions of free ranging whiting (silver hake)
Merluccius bilinearis to an intermittently discharging stationary airgun with a source SPL of 220 dB
re 1 µPa · m0-p. Received SPL was estimated at 178 dB re 1 µPa0-p. The whiting were monitored with
an echosounder. Before any airgun discharge, the fish were located at a depth range of 25–55 m. In
apparent response to the airgun sound, the fish descended, forming a compact layer at depths >55 m.
After an hour of exposure to the airgun sound, the fish appeared to have habituated as indicated by
their return to the pre-exposure depth range, despite the continuing airgun discharge. Airgun
discharge ceased for a time and upon its resumption, the fish again descended to greater depths,
indicating only temporary habituation.
Hassel et al. (2003, 2004) studied the potential effects of exposure to airgun sound on the
behaviour of captive lesser sandeel Ammodytes marinus. Depth of the study enclosure used to hold
the sandeel was ~55 m. The moving airgun array had an estimated source SPL of 256 dB re 1 µPa · m
(unspecified measure type). Received SPLs were not measured. Exposures were conducted over a 3day period in a 10 km × 10 km area with the cage at its center. The distance between airgun array and
fish cage ranged from 55 m when the array was overhead to 7.5 km. No mortality attributable to
exposure to the airgun sound was noted. Behaviour of the fish was monitored using underwater video
cameras, echosounders, and commercial fishery data collected close to the study area. The approach
of the seismic vessel appeared to cause an increase in tail-beat frequency, although the sandeels still
appeared to swim calmly. During seismic airgun discharge, many fish exhibited startle responses,
followed by flight from the immediate area. The frequency of occurrence of startle response seemed
4
to increase as the operating seismic array moved closer to the fish. The sandeels stopped exhibiting
the startle response once the airgun discharge ceased. They tended to remain higher in the water
column during the airgun discharge, and none were observed burying themselves in the soft substrate.
The commercial fishery catch data were inconclusive with respect to behavioural effects.
Various species of demersal fish, blue whiting, and some small pelagic fish were exposed to a
moving seismic airgun array with a source SPL of ~250 dB re 1 µPa · m (unspecified measure type)
(Dalen and Knutsen 1986). Received SPLs estimated using the assumption of spherical spreading
were 200–210 dB re 1 µPa (unspecified measure type). Seismic sound exposures were conducted
every 10 s during a one-week period. The authors used echosounders and sonars to assess the preand post-exposure fish distributions. The acoustic mapping results indicated a significant decrease in
abundance of demersal fish (36%) after airgun discharge, but comparative trawl catches did not
support this. Non-significant reductions in the abundances of blue whiting and small pelagic fish
were also indicated by post-exposure acoustic mapping.
La Bella et al. (1996) studied the effects of exposure to seismic airgun sound on fish
distribution using echosounder monitoring and changes in catch rate of hake by trawl, and clupeoids
by gill netting. The seismic array used had 16 airguns and a source SPL of 256 dB re 1 µPa · m 0-p.
The shot interval was 25 s, and exposure durations were 4.6–12 h. Horizontal distributions did not
appear to change as a result of exposure to seismic discharge, but there was some indication of a
downward shift in the vertical distribution. The catch rates during experimental fishing did not differ
significantly between pre- and post-seismic fishing periods.
Wardle et al. (2001) used video and telemetry to make behavioural observations of marine fish
(primarily juvenile saithe, adult pollock, juvenile cod, and adult mackerel) inhabiting an inshore reef
off Scotland before, during, and after exposure to discharges of a stationary airgun. The received
SPLs were ~195–218 dB re 1 µPa0-p. Pollock did not move away from the reef in response to the
seismic airgun sound, and their diurnal rhythm did not appear to be affected. However, there was an
indication of a slight effect on the long-term day-to-night movements of the pollock. Video camera
observations indicated that fish exhibited startle responses (“C-starts”) to all received levels. There
were also indications of behavioural responses to visual stimuli. If the seismic source was visible to
the fish, they fled from it. However, if the source was not visible to the fish, they often continued to
move toward it.
The potential effects of exposure to seismic sound on fish abundance and distribution were also
investigated by Slotte et al. (2004). Twelve days of seismic survey operations spread over a period of
one month used a seismic airgun array with a source SPL of 222.6 dB re 1 µPa · mp-p. The SPLs
received by the fish were not measured. Acoustic surveys of the local distributions of various kinds
of pelagic fish, including herring, blue whiting, and mesopelagic species, were conducted during the
seismic surveys. There was no strong evidence of short-term horizontal distributional effects. With
respect to vertical distribution, blue whiting and mesopelagics were distributed deeper (20–50 m)
during the seismic survey compared to pre-exposure. The average densities of fish aggregations were
lower within the seismic survey area, and fish abundances appeared to increase in accordance with
increasing distance from the seismic survey area.
Fertilized capelin Mallotus villosus eggs and monkfish Lophius americanus larvae were
exposed to seismic airgun sound and subsequently examined and monitored for possible effects of the
exposure (Payne et al. 2009). The laboratory exposure studies involved a single airgun. Approximate
received SPLs measured in the capelin egg and monkfish larvae exposures were 199–205 dB re 1
µPap-p and 205 dB re 1 µPap-p, respectively. The capelin eggs were exposed to either 10 or 20 airgun
discharges, and the monkfish larvae were exposed to either 10 or 30 discharges. No statistical
differences in mortality/ morbidity between control and exposed subjects were found 1–4 days postexposure in any of the exposure trials for either the capelin eggs or the monkfish larvae.
5
In uncontrolled experiments, Kostyvchenko (1973) exposed the eggs of numerous fish species
(anchovy, red mullet, crucian carp, and blue runner) to various sound sources, including seismic
airguns. With the seismic airgun discharge as close as 0.5 m from the eggs, over 75% of them
survived the exposure. Egg survival rate increased to over 90% when placed 10 m from the airgun
sound source. The range of received SPLs was ~215–233 dB re 1 µPa0-p.
Eggs, yolk sac larvae, post-yolk sac larvae, post-larvae, and fry of various commercially
important fish species (cod, saithe, herring, turbot, and plaice) were exposed to received SPLs ranging
from 220 to 242 dB re 1 µPa (unspecified measure type) (Booman et al. 1996). These received levels
corresponded to exposure distances of 0.75–6 m. The authors reported some cases of injury and
mortality but most of these occurred as a result of exposures at very close range (i.e., <15 m). The
rigor of anatomical and pathological assessments was questionable.
Saetre and Ona (1996) applied a “worst-case scenario” mathematical model to investigate the
effects of seismic sound on fish eggs and larvae. They concluded that mortality rates caused by
exposure to seismic airgun sound are so low compared to the natural mortality that the impact of
seismic surveying on recruitment to a fish stock must be regarded as insignificant.
1.2.2
Freshwater Fish
Popper et al. (2005) tested the hearing sensitivity of three Mackenzie River fish species after
exposure to five discharges from a seismic airgun. The mean received peak SPL was 205–209 dB re
1 µPa per discharge, and the approximate mean received SEL was 176–180 dB re 1 µPa2 · s per discharge. Whereas the broad whitefish showed no Temporary Threshold Shift (TTS) as a result of the
exposure, adult northern pike and lake chub exhibited TTSs of 10–15 dB, followed by complete
recovery within 24 h of exposure. The same animals were also examined to determine whether there
were observable effects on the sensory cells of the inner ear as a result of exposure to seismic sound
(Song et al. 2008). No damage to the ears of the fish was found, including those that exhibited TTS.
In another part of the same Mackenzie River project, Jorgenson and Gyselman (2009)
investigated the behavioural responses of arctic riverine fish to seismic airgun sound. They used
hydroacoustic survey techniques to determine whether fish behaviour upon exposure to airgun sound
can either mitigate or enhance the potential impact of the sound. The study indicated that fish
behavioural characteristics were generally unchanged by the exposure to airgun sound. The tracked
fish did not exhibit herding behaviour in front of the mobile airgun array and, therefore, were not
exposed to sustained high sound levels.
1.2.3
Anadromous Fish
In uncontrolled experiments using a very small sample of different groups of young salmonids,
including Arctic cisco, fish were caged and exposed to various types of sound. One sound type was
either a single shot or a series of four shots 10–15 s apart of a 300-in3 seismic airgun at 2000–2200 psi
(Falk and Lawrence 1973). Swim bladder damage was reported but no mortality was observed when
fish were exposed within 1–2 m of an airgun source with source level, as estimated by Turnpenny and
Nedwell (1994), of ~230 dB re 1 µPa · m (unspecified measure).
Thomsen (2002) exposed rainbow trout and Atlantic salmon held in aquaculture enclosures to
the sounds from a small airgun array. Received SPLs were 142–186 dB re 1 µPap-p. The fish were
exposed to 124 pulses over a 3-day period. In addition to monitoring fish behaviour with underwater
video cameras, the authors also analyzed cod and haddock catch data from a longline fishing vessel
operating in the immediate area. Only 8 of the 124 shots appeared to evoke behavioural reactions by
the salmonids, but overall impacts were minimal. No fish mortality was observed during or
immediately after exposure. The author reported no significant effects on cod and haddock catch
rates, and the behavioural effects were hard to differentiate from normal behaviour.
6
Weinhold and Weaver (1972, cited in Turnpenny et al. 1994) exposed caged coho salmon
smolts to impulses from 330- and 660-in3 airguns at distances ranging from 1 to 10 m, resulting in
received levels estimated at ~214–216 dB (units not given). No lethal effects were observed.
It should be noted that, in a recent and comprehensive review, Hastings and Popper (2005) take
issue with many of the authors cited above for problems with experimental design and execution,
measurements, and interpretation. Hastings and Popper (2005) dealt primarily with possible effects of
pile-driving sounds (which, like airgun sounds, are impulsive and repetitive). However, the review
provided an excellent and critical review of the impacts to fish from other underwater anthropogenic
sounds.
1.3 Indirect Effects on Fisheries
The most comprehensive experimentation on the effects of seismic airgun sound on catchability
of fish was conducted in the Barents Sea by Engås et al. (1993, 1996). They investigated the effects
of seismic airgun sound on distributions, abundances, and catch rates of cod and haddock using
acoustic mapping and experimental fishing with trawls and longlines. The maximum source SPL was
~248 dB re 1 µPa · m 0-p based on back-calculations from measurements collected via a hydrophone at
depth 80 m. No measurements of the received SPLs were made. Davis et al. (1998) estimated the
received SPL at the sea bottom immediately below the array and at 18 km from the array at 205 dB re
1 µPa0-p and 178 dB re 1 µPa0-p, respectively. Engås et al. (1993, 1996) concluded that there were
indications of distributional change during and immediately following the seismic airgun discharge
(45–64% decrease in acoustic density according to sonar data). The lowest densities were observed
within 9.3 km of the seismic discharge area. The authors indicated that trawl catches of both cod and
haddock declined after the seismic operations. Whereas longline catches of haddock also showed
decline after seismic airgun discharge, those for cod increased.
Løkkeborg (1991), Løkkeborg and Soldal (1993), and Dalen and Knutsen (1986) also examined
the effects of seismic airgun sound on demersal fish catches. Løkkeborg (1991) examined the effects
on cod catches. The source SPL of the airgun array used in his study was 239 dB re 1 µPa · m
(unspecified measure type), but received SPLs were not measured. Approximately 43 h of seismic
airgun discharge occurred during an 11-day period, with a 5-sec interval between pulses. Catch rate
decreases ranging of 55–80% within the seismic survey area were observed. This apparent effect
persisted for at least 24 h within about 10 km of the survey area.
Løkkeborg et al. (2012) described a 2009 study of the effect of seismic sound on commercial
fish. Both gillnet and longline vessels fished for Greenland halibut, redfish, saithe, and haddock for
12 days before the onset of seismic surveying, 38 days during seismic surveying, and 25 days after
cessation of seismic surveying. Acoustic surveying was also conducted during these times. Gillnet
catches of Greenland halibut and redfish during seismic operations were higher than they had been
before the onset of the survey and remained higher after cessation of the survey. Longline catches of
Greenland halibut decreased during seismic operations but increased again after the seismic surveying
was completed. Gillnet catches of saithe decreased during seismic operations and remained low
during the 25-day period following the survey. Longline catches of haddock before and during
seismic operations were not significantly different, although catches did decline as the seismic vessel
approached the fishing area. The haddock fishery was conducted in an area with lower ensonification
compared to the fishery areas of the other three species. Acoustic surveys showed that the saithe had
partly left the area, perhaps in response to the seismic operations, whereas distributional changes were
not observed in the other three species. Løkkeborg et al. (2012) suggested that an increase in
swimming activity as a result of exposure to seismic sound could explain why gillnet catches
increased and longline catches decreased.
Turnpenny et al. (1994) examined results of these studies as well as the results of other studies
on rockfish. They used rough estimations of received SPLs at catch locations and concluded that
7
catchability is reduced when received SPLs exceed 160–180 dB re 1 µPa0-p. They also concluded that
reaction thresholds of fish lacking a swim bladder (e.g., flatfish) would likely be about 20 dB higher.
Given the considerable variability in sound transmission loss between different geographic locations,
the SPLs that were assumed in these studies were likely quite inaccurate.
Turnpenny and Nedwell (1994) also reported on the effects of seismic airgun discharge on
inshore bass fisheries in shallow U.K. waters (5–30 m deep). The airgun array used had a source level
of 250 dB re 1 µPa · m0-p. Received levels in the fishing areas were estimated at 163–191 dB re 1
µPa0-p. Using fish tagging and catch record methodologies, they concluded that there was no
distinguishable migration from the ensonified area, nor was there any reduction in bass catches on
days when seismic airguns were discharged.
Skalski et al. (1992) used a 100-in3 airgun with a source level of 223 dB re 1 µPa · m0-p to
examine the potential effects of airgun sound on the catchability of rockfish. The moving airgun was
discharged along transects in the study fishing area, after which a fishing vessel deployed a set line,
ran three echosounder transects, and then deployed two more set lines. Each fishing experiment
lasted 1 h 25 min. Received SPLs at the base of the rockfish aggregations were 186–191 dB re 1
µPa0-p. The catch-per-unit-effort (CPUE) for rockfish declined on average by 52.4% when the
airguns were operating. Skalski et al. (1992) believed that the reduction in catch resulted from a
change in behaviour of the fish. The fish schools descended towards the bottom and their swimming
behaviour changed during airgun discharge. Although fish dispersal was not observed, the authors
hypothesized that it could have occurred at a different location with a different bottom type. Skalski
et al. (1992) did not continue fishing after cessation of airgun discharge. They speculated that CPUE
would quickly return to normal in the experimental area, because fish behaviour appeared to
normalize within minutes of cessation of airgun discharge. However, in an area where exposure to
airgun sound could have caused the fish to disperse, the authors suggested that a lower CPUE could
persist for a longer period.
European sea bass were exposed to sound from seismic airgun arrays with a source SPL of 262
dB re 1 µPa · m0-p (Pickett et al. 1994). The seismic survey was conducted over a period of 4–5
months. The study was intended to investigate the effects of seismic airgun discharge on inshore bass
fisheries. Information was collected through a tag and release program, and from the logbooks of
commercial fishermen. Most of the 152 recovered fish from the tagging program were caught within
10 km of the release site, and it was suggested that most of these bass did not leave the area for a
prolonged period. No significant changes in commercial catch rate were observed (Pickett et al.
1994).
2.
Marine Invertebrates
This review provides a detailed summary of the limited data and literature available on the
observed effects (or lack of effects) of exposure to airgun sound on marine invertebrates. Specific
conditions and results of the studies, including sound exposure levels and sound thresholds of
responses, are discussed when available.
Sound caused by underwater seismic survey equipment results in energy pulses with very high peak
pressures (Richardson et al. 1995). This was especially true when chemical explosives were used for
underwater surveys. Virtually all underwater seismic surveying conducted today uses airguns, which
typically have lower peak pressures and longer rise times than chemical explosives. However, sound
levels from underwater airgun discharges could still be high enough to potentially injure or kill animals
located close to the source. Also, there is a potential for disturbance to normal behavior upon exposure
to airgun sound. The following sections provide an overview of sound production and detection in marine
invertebrates, and information on the effects of exposure to sound on marine invertebrates, with emphasis
8
on seismic survey sound. Fisheries and Oceans Canada has published two internal documents that
provide a literature review of the effects of seismic and other underwater sound on invertebrates
(Moriyasu et al. 2004; Payne et al. 2008). The available information as reviewed in those documents
and here includes results of studies of varying degrees of scientific rigor as well as anecdotal
information.
2.1 Acoustic Capabilities
Much of the available information on acoustic abilities of marine invertebrates pertains to
crustaceans, specifically lobsters, crabs, and shrimps. Other acoustic-related studies have been
conducted on cephalopods.
2.1.1
Sound Production
Many invertebrates are capable of producing sound, including barnacles, amphipods, shrimp,
crabs, and lobsters (Au and Banks 1998; Tolstoganova 2002). Invertebrates typically produce sound
by scraping or rubbing various parts of their bodies, although they also produce sound in other ways.
Sounds made by marine invertebrates can be associated with territorial behaviour, mating, courtship,
and aggression. On the other hand, some of these sounds could be incidental and not have any
biological relevance. Sounds known to be produced by marine invertebrates have frequencies ranging
from 87 Hz to 200 kHz, depending on the species.
Both male and female American lobsters Homarus americanus produce a buzzing vibration
with their carapace when grasped (Pye and Watson III 2004; Henninger and Watson III 2005). Larger
lobsters vibrate more consistently than smaller lobsters, suggesting that sound production could be
involved with mating behaviour. Sound production by other species of lobsters has also been studied
(Buscaino et al. 2011). Among deep-sea lobsters, sound level was more variable at night than during
the day, with the highest levels occurring at the lowest frequencies.
While feeding, king crabs Paralithodes camtschaticus produce impulsive sounds that appear to
stimulate movement by other crabs, including approach behaviour (Tolstoganova 2002). King crabs
also appeared to produce ‘discomfort’ sounds when environmental conditions were manipulated.
These discomfort sounds differ from the feeding sounds in terms of frequency range and pulse
duration.
Snapping shrimp Synalpheus parneomeris are among the major sources of biological sound in
temperate and tropical shallow-water areas (Au and Banks 1998). By rapidly closing one of its frontal
chelae (claws), a snapping shrimp generates a forward jet of water, and the cavitation of fast moving
water produces a sound. Both the sound and the jet of water could function in feeding and territorial
behaviours of alpheidae shrimp. Measured source sound pressure levels (SPLs) for snapping ship
were 183–189 dB re 1 µPa·mp-p and extended over a frequency range of 2–200 kHz.
2.1.2
Sound Detection
There is considerable debate about the hearing capabilities of aquatic invertebrates. Whether
they are able to hear or not depends on how underwater sound and underwater hearing are defined. In
contrast to fish and aquatic mammals, no physical structures have been discovered in aquatic
invertebrates that are stimulated by the pressure component of sound. However, vibrations (i.e.,
mechanical disturbances of the water) are also characteristic of sound waves. Rather than being
pressure-sensitive, aquatic invertebrates appear to be most sensitive to the vibrational component of
sound (Breithaupt 2002). Statocyst organs could provide one means of vibration detection for aquatic
invertebrates.
More is known about the acoustic detection capabilities in decapod crustaceans than in any
other marine invertebrate group although cephalopod acoustic capabilities are now becoming a focus
of study. Crustaceans appear to be most sensitive to sounds of low frequencies, i.e., <1000 Hz
9
(Budelmann 1992; Popper et al. 2001). A study by Lovell et al. (2005) suggested greater sensitivity
of the prawn Palaemon serratus to low-frequency sound than previously thought. Lovell et al. (2006)
showed that P. serratus is capable of detecting a 500-Hz tone regardless of its body size and the
related number and size of statocyst hair cells. Studies involving American lobsters suggested that
these crustaceans are more sensitive to higher frequency sounds than previously realized (Pye and
Watson III 2004).
It is possible that statocyst hair cells of cephalopods are directionally sensitive in a way that is
similar to the responses of hair cells of the vertebrate vestibular and lateral line systems (Budelmann
and Williamson 1994; Budelmann 1996). Kaifu et al. (2008) provided evidence that the cephalopod
Octopus ocellatus detects particle motion with its statocyst. Studies by Packard et al. (1990), Rawizza
(1995), Komak et al. (2005), and Mooney et al. (2010) have tested the sensitivities of various
cephalopods to water-borne vibrations, some of which were generated by low-frequency sound.
Using the auditory brainstem response (ABR) approach, Hu et al. (2009) showed that auditory evoked
potentials can be obtained in the frequency ranges 400–1500 Hz for the squid Sepiotheutis lessoniana
and 400–1000 Hz for the octopus Octopus vulgaris, higher than frequencies previously observed to be
detectable by cephalopods.
Vermeij et al. (2010) studied the movement of coral larvae in the laboratory, and concluded that
the larvae are able to detect and respond to underwater sound. This is the first description of an
auditory response in the invertebrate phylum Cnidaria. The authors speculated that coral larvae could
use reef noise as a cue for orientation.
In summary, only a few studies have been conducted on the sensitivity of certain invertebrate
species to underwater sound. Available data suggest that they are capable of detecting vibrations but
they do not appear to be capable of detecting pressure fluctuations.
2.2 Potential Effects
In marine invertebrates, potential effects of exposure to sound can be categorized as
pathological, physiological, and behavioural. Pathological effects include lethal and sub-lethal injury
to the animals, physiological effects include temporary primary and secondary stress responses, and
behavioural effects refer to changes in exhibited behaviours (i.e., disturbance). The three categories
should not be considered as independent of one another and are likely interrelated in complex ways.
2.2.1
Pathological Effects
In water, acute injury or death of organisms as a result of exposure to sound appears to depend
on two features of the sound source: (1) received peak pressure, and (2) time required for the pressure
to rise and decay. Generally, the higher the received pressure and the less time it takes for the
pressure to rise and decay, the greater the chance of acute pathological effects. Considering the peak
pressure and rise/decay time characteristics of seismic airgun arrays used today, the associated
pathological zone for invertebrates would be expected to be small, i.e., within a few meters of the
seismic source. Few studies have assessed the potential for pathological effects on invertebrates from
exposure to seismic sound.
The pathological impacts of seismic survey sound on marine invertebrates were investigated in
a pilot study on snow crabs Chionoecetes opilio (Christian et al. 2003, 2004). Under controlled field
experimental conditions, captive adult male snow crabs, egg-carrying female snow crabs, and
fertilized snow crab eggs were exposed to variable SPLs (191–221 dB re 1 µPa0-p) and sound energy
levels (SELs) (<130–187 dB re 1 µPa2·s). Neither acute nor chronic (12 weeks post-exposure)
mortality was observed for the adult crabs. There was a significant difference in development rate
noted between the exposed and unexposed fertilized eggs/embryos. The egg mass exposed to seismic
energy had a higher proportion of less-developed eggs than the unexposed mass. It should be noted
10
that both egg masses came from a single female, so individual variability was not measured (Christian
et al. 2003, 2004).
In 2003, a collaborative study was conducted in the southern Gulf of St. Lawrence, Canada, to
investigate the effects of exposure to sound from a commercial seismic survey on egg-bearing female
snow crabs (DFO 2004). This study had design problems that impacted interpretation of some of the
results (Chadwick 2004). Caged animals were placed on the ocean bottom at a location within the
survey area and at a location outside of the survey area. The maximum received SPL was ~195 dB re
1 µPa0-p. The crabs were exposed for 132 hr of the survey, equivalent to thousands of seismic shots of
varying received SPLs. The animals were retrieved and transferred to laboratories for analyses.
Neither acute nor chronic lethal or sub-lethal injury was found in the female crabs or crab embryos.
DFO (2004) reported that some exposed individuals had short-term soiling of gills, antennules, and
statocysts, bruising of the hepatopancreas and ovary, and detached outer membranes of oocytes.
However, these differences could not be conclusively linked to exposure to seismic survey sound.
Boudreau et al. (2009) presented the proceedings of a workshop held to evaluate the results of
additional studies conducted to answer some questions arising from the original study discussed in
DFO (2004). Proceedings of the workshop did not include any more definitive conclusions regarding
the original results.
Payne et al. (2007) conducted a pilot study of the effects of exposure to seismic sound on
various health endpoints of the American lobster. Adult lobsters were exposed either 20–200 times to
202 dB re 1 μPa p-p or 50 times to 227 dB re 1μPa p-p, and then monitored for changes to survival, food
consumption, turnover rate, serum protein level, serum enzyme levels, and serum calcium level.
Observations were made over a period of a few days to several months. Results indicated no effects
on delayed mortality or damage to the mechanosensory systems associated with animal equilibrium
and posture (as assessed by turnover rate).
In a field study, Pearson et al. (1994) exposed Stage II larvae of the Dungeness crab Cancer
magister to single discharges from a seven-airgun array and compared their mortality and
development rates with those of unexposed larvae. No statistically significant differences were found
in immediate survival, long-term survival, or time to molt between the exposed and unexposed larvae,
even those exposed within 1 m of the seismic source.
In 2001 and 2003, there were two incidents of multiple strandings of the giant squid on the
north coast of Spain, and there was speculation that they were caused by exposure to geophysical
seismic survey sounds occurring at about the same time in the Bay of Biscay (Guerra et al. 2004). A
total of nine giant squid, either stranded or moribund surface-floating, were collected at these times.
However, Guerra et al. (2004) did not present any evidence that conclusively links the giant squid
strandings and floaters to seismic activity in the area. Based on necropsies of seven (six females and
one male) specimens, there was evidence of acute tissue damage. The authors speculated that one
female with extensive tissue damage was affected by the impact of acoustic waves. However, little is
known about the impact of strong airgun signals on cephalopods, and the authors did not describe the
seismic sources, locations, or durations of the Bay of Biscay surveys. In addition, there were no
controls, the observations were circumstantial, and the examined animals had been dead long enough
for commencement of tissue degradation.
McCauley et al. (2000a,b) exposed caged cephalopods to noise from a single 20-in3 airgun with
maximum SPLs of >200 dB re 1 µPa0-p. Statocysts were removed and preserved, but at the time of
publication, results of the statocyst analyses were not available. No squid or cuttlefish mortalities
were reported as a result of these exposures.
André et al. (2011) exposed cephalopods, primarily cuttlefish, to continuous 50–400 Hz
sinusoidal wave sweeps for two hours while captive in relatively small tanks, and reported
morphological and ultrastructural evidence of massive acoustic trauma (i.e., permanent and
11
substantial alterations of statocyst sensory hair cells). The received SPL was reported as 157±5 dB re
1µPa, with peak levels at 175 dB re 1 µPa. As in the McCauley et al. (2003) paper on sensory hair
cell damage in pink snapper as a result of exposure to seismic sound, the cephalopods were subjected
to higher sound levels than they would be under natural conditions, and they were unable to swim
away from the sound source.
2.2.2
Physiological Effects
Biochemical responses by marine invertebrates to acoustic stress have also been studied to a
limited degree. Such studies of stress responses could possibly provide some indication of the physiological consequences of acoustic exposure and perhaps any subsequent chronic detrimental effects.
Stress could potentially affect animal populations by reducing reproductive capacity and adult
abundance.
Stress indicators in the haemolymph of adult male snow crabs were monitored immediately
after exposure of the animals to seismic survey sound (Christian et al. 2003, 2004) and at various
intervals after exposure. No significant acute or chronic differences between exposed and unexposed
animals in terms of the stress indicators (e.g., proteins, enzymes, cell type count) were observed.
Payne et al. (2007), in their study of the effects of exposure of adult American lobsters to airgun
sound, noted decreases in the levels of serum protein, particular serum enzymes, and serum calcium in
the haemolymph of animals exposed to the sound pulses. Statistically significant differences (P=0.05)
were noted in serum protein at 12 days post-exposure, serum enzymes at 5 days post-exposure, and
serum calcium at 12 days post-exposure. During the histological analysis conducted 4 months postexposure, Payne et al. (2007) noted more deposits of PAS-stained material, likely glycogen, in the
hepatopancreas of some of the exposed lobsters. Accumulation of glycogen could be attributable to
stress or disturbance of cellular processes.
Price (2007) found that blue mussels Mytilus edulis responded to a 10-kHz pure tone
continuous signal by decreasing respiration. Smaller mussels did not appear to react until exposed for
30 min, whereas larger mussels responded after 10 min of exposure. The larger mussels tended to
lower the oxygen uptake rate more than the smaller animals. The oxygen uptake rate tended to be
reduced to a greater degree in the larger mussels than in the smaller animals.
2.2.3
Behavioural Effects
Some studies have focused on the potential behavioural effects on marine invertebrates.
Christian et al. (2003) investigated the behavioural effects of exposure to airgun sound on snow
crabs. Eight animals were equipped with ultrasonic tags, released, and monitored for multiple days
before exposure and after exposure. Received SPL and SEL were ~191 dB re 1 µPa0-p and <130 dB re
1 µPa2·s, respectively. The crabs were exposed to 200 discharges over a 33-min period. None of the
tagged animals left the immediate area after exposure to the airgun sound. Five animals were
captured in the snow crab commercial fishery the following year, one at the release location, one 35
km from the release location, and three at intermediate distances from the release location.
Another study approach used by Christian et al. (2003) involved monitoring snow crabs with a
remote video camera during their exposure to airgun sound. The caged animals were placed on the
ocean bottom at a depth of 50 m. Received SPL and SEL were ~202 dB re 1 µPa0-p and 150 dB re 1
µPa2·s, respectively. The crabs were exposed to 200 discharges over a 33-min period. They did not
exhibit any overt startle response during the exposure period.
Christian et al. (2003) also investigated the pre- and post-exposure catchability of snow crabs
during a commercial fishery. Received SPLs and SELs were not measured directly and likely ranged
widely considering the area fished. Maximum SPL and SEL were likely similar to those measured
during the telemetry study. There were seven pre-exposure and six post-exposure trap sets.
Unfortunately, there was considerable variability in set duration because of poor weather. Results
12
indicated that the catch-per-unit-effort did not decrease after the crabs were exposed to seismic survey
sound.
Parry and Gason (2006) statistically analyzed data related to rock lobster Jasus edwardsii
commercial catches and seismic surveying in Australian waters between 1978 and 2004. They did not
find any evidence that lobster catch rates were affected by seismic surveys.
Caged female snow crabs exposed to sound associated with a commercial seismic survey
conducted in the southern Gulf of St. Lawrence, Canada, exhibited a higher rate of ‘righting’ than
those crabs not exposed to seismic survey sound (J. Payne, Research Scientist, DFO, St. John’s,
Newfoundland, pers. comm.). ‘Righting’ refers to a crab’s ability to return itself to an upright
position after being placed on its back. Christian et al. (2003) made the same observation in their
study.
Payne et al. (2007), in their study of the effects of exposure to seismic sound on adult American
lobsters, noted a trend of increased food consumption by the animals exposed to seismic sound.
Andriguetto-Filho et al. (2005) attempted to evaluate the impact of seismic survey sound on
artisanal shrimp fisheries off Brazil. Bottom trawl yields were measured before and after multipleday shooting of an airgun array with a source SPL of 196 dB re 1 µPa·m. Water depth in the
experimental area was 2–15 m. Results of the study did not indicate any significant deleterious
impact on shrimp catches. Anecdotal information from Newfoundland, Canada, indicated that catch
rates of snow crabs showed a significant reduction immediately following a pass by a seismic survey
vessel (G. Chidley, Newfoundland fisherman, pers. comm.). Additional anecdotal information from
Newfoundland, Canada, indicated that a school of shrimp observed on a fishing vessel sounder shifted
downwards and away from a nearby seismic airgun sound source (H. Thorne, Newfoundland
fisherman, pers. comm.). This observed effect was temporary.
Caged brown shrimp Crangon crangon reared under different acoustical conditions exhibited
differences in aggressive behaviour and feeding rate (Lagardère 1982). Those exposed to a
continuous sound source showed more aggression and less feeding behaviour. It should be noted that
behavioural response by caged animals could differ from behavioural responses of animals in the
wild.
McCauley et al. (2000a,b) provided the first evidence of the behavioural response of southern
calamari squid Sepioteuthis australis exposed to seismic airgun sound. McCauley et al. reported on
the exposure of caged cephalopods (50 squid and two cuttlefish) to noise from a single 20-in3 airgun.
The cephalopods were exposed to both stationary and mobile sound sources. The two-run total
exposure times of the three trials ranged from 69 to 119 min. at a firing rate of once every 10–15 s.
The maximum SPL was >200 dB re 1 µPa0-p. Some of the squid fired their ink sacs apparently in
response to the first shot of one of the trials and then moved quickly away from the airgun. In
addition, some squid also moved towards the water surface as the airgun approached. McCauley et al.
(2000a,b) reported that the startle and avoidance responses occurred at a received SPL of 174 dB re 1
µParms. They also exposed squid to a ramped approach-depart airgun signal whereby the received
SPL was gradually increased over time. No strong startle response (i.e., ink discharge) was observed,
but alarm responses, including increased swimming speed and movement to the surface, were
observed once the received SPL reached a level in the 156–161 dB re 1 µParms range.
Komak et al. (2005) also reported the results of a study of cephalopod behavioural responses to
local water movements. In this case, juvenile cuttlefish Sepia officinalis exhibited various
behavioural responses to local sinusoidal water movements of different frequencies between 0.01 and
1000 Hz. These responses included body pattern changing, movement, burrowing, reorientation, and
swimming. The behavioural responses of the octopus Octopus ocellatus to non-impulse sound have
been investigated by Kaifu et al. (2007). The sound stimuli, reported as having levels 120 dB re 1
μParms, were at various frequencies; 50, 100, 150, 200, and 1000 Hz. The respiratory activity of the
13
octopus changed when exposed to sound in the 50–150 Hz range but not for sound at 200–1000 Hz.
Respiratory suppression by the octopus could have represented a means of escaping detection by a
predator.
Low-frequency sound (<200 Hz) has also been used as a means of preventing settling/fouling
by aquatic invertebrates such as zebra mussels Dreissena polymorpha (Donskoy and Ludyanskiy
1995) and balanoid barnacles Balanus sp. (Branscomb and Rittschof 1984). Price (2007) observed
that blue mussels Mytilus edulis closed their valves upon exposure to 10-kHz pure tone continuous
sound.
Although not demonstrated in the invertebrate literature, masking can be considered a potential
effect of anthropogenic underwater sound on marine invertebrates. Some invertebrates are known to
produce sounds (Au and Banks 1998; Tolstoganova 2002; Latha et al. 2005). The functionality and
biological relevance of these sounds are not understood (Jeffs et al. 2003, 2005; Lovell et al. 2005;
Radford et al. 2007). If some of the sounds are of biological significance to some invertebrates, then
masking of those sounds or of sounds produced by predators, at least the particle displacement
component, could potentially have adverse effects on marine invertebrates. However, even if masking
does occur in some invertebrates, the intermittent nature of airgun sound is expected to result in less
masking effect than would occur with continuous sound.
3. Literature Cited
3.1 Fish
Atema, J., R.R. Fay, A.N. Popper, and W.N. Tavolga. 1988. The sensory biology of aquatic animals. SpringerBoeger, W.A., M.R. Pie, A. Ostrensky, and M.F. Cardoso. 2006. The effect of exposure to seismic prospecting
on coral reef fishes. Braz. J. Oceanog. 54(4):235-239.
Booman, C., J. Dalen, H. Leivestad, A. Levsen, T. van der Meeren, and K. Toklum. 1996. Effecter av
luftkanonskyting på egg, larver og yngel. Fisken Og Havet 1996(3):1-83 (Norwegian with English
summary).
Chapman, C.J. and A.D. Hawkins. 1969. The importance of sound in fish behaviour in relation to capture by
trawls. FAO Fish. Rep. 62:717-729.
Collin, S.P. and N.J. Marshall (eds.). 2003. Sensory processing in aquatic environments. Springer-Verlag,
New York, NY. 446 p.
Coombs, S. and J.C. Montgomery. 1999. The enigmatic lateral line system. p. 319-362 In: R.R. Fay and A.N.
Popper (eds.), Comparative hearing: fish and amphibians. Springer Handbook of Auditory Research 11.
Springer-Verlag, New York, NY. 438 p.
Dalen, J. and G.M. Knutsen. 1986. Scaring effects in fish and harmful effects on eggs, larvae and fry by
offshore seismic explorations. Symposium on Underwater Acoustics, Halifax.
Davis, R.A., D. Thomson, and C.I. Malme. 1998. Environmental assessment of seismic exploration of the
Scotian Shelf. Rep. by LGL Ltd., King City, Ont., and Charles I. Malme, Engineering and Scientific
Services, Hingham, MA, for Mobil Oil Canada Properties Ltd., Shell Canada Ltd., and Imperial Oil Ltd.
Engås, A., S. Løkkeborg, A.V. Soldal, and E. Ona. 1993. Comparative trials for cod and haddock using commercial trawl and longline at two different stock levels. J. Northw. Atl. Fish. Sci. 19:83-90.
Engås, A, S. Løkkeborg, E. Ona, and A.V. Soldal. 1996. Effects of seismic shooting on local abundance and
catch rates of cod (G. morhua) and haddock (M. aeglefinus). Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 53(10):22382249.
Falk, M.R. and M.J. Lawrence. 1973. Seismic exploration: its nature and effects on fish. Tech. Rep. Ser.
CEN/T-73-9. Can. Dep. Environ., Fisheries & Marine Serv., Resource Manage. Br., Fisheries
Operations Directorate, Central Region (Environment), Winnipeg, Man.
Fay, R. 2009. Soundscapes and the sense of hearing of fishes. Integr. Zool. 4(1):26-32.
14
Fay, R.R. and A.N. Popper. 2000. Evolution of hearing in vertebrates: The inner ears and processing.
Hearing Res. 149(1):1-10.
Hassel, A., T. Knutsen, J. Dalen, S. Løkkeborg, K. Skaar, Ø. Østensen, E.K. Haugland, M. Fonn, Å. Høines, and
O.A. Misund. 2003. Reaction of sandeel to seismic shooting: a field experiment and fishery statistics
study. Institute of Marine Research, Bergen, Norway.
Hassel, A., T. Knutsen, J. Dalen, K. Skaar, S. Løkkeborg, O.A. Misund, O. Ostensen, M. Fonn, and E.K.
Haugland. 2004. Influence of seismic shooting on the lesser sandeel (Ammodytes marinus). ICES J.
Mar. Sci. 61(7):1165-1173.
Hastings, M.C. and A.N. Popper. 2005. Effects of sound on fish. Rep. from Jones & Stokes, Sacramento, CA,
for California Department of Transportation, Sacramento, CA. 28 January.
Howard J, W.M. Roberts, and A.J. Hudspeth. 1988. Mechanoelectrical transduction by hair cells. Annu. Rev.
Biophys. Chem. 17:99-124.
Hudspeth, A.J. and V.S. Markin. 1994. The ear’s gears: mechanical transduction by hair cells. Physics Today
47(2):22-28.
Jorgenson, J.K. and E.C. Gyselman. 2009. Hydroacoustic measurements of the behavioral response of arctic
riverine fishes to seismic airguns. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 126(3):1598-1606.
Kapoor, B.G. and T.J. Hara (eds.). 2001. Sensory biology of jawed fishes: new insights. Science Publishers,
Inc., Enfield, NH. 404 p.
Kostyvchenko, L.P. 1973. Effects of elastic waves generated in marine seismic prospecting on fish eggs in the
Black Sea. Hydrobiol. J. 9:45-48.
La Bella, G., S. Cannata, C. Froglia, A. Modica, S. Ratti, and G. Rivas. 1996. First assessment of effects of airgun seismic shooting on marine resources in the Central Adriatic Sea. p. 227-238 In: Society of
Petroleum Engineers, Intern. Conf. on Health, Safety and Environ., New Orleans, LA, 9-12 June.
Ladich, F. and A.N. Popper. 2004. Parallel evolution in fish hearing organs. p. 95-127 In: G.A. Manley, A.N.
Popper, and R.R. Fay (eds.), Evolution of the vertebrate auditory system. Springer-Verlag, New York,
NY. 415 p.
Leis, J.M. and M.M. Lockett. 2005. Localization of reef sounds by settlement-stage larvae of coral-reef fishes
(Pomacentridae). Bull. Mar. Sci. 76:715-724.
Leis, J.M., B.M. Carson-Ewart, A.C. Hay, and D.H. Cato. 2003. Coral-reef sounds enable nocturnal navigation
by some reef-fish larvae in some places and at some times. J. Fish. Biol. 63:727-737.
Løkkeborg, S. 1991. Effects of geophysical survey on catching success in longline fishing. Paper presented at
Intern. Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) Annual Science Conf. ICES CM B 40:1-9.
Løkkeborg, S. and A.V. Soldal. 1993. The influence of seismic explorations on cod (Gadus morhua) behaviour
and catch rates. ICES Mar. Sci. Symp. 196:62-67.
Løkkeborg, S., E. Ona, A. Vold and A. Salthaug. 2012. Sounds from seismic air guns: gear- and speciesspecific effects on catch rates and fish distribution. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 69:1278-1291.
Mann, D.A., Z. Lu, and A.N. Popper. 1997. A clupeid fish can detect ultrasound. Nature 389(6649):341.
Mann, D.A., Z. Lu, M.C. Hastings, and A.N. Popper. 1998. Detection of ultrasonic tones and
simulated dolphin echolocation clicks by a teleost fish, the American shad (Alosa sapidissima).
J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 104(1):562-568.
Mann, D.A., D.M. Higgs, W.N. Tavolga, M.J. Souza, and A.N. Popper. 2001. Ultrasound detection by
clupeiform fishes. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 109(6):3048-3054.
McCauley, R.D., J. Fewtrell, A.J. Duncan, C. Jenner, M.-N. Jenner, J.D. Penrose, R.I.T. Prince, A. Adhitya,
J. Murdoch, and K. McCabe. 2000a. Marine seismic surveys: analysis of airgun signals; and effects of
air gun exposure on humpback whales, sea turtles, fishes and squid. Rep. from Centre for Marine
Science and Technology, Curtin University, Perth, WA, for Australian Petroleum Production
Association, Sydney, NSW.
15
Murdoch, and K. McCabe. 2000b. Marine seismic surveys – a study of environmental implications.
APPEA J. 40:692-706.
McCauley, R.D., J. Fewtrell, and A.N. Popper. 2003. High intensity anthropogenic sound damages fish ears.
J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 113(1):638-642.
Payne, J.F., J. Coady, and D. White. 2009. Potential effects of seismic airgun discharges on monkfish eggs
(Lophius americanus) and larvae. Environ. Stud. Res. Funds Rep. 170. St. John’s, NL. 35 p.
Pearson, W.H., J.R. Skalski, and C.I. Malme. 1992. Effects of sounds from a geophysical survey device on
behavior of captive rockfish (Sebastes spp.). Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 49(7):1343-1356.
Pickett, G.D., D.R. Eaton, R.M.H. Seaby, and G.P. Arnold. 1994. Results of bass tagging in Poole Bay during
1992. Laboratory Leaflet Number 74. Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Directorate of
Fisheries Research, Lowestoft, UK.
Popper, A.N. 2009. Are we drowning out fish in a sea of noise? Marine Scientist 27:18-20.
Popper, A.N. and R.R. Fay. 1993. Sound detection and processing by fish: critical review and major research
questions. Brain Behav. Evol. 41(1):14-38.
Popper, A.N. and R.R. Fay. 1999. The auditory periphery in fishes. p. 43-100 In: R.R. Fay and A.N. Popper
(eds.), Comparative hearing: fish and amphibians. Springer-Verlag, New York, NY. 438 p.
Popper, A.N. and R.R. Fay. 2011. Rethinking sound detection by fishes. Hear. Res. 273(1-2):25-36.
Popper, A.N. and M.C. Hastings. 2009a. The effects of human-generated sound on fish. Integr. Zool. 4(1):4352.
Popper, A.N. and M.C. Hastings. 2009b. The effects of anthropogenic sources of sound on fishes. J. Fish
Biol. 75(3):455-489.
Popper, A.N., M.E. Smith, P.A. Cott, B.W. Hanna, A.O. MacGillivray, M.E. Austin, and D.A. Mann. 2005.
Effects of exposure to seismic airgun use on hearing of three fish species. J. Acoust. Soc. Am.
117(6):3958-3971.
Saetre, R. and E. Ona. 1996. Seismiske undersøkelser og skader på fiskeegg og -larver en vurdering av mulige
effekter pa bestandsniv. [Seismic investigations and damages on fish eggs and larvae; an evaluation of
possible effects on stock level] Fisken og Havet 1996:1-17, 1-8. (in Norwegian with English
summary).
Sand, O. 1981. The lateral line and sound reception. p. 459-478 In: W.N. Tavolga, A.N. Popper, and R.R. Fay
(eds.), Hearing and sound communication in fishes. Springer-Verlag, New York, NY.
Santulli, A., C. Messina, L. Ceffa, A. Curatolo, G. Rivas, G. Fabi, and V. Damelio. 1999. Biochemical
responses of European sea bass (Dicentrachus labrax) to the stress induced by offshore experimental
seismic prospecting. Mar. Poll. Bull. 38(12):1105-1114.
Simpson, S.D., M.G. Meekan, J.C. Montgomery, R.D. McCauley, and A. Jeffs. 2005. Homeward sound.
Science 308:221.
Skalski, J.R., W.H. Pearson, and C.I. Malme. 1992. Effects of sounds from a geophysical survey device on
catch-per-unit-effort in a hook-and-line fishery for rockfish (Sebastes spp.). Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci.
49(7):1357-1365.
Slotte, A., K. Hansen, J. Dalen, and E. Ona. 2004. Acoustic mapping of pelagic fish distribution and abundance
in relation to a seismic shooting area off the Norwegian west coast. Fish. Res. 67(2):143-150.
Song, J., D.A. Mann, P.A. Cott, B.W. Hanna, and A.N. Popper. 2008. The inner ears of Northern Canadian
freshwater fishes following exposure to seismic air gun sounds. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 124(2):1360-1366.
Thomsen, B. 2002. An experiment on how seismic shooting affects caged fish. Thesis, Faroese Fisheries
Laboratory, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, Scotland. 16 August.
Tolimieri, N., O. Haine, A. Jeffs, R.D. McCauley and J.C. Montgomery. 2004. Directional orientation of
pomacentrid larvae to ambient reef sound. Coral Reefs 23:184–19.
Turnpenny, A.W.H. and J.R. Nedwell. 1994. Consultancy Report: The effects on marine fish, diving mammals
and birds of underwater sound generated by seismic surveys. FCR 089/94. Rep. from Fawley Aquatic
Research Laboratories Ltd. for U.K. Offshore Operators Association (UKOOA).
16
Turnpenny, A.W.H., K.P. Thatcher, and J.R. Nedwell. 1994. Research report: the effects on fish and other
marine animals of high-level underwater sound. FRR 127/94. Rep. from Fawley Aquatic Research
Laboratories, Ltd., for the Defence Research Agency.
Wardle, C.S., T.J. Carter, G.G. Urquhart, A.D.F. Johnstone, A.M. Ziolkowski, G. Hampson, and D. Mackie.
2001. Effects of seismic airguns on marine fish. Cont. Shelf Res. 21(8-10):1005-1027.
Wright, K.J., D.M. Higgs, D.H. Cato, and J.M. Leis. 2010. Auditory sensitivity in settlement-stage larvae of
coral reef fishes. Coral Reefs 29:235-243.
3.2 Marine Invertebrates
André, M., M. Solé, M. Lenoir, M. Durfort, C. Quero, A. Mas, A. Lombarte, M van der Schaar, M. LópezBejar, M. Morell, S. Zaugg, and L. Houégnigan. 2011. Low-frequency sounds induce acoustic trauma in
cephalopods. Front. Ecol. Environ. doi:10.1890/100124.
Andriguetto-Filho, J.M., A. Ostrensky, M.R. Pie, U.A. Silva, and W.A. Boeger. 2005. Evaluating the impact of
seismic prospecting on artisanal shrimp fisheries. Cont. Shelf Res. 25:1720-1727.
Au, W.W.L. and K. Banks. 1998. The acoustics of snapping shrimp Synalpheus parneomeris in Kaneohe Bay.
J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 103:41-47.
Boudreau, M., S.C. Courtenay, and K. Lee (eds.). 2009. Proceedings of a workshop held 23 January 2007 at
the Gulf Fisheries Center, Potential impacts of seismic energy on snow crab: An update to the September
2004 review. Can. Tech. Rep. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 2836.
Branscomb, E.S. and D. Rittschof. 1984. An investigation of low frequency sound waves as a means of
inhibiting barnacle settlement. J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 79:149-154.
Breithaupt, T. 2002. Sound perception in aquatic crustaceans. p. 548-558 In: K. Wiese (ed.), The crustacean
nervous system. Springer-Verlag, Berlin-Heidelberg, Germany. 623 p.
Budelmann, B.U. 1992. Hearing in crustacea. p. 131-139 In: D.B. Webster, R.R. Fay, and A.N. Popper (eds.),
Evolutionary biology of hearing. Springer-Verlag, New York, NY.
Budelmann, B.U. 1996. Active marine predators: the sensory world of cephalopods. Mar. Freshw. Behav.
Physiol. 27:59-75.
Budelmann, B.U. and R. Williamson. 1994. Directional sensitivity of hair cell afferents in the octopus
statocyst. J. Exp. Biol. 187:245-259.
Buscaino, G., F. Filiciotto, M. Gristina, A. Bellante, G. Buffa, V. Di Stefano, V. Maccarrone, G. Tranchida, C.
Buscaino and S. Mazzola. 2011. Acoustic behavior of the European spiny lobster Palinurus elephas.
Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 441:177-184.
Chadwick, M. 2004. Proceedings of the peer review on potential impacts of seismic energy on snow crab.
Gulf Region, Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Sci. Adv. Sec. Proc. Ser. 2004/045.
Christian, J.R., A. Mathieu, D.H. Thomson, D. White, and R.A. Buchanan. 2003. Effect of seismic energy on
snow crab (Chionoecetes opilio). Environmental Studies Research Funds Report No. 144. Calgary, AB,
Canada.
Christian, J.R., A. Mathieu, and R.A. Buchanan. 2004. Chronic effects of seismic energy on snow crab
(Chionoecetes opilio). Environmental Studies Research Funds Report No. 158, Calgary, AB, Canada.
DFO. 2004. Potential impacts of seismic energy on snow crab. Can. Sci. Adv. Sec. Hab. Stat. Rep. 2004/003.
Donskoy, D.M. and M.L. Ludyanskiy. 1995. Low frequency sound as a control measure for zebra mussel
fouling. Proc. 5th Int. Zebra Mussel and Other Aquatic Nuisance Organisms Conference, February 1995,
Toronto, Canada.
Guerra, A., A.F. González, and F. Rocha. 2004. A review of the records of giant squid in the north-eastern
Atlantic and severe injuries in Architeuthis dux stranded after acoustic explorations. Paper presented at
the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) Annual Science Conference, 22–25
September 2004, Vigo, Spain. ICES CM 2004/CC:29.
Henninger, H.P. and W.H. Watson, III. 2005. Mechanisms underlying the production of carapace vibrations
and associated waterborne sounds in the American lobster, Homarus americanus. J. Exp. Biol.
208:3421-3429.
17
Hu, M.Y., H.Y. Yan, W-S Chung, J-C Shiao, and P-P Hwang. 2009. Acoustically evoked potentials in two
cephalopods inferred using the auditory brainstem response (ABR) approach. Comp. Biochem. Physiol.
Part A 153:278-283.
Jeffs, A., N. Tolimieri, and J.C. Montgomery. 2003. Crabs on cue for the coast: the use of underwater sound
for orientation by pelagic crab stages. Mar. Freshwater Res. 54:841-845.
Jeffs, A.G., J.C. Montgomery, and C.T. Tindle. 2005. How do spiny lobster post-larvae find the coast? New
Zealand J. Mar. Fresh. Res. 39:605-617.
Kaifu, K., S. Segawa, and K. Tsuchiya. 2007. Behavioral responses to underwater sound in the small benthic
octopus Octopus ocellatus. J. Marine Acoust. Soc. Jpn. 34:46-53.
Kaifu, K., T. Akamatsu, and S. Segawa. 2008. Underwater sound detection by cephalopod statocyst. Fish. Sci.
74:781-786.
Komak, S., J.G. Boal, L. Dickel, and B.U. Budelmann. 2005. Behavioural responses of juvenile cuttlefish
(Sepia officinalis) to local water movements. Mar. Freshwater Behav. Physiol. 38:117-125.
Lagardère, J.P. 1982. Effects of noise on growth and reproduction of Crangon crangon in rearing tanks. Mar.
Biol. 71:177-186.
Latha, G., S. Senthilvadivu, R. Venkatesan, and V. Rajendran. 2005. Sound of shallow and deep water
lobsters: measurements, analysis, and characterization (L). J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 117: 2720-2723.
Lovell, J.M., M.M. Findley, R.M. Moate, and H.Y. Yan. 2005. The hearing abilities of the prawn Palaemon
serratus. Comp. Biochem. Physiol. Part A 140:89-100.
Lovell, J.M., R.M. Moate, L. Christiansen, and M.M. Findlay. 2006. The relationship between body size and
evoked potentials from the statocysts of the prawn Palaemon serratus. J. Exp. Biol. 209:2480-2485.
Murdoch, and K. McCabe. 2000a. Marine seismic surveys: analysis of airgun signals; and effects of air
gun exposure on humpback whales, sea turtles, fishes and squid. Rep. from Centre for Marine Science
and Technology, Curtin University, Perth, Western Australia, for Australian Petroleum Production
Association, Sydney, NSW.
Murdoch, and K. McCabe. 2000b. Marine seismic surveys – a study of environmental implications.
APPEA J. 40:692-706.
Mooney, T.A., R.T. Hanlon, J. Christensen-Dalsgaard, P.T. Madsen, D.R. Ketten and P.E. Nachtigall. 2010.
Sound detection by the longfin squid (Loligo pealeii) studied with auditory evoked potentials: sensitivity
to low-frequency particle motion and not pressure. J. Exp. Mar. Biol. 213: 3748-3759.
Moriyasu, M., R. Allain, K. Benhalima, and R. Claytor. 2004. Effects of seismic and marine noise on
invertebrates: A literature review. Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Science. Can. Sci. Adv. Sec. Res.
Doc. 2004/126.
Packard, A., H.E. Karlsen, and O. Sand. 1990. Low frequency hearing in cephalopods. J. Comp. Physiol. A
166: 501-505.
Parry, G.D. and A. Gason. 2006. The effect of seismic surveys on catch rates of rock lobsters in western
Victoria, Australia. Fish. Res. 79:272-284.
Payne, J.F., C.A. Andrews, L.L. Fancey, A.L. Cook, and J.R. Christian. 2007. Pilot study on the effects of
seismic air gun noise on lobster (Homarus americanus). Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Can. Tech. Rep.
Fish. Aquat. Sci. No. 2712.
Payne, J.F., C. Andrews, L. Fancey, D. White, and J. Christian. 2008. Potential effects of seismic energy on
fish and shellfish: An update since 2003. Fisheries and Oceans Canada Science, Can. Sci. Advis. Sec.
Res. Doc. 2008/060.
Pearson, W., J. Skalski, S. Sulkin, and C. Malme. 1994. Effects of seismic energy releases on the survival and
development of zoeal larvae of Dungeness crab (Cancer magister). Mar. Environ. Res. 38:93-113.
Popper, A.N., M. Salmon, and K.W. Horch. 2001.
crustaceans. J. Comp. Physiol. A 187:83-89.
18
Acoustic detection and communication by decapod
Price, A. 2007. The effects of high frequency, high intensity underwater sound on the oxygen uptakes of
Mytilus edulis (L.). Thesis submitted as part of assessment for the Degree of Bachelor of Science
(Honours) in Applied Biology. Heriot-Watt University, Scotland.
Pye, H.J., and W.H. Watson, III. 2004. Sound detection and production in the American lobster, Homarus
americanus: sensitivity range and behavioural implications. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 115 (Part 2):2486.
Radford, C.A., A.G. Jeffs, and J.C. Montgomery. 2007. Orientated swimming behavior of crab postlarvae in
response to reef sound. Poster at First International Conference on the Effects of Noise on Aquatic Life,
Nyborg, Denmark, August 2007.
Rawizza, H.E. 1995. Hearing and associative learning in cuttlefish, Sepia officinalis. Hopkins Marine Station
Student Paper. Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA.
Richardson, W.J., C.R. Greene, Jr., C.I. Malme, and D.H. Thomson. 1995. Marine mammals and noise.
Academic Press, San Diego, CA. 576 p.
Tolstoganova, L.K. 2002. Acoustical behaviour in king crab (Paralithodes camtschaticus). p. 247-254 In: A.J.
Paul, E.G. Dawe, R. Elner, G.S. Jamieson, G.H. Kruse, R.S. Otto, B. Sainte-Marie, T.C. Shirley, and D.
Woodby (eds.), Crabs in cold water regions: biology, management, and economics. University of
Alaska Sea Grant, AK-SG-02-01, Fairbanks, AK.
Vermeij, M.J.A., K.L. Marhaver, C.M. Huijbers, I. Nagelkerken and S.D. Simpson. 2010. Coral larvae move
toward reef sounds. PLoS ONE 5(5): e10660. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0010660.
19
APPENDIX D:
UNDERWATER SOUND MODELLING FOR
2013 SEISMIC PROGRAM
Underwater Sound Modelling for
2013 Seismic Program
ION GXT 2013, Davis Strait, Greenland
Submitted to:
Dean Kennedy
Arctic Project Manager
ION GX Technology
Author:
Marie-Noël R Matthews
26 February 2013
P001200
Document 00507
Version 4.0
JASCO Applied Sciences
Suite 202, 32 Troop Ave.
Dartmouth, NS B3B 1Z1 Canada
Phone: +1-902-405-3336
Fax: +1-902-405-3337
www.jasco.com
JASCO APPLIED SCIENCES
Underwater Sound Modelling for 2013 Seismic Program
Document Version Control
Version
Date
Name
Change
1.0
2013 Feb 15
M-N R Matthews
Draft released to client for review.
2.0
2013 Feb 20
M-N R Matthews
Applied modifications based on client’s comments.
Draft released to client for review.
3.0
2013 Feb 24
M-N R Matthews
Answered question/concerned by DCE on
geoacoustics properties. Release to client as final
version.
4.0
2013 Feb 25
M-N R Matthews
Modified text in Section 3.2.2. Geoacoustics. Release
to client.
Suggested citation:
Matthews, M.-N. R. 2013. Underwater Sound Modelling for 2013 Seismic Program: ION GXT
2013, Davis Strait, Greenland. JASCO Document 00507, Version 4.0. Technical report by
JASCO Applied Sciences for ION GX Technology.
Created from 00256 Acoustics Report Template.dotx version 2.3
i
Contents
1. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................... 1
1.1. Project Overview ............................................................................................................................... 1
1.2. Acoustic Metrics ................................................................................................................................ 2
1.3. Acoustic Impact Criteria .................................................................................................................... 3
1.3.1. Marine Mammal Frequency Weighting................................................................................... 3
1.3.2. Exposure Criteria ..................................................................................................................... 5
1.3.2.1. US Mitigation Standard .............................................................................................. 5
1.3.2.2. Southall Criteria ......................................................................................................... 5
2. METHODS .................................................................................................................................... 7
2.1. Acoustic Source Model...................................................................................................................... 7
2.2. Sound Propagation Models ................................................................................................................ 8
2.3. Estimating 90% rms SPL ................................................................................................................. 11
2.4. Estimating Peak SPL Thresholds..................................................................................................... 11
2.5. Estimating Cumulative SEL ............................................................................................................ 12
3. MODEL PARAMETERS .............................................................................................................. 13
3.1. Acoustic Source ............................................................................................................................... 13
3.2. Environmental Parameters ............................................................................................................... 15
3.2.1. Bathymetry ............................................................................................................................ 16
3.2.2. Geoacoustics .......................................................................................................................... 16
3.2.3. Sound Speed Profile .............................................................................................................. 17
3.3. Geometry and Modelled Volumes ................................................................................................... 19
4. RESULTS.................................................................................................................................... 20
4.1. Acoustic Source Levels and Directivity .......................................................................................... 20
4.2. Per-Pulse Sound Fields .................................................................................................................... 23
4.2.1. Site 1 ...................................................................................................................................... 26
4.2.2. Site 2 ...................................................................................................................................... 29
4.2.3. Site 3 ...................................................................................................................................... 32
4.2.4. Site 4 ...................................................................................................................................... 35
4.2.5. Site 5 ...................................................................................................................................... 38
4.3. Cumulative Sound Fields ................................................................................................................. 41
5. DISCUSSION ............................................................................................................................... 47
LITERATURE CITED ..................................................................................................................... 48
APPENDIX A. FWRAM RESULTS .............................................................................................. A-1
Version 4.0
iii
Figures
Figure 1. Location of the seismic lines considered for ION GXT modelling study, Davis Strait,
Greenland. ................................................................................................................................................ 1
Figure 2. The standard M-weighting functions for the four underwater functional marine mammal
hearing groups (Southall et al. 2007). ...................................................................................................... 4
Figure 3. Representation of N×2-D and maximum-over-depth modelling approach.................................... 9
Figure 4. Example of maximum-over-depth sound exposure levels (SELs) colour contours maps for
two different sources. ............................................................................................................................. 10
Figure 5. Example of peak and root-mean-square (rms) sound pressure level (SPL) and sound
exposure level (SEL) versus range from a 20 in3 airgun array. Solid line is the least squares best
fit to rms SPL. Dashed line is the best fit line increased by 3.0 dB to exceed 90% of all rms SPL
values (90th percentile fit) (Fig. 10 in Ireland et al. 2009). ................................................................... 10
Figure 6. Layout of the modelled airgun array (6300 in3 total firing volume, 11 m tow depth),
composed of 36 active airguns and 8 inactive spares. Relative symbol sizes and labels indicate
airgun firing volume. ............................................................................................................................. 13
Figure 7. Location of the modelled sites and seismic line, Davis Strait, Greenland. .................................. 15
Figure 8. Monthly variations in sound speed profiles at each modelled site, derived from the US
Naval Oceanographic Office’s Generalized Digital Environmental Model (GDEM) database
(Teague et al. 1990). .............................................................................................................................. 18
Figure 9. Spatial variation in sound speed profiles for all sites in July, derived from the US Naval
Oceanographic Office’s Generalized Digital Environmental Model (GDEM) database (Teague et
al. 1990). ................................................................................................................................................ 19
Figure 10. The 6300 in3 array configuration: Predicted (a) overpressure signature and (b) power
spectrum in the broadside and endfire (horizontal) directions. Surface ghosts (effects of the pulse
reflection at the water surface) are not included in these signatures as they are accounted for by
the MONM propagation model. ............................................................................................................. 20
Figure 11. Maximum directional source level (SL) in the horizontal plan, in each 1/3-octave band,
for the 6300 in3 airgun array, at 11 m tow depth. .................................................................................. 21
Figure 12. The 6300 in3 array configuration: Directionality of predicted horizontal source levels
(SLs, dB re 1 µPa2•s) in 1/3-octave bands. One-1/3-octave band centre frequencies are indicated
above each plot. ..................................................................................................................................... 22
Figure 13. Sound exposure levels (SELs) at Site 1: Received maximum-over-depth sound levels for a
single pulse from the 6300 in3 airgun array. Blue contours indicate water depth in metres. ................. 26
Figure 14. Root-mean-square (rms) sound pressure levels (SPLs) at Site 1: Received maximum-overdepth sound levels for a single pulse from the 6300 in3 airgun array. Blue contours indicate water
depth in metres. ...................................................................................................................................... 27
Figure 15. Peak-to-peak sound pressure levels (peak-peak SPLs) at Site 1: Received maximum-overdepth sound levels for a single pulse from the 6300 in3 airgun array. Blue contours indicate water
depth in metres. ...................................................................................................................................... 28
depth in metres. ...................................................................................................................................... 30
depth in metres. ...................................................................................................................................... 31
Version 4.0
v
depth in metres. ...................................................................................................................................... 33
depth in metres. ...................................................................................................................................... 34
depth in metres. ...................................................................................................................................... 36
depth in metres. ...................................................................................................................................... 37
depth in metres. ...................................................................................................................................... 39
depth in metres. ...................................................................................................................................... 40
Figure 28. Un-weighted cumulative sound exposure levels (cSELs): Received maximum-over-depth
cSELs from 24 h of seismic survey operations with the 6300 in3 airgun array. Blue contours
indicate water depth in metres. .............................................................................................................. 42
Figure 29. Low-frequency cetacean-weighted (LFC) cumulative sound exposure levels (cSELs):
Received maximum-over-depth cSELs from 24 h of seismic survey operations with the 6300 in3
airgun array. Blue contours indicate water depth in metres. Contour level of 198 dB re 1 µPa2·s
(cSEL) represents a recommended injury criteria for low-frequency cetaceans exposed to multiple
pulses within a 24-hour period ( Southall et al. 2007). .......................................................................... 43
Figure 30. Mid-frequency cetacean-weighted (MFC) cumulative sound exposure levels (cSELs):
airgun array. Blue contours indicate water depth in metres. The contour level of 198 dB re 1
µPa2·s (cSEL) represents a recommended injury criteria for mid-frequency cetaceans exposed to
multiple pulses within a 24-hour period (Southall et al. 2007). ............................................................. 44
Figure 31. High-frequency cetacean-weighted (HFC) cumulative sound exposure levels (cSELs):
airgun array. Blue contours indicate water depth in metres. The contour level of 198 dB re 1
µPa2·s (cSEL) represents a recommended injury criteria for high-frequency cetaceans exposed to
multiple pulses within a 24-hour period (Southall et al. 2007). ............................................................. 45
Figure 32. Pinniped-weighted (Pw) cumulative sound exposure levels (cSELs): Received maximumover-depth cSELs from 24 h of seismic survey operations with the 6300 in3 airgun array. Blue
contours indicate water depth in metres. The contour level of 186 dB re 1 µPa2·s (cSEL)
represents a recommended injury criteria for pinnipeds in water exposed to multiple pulses within
a 24-hour period (Southall et al. 2007). ................................................................................................. 46
Figure 33. Maximum-over-depth sound exposure levels (SELs) at Site 1 along a bearing of 172˚, i.e.,
parallel to the tow direction, toward deep water. ................................................................................... 47
Figure A-1. Site 1: Sound levels computed from the synthetic pressure waveforms modelled by
FWRAM along a series of transects. ................................................................................................... A-1
vi
Version 4.0
Version 4.0
vii
Tables
Table 1. The low (flo) and high (fhi) frequency cut-off parameters of the standard M-weighting
functions for the four underwater functional marine mammal hearing groups (Southall et al.
2007). ....................................................................................................................................................... 5
Table 2. Southall criteria for injury and behavioural disturbance (Southall et al. 2007). The zero-topeak sound pressure level (SPL) criterion is un-weighted (i.e., flat weighted), whereas the sound
exposure level (SEL) criterion is M-weighted for the given marine mammal functional hearing
group. ....................................................................................................................................................... 6
Table 3. Specifications of the modelled airgun array configuration (6300 in3 total firing volume,
11 m tow depth). The airguns are fired simultaneously at 2000 psi air pressure. .................................. 14
Table 4. Locations, array tow directions, and water depths of the modelled sites. ..................................... 16
Table 5. Estimated geoacoustic profile for Sites 1 and 2, representing a multi-layered bottom found
in water depths ≤ 500 m. ........................................................................................................................ 17
Table 6. Estimated geoacoustic profile for Sites 3–5, representing a multi-layered bottom found in
water depths ≥ 500 m. ............................................................................................................................ 17
Table 7. Horizontal source level specifications (10–2000 Hz) for the seismic airgun array (6300 in3)
at 11 m tow depth, computed with AASM in the broadside and endfire directions. Surface ghost
effects are not included as they are accounted for by the MONM propagation model.......................... 21
Table 8. Maximum (Rmax, m) and 95% (R95%, m) horizontal distances from the source to modelled
maximum-over-depth sound exposure levels (SELs; 10 Hz to 2 kHz). ................................................. 23
maximum-over-depth root-mean-square (rms) sound pressure levels (SPLs; 10 Hz to 2 kHz). ........... 24
maximum-over-depth zero to peak sound pressure levels (peak SPLs; 10 Hz to 2 kHz). ..................... 24
maximum-over-depth peak to peak sound pressure levels (peak-peak SPLs; 10 Hz to 2 kHz). ........... 24
Table 12. Site 1: Maximum (Rmax, m) and 95% (R95%, m) horizontal distances from the source to
modelled maximum-over-depth sound exposure levels (SELs; 10 Hz to 2 kHz), with and without
M-weighting applied. ............................................................................................................................. 26
viii
Version 4.0
1. Introduction
1.1. Project Overview
A modelling study was carried out by JASCO Applied Sciences (JASCO) for ION GXT to
predict underwater sound levels propagating from a seismic airgun array during 2013 seismic
survey operations in Davis Strait, Greenland (Figure 1).
Figure 1. Location of the seismic lines considered for ION GXT modelling study, Davis Strait, Greenland.
ION GXT intends to perform a seismic survey using one airgun array. The modelled array
consists of 44 airguns with a total volume of 6300 in3. The underwater acoustic signature of the
array was predicted using a specialized computer model that accounts for individual airgun
volumes and the array geometry. Sound levels at distances from the source were predicted using
two underwater acoustic propagation models in conjunction with the modelled array signature.
The predictions were made for multiple sites representative of the water depth regimes found in
the survey area, for one time of year representative of the operational months (July to
November). Results account for source directivity and the range-dependent environmental
properties in the area.
The results are presented as single-shot (i.e., per-pulse) sound fields and cumulative sound fields
(i.e., for 24-hr of seismic operations). Sections 1.2 and 1.3 explain the different metrics
commonly used to represent underwater acoustic fields. Section 2 discusses the methodology for
predicting the source levels and modelling sound propagation. Section 3 describes the
specifications of the source, the source locations, and all environmental parameters required by
Version 4.0
1
the propagation model. Section 4 presents the model results in two formats: tables of maximum
and 95% distances to sound level thresholds and sound field contour maps showing the
directivity of the various sound level thresholds. In accordance with the Danish Centre for
Environment and Energy’s Guidelines to Environmental Impact Assessment of Seismic Activities
in Greenland Waters (Kyhn et al. 2011), model results are provided for:
•
un-weighted sound exposure levels (SELs) of 200 through at least 150 dB re 1 µPa2·s, in
10 dB increments,
•
M-weighted SEL of 198 and 186 dB re 1 µPa2·s for each marine mammal functional
hearing group,
•
rms sound pressure levels (SPLs) of 200 through at least 150 dB re 1 µPa, in 10 dB
increments,
•
zero-to-peak and peak-to-peak SPLs of 230, 218, 210, 200, 190, and 180 dB re 1 µPa,
•
un-weighted cumulative sound exposure levels (cSEL) of 198 and 186 dB re 1 µPa2·s
and of 190 through 140 dB re 1 µPa2·s, in 10 dB increments, and
•
M-weighted cSEL of 198 and 186 dB re 1 µPa2·s and of 190 through 140 dB re 1 µPa2·s,
in 10 dB increments, for each marine mammal functional hearing group.
1.2. Acoustic Metrics
Underwater sound amplitude is measured in decibels (dB) relative to a fixed reference pressure
of pο = 1 μPa. Because the loudness of impulsive noise, e.g., shots from seismic airguns, is not
generally proportional to the instantaneous acoustic pressure, several sound level metrics are
commonly used to evaluate the loudness of impulsive noise and its effects on marine life.
The zero-to-peak SPL, or peak SPL (Lpk, dB re 1 µPa), is the maximum instantaneous sound
pressure level in a stated frequency band attained by an impulse, p(t):
Lpk
(
 max p 2 (t )
= 10 log10 

p ο2

)


(1)
The peak-to-peak SPL (Lpk-pk, dB re 1 µPa) is the difference between the maximum and
minimum instantaneous sound pressure level in a stated frequency band attained by an impulse,
p(t):
Lpk-pk
 (max( p(t ) ) − min( p(t ) ))2 
.
= 10 log10 

pο2


(2)
The root-mean square (rms) SPL (Lp, dB re 1 µPa) is the rms pressure level in a stated frequency
band over a time window (T, s) containing the pulse:
1

L p = 10 log10  ∫ p 2 (t )dt p ο2 
T T

(3)
The rms SPL can be thought as a measure of the average pressure or as the “effective” pressure
over the duration of an acoustic event, such as the emission of one acoustic pulse. Because the
window length, T, is a divisor, pulses more spread out in time have a lower rms SPL for the same
total acoustic energy.
2
Version 4.0
By convention, when computing airgun safety radii, T is defined as the “90% energy pulse
duration”, containing the central 90% (from 5% to 95% of the total) of the cumulative square
pressure (or energy) of the pulse, rather than over a fixed time window (Malme et al. 1986,
Greene 1997, McCauley et al. 1998). The 90% rms SPL (Lp90, dB re 1 µPa) in a stated frequency
band is calculated over this 90% energy time window, T90:
 1
L p 90 = 10 log10 
 T90

∫p
2
(t )dt
T90

p ο2 


(4)
The SEL (LE, dB re 1 µPa2·s) is the time integral of the squared pressure in a stated frequency
band over a stated time interval or event. The per-pulse SEL is calculated over the time window
containing the entire pulse (i.e., 100% of the acoustic energy), T100:


LE = 10 log10  ∫ p 2 (t )dt Tο p ο2 

T

 100
(5)
where Tο is a reference time interval of 1 s. The per-pulse SEL, with units of dB re 1 μPa·√s, or
equivalently dB re 1 μPa2·s, represents the total acoustic energy delivered over the duration of
the acoustic event at a receiver location. It is a measure of sound energy (or exposure) rather than
sound pressure although it is not measured in energy units.
SEL can be a cumulative metric if calculated over time periods containing multiple pulses. The
cumulative SEL (cSEL; LEC) can be computed by summing (in linear units) the SELs of the N
individual pulses (LEi).
 N LEi
LEC = 10 log10  ∑10 10
 i =1





(6)
The cSEL, with units of dB re 1 μPa·√s, or equivalently dB re 1 μPa2·s, represents the total
acoustic energy delivered over the duration of the set period of time, i.e. 24 h. It is a
representation of the accumulated sound energy (or exposure) delivered by multiple acoustic
events.
Because the rms SPL and SEL are both computed from the integral of square pressure, these
metrics are related by a simple expression, which depends only on the duration of the 90%
energy time window T90:
LE = L p 90 + 10 log10 (T90 ) + 0.458
(7)
where the 0.458 dB factor accounts for the rms SPL containing 90% of the total energy from the
per-pulse SEL.
1.3. Acoustic Impact Criteria
1.3.1. Marine Mammal Frequency Weighting
The potential for anthropogenic noise to impact marine animals depends on how well the animal
can hear the noise (Southall et al. 2007). Noises are less likely to disturb or injure animals if they
are at frequencies that the animal cannot hear well. An exception is when the sound pressure is so
high that it can cause physical injury. For sound levels that are too low to cause physical injury,
frequency weighting based on audiograms may be applied to weight the importance of sound
Version 4.0
3
levels at particular frequencies in a manner reflective of an animal’s sensitivity to those
frequencies (Nedwell and Turnpenny 1998; Nedwell et al. 2007).
Based on a literature review of marine mammal hearing and on physiological and behavioral
responses to anthropogenic sound, Southall et al. (2007) proposed standard frequency weighting
functions—referred to as M-weighting functions—for five functional hearing groups of marine
mammals:
•
•
•
•
•
Low-frequency cetaceans (LFCs)—mysticetes (baleen whales)
Mid-frequency cetaceans (MFCs)—some odontocetes (toothed whales)
High-frequency cetaceans (HFCs)—odontocetes specialized for using high-frequencies
Pinnipeds in water—seals, sea lions and walrus
Pinnipeds in air (not addressed here)
The discount applied by the M-weighting functions for less-audible frequencies is less than that
indicated by the corresponding audiograms (where available) for member species of these
hearing groups. The rationale for applying a smaller discount than suggested by audiograms is
due in part to an observed characteristic of mammalian hearing that perceived equal loudness
curves increasingly have less rapid roll-off outside the most sensitive hearing frequency range as
sound levels increase. This is why, for example, C-weighting curves for humans, used for
assessing loud sounds such as blasts, are flatter than A-weighting curves, used for quiet to midlevel sounds. Additionally, out-of-band frequencies, though less audible, can still cause physical
injury if pressure levels are sufficiently high. The M-weighting functions therefore are primarily
intended to be applied at high sound levels where impacts such as temporary or permanent
hearing threshold shifts may occur. The use of M-weighting is considered precautionary (in the
sense of overestimating the potential for impact) when applied to lower level impacts such as
onset of behavioral response. Figure 2 shows the decibel frequency weighting of the four
underwater M-weighting functions.
Figure 2. The standard M-weighting functions for the four underwater functional marine mammal hearing
groups (Southall et al. 2007).
The M-weighting functions have unity gain (0 dB) through the passband and their high and low
frequency roll-offs are approximately –12 dB per octave. The amplitude response in the
frequency domain of the M-weighting functions is defined by:
4
Version 4.0

f 2 
f 2 
G ( f ) = −20 log10 1 + lo2 1 + 2 
f 
f hi 

(8)
The roll-off and passband of these functions are controlled by the parameters flo and fhi, the
estimated upper and lower hearing limits specific to each functional hearing group (Table 1).
Table 1. The low (flo) and high (fhi) frequency cut-off parameters of the standard M-weighting functions for
the four underwater functional marine mammal hearing groups (Southall et al. 2007).
Functional hearing group
flo (Hz)
fhi (Hz)
Low-frequency cetaceans (LFC)
7
22 000
Mid-frequency cetaceans (MFC)
150
160 000
High-frequency cetaceans (HFC) 200
180 000
75
75 000
Pinnipeds in water (Pw)
1.3.2. Exposure Criteria
The Guidelines to Environmental Impact Assessment of Seismic Activities in Greenland Waters
(Kyhn et al. 2011, §5.1.2) discuss the US mitigation standard of 160 and 180 dB re 1 µPa rms
SPL (NMFS 2005). The Guidelines also state: “Each pulse should not exceed the peak pressure
criterion [provided by Southall et al. (2007)], but in addition, the summed energy of all pulses the
animal is exposed to should not exceed the limits suggested by Southall et al. (2007)”. For
completeness, distances to the Southall criteria and to rms SPLs of 200 through at least 150 dB re
1 µPa in 10 dB increments, are provided in this report.
1.3.2.1. US Mitigation Standard
For impulsive sound sources, a broadband received rms SPL of 160 dB re 1 µPa or greater is
estimated to cause disruption of behavioural patterns (i.e., harassment) to marine mammals
(MMPA 2007). Concerns about temporary and/or permanent hearing impairment to cetaceans
exist at a broadband received rms SPL of 180 dB re 1 µPa or greater; this level is higher (190 dB
re 1 µPa) for pinnipeds (MMPA 2007). Being expressed in rms units, the criterion accounts for
not only the energy of the pulse, but also the length of the pulse (see Equation 3). The
disadvantage of such a criterion is that it does not account for certain important attributes of
exposure such as exposure duration, sound frequency composition and pulse repetition rate.
Also, these exposure levels are calculated using un-weighted acoustic signals, i.e., the criterion
does not account for the different hearing ability of animals at different frequencies.
1.3.2.2. Southall Criteria
The Noise Criteria Group, sponsored by National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), was
established in 2005 to address shortcomings of the 180–160 dB rms SPL criteria. The goal of the
Noise Criteria Group was to review literature on marine mammal hearing and on their
behavioural and physiological responses to anthropogenic noise, as well as to propose new noise
exposure criteria. In 2007, the findings were published by an assembly of experts (Southall et al.
2007). The publication introduced new threshold levels, now commonly referred to as the
“Southall criteria”.
These so-called “dual-criteria” are based on both zero-to-peak (peak) SPL of acoustic waves,
expressed in dB re 1 µPa, and total SEL, expressed in dB re 1 µPa2•s. A received sound
exposure is assumed to cause injury if it exceeds either the peak SPL or SEL criterion, or both.
Version 4.0
5
The peak SPL is not frequency weighted, whereas the SEL is M-weighted for the given marine
mammal group (see Section 1.3.1).
Different levels were established for cetaceans and pinnipeds, with the levels for pinnipeds being
lower. During the calculations of SEL, the length of the pulse is not considered, only the total
energy released during the pulse event (see Equation 4).
Table 2. Southall criteria for injury and behavioural disturbance (Southall et al. 2007). The zero-to-peak
sound pressure level (SPL) criterion is un-weighted (i.e., flat weighted), whereas the sound exposure level
(SEL) criterion is M-weighted for the given marine mammal functional hearing group.
Injury
Behavioral disturbance
Marine Mammal Hearing Group
Peak SPL
(dB re 1 µPa)
SEL (dB re
1 µPa2·s)
Peak SPL
(dB re 1 µPa)
SEL (dB re
1 µPa2·s)
Low-frequency cetaceans (LFC)
Mid-frequency cetaceans (MFC)
High-frequency cetaceans (HFC)
Pinnipeds underwater
230
230
230
218
198 (MLFC)
198 (MMFC)
198 (MHFC)
186 (MPinn)
224
224
224
212
183 (MLFC)
183 (MMFC)
183 (MHFC)
171 (MPinn)
6
Version 4.0
2. Methods
2.1. Acoustic Source Model
The source levels and directivity of the proposed airgun array were predicted with JASCO’s
Airgun Array Source Model (AASM; MacGillivray 2006). This model is based on the physics of
oscillation and radiation of airgun bubbles described by Ziolkowski (1970). The model solves the
set of parallel differential equations governing bubble oscillations. AASM also accounts for
nonlinear pressure interactions among airguns, port throttling, bubble damping, and generatorinjector (GI) airgun behaviour as discussed by Dragoset (1984), Laws et al. (1990), and Landro
(1992). AASM includes four empirical parameters that are tuned so model output matches
observed airgun behaviour. The model parameters fit to a large library of empirical airgun data
using a “simulated annealing” global optimization algorithm. These airgun data are
measurements of the signatures of Bolt 600/B airguns ranging in volume from 5 to 185 in3
(Racca and Scrimger 1986).
AASM produces a set of “notional” signatures for each array element based on:
•
•
•
Array layout,
Volume, tow depth, and firing pressure of each airgun, and
Interactions between airguns in the array.
These notional signatures are the pressure waveforms of the individual airguns at a standard
reference distance of 1 m, and they account for the interactions with the other airguns in the
array. The signatures are summed with the appropriate phase delays to obtain the far-field 1
source signature of the entire array in all directions. This far-field array signature is filtered into
1/3-octave passbands to compute the source levels of the array as a function of frequency band
and azimuthal angle in the horizontal plane (at the source depth). It can then be treated as a
directional point source in the far field.
A seismic array consists of many sources and the point-source assumption is not valid in the near
field where the array elements add incoherently. The maximum extent of the near field of an
array (Rnf) is:
Rnf <
l2
4λ
(9)
where λ is the sound wavelength and l is the longest dimension of the array (Lurton 2002,
§5.2.4). For example, for the airgun array described in Section 3.1, l ≈ 30 m so the maximum
near-field range is 1.5 m at 10 Hz and 300 m at 2000 Hz. Beyond these ranges the array is
assumed to radiate like a directional point source and is treated as such for propagation
modelling.
The interactions between individual elements of the array create directionality in the overall
acoustic emission. Generally, this directionality is prominent mainly at frequencies in the midrange of several tens to several hundred hertz; at lower frequencies, with acoustic wavelengths
much larger than the inter-airgun separation distances, directivity is small. At higher frequencies
the directional pattern is too fine to be resolved and the effective directivity is less.
The far field is the zone where, to an observer, sound originating from a spatially-distributed source appears to
radiate from a single point. The distance to the acoustic far field increases with frequency.
1
Version 4.0
7
The pressure signatures of the individual airguns and the composite 1/3-octave band source
levels of the array, as functions of azimuthal angle (in the horizontal plane), were computed with
AASM as described above. While effects of source depth on bubble interactions are accounted
for in the AASM source model, the surface-reflected signal (i.e., surface ghost) is not included in
the far-field source signatures. The surface reflections, a property of the medium rather than the
source, are accounted for by the acoustic propagation models.
2.2. Sound Propagation Models
Underwater sound propagation (i.e., transmission loss) at frequencies of 10 Hz to 2 kHz was
predicted with JASCO’s Marine Operations Noise Model (MONM) and Full Waveform Rangedependent Acoustic Model (FWRAM). Received per-pulse SELs in all directions were modelled
with MONM, and both the received per-pulse SELs and rms SPLs were modelled with FWRAM
along a select few transects. The MONM results were then used to extrapolate FWRAM results
to estimate received rms SPL in all directions (see Section 2.3 for details).
MONM computes acoustic propagation via a wide-angle parabolic equation solution to the
acoustic wave equation (Collins 1993) based on a version of the U.S. Naval Research
Laboratory’s Range-dependent Acoustic Model (RAM), which has been modified to account for
an elastic seabed (Zhang and Tindle 1995). The parabolic equation method has been extensively
benchmarked and is widely employed in the underwater acoustics community (Collins et al.
1996). MONM accounts for the additional reflection loss at the seabed due to partial conversion
of incident compressional waves to shear waves at the seabed and sub-bottom interfaces, and it
includes wave attenuations in all layers. MONM incorporates the following site-specific
environmental properties: a bathymetric grid of the modelled area, underwater sound speed as a
function of depth, and a geoacoustic profile based on the overall stratified composition of the
seafloor.
MONM computes acoustic fields in three dimensions by modelling transmission loss within twodimensional (2-D) vertical planes aligned along radials covering a 360° swath from the source,
an approach commonly referred to as N×2-D. These vertical radial planes are separated by an
angular step size of ∆θ, yielding N = 360°/∆θ number of planes (Figure 3).
MONM treats frequency dependence by computing acoustic transmission loss at the centre
frequencies of 1/3-octave bands. Sufficiently many 1/3-octave bands, starting at 10 Hz, are
modelled to include the majority of acoustic energy emitted by the source. At each centre
frequency, the transmission loss is modelled within each vertical plane (N×2-D) as a function of
depth and range from the source. The 1/3-octave band received (per-pulse) SELs are computed
by subtracting the band transmission loss values from the directional source level in that
frequency band. Composite broadband received SELs are then computed by summing the
received 1/3-octave band levels.
The received SEL sound field within each vertical radial plane is sampled at various ranges from
the source, generally with a fixed radial step size. At each sampling range along the surface, the
sound field is sampled at various depths, with the step size between samples increasing with
depth below the surface. The step sizes are chosen to provide increased coverage near the depth
of the source and at depths of interest in terms of the sound speed profile. For areas with deep
water (> 2000 m), sampling may not be performed at depths beyond the diving capabilities of
marine mammals in the area of interest. For this study, the entire water column was sampled. The
received SEL at a sampling location is taken as the maximum value that occurs over all samples
within the water column below, i.e., the maximum-over-depth received SEL (Figure 3). These
maximum-over-depth SELs are presented as colour contours around the source (e.g., Figure 4).
8
Version 4.0
MONM’s predictions have been validated against experimental data from several sound source
verification programs (Hannay and Racca 2005; Aerts et al. 2008; Funk et al. 2008; Ireland et al.
2009; O’Neill et al. 2010; Warner et al. 2010; Racca et al. 2012a; Racca et al. 2012b) An
inherent variability in measured sound levels is caused by temporal variability in the
environment and the variability in the signature of repeated acoustic impulses (sample sound
source verification results are presented in Figure 5). While MONM’s predictions correspond to
the averaged received levels, cautionary estimates of the threshold radii are obtained by shifting
the best fit line (solid line, Figure 5) upward so that the trend line encompasses 90% of all the
data (dashed line, Figure 5).
Figure 3. Representation of N×2-D and maximum-over-depth modelling approach.
Version 4.0
9
Figure 4. Example of maximum-over-depth sound exposure levels (SELs) colour contours maps for two
different sources.
Figure 5. Example of peak and root-mean-square (rms) sound pressure level (SPL) and sound exposure
level (SEL) versus range from a 20 in3 airgun array. Solid line is the least squares best fit to rms SPL.
Dashed line is the best fit line increased by 3.0 dB to exceed 90% of all rms SPL values (90th percentile
fit) (Fig. 10 in Ireland et al. 2009).
In the regions of the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas, sound source verification results show that this
90th percentile best-fit is, on average, 3 dB higher than the original best fit line for sources in
water depths greater than 20 m (Aerts et al. 2008; Funk et al. 2008; Ireland et al. 2009; O’Neill et
al. 2010; Warner et al. 2010; Racca et al. 2012a; Racca et al. 2012b). Consequently, in this report
a factor of 3 dB was added to the predicted received levels to provide cautionary results
reflecting the inherent variability of sound levels in the modelled area.
FWRAM conducts time-domain calculations and is therefore appropriate for computing timeaveraged rms SPL, as well as peak SPL values for impulsive sources. FWRAM computes
synthetic pressure waveforms versus range and depth for range-varying marine acoustic
environments using the parabolic equation approach to solving the acoustic wave equation. Like
MONM, FWRAM accounts for range-varying properties of the acoustic environment. It uses the
same algorithmic engine as MONM and uses the same environmental inputs (bathymetry, water
sound speed profile, and seabed geoacoustic profile); however, FWRAM computes pressure
10
Version 4.0
waveforms via Fourier synthesis 2 of the modelled acoustic transfer function in closely spaced
frequency bands.
2.3. Estimating 90% rms SPL
When measuring the rms SPL of a pulse, an objective definition of pulse duration is needed.
Following suggestions by Malme et al. (1986), Greene (1997), and McCauley et al. (1998), pulse
duration is conventionally taken to be the interval during which 90% of the pulse energy is
received. Although one can easily measure the 90% rms SPL in situ, this metric is generally
difficult to model because the adaptive integration period, implicit in the definition of the 90%
rms SPL, is sensitive to the specific multipath arrival pattern and can vary greatly with distance
from the source or with depth of the receiver. It is therefore necessary to model the fullwaveform of the acoustic pressure to predict the 90% rms SPL; however, full-wave models are
computationally expensive and often prohibitively time consuming. In consideration of those
challenges, MONM, as detailed in Section 2.2, was used for a more efficient computation of the
SEL field. FWRAM was used to estimate the 90% rms SPL along a few transects at each site.
The relation between SEL and 90% rms SPL depends on T90, as detailed in Equation 4; however,
T90 is generally unknown and its prediction is complicated by the variation of this time parameter
with distance from the source and its dependence on multipath arrival times, which in turn
depend on water depth and seabed geoacoustic properties. Two approaches can determine the
integration time period T90: (1) the use of empirical values based on field measurements made in
similar environments; or (2) the use of a full-waveform acoustic model to predict the rangedependent pressure waveform from which the relation between the SEL and 90% rms SPL can
be extracted directly. In studies where the rms SPL, SEL, and duration were measured for
individual airgun pulses, the offset between rms SPL and SEL was typically 5–15 dB, with
considerable variation depending on the water depth and geoacoustic environment (Greene 1997;
McCauley et al. 1998; Blackwell et al. 2007; MacGillivray et al. 2007). The measured rms SPLSEL offsets tended to be larger at closer distances, where the pulse duration is short (≪ 1 s), and
smaller at farther distances, where the pulse duration tends to increase because of propagation
effects.
For this study, the second approach, predictive full-waveform acoustic modelling, was chosen
because of the lack of empirical values at the modelled sites. The synthetic pressure waveforms
were modelled with FWRAM along a few transects at each site. Both rms SPL and SEL were
computed from the synthetic pressure waveforms along these transect. To estimated rms SPL
values between transects, the range and azimuth-dependent offset between SEL and rms SPL, as
calculated by FWRAM, was interpolated between transects and applied to the SELs predicted by
MONM. This approach combines the accuracy of the pulse length estimates provided by
FWRAM with the greater computational efficiency of MONM.
2.4. Estimating Peak SPL Thresholds
Zero-to-peak and peak-to-peak SPLs were calculated from the synthetic pressure waveforms
modelled with FWRAM (see Section 2.2). Zero-to-peak and peak-to-peak SPLs were maximized
over depth and plotted as a function of range along the four transects for each scenario. Values
between transects were linearly interpolate (in dB scale) over azimuth. Distances to SPL
thresholds were obtained by selecting the maximum range at which the modelled levels exceeded
the threshold value.
Fourier synthesis is the operation of rebuilding a function from simpler pieces (Fourier series).
2
Version 4.0
11
2.5. Estimating Cumulative SEL
During a seismic survey, acoustic energy is introduced into the environment with each pulse
from the seismic source. While some impact criteria are based on per-pulse received energy at
the subject’s location, others account for the total (or cumulative) acoustic energy to which a
marine mammal is subjected over a 24-h period. An accurate assessment of the cumulative
acoustic field depends not only on the parameters of each pulse, but also on the number of pulses
delivered in a given time period and the relative position of the source. Quite a different issue,
which is not considered here but bears mentioning as a qualifier to any estimates, is that
individuals of most species would not remain stationary throughout the accumulation period, so
their dose accumulation would depend also on their motion.
During the seismic survey, a firing interval of 22 s is expected, with a tow speed around 4.5
knots. Thus, the number of pulses to be modelled for 24 h of seismic operation is in the
thousands. Since the acoustic fields from this many seismic events would be prohibitively time
consuming to model individually and the offset between the consecutive seismic shots is small,
the process is made manageable by estimating the acoustic fields for all events from a limited
number of modelled single-pulse sound fields at representative source locations.
In this modelling study, the sound fields at each pulse location along the seismic line were
estimated by geometrically shifting and aligning the sound fields from the per-pulse scenarios.
The most appropriate SEL field for each pulse location was selected based on the closest match
of the water depth. The acoustic energy for the individual shifted sound fields was then summed
to estimate the cumulative SEL (cSEL) field from all the airgun array pulses during a 24-h
period.
Because the modelled area of each sample field is limited due to computational time demands,
the summing of geometrically-shifted fields leaves sectors of only partial overlap at far ranges.
To avoid inaccurate estimation of cumulative values in those regions, the per-pulse sound fields
were extrapolated in range so that their coverage would encompass the full area of the
cumulative field. Sound levels were extrapolated beyond the edges of the modelled area by
assuming cylindrical spreading transmission loss, TL = 10·Log(R), which is consistent with the
rate of decay predicted by the modelling. This method was used to extend the fields only into
offshore waters, where the propagation was unaffected by the shallow bathymetry near the coast.
The cSEL field estimated through this approach is not as accurate as would be obtained by fully
modelling sound propagation at every pulse location. Small-scale site-specific sound propagation
features, however, tend to be blurred and become less relevant when sound fields from adjacent
pulses are added. Larger scale sound propagation conditions, primarily dependent on water
depth, therefore dominate the cumulative field. The present method is acceptably accurate in
reflecting those large-scale features, thus providing a meaningful estimate of a wide area cSEL
field in a computationally feasible framework.
12
Version 4.0
3. Model Parameters
3.1. Acoustic Source
Acoustic source levels were modelled for the airgun array to be used for 2-D seismic surveying.
The array consists of four strings with separations of 10 m. Each string is 16 m long and contains
11 airguns. The airguns are fired simultaneously at 2000 psi air pressure. The airgun array was
modelled at a tow depth of 11 m. The modelled array configuration consists of 36 active airguns
plus 8 spares, with a total volume of 6300 in3. Figure 6 presents the airgun distribution in the
horizontal (x-y) plane, and Table 3 presents the array specifications.
Figure 6. Layout of the modelled airgun array (6300 in3 total firing volume, 11 m tow depth), composed of
36 active airguns and 8 inactive spares. Relative symbol sizes and labels indicate airgun firing volume.
Version 4.0
13
Table 3. Specifications of the modelled airgun array configuration (6300 in3 total firing volume, 11 m tow
depth). The airguns are fired simultaneously at 2000 psi air pressure.
Gun
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
14
x (m)
0
0
3
3
5
5
7
9
11
14
14
0
0
3
3
5
5
7
7
9
11
14
y (m)
15.4
14.6
15.4
14.6
15.4
14.6
15
15
15
15.4
14.6
5.4
4.6
5.4
4.6
5.4
4.6
5.4
4.6
5
5
5
Volume (in3) Gun
100
100
150
150
250
250
Spare
250
Spare
150
150
100
100
250
250
250
250
150
150
100
Spare
Spare
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
x (m)
y (m)
0
0
3
3
5
5
7
7
9
11
14
0
0
3
3
5
5
7
9
11
14
14
-4.6
-5.4
-4.6
-5.4
-4.6
-5.4
-4.6
-5.4
-5
-5
-5
-14.6
-15.4
-14.6
-15.4
-14.6
-15.4
-15
-15
-15
-14.6
-15.4
Volume (in3)
100
100
250
250
250
250
150
150
100
Spare
Spare
100
100
150
150
250
250
Spare
250
Spare
150
150
Version 4.0
3.2. Environmental Parameters
The ION GXT 2013 seismic survey operations will take place in Davis Strait, Greenland.
Figure 7 presents an overview of the region, the proposed seismic lines, and the modelled sites.
Sound levels were modelled at five sites representative of the possible sound levels reached
during the survey operation.
Site 1 is on the northern edge of the proposed survey area, in 375 m of water. This site is the
survey point closest to Disko Island. Site 2 is also in the northern survey area, in 44 m of water.
It represents the shallowest region of the survey. Sites 3 and 4 are in the central region of the
survey area, in 1142 and 2743 m of water, respectively. Site 3 marks the start and Site 4 marks
the end of the modelled 24-h survey line. Site 5 is the southern survey area, in 3425 m of water.
It represents the deepest survey site.
Figure 7. Location of the modelled sites and seismic line, Davis Strait, Greenland.
Version 4.0
15
Table 4. Locations, array tow directions, and water depths of the modelled sites.
Site Description
Latitude
Longitude
Tow Direction Depth (m)
1
Northern survey region
68° 31' 46.39" N
56° 58' 21.23" W
172°
375
2
Shallowest site; northern
survey region
Start of the modelled
seismic line; central
survey region
End of the modelled
seismic line; central
survey region
Deepest site; southern
survey region
67° 25' 15.53" N
54° 58' 17.34" W
231°
44
63° 48' 48.07" N
54° 27' 07.61" W
152°
1142
62° 13' 21.00" N
52° 37' 59.26" W
147°
2743
58° 12' 33.48" N
48° 22' 08.76" W
147°
3425
3
4
5
3.2.1. Bathymetry
Water depths throughout the modelled area were obtained from the SRTM30+ (v7.0), a global
topography and bathymetry grid with a resolution of 30 arc-seconds (Rodriguez et al. 2005). At
the studied latitude, the SRTM30+ resolution is about 430 × 925 m. The bathymetry for a
950 × 1630 km area was re-gridded, by minimum curvature gridding, onto a Universal
Transverse Mercator (UTM) Zone 21 (Sites 1-4) and 22 (Site 5) projections with a horizontal
resolution of 200 × 200 m.
3.2.2. Geoacoustics
MONM requires specific values describing the acoustic properties of the sediment in the
propagation area:
•
•
•
•
•
•
sediment layer thickness,
density,
compressional sound speed
compressional attenuation,
shear sound speed, and
shear attenuation.
These geoacoustic properties may be measured using, for example, sediment cores samples and
sub-bottom profiler data, or estimated based on sediment type and empirical formulas (Hamilton
1980; Buckingham 2005).
Funck et al. (2007) describes the sediment layer thickness and compressional sound speed of the
main geological layers in Davis Strait between Nuuk, Greenland, and Resolution Island, Canada.
Specific information on the sediment density, compressional attenuation, shear sound speed, and
shear attenuation were not available at the time of modelling. Thus, empirical formulas presented
by Hamilton (1980) and Buckingham (2005) were used to estimate the remaining geoacoustic
properties (density, compressional attenuation, shear sound speed, and shear attenuation) in the
survey area, based on the sedimentology along the southern part of West Greenland as described
by Codispoti and Kravitz 1968, Marlowe 1968, Henriksen et al. 2000, and Christiansen et al.
2001.
Near shore, where the water depth is less than 500 m, continental basement (upper crust) is found
at less than 500 m from the seabed (Funck et al. 2007). Usual silt and clay sediments have been
scoured by the passage of icebergs and strong currents, leaving an acoustically reflective surficial
layer of coarse sand and gravel (Codispoti and Kravitz 1968; Marlowe 1968; Hamilton 1980;
16
Version 4.0
Pereira and Gillespie 1985; Henriksen et al. 2000; Christiansen et al. 2001; Funck et al. 2007).
Farther from shore, where the water deepens to > 500 m, there is surficial layer of clay and silt
(Funck et al. 2007).
Because the modelled area is large and limited geoacoustic information is available, two
simplified geoacoustic profiles were constructed to represent the major features of the sediment
column at the modelled sites. The first profile is representative of geoacoustic parameters found
at sites where the water depth is less than 500 m (Sites 1 and 2), and the second of deeper sites
(Sites 3–5). The resulting profiles are shown in Tables 5 and 6.
Table 5. Estimated geoacoustic profile for Sites 1 and 2, representing a multi-layered bottom found in
water depths ≤ 500 m.
Depth below
seafloor (m)
0–200
> 200
Density
(g/cm3)
2.0–2.3
2.3
Compressional
sound speed (m/s)
2000–2700
2700
Compressional
Shear sound
attenuation (dB/λ) speed (m/s)
0.70–0.50
300
0.50
Shear attenuation
(dB/λ)
4.0
Table 6. Estimated geoacoustic profile for Sites 3–5, representing a multi-layered bottom found in water
depths ≥ 500 m.
Depth below
seafloor (m)
0–100
100–500
> 500
Density
(g/cm3)
1.8–2.0
2.0–2.5
2.5
Compressional
sound speed (m/s)
1650–2000
2000–3500
3500
Compressional
Shear sound
attenuation (dB/λ) speed (m/s)
0.66–0.70
200
0.70–0.35
0.35
Shear attenuation
(dB/λ)
3.0
3.2.3. Sound Speed Profile
Sound speed profiles in the vicinity of the modelled sites were obtained from the US Naval
Oceanographic Office’s Generalized Digital Environmental Model (GDEM) database (Teague et
al. 1990). The current release of the GDEM database (version 3.0) provides average monthly
profiles of temperature and salinity for oceans on a latitude-longitude grid with 0.25° resolution,
based on global historical observations from the US Navy’s Master Oceanographic Observation
Data Set (MOODS). The profiles include 78 fixed depth points, up to a maximum depth of
6800 m (where the ocean is that deep), including 55 standard depths between 0 and 2000 m. The
GDEM temperature-salinity profiles were converted to sound speed profiles according to the
equations of Coppens (1981):
c( z , T , S , φ) = 1449.05+45.7t − 5.21t 2 − 0.23t 3
+ (1.333 − 0.126t + 0.009t 2 )( S − 35)+ ∆
∆ = 16.3Z + 0.18Z 2
Z = ( z / 1000)(1 − 0.0026 cos(2φ))
t = T / 10
(10)
where z is water depth (m), T is water temperature (°C), S is salinity (psu), and ϕ is latitude
(radians). The seismic survey is expected to occur between June and November 2013. The sound
speed profiles computed from GDEM data are shown in Figures 8 and 9.
Version 4.0
17
Site 1
Site 2
Site 3
Site 4
Site 5
Figure 8. Monthly variations in sound speed profiles at each modelled site, derived from the US Naval
Oceanographic Office’s Generalized Digital Environmental Model (GDEM) database (Teague et al. 1990).
The profiles structure has low monthly variation at depths greater than 300 m. Increased surface
temperatures during June to September, however, create a sound channel in the top 200 m of the
water column, with a minimum at about 50 m below the sea surface. Later in the year, cooler air
temperature decreases sound speed at the surface and creates a surface duct in October and
November.
At most sites, the sound speed profiles in the month of July present a sharp sound channel that is
conductive to sound propagation over long ranges. Thus, July profiles were used in this study to
provide cautionary distances to sound level thresholds (Figure 9).
18
Version 4.0
Figure 9. Spatial variation in sound speed profiles for all sites in July, derived from the US Naval
Oceanographic Office’s Generalized Digital Environmental Model (GDEM) database (Teague et al. 1990).
3.3. Geometry and Modelled Volumes
For each modelled site, a sound field from a single seismic pulse was modelled over two
resolutions: finer resolution close to the source and coarser resolution farther from the source.
The finer area was 10 × 10 km centred on the source, with a horizontal separation of 5 m
between receiver points along the modelled radials. This area was modelled to resolve the
detailed features of the sound footprint, close to the source. The coarser area was 200 × 200 km
centred on the source, with a horizontal separation of 50 m between receiver points. This
resolution is detailed enough to model the significant features of the sound footprint without loss
of accuracy. Within the 200 × 200 km area, distance to sound levels as low as 140–150 dB re
1 µPa2·s can be estimated.
Sound fields were modelled with a horizontal angular resolution of ∆θ = 2.5° for a total of N =
144 radial planes. The receiver depths span the entire water column over the modelled areas,
from 0.1 to a maximum of 4000 m, with step sizes that increased from 1.5 to 500 m, with
increasing depth.
The array tow direction was set based on the true bearing of the corresponding seismic line,
which are listed in Table 4. The array was modelled at 11 m tow depth.
Version 4.0
19
4. Results
4.1. Acoustic Source Levels and Directivity
The pressure signatures of the individual airguns and the composite 1/3-octave band source
levels of the array, as functions of azimuthal angle (in the horizontal plan), were computed with
AASM as described in Section 2.1. While effects of source depth on bubble interactions are
accounted for in the AASM source model, the surface-reflected signal (i.e., surface ghost) is not
included in the far-field source signatures. The surface reflections, a property of the medium
rather than the source, are accounted for by the acoustic propagation models.
In this study, the source levels and signatures for the 6300 in3 airgun array respectively acted as
the acoustic source for the MONM and FWRAM (used to estimate the SEL to rms SPL
conversion factors) sound propagation models.
The horizontal overpressure signatures and corresponding power spectrum levels for the 6300 in3
array, towed at a depth of 11 m, are shown in Figure 10 and Table 7 for the broadside
(perpendicular to the tow direction) and endfire (parallel to the tow direction) directions. The
signatures consist of a strong primary peak related to the initial firing of the airguns, followed by
a series of pulses associated with bubble oscillations. Most energy is produced at frequencies
below 300 Hz (Figure 10b). The spectrum contains peaks and nulls resulting from interference
among airguns in the array, where the frequencies at which they occur depend on the volumes of
the airguns and their locations within the array. The maximum (horizontal) 1/3-octave band
sound levels over all directions are plotted in Figure 11. The horizontal 1/3-octave band
directivities are shown in Figure 12.
(a)
(b)
Figure 10. The 6300 in3 array configuration: Predicted (a) overpressure signature and (b) power spectrum
in the broadside and endfire (horizontal) directions. Surface ghosts (effects of the pulse reflection at the
water surface) are not included in these signatures as they are accounted for by the MONM propagation
model.
20
Version 4.0
Table 7. Horizontal source level specifications (10–2000 Hz) for the seismic airgun array (6300 in3) at
11 m tow depth, computed with AASM in the broadside and endfire directions. Surface ghost effects are
not included as they are accounted for by the MONM propagation model.
SEL (dB re 1 µPa2 @ 1 m)
Zero-to-peak SPL
(dB re 1 µPa @ 1 m)
0.1–2 kHz
0.1–1 kHz 1–2 kHz
Broadside
246.0
230.4
230.4
179.2
Endfire
251.2
231.9
231.9
184.7
Direction
Figure 11. Maximum directional source level (SL) in the horizontal plan, in each 1/3-octave band, for the
6300 in3 airgun array, at 11 m tow depth.
Version 4.0
21
Figure 12. The 6300 in3 array configuration: Directionality of predicted horizontal source levels (SLs, dB re
1 µPa2•s) in 1/3-octave bands. One-1/3-octave band centre frequencies are indicated above each plot.
22
Version 4.0
4.2. Per-Pulse Sound Fields
The underwater sound fields predicted by the propagation model were sampled such that the
received sound level at each point in the horizontal plane was taken to be the maximum value
over all modelled depths for that point (see Section 2.2). The resultant maximum-over-depth
sound fields for each site are presented below in two formats: as tables of distances to sound
levels and as contour maps showing the directivity and range to various sound levels.
The predicted distances to specific levels were computed from the maximum-over-depth sound
fields. Two distances, relative to the source, are reported for each sound level: (1) Rmax, the
maximum range at which the given sound level was encountered in the modelled maximumover-depth sound field, and (2) R95%, the maximum range at which the given sound level was
encountered after exclusion of the 5% farthest such points. The R95% is provided since the
maximum-over-depth sound field footprint may not be circular and, along a few azimuths, may
extend far beyond the main ensonification zone. Regardless of the geometric shape of the
maximum-over-depth footprint, R95% is the predicted range encompassing at least 95% of the
area (in the horizontal plane) that would be exposed to sound at or above that level. The
difference between Rmax and R95% depends on the source directivity and the heterogeneity of the
acoustic environment, i.e., variability of bathymetry, sound speed profile, and geoacoustics. The
R95% excludes ends of protruding areas not representative of the nominal ensonification zone.
Tables 8 to 11 compare the predicted distances to SELs, peak SPLs, peak-to-peak SPLs and rms
SPLs at the five modelled sites.
maximum-over-depth sound exposure levels (SELs; 10 Hz to 2 kHz).
Site 1
SEL
(dB re
1 µPa2·s)
200
Rmax
Site 2
R95%
Rmax
Site 3
R95%
Rmax
Site 4
R95%
Rmax
Site 5
R95%
Rmax
R95%
41
35
71
61
40
36
43
38
43
38
190
137
120
399
291
136
119
140
119
137
119
180
849
712
1 781
1 411
441
382
441
376
440
379
170
5 146
4 153
4 804
3 707
2 555
2 309
1 405
1 199
1 416
1 203
160
14 339
11 915
9 626
7 931
8 785
7 083
7 794
6 862
8 238
7 324
150
40 746
31 685
22 674
18 600
40 744
29 876
39 989
29 161
40 142
23 880
140
> 100 000
59 525
43 148 > 100 000
130
Version 4.0
> 100 000
> 100 000
> 100 000
23
maximum-over-depth root-mean-square (rms) sound pressure levels (SPLs; 10 Hz to 2 kHz).
rms SPL
(dB re
1 µPa)
200
Site 1
Rmax
Site 2
R95%
97
Rmax
87
Site 3
R95%
156
Rmax
Site 4
R95%
Rmax
135
103
89
Site 5
R95%
Rmax
112
97
R95%
103
90
190
596
517
908
755
300
266
352
310
334
289
180
1 848
1 451
2 572
2 167
805
711
1 068
939
1 027
895
170
5 146
4 025
5 544
4 434
2 903
2 489
1 700
1 526
2 266
1 930
160
14 361
11 910
17 887
10 696
8 785
7 009
12 149
8 911
8 406
7 518
150
40 746
31 684
58 530
40 325
40 744
29 875
39 989
28 761
40 142
25 303
140
> 100 000
> 100 000
> 100 000
> 100 000
> 100 000
maximum-over-depth zero to peak sound pressure levels (peak SPLs; 10 Hz to 2 kHz).
peak SPL
(dB re
1 µPa)
230
Site 1
Rmax
Site 2
R95%
Rmax
Site 3
R95%
Rmax
Site 4
R95%
Rmax
Site 5
R95%
Rmax
R95%
<5
<5
218
43
43
210
106
103
76
74
80
78
73
71
64
63
200
332
323
278
245
284
276
245
239
214
209
190
1 815
1 686
1 170
1 053
792
756
714
695
591
576
180
5 197
4 529
2 761
2 447
2 507
2 412
2 373
2 306
2 013
1 956
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
maximum-over-depth peak to peak sound pressure levels (peak-peak SPLs; 10 Hz to 2 kHz).
peakpeak SPL
(dB re
1 µPa)
Site 1
Rmax
Site 2
R95%
Rmax
Site 3
R95%
Rmax
Site 4
R95%
Rmax
Site 5
R95%
Rmax
R95%
230
16
16
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
218
78
76
55
54
58
57
51
50
<5
<5
210
192
187
108
105
138
135
127
124
103
101
200
1 018
995
637
546
445
434
391
381
323
314
190
3 407
3 153
1 916
1 739
1 438
1 400
1 406
1 245
1 062
1 035
180
10 149
7 653
3 895
3 614
5 303
5 155
3 668
3 571
3 159
3 062
The Rmax and R95% may vary, depending on the source’s orientation and location within the
modelled area. By considering the distances to the sound levels in combination with the sound
field propagation maps, one can better evaluate the variations that occur in the sound field when
the actual source tow direction and location vary from those modelled.
SPL and SEL were computed from the synthetic pressure waveforms modelled by FWRAM
along a series of transects. The peak and peak-to-peak SPL values were linearly interpolated (in
dB scale) between transects. The rms SPL values between transects were interpolated based on
the range- and azimuth-dependent offset between SEL and SPL predicted by FWRAM and the
SELs predicted by MONM. The FWRAM results are presented in Appendix A.
24
Version 4.0
The coarser modelled area was limited to 200 × 200 km, centred on the source. Based on the
directivity of the array source levels and the array tow azimuth, some sound contour lines on the
maps are cut off at 100–140 km from the source. This area was not large enough for modelling
the horizontal extent of ≤ 150 dB re 1 µPa levels (rms SPL); however, it allows estimates of
maximum distances to sound levels that are most relevant to the environmental assessment.
Modelling over a greater area to estimate distances to ≤ 150 dB re 1 µPa would require a model
area extending ≥ 300 km from the source, which would take significant computational resources
and produce results with lower accuracy.
Sections 4.2.1 to 4.2.5 present contour maps of SELs, rms SPLs, and peak-to-peak SPLs; as well
as tables of Rmax and R95% of M-weighted SELs. All contour maps for are presented with the
same scale for comparison purposes. Scale of inlay map (top left corner) may differ, based on the
extent of 180 dB re 1 µPa (rms SPL) and 210 dB re 1 µPa (peak to peak SPL) contours. Section 5
discusses the results presented below.
Version 4.0
25
4.2.1. Site 1
single pulse from the 6300 in3 airgun array. Blue contours indicate water depth in metres.
Table 12. Site 1: Maximum (Rmax, m) and 95% (R95%, m) horizontal distances from the source to modelled
maximum-over-depth sound exposure levels (SELs; 10 Hz to 2 kHz), with and without M-weighting
applied.
SEL
(dB re
1 µPa2·s)
200
No Weighting
Rmax
LFW
R95%
41
Rmax
35
MFW
R95%
40
Rmax
35
HFW
R95%
<5
Rmax
<5
Pw
R95%
<5
Rmax
R95%
<5
10
10
198
55
47
51
45
5
5
5
5
16
15
190
137
120
132
115
30
25
21
21
51
45
186
229
205
224
195
51
46
40
35
81
75
180
849
712
844
690
106
95
76
70
176
154
170
5 146
4 153
5 087
4 086
504
335
267
236
1 361
843
160
14 339
11 915
14 227
11 611
4 277
2 778
2 665
1 644
5 465
4 765
150
40 746
31 685
40 647
30 910
15 065
10 502
9 831
7 653
24 897
17 791
140
> 100 000
77 461
55 164
58 298
130
26
> 100 000
> 100 000
37 173 > 100 000
> 100 000
Version 4.0
Figure 14. Root-mean-square (rms) sound pressure levels (SPLs) at Site 1: Received maximum-overdepth sound levels for a single pulse from the 6300 in3 airgun array. Blue contours indicate water depth in
metres.
Version 4.0
27
Figure 15. Peak-to-peak sound pressure levels (peak-peak SPLs) at Site 1: Received maximum-overdepth sound levels for a single pulse from the 6300 in3 airgun array. Blue contours indicate water depth in
metres.
28
Version 4.0
4.2.2. Site 2
applied.
No Weighting
SEL
(dB re
1 µPa2·s)
200
Rmax
LFW
R95%
71
Rmax
61
MFW
R95%
64
Rmax
57
HFW
R95%
<5
Rmax
<5
Pw
R95%
<5
Rmax
R95%
<5
11
11
198
100
89
99
87
7
7
7
7
18
18
190
399
291
320
272
32
29
25
25
92
71
186
735
674
727
613
71
65
39
36
216
191
180
1 781
1 411
1 767
1 369
277
238
213
198
714
477
170
4 804
3 707
4 466
3 609
1 829
1 320
1 299
969
3 242
2 080
160
9 626
7 931
9 552
7 875
6 552
4 549
4 753
3 458
7 366
5 955
150
22 674
18 600
22 624
18 591
15 186
12 446
12 042
9 957
20 447
16 664
140
59 525
43 148
59 525
43 085
35 424
28 988
30 882
24 424
58 462
37 132
130
> 100 000
Version 4.0
> 100 000
> 100 000
> 100 000
> 100 000
29
metres.
30
Version 4.0
metres.
Version 4.0
31
4.2.3. Site 3
applied.
SEL
(dB re
1 µPa2·s)
200
No Weighting
Rmax
LFW
R95%
40
Rmax
36
MFW
R95%
40
Rmax
HFW
R95%
Rmax
Pw
R95%
Rmax
36
R95%
11
11
16
16
51
47
198
51
46
51
45
7
7
190
136
119
130
113
29
27
22
22
186
220
191
213
183
51
47
38
36
83
74
180
441
382
420
370
105
93
81
72
170
149
170
2 555
2 309
2 522
2 233
345
300
260
226
565
488
160
8 785
7 083
8 335
6 825
1 170
1 026
920
786
3 234
2 560
150
40 744
29 876
37 359
29 083
3 985
16 776
14 168
140
> 100 000
130
32
> 100 000
9 588
8 410
5 972
90 401
54 718
62 354
> 100 000
38 380 > 100 000
> 100 000
Version 4.0
metres.
Version 4.0
33
metres.
34
Version 4.0
4.2.4. Site 4
applied.
No Weighting
SEL
(dB re
1 µPa2·s)
200
Rmax
LFW
R95%
43
Rmax
38
MFW
R95%
40
Rmax
36
HFW
R95%
<5
Rmax
Pw
R95%
Rmax
<5
R95%
11
11
198
51
46
50
45
7
7
<5
<5
18
18
190
140
119
133
114
29
27
18
18
51
46
186
221
190
211
181
51
46
36
34
83
74
180
441
376
420
359
105
93
79
71
169
149
170
1 405
1 199
1 349
1 149
340
298
261
225
545
474
160
7 794
6 862
7 601
6 718
1 115
967
841
727
1 785
1 512
150
39 989
29 161
39 896
28 000
2 324
10 012
8 238
140
> 100 000
130
Version 4.0
> 100 000
4 165
3 059
2 780
73 604
50 743
49 738
> 100 000
33 425 > 100 000
> 100 000
35
metres.
36
Version 4.0
metres.
Version 4.0
37
4.2.5. Site 5
applied.
SEL
(dB re
1 µPa2·s)
200
No Weighting
Rmax
LFW
R95%
43
Rmax
38
MFW
R95%
40
Rmax
36
HFW
R95%
<5
Rmax
Pw
R95%
Rmax
<5
R95%
11
11
198
54
47
51
45
7
7
<5
<5
18
18
190
137
119
130
114
29
27
18
18
51
46
186
218
188
208
180
51
46
36
34
83
74
180
440
379
422
364
105
93
79
71
166
148
170
1 416
1 203
1 353
1 150
337
294
254
220
548
479
160
8 238
7 324
7 961
7 106
1 165
997
866
749
1 885
1 556
150
40 142
23 880
35 155
22 529
140
> 100 000
130
38
> 100 000
3 991
3 312
3 065
2 531
9 487
8 112
48 923
45 422
42 729
39 643
84 630
73 194
> 100 000
> 100 000
> 100 000
Version 4.0
metres.
Version 4.0
39
metres.
40
Version 4.0
4.3. Cumulative Sound Fields
This section presents the cumulative sound field for 24 h of operation, i.e., the sound levels from
all shots fired within a 24-h period.
SEL at one location represents the received energy emitted by one airgun shot; cSEL at one
location represents the total received energy from all airgun shots fired in the accumulation
period (24 h, in the present case). For example, an animal located in the vicinity of the airgun
array during the survey will be exposed to multiple shots as the seismic vessel passes by. The
number of shots that may affect the animal depends on the firing rate of the array, the speed of
the vessel, and the exposure time (i.e., accumulation period). cSELs represent the total energy to
which the animal may be exposed at a location.
The cSEL does take into consideration the motion of the airgun array within the accumulation
period. One must be careful, however, in applying this matrix to impact assessments of marine
mammals, since cSEL does not consider that individuals of most species would not remain
stationary throughout the accumulation period. An individual’s dose accumulation would depend
also on its motion.
To calculate cSELs, the model assumes that the array was fired every 50 m along a section of a
survey line(Figure 7). The model also assumes that the seismic vessel traveled at a constant
speed of 4.5 knots (8.3 km/h) and operated the airgun array over the entire accumulation period.
ION GXT indicated (Robert Pitt, personal communications, 18 Feb 2013) that for the 2013
survey, the array may be operated 12 to 14 h per 24-h period. Thus, the total number of shots
actually fired in a 24-h period may be lower than assumed, and results presented here are
considered conservative estimates of cSELs.
The SEL field of each individual shot along the selected section of the survey lines were
estimated from the previously modelled single-shot SEL fields at Sites 3 and 4 (Sections 2.5,
4.2.3, and 4.2.4). These SEL fields were geometrically shifted to each shot location along the
survey line, based on similarity between water depths at the source. The shifted sound fields
were then summed to compute the 24 h cSELs.
Since the source is in motion during the accumulation period, presenting cSEL results as tables
of Rmax and R95% is irrelevant. Distances at specific levels on either side of the survey line also
change along the line (based mainly on the water depth) and would be difficult to tabulate. Thus,
results are presented as contour maps of maximum-over-depth cSEL without M-weighting (i.e.,
un-weighted) and with M-weighting, i.e., for each of the four (underwater) marine mammal
functional hearing groups (see Section 1.3.1). Southall et al. (2007) and the Guidelines (Kyhn et
al. 2011, §5.1.2) suggest cSELs of 198 and 186 dB re 1 µPa2·s as injury criteria for (underwater)
cetaceans and pinnipeds, respectively, exposed to multiple pulses within a 24-hour period. These
criteria are believed to be precautionary because they do not allow for an exchange rate that
accounts for recovery between shots.
Figures 28 to 32 present contour maps of maximum-over-depth cSEL. For comparison purposes,
contour levels of 198 and 186 dB re 1 µPa2·s (cSEL) were added to contour levels of 190
through 140 dB re 1 µPa2·s (cSEL), in 10 dB increments. Although cSEL criteria described by
the Guidelines apply to M-weighted sound fields, a map of cSEL without M-weighting
(Figure 28) is shown to visualize the effect of frequency-weighting on airgun array sound fields.
Version 4.0
41
Figure 28. Un-weighted cumulative sound exposure levels (cSELs): Received maximum-over-depth
cSELs from 24 h of seismic survey operations with the 6300 in3 airgun array. Blue contours indicate water
depth in metres.
42
Version 4.0
Figure 29. Low-frequency cetacean-weighted (LFC) cumulative sound exposure levels (cSELs): Received
maximum-over-depth cSELs from 24 h of seismic survey operations with the 6300 in3 airgun array. Blue
contours indicate water depth in metres. Contour level of 198 dB re 1 µPa2·s (cSEL) represents a
recommended injury criteria for low-frequency cetaceans exposed to multiple pulses within a 24-hour
period ( Southall et al. 2007).
Version 4.0
43
Figure 30. Mid-frequency cetacean-weighted (MFC) cumulative sound exposure levels (cSELs): Received
maximum-over-depth cSELs from 24 h of seismic survey operations with the 6300 in3 airgun array. Blue
contours indicate water depth in metres. The contour level of 198 dB re 1 µPa2·s (cSEL) represents a
recommended injury criteria for mid-frequency cetaceans exposed to multiple pulses within a 24-hour
period (Southall et al. 2007).
44
Version 4.0
Figure 31. High-frequency cetacean-weighted (HFC) cumulative sound exposure levels (cSELs):
Received maximum-over-depth cSELs from 24 h of seismic survey operations with the 6300 in3 airgun
array. Blue contours indicate water depth in metres. The contour level of 198 dB re 1 µPa2·s (cSEL)
represents a recommended injury criteria for high-frequency cetaceans exposed to multiple pulses within
a 24-hour period (Southall et al. 2007).
Version 4.0
45
Figure 32. Pinniped-weighted (Pw) cumulative sound exposure levels (cSELs): Received maximum-overdepth cSELs from 24 h of seismic survey operations with the 6300 in3 airgun array. Blue contours indicate
water depth in metres. The contour level of 186 dB re 1 µPa2·s (cSEL) represents a recommended injury
criteria for pinnipeds in water exposed to multiple pulses within a 24-hour period (Southall et al. 2007).
46
Version 4.0
5. Discussion
The five modelled locations provide a good sample of the depth regimes (shallow, intermediate,
and deep) and geoacoustic properties (shallow coarse sand and gravel versus deep silt and clay
bottom) present in the survey area.
Distances to sound levels are dependent on water depth at the source location and along the
propagation path, and are also dependent on geoacoustic properties. The dependence, however,
differs at close and far ranges from the source. In the present study, ensonification levels extends
farther in a shallower environment than in a deeper one for levels < 180 dB re 1 µPa2·s (SEL;
Table 8). The opposite is true for distances to 150 dB re 1 µPa2·s (SEL; Table 8). The shallow
bathymetry and relatively reflective geoacoustics properties at Site 2 also shortens the pulse
length along the propagation paths, resulting in a significant difference between SEL and rms
SPLs, even at longer distances ( > 10 km; compare Tables 8 and 9).
Since sound is attenuated on a logarithmic scale, distances to decreasing sound levels increase
exponentially. Figure 33 depicts how (maximum-over-depth) SEL decreases with distance from
the 6300 in3 airgun array and the substantial difference in distances to the 160, 150, and 140 dB
levels along one azimuth.
Figure 33. Maximum-over-depth sound exposure levels (SELs) at Site 1 along a bearing of 172˚, i.e.,
parallel to the tow direction, toward deep water.
The application of M-weighting for low-frequency cetaceans results in little reduction (average
of 4%; Tables 12–16) in the sound level distances, since the main frequency content of the airgun
array lays within the passband of that filter. The most significant reduction in sound level
distances is observed for the high-frequency cetaceans filter (average of 83%; Tables 12–16), as
its passband excludes much of the spectral content of airgun noise.
Version 4.0
47
Literature Cited
[MMPA] Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 as Amended. 2007. United States Pub. L. No. 92-522, 16 U.S.C.
1361 (Oct. 21, 1972). http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/laws/mmpa.
[NMFS] National Marine Fisheries Service (US). 2005. Endangered Fish and Wildlife: Notice of Intent to Prepare
an Environmental Impact Statement. US Federal Register 70:1871-1875.
Aerts, L., M. Blees, S. Blackwell, C. Greene, K. Kim, D. Hannay, M. Austin. 2008. Marine Mammal Monitoring
and Mitigation During BP Liberty OBC Seismic Survey in Foggy Island Bay, Beaufort Sea, July-August
2008: 90-Day Report. Document No. LGL Report P1011-1. Report by LGL Alaska Research Associates
Inc., LGL Ltd., Greeneridge Sciences Inc. and JASCO Applied Sciences for BP Exploration Alaska.
Blackwell, S.B., R.G. Norman, C.R. Greene Jr., and W.J. Richardson. 2007. Acoustic measurements. (4) In: Marine
Mammal Monitoring and Mitigation during Open Water Seismic Exploration by Shell Offshore Inc. in the
Chukchi and Beaufort Seas, July–September 2006: 90-Day Report. LGL Report P891-1. Report by LGL
Alaska Research Associates Inc. and Greeneridge Sciences Inc. for Shell Offshore Inc., National Marine
Fisheries Service (US), and US Fish and Wildlife Service. pp 4-1 to 4-52.
Buckingham, M.J. 2005. Compressional and Shear Wave Properties of Marine Sediments: Comparisons between
Theory and Data. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 117(1):137-152.
Christiansen, F. G., J.A. Bojesen-Koefoed, J. A. Chalmers, F. Dalhoff, A. Mathisen, M. Sonderholm, G. Dam,
U. Gregersen, C. Marcussen, H. Nohr-Hansen, S. Piasecki, T. Preuss, T. C. R. Pulvertaft, J.A. Rasmussen,
and E. Sheldon. 2001. Petroleum Geological Activities in West Greenland in 2000.
Codispoti, L.A., J.H. Kravitz. 1968. Oceanographic Cruise Summary Baffin Bay-Davis Strait Labrador Sea,
Summer 1967. Document No. 68-23 Naval Oceanographic Office, pp. 27.
Collins, M.D. 1993. The split-step Padé solution for the parabolic equation method. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 93(4)17361742.
Collins, M.D., R.J. Cederberg, D.B. King, S.A. Chin-bing. 1996. Comparison of algorithms for solving parabolic
wave equations. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 100(1)178-182.
Coppens, A.B. 1981. Simple equations for the speed of sound in Neptunian waters. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 69:862-863.
Dragoset, W.H. 1984. A comprehensive method for evaluating the design of airguns and airgun arrays. 16th Annual
Proc. Offshore Tech. Conf. Volume 3. 75–84 p.
Funck, T., H.R. Jackson, K.E. Louden, F. Klingelhöfer. 2007. Seismic Study of the Transform-Rifted Margin in
Davis Strait between Baffin Island (Canada) and Greenland: What Happens When a Plume Meets a
Transform. J. Geophys. Res. 112, 22 p.
Funk, D., D. Hannay, D. Ireland, R. Rodrigues, and W. Koski (eds.). 2008. Marine Mammal Monitoring and
Mitigation during Open Water Seismic Exploration by Shell Offshore Inc. in the Chukchi and Beaufort
Seas, July–November 2007: 90-Day Report. LGL Report P969-1. Prepared by LGL Alaska Research
Associates Inc., LGL Ltd., and JASCO Research Ltd. for Shell Offshore Inc., National Marine Fisheries
Service
(US),
and
US
Fish
and
Wildlife
Service.
http://www-static.shell.com/static/usa/downloads/alaska/shell2007_90-d_final.pdf.
Greene, C.R., Jr. 1997. Physical acoustics measurements. (3) In: Richardson, W.J. (ed.). Northstar Marine Mammal
Monitoring Program, 1996: Marine Mammal and Acoustical Monitoring of a Seismic Program in the
Alaskan Beaufort Sea. LGL Report 2121-2. Report from LGL Ltd. and Greeneridge Sciences Inc. for BP
Exploration (Alaska) Inc. and the National Marine Fisheries Service (US).
Hamilton, E.L. 1980. Geoacoustic Modeling of the Sea Floor. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 68:1313-1340.
Hannay, D.E. and R.G. Racca. 2005. Acoustic Model Validation. Document 0000-S-90-04-T-7006-00-E, Revision
02. Technical report for Sakhalin Energy Investment Company Ltd. by JASCO Research Ltd. 34 p.
http://www.sakhalinenergy.com/en/documents/doc_33_jasco.pdf.
Henriksen, N., A.K. Higgins, F. Kalsbeek, T.C.R. Pulvertaft. 2000. Greenland from Archaean to Quaternary.
Descriptive Text to the Geological Map of Greenland, 1:2 500 000. Geology of Greenland Survey Bulletin
185, pp. 93 + map.
48
Version 4.0
Ireland, D.S., R. Rodrigues, D. Funk, W. Koski, and D. Hannay. 2009. Marine Mammal Monitoring and Mitigation
during Open Water Seismic Exploration by Shell Offshore Inc. in the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas, July–
October 2008: 90-Day Report. LGL Report P1049-1. Prepared by LGL Alaska Research Associates Inc.,
LGL Ltd., and JASCO Applied Sciences for Shell Offshore Inc., National Marine Fisheries Service (US),
and US Fish and Wildlife Service. 277 p.
Kyhn, L.A., D. Boertmann, J. Tougaard, K. Johansen, A. Mosbech. 2011. Guidelines to Environmental Impact
Assessment of Seismic Activities in Greenland Waters. 3rd revised edition, Dec 2011, Danish Center for
Environment and Energy, 61 p.
Landro, M. 1992. Modeling of GI gun signatures. Geophysical Prospecting 40:721–747.
Laws, M., L. Hatton, M. Haartsen. 1990. Computer Modeling of Clustered Airguns. First Break 8:331–338.
Lurton, X. 2002. An Introduction to Underwater Acoustics: Principles and Applications. Springer, Chichester, U.K.
347 p.
MacGillivray, A.O. 2006. Acoustic Modelling Study of Seismic Airgun Noise in Queen Charlotte Basin. MSc Thesis.
University of Victoria, Victoria, BC, 98 p.
MacGillivray, A.O., M. Zykov, and D.E. Hannay. 2007. Summary of Noise Assessment. (3) In: Marine Mammal
Monitoring and Mitigation During Open Water Seismic Exploration by ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc. in the
Chukchi Sea July-October 2006. Report by LGL Alaska Research Associates and JASCO Research Ltd. for
ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc.
Malme, C.I., P.W. Smith, and P.R. Miles. 1986. Characterisation of Geophysical Acoustic Survey Sounds. Report by
BBN Laboratories Inc. for Battelle Memorial Institute to the Minerals Management Service, Pacific Outer
Continental Shelf Region.
Marlowe, J.I. 1968. Unconsolidated Marine Sediments in Baffin Bay. J. Sediment. Petrol. 38:1065-1078.
McCauley, R.D., M.-N. Jenner, C. Jenner, K.A. McCabe, and J. Murdoch. 1998. The response of humpback whales
(Megaptera novaeangliae) to offshore seismic survey noise: preliminary results of observations about a
working seismic vessel and experimental exposures. Australian Petroleum Production Exploration
Association (APPEA) Journal 38:692-707.
Nedwell, J.R., A.W. Turnpenny. 1998. The use of a generic frequency weighting scale in estimating environmental
effect. Workshop on Seismics and Marine Mammals. 23–25th June, London, U.K.
Nedwell, J.R., A.W.H. Turnpenny, J. Lovell, S.J. Parvin, R. Workman, and J.A.L. Spinks. 2007. A validation of the
dBht as a measure of the behavioural and auditory effects of underwater noise. Report No. 534R1231
prepared by Subacoustech Ltd. for the UK Department of Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform
under Project No. RDCZ/011/0004. www.subacoustech.com/information/downloads/reports/534R1231.pdf.
O’Neill, C., D. Leary, and A. McCrodan. 2010. Sound Source Verification. (3) In: Blees, M.K., K.G. Hartin, D.S.
Ireland, and D. Hannay (eds.). Marine mammal monitoring and mitigation during open water seismic
exploration by Statoil USA E&P Inc. in the Chukchi Sea, August-October 2010: 90-day report. LGL Report
P1119. Prepared by LGL Alaska Research Associates Inc., LGL Ltd., and JASCO Applied Sciences Ltd.
for Statoil USA E&P Inc., National Marine Fisheries Service (US), and US Fish and Wildlife Service. pp 31 to 3-34.
Pereira, C.P.G., R.T. Gillespie. 1985. Davis Strait: Marine Geology, Sedimentology, and Iceberg Scouring Analysis.
In: C-CORE publication. Technical report: 85-3. Memorial University of Newfoundland. Centre for Cold
Ocean Resources Engineering, 46 p.
Racca, R., A. Rutenko, K. Bröker, M. Austin. 2012a. A Line in the Water - Design and Enactment of a Closed Loop,
Model Based Sound Level Boundary Estimation Strategy for Mitigation of Behavioural Impacts from a
Seismic Survey. Proc. of the 11th European Conference on Underwater Acoustics 2012, Edinburgh, U.K.,
vol. 34(3).
Racca, R., A. Rutenko, K. Bröker, G. Gailey. 2012b. Model Based Sound Level Estimation and in-Field Adjustment
for Real-Time Mitigation of Behavioural Impacts from a Seismic Survey and Post-Event Evaluation of
Sound Exposure for Individual Whales. Proc. of the Acoustics 2012 Fremantle: Acoustics, Development
and the Environment, Fremantle, Australia.
Racca, R.G. and J.A. Scrimger. 1986. Underwater Acoustic Source Characteristics of Air and Water Guns. DREP
Tech. Rep. 06SB 97708-5-7055. Report by JASCO Research Ltd. for Defence Research Establishment
Pacific (Canada).
Version 4.0
49
Rodriguez, E., C.S. Morris, Y.J.E. Belz, E.C. Chapin, J.M. Martin, W. Daffer, and S. Hensley. 2005. An Assessment
of the SRTM Topographic Products. JPL D-31639. Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, CA.
Southall, B.L., A.E. Bowles, W.T. Ellison, J.J. Finneran, R.L. Gentry, C.R. Greene Jr., D. Kastak, D.R. Ketten,
J.H. Miller, et al. 2007. Marine mammal noise exposure criteria: Initial scientific recommendations.
Aquatic Mammals 33(4):411-521.
Teague, W.J., M.J. Carron, and P.J. Hogan. 1990. A Comparison Between the Generalized Digital Environmental
Model and Levitus Climatologies. J. Geophys. Res. 95(C5):7167-7183.
Warner, G., C. Erbe, and D. Hannay. 2010. Underwater sound measurements. (3) In: Reiser, C.M., D.W. Funk, R.
Rodrigues, and D. Hannay (eds.). Marine Mammal Monitoring and Mitigation during Open Water Shallow
Hazards and Site Clearance Surveys by Shell Offshore Inc. in the Alaskan Chukchi Sea, July-October 2009:
90-Day Report. LGL Report P1112-1. Report by LGL Alaska Research Associates Inc. and JASCO
Applied Sciences for Shell Offshore Inc., National Marine Fisheries Service (US), and US Fish and
Wildlife Service. pp 3-1 to 3-54. http://www.shell.us/content/dam/shell/static/usa/downloads/alaska/2009shell-90-d-reportplusappendices.pdf.
Zhang, Y., C. Tindle. 1995. Improved Equivalent Fluid Approximations for a Low Shear Speed Ocean Bottom. J.
Acoust. Soc. Am. 98:3391-3396.
Ziolkowski, A. 1970. A method for calculating the output pressure waveform from an airgun. Geophysical Journal
of the Royal Astronomical Society 21:137-161.
50
Version 4.0
Appendix A. FWRAM Results
A.1. Site 1
Figure A-1. Site 1: Sound levels computed from the synthetic pressure waveforms modelled by FWRAM
along a series of transects.
Version 4.0
A-1
A.2. Site 2
A-2
Version 4.0
A.3. Site 3
Version 4.0
A-3
A.4. Site 4
A-4
Version 4.0
A.5. Site 5
Version 4.0
A-5
APPENDIX E:
FUNDAMENTALS OF UNDERWATER SOUND
FUNDAMENTALS OF UNDERWATER SOUND
Most treatments of the effects of underwater sound are based on the Source » Path » Receiver
concept. In the present case, the sound source is an airgun array that generates short pulses that
contain large amounts of underwater sound. A seismic pulse is created by a burst of compressed air
released from each airgun that makes up the array. Sound from the array radiates outward and travels
through the water as pressure waves. Approximately 90% of the sound energy is focused downward,
with some travelling radially in the horizontal plane. Water is an efficient medium through which
sounds can travel long distances. The receiver of these sounds is a marine animal of interest (i.e., a
VEC). The sounds received depend upon how much propagation loss occurs between the source and
the receiver. Propagation loss can be much higher in shallow water because of attenuation. The
ability of the receiver to detect these signals depends upon the hearing capabilities of the species in
question and on the amount of natural ambient or background noise in the sea around the receiver.
The sea is a naturally noisy environment, and this noise can “drown out” or mask weak signals from
distant sources.
Humans hear sounds with a complicated non-linear type of response. The ear responds
logarithmically, so acousticians use a logarithmic scale for sound intensity and denote the scale in
decibels (dB). In underwater acoustics, sound is usually expressed as a sound pressure level (SPL):
Sound Pressure Level = 20 log (P/Po)
where Po is a reference level, usually 1µPa (microPascal). Other reference levels have been used in
the past, so the reference level needs to be shown as part of the SPL unit. A sound pressure (P) of
1000 Pa has a SPL of 180 dB re 1µPa and a pressure of 500 Pa has a SPL of 174 dB. In this scale, a
doubling of the sound pressure means an increase of 6 dB. In order to interpret quoted sound pressure
levels one must also have some indication of where the measurement applies. SPLs are usually
expressed as received sound level at the receiver location or the source of the sound. A source level is
usually calculated or measured as the SPL at 1 m from the source. A complete reference to a source
level should read, e.g., 180 dB re 1µPa at 1 m (or 180 dB re 1 μPa ∙ m). The unit of distance is
necessary for comparison of source levels. Geophysicists usually refer to source levels of airguns in
the units bar-m. In addition, the SPL can be expressed in different metrics: the difference in pressure
between the highest positive pressure and the lowest negative pressure is the peak-to-peak pressure
(p-p). The peak positive pressure, usually called the peak or zero-to-peak pressure (0-p) is
approximately half the peak-to-peak pressure. The average pressure recorded during the pressure
pulse can be expressed as the root mean square (rms) or average pressure. The rms pressure is
integrated over the duration of the pulse. A difficulty with this type of measurement is that it is often
difficult to interpret because for a brief pulse (and even a longer transient sound) it depends on the
averaging time. For seismic sounds, the rms pressure is usually about 10 dB lower than the peak
pressure (Greene 1997).
More recently, pulsed sounds like those from airguns have been described as sound exposure
levels or SELs. This is directly proportional to the total energy density of the acoustic signal. Energy
is proportional to the time integral of the pressure squared. Hence, SEL includes time as a dimension
and is expressed in dB re 1 μPa2 ∙ s. Energy levels are not directly comparable to pressure levels. In
most cases, energy values are less than “average pressure squared over the pulse duration”, measured
in dB re 1µPa, but the difference is variable (Richardson et al. 1995). As most of the literature on
effects of sound on marine animals is presented as SPLs, the discussion in this EA focuses on pressure
levels but includes SELs when available.
Sound measurements are often expressed as broadband, meaning the overall level of the sound
over a range or band of frequencies. The level at a specific frequency will be lower than the broadband
sound level for some bands containing that frequency because the broadband sound includes the
1
components over a wide range of frequencies. Sound signatures from airguns consist of measurements
of the sound level at each frequency (a sound spectrum). Sound level can also be measured and
summed over groups or bands of frequencies (e.g., octaves or third octaves).
The majority of the literature describing the effects of sound on marine mammals deals with
effects of low frequency sounds such those produced by ships, seismic exploration, or other activities
related to offshore oil and gas exploration and development.
Pressure waves from airguns used in seismic exploration have slower rise times than traditional
explosives and therefore cause much less injury to animals in water. Single airguns produce pulses
with rise times on the order of 1 ms, an initial positive pulse of 2 ms duration, followed by a negative
pulse of ~3–5 ms duration (Parrott 1991).
Current seismic data acquisition practices use arrays of airguns to achieve the penetration
requirements needed to investigate the geologic subsurface. The distribution of the airgun elements
within the array forms a geometry that increases the efficiency of the total energy source by directing
its output downward into the subsurface by means of constructive interference of the signals from the
individual guns. This happens at the expense of the amount of energy that propagates laterally
because of geometric destructive interference. Approximately 90% of the useful energy is focused
downward.
The sound from an array of airguns is received as a series of overlapping pulses from individual
airguns. At long distances the pulse is further stretched out in duration by multipath, reverberation,
and other propagation effects. After travelling several kilometres, the pulses can have durations of
250–500 ms (Greene and Richardson 1988; Richardson et al. 1995).
Sounds produced by the types of airgun arrays used to search for undersea petroleum reserves
are broadband, which means that the sound is produced over a wide range of frequencies. However,
the energy is unequally distributed over the frequency band. Sounds produced by an airgun have
most of their energy at low frequencies. The strongest components of the sound are below 150 Hz,
although there is significant energy up to 1 kHz. Energy diminishes progressively at higher
frequencies (Richardson and Würsig 1997; Goold and Fish 1998).
Literature Cited
Goold, J.C. and P.J. Fish. 1998. Broadband spectra of seismic survey air-gun emissions, with reference to
dolphin auditory thresholds. J. Acoust. Soc. Am., 103, 2177-2184.
Greene, C.R. 1997. An autonomous acoustic recorder for shallow arctic waters. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 102(5, Pt.
2):3197.
Greene, C.R., Jr. and W.J. Richardson. 1988. Characteristics of marine seismic survey sounds in the Beaufort
Sea. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 83:2246–2254.
Parrott, R. 1991. Seismic and acoustic systems for marine survey used by the Geological Survey of Canada:
Background information for environmental screening. Manuscript, Atlantic Geosci. Cent., Geol. Surv.
Can., Dartmouth, N.S. 36 p.
Richardson, W.J. and B. Würsig. 1997. Influences of man-made noise and other human actions on cetacean
behaviour. Mar. Freshwat. Behav. Physiol. 29(1-4):183-209.
Richardson, W.J., C.R. Greene Jr., C.I. Malme, and D.H. Thomson. 1995. Marine Mammals and Noise.
Academic Press, San Diego. 576 p.
2
APPENDIX F:
SUMMARY OF CALCULATIONS FOR ESTIMATES OF PERCENTAGE OF
POPULATIONS AND NUMBER OF INDIVIDUALS EXPOSED TO
AIRGUN ARRAY NOISE
Table G-1. Summary of values used to calculate the percentages of the narwhal and beluga whale populations exposed to airgun array received levels (RLs)
of ≥198 dB re 1 μPa2 ∙ s MMFC, ≥160 dB re 1 µParms, and ≥150 dB re 1 µParms.
Study Area (km2)
Area Exposed to RL at
Site 1 (km2)a
Percentage of the
Population Available
Percentage of the
Population Exposedb
≥198 dBSEL MMFC
532,885
0.0002
1.0
0.00
≥160 dBrms
532,885
242.0
1.0
0.00
≥150 dBrms
532,885
1876.6
1.0
0.00
≥140 dBrms
532,885
15,055.5
1.0
0.03
RL
a
b
Site 2 used for ≥198 dBSEL MMFC
(Area exposed to RL at Site 1 / Study Area) x percentage of the population available
Table G-2. Summary of values used to calculate the percentages of the humpback whale population (and number of individuals) exposed to airgun array
received levels (RLs) of ≥198 dB re 1 μPa2 ∙ s MLFC and ≥160 dB re 1 µParms.
Study Area (km2)
Area Exposed to RL
at Site 1 (km2)a
Density
(#/km2)
Numbers
Exposed
Estimated
Population Size
Percentage of the
Population Exposed
≥198 dBSEL MLFC
532,885
0.0308
0.0055
0.0
2,931
0.00
≥160 dBrms
532,885
242.0
0.0055
1.3
2,931
0.05
RL
a
Site 2 used for ≥198 dBSEL MMFC
Table G-3. Summary of values used to calculate the percentages of the ringed seal, harp seal, and walrus populations exposed to airgun array received
levels (RLs) of ≥186 dB re 1 μPa2 ∙ s MPW and ≥160 dB re 1 µParms.
Study Area (km2)
Area Exposed to RL
at Site 1 (km2)a
Percentage of the
Population Exposed
≥186 dBSEL MPW
532,885
0.1466
0.00
≥160 dBrms
532,885
242.0
0.05
RL
a
Site 2 used fo ≥198 dBSEL MMFC
APPENDIX G:
ION/GXT QHSE
POLICY AND MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
ION QHSE
Management System
THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS PROPRIETARY, CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION AND SHALL NOT BE COPIED, REPRODUCED, USED,
TRANSFERRED TO OTHER DOCUMENTS OR DISCLOSED TO OTHERS FOR ANY PURPOSE UNLESS AUTHORIZED IN WRITING BY
ION, ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Table of Contents
1.0 LEADERSHIP, COMMITMENT & ACCOUNTABILITY .......................................................... 4
1.1 Leadership .......................................................................................................................... 4
1.2 Commitment ....................................................................................................................... 4
1.3 Accountability ..................................................................................................................... 4
2.0 POLICIES & OBJECTIVES .................................................................................................... 5
2.1 Policies ............................................................................................................................... 5
2.2 Objectives........................................................................................................................... 5
3.0 ORGANIZATION, RESOURCES & DOCUMENTATION ....................................................... 5
3.1 Organizational Structure ..................................................................................................... 5
3.2 Organizational Responsibilities .......................................................................................... 6
3.3 Training & Competence ...................................................................................................... 6
3.4 Information Management.................................................................................................... 7
3.5 Standards ........................................................................................................................... 8
4.0 CONTRACTOR & SUPPLIER MANAGEMENT ..................................................................... 8
4.1 Evaluation & Selection........................................................................................................ 8
4.2 Management ...................................................................................................................... 8
4.3 Performance ....................................................................................................................... 8
5.0 HAZARD & RISK MANAGEMENT ......................................................................................... 9
5.1 Hazard Identification & Assessment ................................................................................... 9
5.2 Prevention & Mitigation....................................................................................................... 9
5.3 Management of Temporary Change ................................................................................. 10
5.4 Stop Work Authority.......................................................................................................... 10
6.0 PLANNING & PROCEDURES ............................................................................................. 11
6.1 Assets, Products, & Systems Integrity .............................................................................. 11
6.2 Processes......................................................................................................................... 11
6.3 Planning & Emergency Response .................................................................................... 12
7.0 IMPLEMENTATION & MONITORING.................................................................................. 13
7.1 Performance Reviews ...................................................................................................... 14
7.2 Event Reporting & Management ...................................................................................... 14
7.3 Inspections ....................................................................................................................... 14
7.4 Recognition Programs ...................................................................................................... 14
7.5 Records ............................................................................................................................ 14
8.0 ASSESSMENT & IMPROVEMENT ..................................................................................... 15
8.1 Audits ............................................................................................................................... 15
8.2 Corrective Actions ............................................................................................................ 15
8.3 Reviews ............................................................................................................................ 15
Document Control ...................................................................................................................... 16
Revision History ......................................................................................................................... 16
ION QHSE Document QHSE Management Systems
Document No:
Rev: 005
2
System Flow Diagram
Document No:
Rev: 005
3
1.0 LEADERSHIP, COMMITMENT & ACCOUNTABILITY
Objective
All Managers and Supervisors shall provide active commitment, visible leadership, and personal
involvement in QHSE within all aspects of ION’s operations. Additionally, managers must provide the
resources necessary to achieve QHSE objectives and provide a safe work environment. Management
shall also ensure that all employees are held accountable for their actions and responsibilities.
Mechanisms
1.1 Leadership
Managers shall provide strong, visible leadership and actively participate in ION’s “Image
Driven” approach, which places QHSE on equal footing with other critical business objectives
such as productivity, efficiency, and profitability.
This includes setting a personal example in everyday work activities and contributing to QHSE
activities such as meeting yearly QHSE objectives, audits, system reviews, and site visits.
Managers are also responsible for fostering and maintaining a culture of awareness so that
hazard identification, risk avoidance, and loss prevention to processes and project quality are an
integral part of daily activities. Managers will actively encourage the involvement of all
employees and empower them to develop and implement solutions to issues at their site.
1.2 Commitment
Managers shall demonstrate visible commitment to QHSE and provide the resources necessary
to develop maintain and support an active QHSE-MS throughout the organization.
1.3 Accountability
Managers are held accountable to provide the resources necessary to maintain the defined and
expected QHSE performance levels throughout the organization. This includes assignment of
competent persons to provide company and regulatory QHSE compliance.
All employees are personally responsible and accountable for adhering to company QHSE
policies, standards, procedures, plans and work instructions within their area of activity. This
includes authority and obligation to stop any task or operations where concerns or questions
arise regarding the controls of any HSE risk.
If work is stopped due to hazardous conditions, no work will resume until issues and concerns
have been adequately addressed.
Document No:
Rev: 005
4
2.0 POLICIES & OBJECTIVES
Objective
Policies and objectives shall be defined at the highest level of the organization, disseminated, and
maintained at all levels of the organization to achieve compliance with mandatory QHSE rules,
regulations, codes, guidelines and standards.
Mechanisms
2.1 Policies
Senior management and Corporate QHSE are responsible for defining, implementing, and
disseminating QHSE policies that meet relevant internal and external requirements. The policy
includes a commitment to prevent injuries, meet regulatory compliance and provide continual
improvement and will be reviewed periodically.
Managers are responsible for ensuring compliance with the ION QHSE Management System,
Policies and Programs.
This includes ensuring QHSE systems and standards are
communicated and understood by all employees and contractors working under ION’s direction.
2.2 Objectives
Managers, with the support of QHSE personnel, must identify and set yearly QHSE
performance targets and responsibilities within each operation or location. The objectives
should be measurable and consistence in the efforts of injury prevention, mitigation of risks,
meeting client and customer requirements, applicable legal requirements and provide continual
improvement.
These targets will then be communicated to our employees, contractors, and customers.
Employees and contractors will receive instructions from management on what is required of
them to achieve these stated targets. Processes and reviews will be in place to assess
performance against stated targets.
3.0 ORGANIZATION, RESOURCES & DOCUMENTATION
Objective
Organizational responsibilities must be defined and the necessary resources provided to achieve
QHSE objectives and provide continuous improvements.
Mechanisms
3.1 Organizational Structure
The organization must be clearly defined and structured to support the required needs within the
company. This includes organizational charts or job titles to show roles, responsibilities and
communication paths. Each business unit will work in conjunction with the QHSE team to meet
each organization specific QHSE needs.
Within ION all employees and contractors share responsibility for the Quality of our service, the
Health, Safety and Environmental impact of our performance.
Document No:
Rev: 005
5
3.2 Organizational Responsibilities
Management within ION is responsible to establish a management system to eliminate or
minimize risk to all employees and other interested parties who have exposed hazards
associated with our activities or operations. This includes implementation, maintaining and
continually improving ION’s QHSE management system.
Line Managers are responsible for QHSE which includes assuring individuals are qualified for
their specific role, properly trained, physically fit for their specific assignment, are monitored
routinely to ensure safe work and practices are followed and evaluate for overall safe
performance. Managers must ensure that all employees are provided job descriptions that
match their responsibilities and possible HSE risks, and that these job descriptions are clearly
communicated to them. It is the Line Managers that will be monitoring individual performance
and activities to ensure ION is meeting or exceeding customer’s expectations. Qualifications
should be verified by Line Management before an employee is permitted to preform
independent tasks. If an individual does not meet the expectations, line management has the
responsibility to remove the individual from the worksite and prevent any unsafe working
conditions.
Employees and contractors are individually responsible and accountable for all QHSE issues
relating to themselves and those with whom they associate, which include following safe work
practices, notifying management or unsafe conditions including personal fatigue that would
prevent them from preforming their duties safely and any other possible Stop work issues.
3.3 Training & Competence
Training programs must be implemented to ensure all employees are properly qualified to meet
their responsibilities for all assigned tasks. Each employee must be instructed in the recognition
and avoidance of unsafe conditions and the regulations applicable to his work environment to
control or eliminate any hazards or other exposures to illness or injuries. The specific
competency requirements for all positions must be regularly assessed and updated as
necessary. Competence will be determined by education, training, certifications and experience.
All employees and direct contractors should be trained in specific operating procedures, safe
work practices and emergency response/control measures by a qualified instructors or
approved computer based program. Only qualified or competent employees, either by training
or experience, shall operate company owned equipment and machinery or engage in safety
sensitivity tasks.
Orientation
It is Management responsibility to ensure all newly hired personnel shall receive general and
job-specific QHSE orientations prior to their first work assignment. Employees changing to a
new job role, new position or new location must receive a formal QHSE orientation specific to
their new environment within the first week of their new assignment.
Each Employee, Contractor and visitor should understand that we all have a responsibility to
follow safe work practices and procedures. If anyone is unsure, unable or to fatigued to safely
perform any task, they should notify their supervisors immediately.
Document No:
Rev: 005
6
Training
Training shall be provided to meet the competency requirements and risks of all job functions.
Listing of QHSE requirements for job categories shall be determined within each business unit
and reviewed periodically to ensure adequacy. Refresher training should be provided to
maintain understanding and reinforce proper operating procedures. Training can be provided via
computer based training, hands-on or on the job training and approved qualified instructor lead.
All training programs shall be periodically reviewed for quality, applicability and effectiveness.
Training documentation must be maintained and include the date of the training, the instructor's
name, the location, a printed listing of the individual student names and/or employee numbers
and the means to verify that the employee understood the training. These records will be
available for inspection upon request and kept for a minimum of 5 years. All training
documentation should be maintained within ION University.
3.4 Information Management
Communication processes shall be defined to ensure the appropriate dissemination of QHSE
information throughout the organization. Effective two-way communication must also be
maintained with customers, contractors, relevant government agencies and third parties.
Document Control
Processes must be used that ensure information is current, valid and readily available at all
relevant locations. Processes shall be in place for managing QHSE documentation, including
review to keep current and relevant to ION’s operations and services. ION uses ION Connect
and the Corporate QHSE website to ensure consistent availability of the QHSE Policies,
Standards, Procedures and Programs. It is the responsibility of Corporate QHSE to promptly
remove all obsolete ION QHSE documentation and replace with the updated relevant
documentation.
Copies of ION’s QHSE documentation will be made available to Clients, Customers and
Contractors upon request or as part of the bid request or contractual negotiations.
Communication of Policies, Standards, & Procedures
Policies, standards, procedures, and any specific work instructions shall be communicated to all
those concerned and involved in any ION activity. The effectiveness of this communication must
be verified on a continuous basis as part of training, audits, inspections and overall company
communications.
Bridging Documents
QHSE bridging documents shall be established and documented as needed to ensure a
consistent approach to managing QHSE issues for any project between all parties involved.
This process is a critical component of any ION managed project involving the use of one or
more subcontractors to ensure ION’s minimum requirements are meet.
Bridging documents will also be used to reach agreements on Policies, Programs or Procedures
differ between ION and client or customers’ requirements and should be discussed as part of
project start-up meetings.
Document No:
Rev: 005
7
Information Security
Systems and controls shall be in place to ensure the security and confidentiality of all
proprietary and customer / client related information.
3.5 Standards
Standards defining the requirements and minimum acceptable criteria for all essential business
related activities that present significant risk to personnel and the quality of products and
services shall be in place. These Documents can be found within ION’s Corporate QHSE ION
connect website.
Guidelines shall be put in place to provide additional technical or procedural information for
programs or processes that are required as part of our operations or services. This is to ensure
at minimum regulatory compliance, meeting the customer’s /clients specifications and also
ION’s specific requirements with any operational standard or process are met.
4.0 CONTRACTOR & SUPPLIER MANAGEMENT
Objective
Contractors and suppliers shall be managed to ensure that the products and services they provide
meet the applicable QHSE standards and requirements.
Mechanisms
4.1 Evaluation & Selection
All contractors and suppliers shall be evaluated and selected based on an evaluation of their
qualifications and ability to deliver a quality product and/or service in an ethical, professional,
safe, healthy, and environmentally acceptable manner. We will use pre-bid questionnaires to
pre-qualify and determine safety and quality metrics to meet or exceed ION’s expected safety
and quality performance.
4.2 Management
Line management must ensure contractors’ and suppliers’ that QHSE performance and
management systems conform to all contractual and legal requirements.
Contractors and suppliers shall be managed to continually ensure that their QHSE performance
conforms to contractual requirements. Contractor, subcontractor and suppliers will be included
in pre-job or kickoff meeting, safety orientations and meetings, hazard assessments, and
inspections and audits. ION shall clearly define and document any contradictions in policies or
programs within a bridging document prior to commencing work activities.
4.3 Performance
A system shall be in place for monitoring and evaluating contractor and supplier of QHSE
performance with defined and agreed performance indicators or project goals. Regular reviews
will be held to address changes and continually improve company interfaces. Overall QHSE
performance and post-job reviews will be given appropriate consideration when determining
contractor and supplier hiring or retention. Poor QHSE performance shall not be tolerated and
may result in early termination of any contract and future use of any contractor.
Document No:
Rev: 005
8
5.0 HAZARD & RISK MANAGEMENT
Objective
ION shall continually evaluate the QHSE risks to our employees, contractors, suppliers, customers, and
the environment. Comprehensive evaluation of the hazards associated with our operations will ensure
that the required information is available to reduce risk to acceptable levels and mitigate the impact of
our operations on health, safety and the environment. This process will be documented to show results
are controlled, reviewed and up to date.
Mechanisms
5.1 Hazard Identification & Assessment
Processes and Procedures shall be defined, established and maintained to ensure ongoing
hazard identification and risk assessment in order to determine necessary controls, such as:
x
x
x
x
Identification of the hazards associated with our operation.
Identification of the potential degradation or loss in quality of service and/or products.
The assessment of associated risks.
The application of the appropriate prevention and mitigation measures to minimize the
risks to an acceptable level.
Employees, customers, contractors and all relevant 3rd parties shall be informed of all known
hazards and risks associated with our operations and the required prevention and mitigation
measures that have been implemented.
5.2 Prevention & Mitigation
Risk Control must include the implementation and verification of appropriate prevention and
mitigation measures.
When determining controls or changes to existing controls, consideration shall be given to
reducing the risk according to the following hierarchy:
x Elimination;
x Substitution;
x Engineering controls;
x Signage/warning;
x Administrative controls;
x Personal protective equipment.
Administrative controls include job planning, training, scheduling and rotation, implementation of
specific work area protection, changes to job procedures and similar measures.
Feasible application of the controls shall take into account:
x The nature and extent of risk;
x Degree of risk reduction desired;
x Regulatory standards and requirements;
x Recognized beat practices;
x Available technology; and,
x Cost effectiveness.
Document No:
Rev: 005
9
5.3 Management of Temporary Change
Systems must be in place to ensure that prevention and mitigation measures are taken to
reduce risk to acceptable levels when dealing with temporary changes or departure from
specific procedures. The following are examples of when an additional assessment must be
undertaken:
x
x
x
x
x
Standard but non-routine operations, projects or tasks.
Non-routine operations, projects or tasks. Including use of contractors.
Temporary impossibility to apply standard risk minimization measures.
Any new activity.
When external factors increase the normal level of risk.
Processes shall be established to manage the significant changes that are introduced by the
deviation from:
x
x
x
x
Contractual terms and conditions.
Standard work scope.
Procedures, guidelines or work instructions.
Policies and/or standards.
Records of temporary change must be maintained for all operations and projects. These records
must include as a minimum the following: cause of temporary change, prevention and mitigation
measures taken, and who approved the change.
5.4 Stop Work Authority
A Stop Work Policy is in place and all employees have the authority and obligation to stop any
task or operation where concerns or questions regarding safety or the control of any specific risk
exist.
When an unsafe condition is identified the Stop Work Intervention will be initiated, coordinated
through the immediate supervisor, initiated in a positive manner, notify all affected personnel
and supervision of the stop work issue, correct the issue, and resume work when safe to do so.
These STOP work incidents should be logged via ION’s incident reporting systems.
It is essential to follow-up after any Stop work to ensure all issues identified have been closed to
satisfaction of all parties, clearly communicated and that no new hazards have been introduced.
All employees will receive training within initial assignment to understand the responsibility and
authority regarding the Stop Work Policy. This includes employees responsibility to notify their
supervisor if they are taking any medications that may prevent or impair his/her ability to work
safely. This should be repeated in safety meetings and tool box meetings prior to any new work
or operations containing potential risks.
Document No:
Rev: 005
10
6.0 PLANNING & PROCEDURES
Objective
QHSE must be an essential element in the design and planning of all ION projects and operations.
Mechanisms
6.1 Assets, Products, & Systems Integrity
QHSE policies, standards and requirements shall be incorporated into the design, procurement,
implementation and/or use of assets, products and systems used in ION projects and
operations.
Assessments should be conducted on products or specific services at levels to review regulatory
compliance, product safety and reliability and product service verification and validation to meet
customer needs.
Maintenance programs must be in place to ensure the QHSE and operational integrity of all
equipment, facilities and products. Integrity levels must meet industry standards. Procedures
shall be in place to prevent unauthorized modifications to equipment and products.
6.2 Processes
QHSE requirements must be incorporated into all project and operational processes with
additional support provided by documented procedures and work instructions. QHSE critical
processes must be identified, documented, and reviewed to determine QHSE implications and
actions required to minimize the risk of malfunctions, process errors, or degradation in quality.
HSE Meetings
Each crew or operation should conduct regularly scheduled, documented safety meetings
with all employees, clients, client representatives, and contractors. Meetings should be
attended by local management, including any visitors. These meetings should provide a
forum for:
Accident or near miss reports, unsafe acts or changing conditions.
Discussion and demonstration of new material, equipment, or procedures
introduced to the operations.
Debriefings of emergency drills (fire, medevac, abandon ship, etc.).
In addition to formal HSE meetings, tailgate/toolbox meetings should be held more
frequently to discuss specific hazards of day-to-day operations, including accidents or
near-miss incidents that may have occurred. Daily field crew startup or shift change
provides the ideal opportunity to conduct these meetings.
Document No:
Rev: 005
11
6.3 Planning & Emergency Response
A formal QHSE Risk Assessment or Hazard Vulnerability must be conducted at all facilities and
before the start of any project or operation to ensure that all QHSE aspects have been
addressed. This information will be communicated to all employee and involved parties.
Health Concerns
Exposure to hazardous conditions associated with our operations shall be assessed on
a continual basis to ensure risk minimization for all employees, contractors, customers
and the general public. Whenever possible, the use of hazardous materials must be
eliminated. When this is not possible, the exposure to these health hazards must be
clearly defined during the risk assessment process and additional steps must be taken to
monitor the health of relevant personnel.
Medical assistance shall be considered as part of all Emergency Plans. Readily
available qualified and certified first aiders shall be on site along with a specific plan for
treatment of any injuries or illnesses requiring advanced medical treatment.
Environmental Concerns
ION will continually strive to minimize the impact of our operations on the environment.
Planning must include steps taken and actions required to conserve resources, minimize
and estimate waste, trash or scrap and strive to prevent environmental pollution. When
the elimination of a pollution or waste source is not practical; proper handling,
organization or segregation, storage, appropriate treatment of the waste, including
recycling when possible, shall be undertaken, communicated and monitored to minimize
potential impact on the environment. Information on proper handling of waste will be
communicated to employees at orientation or specific job start-up meeting.
Product Quality & Service Quality Concerns
ION will continually strive to maintain and improve upon all aspects of the quality of its
products and services. Project specific objectives, deliverables and time schedules will
be defined at the start of each project. An appropriate assessment of technologies,
processes, work flows, quality control standards, quality control procedures, resources
and personnel will be made at the start of each project as well as at appropriate times
during the project. ION will strive to maximize the quality of its products and services in
an efficient and cost effective manner as to meet the demands of its internal and
external customers.
Security Concerns
Security plans shall be in place to safeguard employees, contractors, and customers
directly involved with our activities as required by the defined level of risk. Travel Risk
Assessments will be conducted as outlined within Travel Risk Assessment and Travel
Plan Standard.
Emergency Response
Plans for coping with all aspects of emergency responses shall be developed and regularly
reviewed based on the Risk assessment and Hazard Vulnerability. Emergency Response
teams should be established and regularly conducted drills or tabletop exercises must be
undertaken to ensure that all parties tasked with emergency preparedness and crisis
management are aware of their roles and responsibilities.
Document No:
Rev: 005
12
Emergency & Security Plans
All ION offices and operations shall have emergency plans and emergency equipment in
place that is specific to the nature of their business operations and locations. Plans shall
be reviewed and updated as required by local conditions, with practice drills and training
conducted on a regular schedule. Emergency and security plans must include interfaces
with other ION offices, customers, local emergency services, government agencies, local
community organizations, and technical experts, as required.
Emergency Equipment
All emergency equipment shall be subject to legislative requirements or at minimum
monthly documented visual inspections and annual or manufactures’ recommended
maintenance checks. Where any person can be exposed to injurious corrosive materials,
suitable facilities for quick drenching and flushing shall be provided. First aid equipment
should be easily accessible and consist of appropriate items which will be regularly
assessed to ensure adequacy for the environment in which they are used.
Drills
Key personnel must be trained to an appropriate level based on their responsibility in
emergency scenarios. Drills shall be conducted, documented and reviewed on a regular
basis with scenarios that test all aspects of the contingency plans and response
procedures.
Spills
All materials should be properly handled and stored to minimize the potential for a spill
or impact to the environment. All ION facilities and operations shall have appropriate spill
contingency plans in place.
Operational Failure
All ION operations will have contingency plans in place that address failures or loss in
mission critical operational services or support. At a minimum, contingency plans will
address the mitigation procedures for catastrophic loss in the computing environment,
data storage, software algorithms and source code. Plans must be reviewed and
updated as required by local conditions or project requirements.
7.0 IMPLEMENTATION & MONITORING
Objective
Programs and systems shall be in place to monitor company results versus expectations, compliance
with applicable QHSE policies, standards and other governmental regulatory requirements. Continuous
improvement efforts shall be promoted through the use of an effective management system.
Mechanisms
Document No:
Rev: 005
13
7.1 Performance Reviews
Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) and Objectives shall be specified, targets set,
measurements made and regularly reviewed by both executive and local management to
monitor continuous QHSE performance improvement.
Performance indicators will also be reviewed to assist with prequalification of subcontractors
and suppliers. This is more specifically defined within ION’s Contractors Management Standard.
7.2 Event Reporting & Management
Every employee is responsible for the reporting of all QHSE related events, and it is
management responsibility to ensure documentation of all incidents. Electronic databases for
recording of monthly QHSE activities, individual incident reports and Start (near miss &
improvement suggestions) are available within ION’s Sharepoint system. All serious and
potentially serious events shall be investigated and analyzed. The lessons learned from the
investigations and corrective actions implemented shall be communicated to prevent recurrence
across the company. Recommended remedial actions will have assigned responsible parties
and line management shall monitor the progress until completion. The investigation team will be
comprised of line management, the local QHSE support staff and appropriate internal and
external resources as required.
Fatalities
For all ION involved fatalities, a formal review of the event must be held within 90 days
of the incident. The review shall be conducted by the manager in charge of the
location/operation where the fatality occurred and executive management must be in
attendance. Resulting recommendations will be documented and disseminated
throughout the organization.
Losses in Excess of $500,000
Single incident or aggregate losses on a project or operation in excess of a $500,000
estimated cost to ION must be reviewed within 60 days of the incident(s). The line
manager or appropriate project manager will coordinate the review. Executive
management must attend the review. Resulting recommendations will be documented
and disseminated throughout the organization and the corrective changes to the
management system applied.
7.3 Inspections
Regular and frequent inspections, by a competent person, shall be conducted in all locations or
job sites to ensure compliance with defined QHSE policies, standards, and procedures as well
as local laws and regulations.
7.4 Recognition Programs
Reward and Recognition Programs shall be considered and if so determined established to
encourage personnel involvement in the QHSE continuous improvement process.
7.5 Records
Procedures shall be in place to ensure critical information is collected reviewed and analyzed.
To monitor improvements in our processes, records must be maintained to assess compliance
with our QHSE policies, standards, procedures and entire management system.
Document No:
Rev: 005
14
8.0 ASSESSMENT & IMPROVEMENT
Objective
To verify the implementation and effectiveness of the QHSE Management System, audits and reviews
shall be conducted to provide the opportunity to take corrective action to improve our systems and
processes.
Mechanisms
8.1 Audits
Compliance with the QHSE Management System and equivalent regulatory systems must be
regularly evaluated by means of internal and external audits. These audits will be conducted by
independent competent auditors. The frequency of audits will be based on the perceived
business risk. Audit results must be recorded and reported to all concerned and effected parties.
Line management is responsible for the audit control process. They must ensure findings are
recorded, assigned and closed out in a timely manner.
8.2 Corrective Actions
Corrective action and continuous improvement programs must be in place at all locations and
for all operations and projects. These programs shall include all employees and contractors
when appropriate. A “no blame” culture shall be promoted to encourage the reporting of
problems as well as recommended improvements to existing standards, procedures, and
processes.
A method of nonconformance reporting must be in place for all operations and projects. Line
managers must actively promote employee participation in this process. All QHSE
nonconformance reports will be reviewed by line management and closed out in such a way as
to promote continuous improvement and demonstrate management commitment. A system
must be in place to address feedback from customers and all business operations. As part of
the process, a service quality review will be held at the end of each project with the customer,
whether internal or external.
8.3 Reviews
Senior management must conduct reviews of the QHSE Management System on a periodic
basis to ensure the ongoing effectiveness of the system and to identify areas for system
improvements. Suggestions for improvements or observations shall be submitted to Corporate
QHSE Director for review and implementation.
The QHSE management reviews are conducted within QSOR’s which meet quarterly and
attended by the executive teams. Copies of the presentations are kept with the Corporate
QHSE department. Each Business unit shall also conduct its specific QHSE management
reviews and documentation of these reviews will be kept with the Business Unit QHSE
Manager.
Document No:
Rev: 005
15
Document Control
Owner: Vicki Huebler
Reviewer: Tim Granlie
Approver: Vicki Huebler
Revision History
Document Title: ION QHSE-Management System
Document #:
Rev: 005
Rev
Effective Date:
Description:
Prepared by:
001
Oct 22, 2008
Issue for Review
Joe Marino
002
Oct 24, 2008
Issue for Use
Joe Marino
003
Jan 1, 2009
Scott Platz
004
July 31, 2011
005
January 31, 2012
Updated new element structure and
corresponding sub-elements.
Updates, reviews and additional subelements added (Stop Work)
Updates, adding HSE meetings and
additional
ISNetworld
requirements
including Job Competency
Document No:
Rev: 005
16
Vicki Huebler
Vicki Huebler
APPENDIX H:
WASTE MANAGEMENT PLANS AND
POLLUTION PREVENTION CERTIFICATES
Garbage
Management Plan
R/v ‘Harrier Explorer’
Identification: HAR-MA-0002
Title:
Version: 3.0
Garbage Management Plan
Type: Vessel Manual
Pages:
23
Discipline: Maritime Operations
1
SHIP´S PARTICULARS:
Name of Ship
HARREIR EXPLORER
Distinctive Number or Letters (Call Sign)
3EIE3
IMO Number
7807380
Type of Ship
SEISMIC SURVEY
Flag
PANAMA
Port of Registry
PANAMA
Gross Tonnage
4009
Owners / Operator
Harrier Navigation Co /
SeaBird Exploration FZ-LLC
Trading area
World wide
Incinerator
TeamTec OGS 4000, Capacity 580 kW,
ser. No 14984-01
Max crew on board
47
Other ship-specific information considered relevant such as garbage disposal equipment,
incinerators, compactors etc should be recorded below:
Deck A
1st deck (Main deck)
: Four storage containers 240 L each, three 90 L each.
: Two storage containers 360 L each, six containers 190 L each,
two containers 240 L each and two containers 90 L each.
Upper compressor room : Four containers 240 L each.
Tail buoy deck
: Two storage containers - one 240 L and one 190 L
Designated welding area : One storage container 200 L
Total: 5.29 cub. m
Designated Person is
: Chief Officer
Department responsible person for:
Deck department is
: Boatswain
Engine department is
: 1st Engineer
Galley department is
: Ch.Cook
Seismic department
: Party Chief
Garbage management Team:
AB1, AB2, Messman, Oiler1, Fitter
2
Table of Content
1.
Preamble ................................................................................. 4
2.
Custodian and Purpose .............................................................. 4
3.
Special Areas ........................................................................... 4
3.1.
Disposal of garbage within special areas
4.
Garbage Management Plan ...................................................... 5
5.
The Garbage Audit .................................................................... 6
5.1.
.............................. 4
Garbage Management Techniques ............................................ 6
5.1.1 Minimize garbage by reducing waste of source ......................... 6
5.1.2
Documentary Procedures ................................................... 6
5.1.3
Designated Person ............................................................ 6
5.1.4 Training ............................................................................... 7
6
Familiarization for new employees ................................................. 8
7
Placards ..................................................................................... 8
8
Procedures for collecting garbage .................................................. 9
9
Procedures for processing garbage .............................................. 11
10
Garbage Disposal Record Book ................................................. 19
APPENDIX 1 TERMS USED AND THEIR MEANING ................................ 20
APPENDIX 2 GARBAGE DISPOSAL RECEIPT ....................................... 22
APPENDIX 3 INADEQUACY REPORTING FORM .................................... 23
APPENDIX 4 RECORD OF GARBAGE DISPOSAL ................................... 24
3
1.
Preamble
This Garbage Management Plan is written in accordance with MARPOL 73/78 Annex
V, Regulation 9 (2).
Garbage means all kinds of victual, domestic and operational waste excluding fresh
fish and parts thereof, generated during the normal operation of the ship and liable
to be disposed of continuously or periodically.
The plan provides written procedures for collecting, storing, processing and
disposing of garbage, including the use of the equipment on board.
It also designates the person in charge of carrying this plan.
In extension to this plan a Garbage Record Book in accordance with MARPOL
Regulation 9 (3), shall be kept and used onboard
2.
Custodian and Purpose
1. SeaBird Garbage Management Plan Template (referred to hereafter as the Plan) is
controlled by the Company’s HSSEQ Department. The Plan is disseminated by the
HSSEQ Department and reviewed annually or when required.
2. The only controlled Template of this Plan is in the HSE MS section of SeaArc.
SeaArc is the main platform for electronic storage and distribution of documents
within the SeaBird group.
3. Vessels’ specific Garbage Management Plan is controlled by Master of the vessel.
3.
Special Areas
According to regulation 1 of MARPOL Annex V a special area means a sea area where for
recognized technical reasons in relation to its oceanographically and ecological condition
and to the particular character of its traffic the adoption of special mandatory methods for
the prevention of sea pollution by garbage is required. Special areas include those listed in
regulation 5 of MARPOL Annex V, which is reproduced as follows:
3.1. Disposal of garbage within special areas
For the purpose of this Annex the special areas are the Mediterranean Sea area, the Baltic
Sea area, the Black Sea area, the Red Sea area, the Gulf area, the North Sea area, the
Antarctic area and the Wider Caribbean Region, including the Gulf of Mexico and the
Caribbean Sea which are defined as follows:

The Mediterranean Sea area means the Mediterranean Sea proper including the
gulfs and seas therein with the boundary between the Mediterranean and the Black
Sea constituted by the 41ºN parallel and bounded to the west by the Straits of
Gibraltar at the meridian 5º36’W.

The Baltic Sea area means the Baltic Sea proper with the Gulf of Bothnia and the
Gulf of Finland and the entrance to the Baltic Sea bounded by the parallel of the
Skaw in the Skagerrak at 57º44.8’N.
4

The Black Sea area includes the Black Sea proper with the boundary between the
Mediterranean and the Black Sea constituted by the parallel 41ºN.

The Red Sea area means the Red Sea proper including the Gulfs of Suez and
Aqaba bounded at the south by the rhumb line between Ras si Ane (12º28.5’N,
43º19.6’E) and Husn Murad (12º40.4’N, 43º30.2’E).

The Gulf area means the sea area located north-west of the rhumb line between
Ras al Hadd (22º30’N, 59º48’E) and Ras al Fasteh (25º04’N, 61º25’E).

The North Sea area means the North Sea proper including seas therein with the
boundary between:
o
The North Sea southwards of latitude 62ºN and eastwards of longitude 4ºW.
o
The Skagerrak, the southern limit of which is determined east of the Skaw
by latitude 57º44.8’N, and
o
The English Channel and its approaches eastwards of longitude 5ºW and
northwards of latitude 48º30’N.

The Antarctic area means the sea area south of latitude 60ºS.

The Wider Caribbean region, as defined in article 2, paragraph 1 of the
Convention for the Protection and Development of the Marine Environment of the
Wider Caribbean Region (Cartagena de Indias 1983), means the Gulf of Mexico and
the Caribbean Sea proper including the bays and seas therein and the portion of
the Atlantic Ocean within the boundary constituted by the 30ºN parallel from
Florida eastward to 77º30’W meridian, thence a rhumb line to the intersection of
20ºN parallel and 59ºW meridian, thence a rhumb line drawn to the intersection of
7º20’ parallel and 50ºW meridian, thence a rhumb line drawn south-westerly to the
eastern boundary of French Guiana.
4.
Garbage Management Plan
The IMO Guidelines for the development of garbage management plans cover the
following:










Designated person in charge of carrying out the plan
Procedures for collecting garbage
Procedures for processing garbage
Procedures for storing garbage
Procedures for disposing garbage
Company policy
Type of vessel
Crew deployment onboard
Equipment and recourses on board; and
Area of trading
In addition to the requirement for ships to be provided with a Garbage Management Plan,
MARPOL Annex V, regulation 9 requires each vessel to keep a Garbage Record Book, and
also requires placards to be posted indicating disposal requirements with regards to special
areas.
5
5.
The Garbage Audit
An audit should address the following:

An evaluation of the manner in which garbage is generated, handled and processed
from source to end disposal i.e. the ships waste streams associated with garbage:
thus the audit should identify sources of garbage, its composition and quantity.

A review of international and local regulations and policies relevant to the ship’s
operating area; and

An appraisal of current garbage management practices, how efficient these
practices are in coping with the volume and types of waste generated, and an
estimate of the associated costs of waste disposal.
5.1. Garbage Management Techniques
Once it has been ascertained from the garbage audit what, if any, shortcomings there may
be within current practices, an evaluation of available garbage management techniques
most suitable for the ship concerned should be carried out. While carrying out this
evaluation, four points should be borne in mind:
5.1.1 Minimize garbage by reducing waste of source
Minimizing the volume of garbage sent for ultimate disposal by, where possible and
practicable, utilizing recycling facilities
Preparation of garbage as it passes through each phase on board the ship, i.e. collection,
separation, processing and storage, prior to disposal; and
Ultimate method of disposal, i.e. discharge into recycling station, reception facilities ashore
or to the sea.
5.1.2 Documentary Procedures
Section 7 of the ISM Code states that:
The company should establish procedures for the preparation of plans and instructions for
key shipboard operations concerning the safety of the ship and the prevention of pollution.
The various tasks involved should be defined and assigned to qualified personnel.
SeaBird does not allow any garbage, except food waste passed through comminuter or
grinder, to be disposed overboard as per applicable regulations.
5.1.3 Designated Person
In accordance with MARPOL, Annex V regulation 9 (2), a person shall be designated in the
garbage management plan to be responsible for implementing the procedures within the
plan.
This person should be assisted by departmental staff to ensure that the collection,
separation and processing of garbage is efficient in all areas of the ship, and that the
procedures on board are carried out in accordance with the garbage management plan.
On board the Chief Officer is designated and responsible for implementing the procedures
within the Garbage Management Plan, and will be responsible for maintaining the Garbage
Record Book.
6
The duties of the designated person will include:








Ensuring placards are displayed in accordance with regulations
Ensuring that personnel comply with the ships waste management strategy
Ensuring incineration or other treatment of wastes in accordance with the
instructions
Liaising with the bridge team regarding the ships position for permissible overboard
discharge of certain garbage
Liaising with shore authorities for port reception facilities
Liaising with the other department responsible persons, as heads of department on
a daily basis regarding any problems encountered with garbage management
Reviewing garbage management practices on board the ship and recommending
amendments to the plan as necessary; and
Ensuring that the Garbage Record Book is completed and signed as required by the
regulations
The designated person in compliance with the garbage management policy requires the
segregation of garbage with a view to the following:







Recycling
Immediate disposal, in accordance with MARPOL
Retention, until the ship has cleared a restricted area
Special attention, i.e. batteries, chemicals, medical waste etc
Incineration
Compacting; and
Long term storage
The designated person should ensure that all waste is stored in a safe and hygienic
manner. Food waste and associated garbage which may decompose during storage should
be sealed in airtight containers provided for this purpose. Such containers are disposable
and the waste should be sent to the reception facility in these containers.
If the designated person has ground to believe garbage is not being separated into the
specific containers at source and is thus causing problems during storage, the matter
should be raised with the department officers for remedial action as appropriate.
If long term storage, including air tight garbage containers, creates any health problems or
pests are noticed, the designated person should raise the matter with the company
representative.
Disinfection and pest control, both preventive and remedial, should be carried out
regularly in garbage storage areas.
5.1.4 Training
Methods of instructing ship’s crew should be included in the plan, and should be developed
in accordance with Guidelines for the Implementation of Annex V of MARPOL 73/78,
Section 2 Training, education and information, especially paragraphs 2.6, 2.6.1 and 2.7.1,
Procedures for Port State Control paragraph 3.5.68 and also Section 6.3 of the ISM Code.
7
6
Familiarization for new employees
On joining the vessel, personnel should be familiarized with position of garbage collection
points, storing, and processing and disposal procedures as stated in this plan.
Personnel should be trained to recognize different waste categories and actively
encouraged to comply with the Garbage Management Plan.
Personnel are required to participate in the garbage management system as specified in
this plan. Instruction and familiarization with onboard facilities, including the routine for
garbage management, should be provided for personnel joining the ship.
Personnel are to be made aware of the location of special areas designated under MARPOL
Annex V and instructed on the disposal and discharge requirements to be adhered to while
in those areas.
7
Placards
Regardless of which disposal method is chosen, every ship of twelve meters or more in
length is required to display placards which notify the crew and passengers of the
requirements for disposal of garbage. The placards should include information on the
procedures to be followed when ship is inside and outside special areas.
Placards should be at least 12.5 cm by 20 cm, made of durable material and fixed
in a conspicuous place in galley spaces, the mess deck, wardroom, bridge, main
deck and other areas of the ship, as appropriate. The placards should be printed
in the language or languages understood by the crew and passengers.
Any arrangement for the containment of wastes which requires special storage containers
should be itemized and described in detail, e.g. containers have been provided for the
disposal of:

Batteries

Medical waste including syringes

Chemicals and corrosive substances
International and national rules may govern aspects of disposal which need to be
incorporated into company procedures. This is especially true for ships that are on
dedicated routes in near coastal trades. Information should be sought from local agents or
port authorities about prevailing disposal regimes and an up to date portfolio of local
disposal requirements maintained for reference.
Programming or scheduling of garbage disposal is of the utmost importance. In a situation
where the vessel operates for long periods in restricted areas, with limited capacity to
store garbage, planning ahead can prevent the accumulation of garbage that is unhygienic
or a fire hazard.
The designated person should ensure that established procedures are in place to ensure
the bridge is informed when a discharge from processing equipment into the sea is
planned, so that the position of the ship where the discharge is to take place can be
verified.
8
8
Procedures for collecting garbage
This part of the Garbage Management Plan should:
 Identify suitable receptacles for collection and separation
 Identify locations of receptacles, collection and separation stations
 Describe how garbage is transported from the source of generation to the collection
and separation stations
 Describe how garbage will be handled between primary collection and separation
stations and other handling methods commensurate with the following:
o Needs of reception facilities, taking into account possible local recycling
arrangements
o Onboard processing
o Storage; and
o Disposal at sea
 Describe the training or education program to facilitate collection of garbage
Garbage collections points are to be established in the following areas:
Deck A :
Four storage containers - 240 L each (totally 960 L)
1. Food waste
2. Glass
3. Tins
4. General
Three storage - 90 L each (totally 270 L)
1. Medical waste
2. Battery
3. Chemical corrosive
1st deck (Main deck)
Two storage containers - 360 L each (totally 720 L)
1. Ashes
2. Tins
1. Tins
2. Dry
3. Plastic
4. Aerosol
Two storage containers - 240 L each (totally 480 L)
1. Ashes
2. Alkaline batteries
3. One container 90 L – General/dry
Upper compressor room
1. Oil rags
2. General
3. Plastic
4. Tins
9
Designated welding area : One storage container 200 L
Gun deck
Two storage container - 90L each (totally 180 L)
1. General
2. Tin/glasses
One storage container 240 L
1. Plastic
Tail buoy deck
Two storage container’s
One 240 L - Dry
One 190 L - Dry
Total: 5.29 m3
Garbage is locally collected at the following locations:
General
Bridge, Hospital, Laundry rooms, Mess room, Galley, Day room, Conference room,
Smoking Room, Gym, Ship’s office, 2nd deck, B deck.
Seismic
Gun work shop, Gun Shack, Instrument room.
Engine spaces
Engine control room, Workshop, Engine room, Compressor room.
At each location receptacles are to be provided as required and clearly marked as follows:


















Bridge:
: Plastic ,Dry, Tins
Hospital
: Medical waste, Dry
Laundry rooms
: Dry
Mess room
: Dry, Plastic, Tins, Glass, Food waste
Galley
: Food, Tins, Plastic
Engine room workshop
: Dry, Oily rags, Plastic, Metal, Aerosols
Engine rooms
: General, Oily rags, Plastic
Upper compressor room
: General, Oily rags, Plastic
Designated welding area
: Metal
Gun Shuck
: Dry
Gun deck
: General, Aerosols, Tins, Cans
Instrument room
: Dry, Plastic, Cans
Smoking Room
: Dry
Ship’s offices
: Dry
nd
2 deck
: Aerosols
Pass between accommodations : Alkaline Batteries
B deck
: Aerosols, Alkaline Batteries
Cabins
: Dry
10
The collected garbage is to be taken from all areas packed into single use plastic garbage
bags. It’s separated into different categories. Main garbage collection point is located at
Incinerator deck (deck “A” behind old accommodation) sides where to be separated every
day by Waste Management team:



To incinerator
Port facilities
Long time storage and disposal at port facility.
Food waste to be taken from Galley three times a day and disposed overboard, incinerated
or to Port facilities.
Garbage requiring long term storage should be placed in:

1st deck aft part and kept in:
Storage containers
Each department will nominate a person who will be responsible for checking the
receptacles and transporting the garbage to the central reception area for appropriate
disposal.
For the deck department this person is
For the engine department this person is
For the catering department this person is
: Boatswain
: 1st Engineer
: Chief Cook
Receptacles in each area are to be checked and/or emptied.
The designated person is to ensure that personnel are familiar with the location and nature
of the receptacles around the vessel. The officers and crew are to be trained to recognize
the importance of using the appropriate receptacle when initially disposing of garbage to
avoid creating work which would be required by further sorting at a later stage.
9
Garbage will be processed under the responsibility of the designated person who is to
ensure that the waste is segregated into the following categories:









Plastic
Floating dunnage, lining, or packing materials
Food waste
Dry garbage
Cans
Metal
Glass
Incinerator ash except from plastic products which may contain toxic or heavy
metal residues
Specials e.g. batteries, used chemical solutions, medical waste, oily rags, Aerosols,
electrical materials
11
The designated person should ensure that personnel responsible for maintaining and
operating processing equipment are capable of doing so competently and in accordance
with the manufacturer’s instructions.
The designated person should ensure that appropriate members of the crew are assigned
responsibility for operating processing equipment on a schedule commensurate with the
ships need.
Waste which can be legally discharged into the sea is included in the summary of at-sea
garbage disposal (see table 3”Summary of at-sea garbage disposal”), which is to be
adhered to.
The designated person should check with the port authorities on arrival at each port to
ascertain whether the incinerator may be used in port during cargo operations.
Special waste or hazardous waste will be dealt with as following:

External Decks
Marine (weather) deck spaces including back deck are drained overboard. Detergents
used for washing exposed marine deck spaces are discharged overboard. Biodegradable
detergents should be used.

Sheltered decks and internal spaces (such as machinery rooms)
To ensure MARPOL compliance (15 parts per million - oil in water) all drainage from
covered work spaces must be collected and piped into a holding tank and any
hydrocarbons removed before discharge.

Sewage
MARPOL Annex IV requires that sewage discharges from ships be:
Comminuted and disinfected and that the effluent must not produce visible floating solids
in, nor causes discolouration of, the surrounding water. The treatment system must
provide primary settling, chlorination and de-chlorination. The treated effluent can be
discharged into the sea, as is the practice aboard ocean-going vessels minimum three
nautical miles (nm) from land.
OR
A holding tank of the capacity to the satisfaction of the Administration for the retention of
all sewage: having regard to the operation of the ship, the number of persons on board
and other relevant factors. The holding tank shall be constructed to the satisfaction of the
Administration and shall have a means to indicate visually the amount of its contents. The
sewage can be discharged minimum 12 nm from land.

Overboard discharge from machinery spaces
The concentration of oil in discharged oily water from vessel machinery space must comply
with MARPOL standards. This must be achieved through use of an oil / water separation
system of an approved design that must be installed if the vessel intends to discharge
bilge water at sea.
12

Ballast Water
Ballast water should be kept in dedicated tanks and be uncontaminated with oil upon
discharge. Any oily ballast water must be processed through a suitable separation and
treatment system to meet the MARPOL standard of 15 ppm oil in water limit.
Ballast Water discharge/exchange must follow IMO’s Ballast Water Management
Convention 2004.

Non-Toxic Combustible Material
Non-toxic combustible material can be incinerated on vessel, the non – combustible
remainder of which must be disposed of at an onshore landfill facility. Non-usable metal
waste material must be stored and disposed of ashore.

Waste Oil
Recycling and reuse of oils is practiced whenever possible. When this is not possible the
used waste oil, including cooking oil, lubricating and gear oil, solvents, hydrocarbon-based
detergents and machine oil must be disposed. These oils will have varying toxicity and
may either be burned in the incinerator or shipped to land facility for treatment and
disposal (depending on circumstance).

Chemicals
Disposal of any chemical and hazardous substance must be done on a case-by-case basis
and in a manner acceptable to appropriate regulatory authorities. Manufacturers’ material
safety data sheets and advice services are known and available for support.

Filters
Filters and filter media include air, oil and water filters from machinery. Oily residue and
used media in oil filters that may contain metal (e.g. copper) fragments, etc. are possibly
toxic. Filters and media are required to be disposed of at a licensed landfill facility or
incinerated aboard (depending on circumstance).

Plastics/toxic materials
Disposal of any plastics, plastic waste ash or toxic/hazardous substance must be made
ashore on a case-by case basis and in a manner acceptable to appropriate regulatory
authorities.

Pyrotechnics / explosives / batteries / pressurised devices
Appropriate disposal of these substances must be made ashore on a case-by-case basis
and in a manner acceptable to appropriate regulatory authorities.
Such materials may require return to manufacturers’ or other appropriate specialist
contractors for disposal. Special consideration of restrictions on transport, such as by air,
will be made, as required.

Records / receipts
Appropriate receipts for waste collection must be received and retained aboard the vessel.
Records are retained in conformance to the procedure GP-0058 Control of records.
13
14
15
16
17
Ship generated
Garbage
Collection and
Separation
PHASE
OF
WASTE MANAGEMENT
Compactor
Incinerator
Grinder or comminute
Ashes
COLLECTION
PROCESSING
Non ocean
disposable garbage
No processing
Long term storage
STORAGE
DISPOSAL
Port reception
sterilization or
incineration
Discharge garbage
ashore
Port reception
recycling program
Port reception landfill
Table 4. Option for shipboard handling and disposal of garbage.
18
10 Garbage Disposal Record Book
The requirement to carry a Garbage Record Book is contained in MARPOL Annex V,
regulation 9, paragraph 3.
The Garbage Disposal Record book which forms part of the regulations is an important
document and should be considered as an official ship’s record.
The entries in the Garbage Disposal Record Book are to be in English
The record of garbage discharge is to be completed after each:
 Discharge operation to sea, to reception facilities ashore or to other ships
 Incineration
Entries incineration and discharges should include:





Date and time of start and stop of operation
Position of vessel
Estimated quantity of garbage
Name of ship or barge to which garbage was transferred
Name of port or reception facility when discharged ashore
In addition to routine entries, an entry is to be made in the Garbage Disposal Record
Book with regard to the circumstances of and reasons for unintentional discharge, escape
or accidental loss due to:
o
The disposal of garbage from the ship, necessary for the purpose of
securing the safety of ship and those onboard, or saving life at sea, or
o
The release of garbage resulting from damage to the ship or its
equipment, provided that all reasonable precautions have been taken
before and after the occurrence of the damage, for the purpose of
preventing or minimizing any subsequent pollution.
The regulation requires each officer responsible for incineration or discharge operation to
sign the record book, and the master is charged with signing each completed page. The
designated person should ensure that these requirements are complied with. The
Garbage Disposal Record Book should not be loose-leaf.
The Garbage Disposal Record Book should be kept onboard the ship and be available for
inspection. The place where the book is kept should be recorded in the Garbage
Management Plan, and the book should be retained onboard for a period of two years
after the last entry is made.
The Garbage Disposal Record Book is kept on the bridge.
19
APPENDIX 1
TERMS USED AND THEIR MEANING
Ash and clinkers from shipboard incinerators and coal–burning boilers are operational
wastes in the meaning of MARPOL Annex V, regulation 1 (1), and are therefore included
in the term all other garbage in the meaning of Annex V, regulation 3 (1) (b) (ii) and 5
(2) (a) (ii).
Cargo – associated waste means all materials which have become wastes as a result
of use on board a ship for cargo stowage handling. Cargo – associated waste includes but
is not limited to dunnage, shoring, lining and packing materials, plywood, paper,
cardboard, wire and steel strapping.
Cargo residues for the purposes of these Guidelines are defined as remnants of any
cargo material on board that cannot be placed in proper cargo holds (loading excess and
spillage) or which remain in cargo holds and elsewhere after unloading procedures are
completed (unloading residual and spillage). However, cargo residues are expected to be
in small quantities.
Cargo residues are to be treated as garbage under Annex V except when those residues
are substances defined or listed under the other annexes to the Convention.
Cargo residues of all other substances are not explicitly excluded from disposal as
garbage under the overall definition of garbage in Annex V. However, certain of these
substances may pose harm to the marine environment and may not be suitable for
disposal at reception facilities equipped to handle general garbage because of their
possible safety hazards. The disposal of such cargo residues should be based on the
physical, chemical and biological properties of the substance and may require special
handling not normally provided by garbage reception facilities.
Discharge, in relation to harmful substances or effluents containing such substances,
means any release, howsoever caused, from a ship and includes any escape, disposal,
spilling, leaking, pumping, emitting or emptying.
Discharge does not include:



Dumping, within the meaning of the Convention on the Prevention of Marine
Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter, done at London on 13
November 1972; or
Release of harmful substances directly arising from the exploration, exploitation
and associated offshore processing of sea-bed mineral resources; or
Release of harmful substances for purposes of legitimate scientific research into
pollution abatement or control.
Dishwater is the residue from the manual or automatic washing of dishes and cooking
utensils which have been pre-cleaned to the extent that any food particles adhering to
them would not normally interfere with the operation dishwashers.
Grey water is drainage from dishwater, shower, laundry, bath and washbasin drains and
does not include drainage from toilets, urinals, hospitals and animal spaces, as defined in
regulation 1 (3) of annex IV, as well as drainage from cargo spaces. Dishwater and grey
water are not included as garbage in the context of Annex V.
Domestic waste means all types of food wastes generated in the living spaces on board
the ship.
20
Food wastes are any spoiled or unspoiled victual substances, such as fruits,
vegetables, dairy products, poultry, meat products, food scraps, food particles, and all
other materials contaminated by such wastes, generated onboard ship, principally in the
galley and dining areas. The release of small quantities of food wastes for the specific
purpose of fish feeding in connection with fishing or tourist operations is not included as
garbage in the context of Annex V.
Harmful substance means any substance which, if introduced into the sea, is liable to
create hazards to human, harm living resources and marine life, damage amenities or
interfere with other legitimate uses of the sea, and includes any substance subject to
control by the Convention.
Maintenance substance means materials collected by the engine department and the
deck department while maintaining and operating the vessel, such as soot, machinery
deposits, scraped paint, deck sweepings, wiping wastes and rags etc.
Oily or contaminated rags are rags which have been saturated with oil as controlled in
Annex 1 to the Convention or which have been saturated with a substance defined as a
harmful substance in the other annexes to the Convention.
An operational waste means all cargo-associated waste and maintenance waste, and
cargo residues defined as garbage.
Plastic means a solid material which contains as an essential ingredient one or more
synthetic organic high polymers and which is formed (shaped) during either manufacture
of the polymer or the fabrication into a finished product by heat and/or pressure. Plastics
have material properties ranging from hard and brittle to soft and elastic. Plastics are
used for a variety of marine purposes including, but not limited to, packaging (vaporproof barriers, bottles, containers, liners), ship construction (fiber glass and laminated
structures, siding, piping, insulation, flooring, carpets, fabrics, paints and finishes,
adhesives, electrical and electronic components), disposable eating utensils and cups,
bags, sheeting, floats, fishing nets, strapping bands, rope and line.
Wastes mean useless, unneeded or superfluous matter which is to be discharged.
21
APPENDIX 2
GARBAGE DISPOSAL RECEIPT
Date:
Name of ship:
Time LT:
HARREIR EXPLORER
Vessel present position:
IMO No.: 7807380
Port
Lat:
N/S
Long:
E/W
Reception facility e.g. garbage container, lorry, barge or other:
Estimated quantity:
Cat. 1
Cat. 2
Cat. 3
Cat. 4
Waste type:
Cat. 5
Cat. 6
Cat. 7
Total Amount (cub.m):
1
Plastic
2
Floating dunnage, lining, or packaging materials
3
Ground paper products, rags, glass, metal, bottles, crockery
4
Ungrounded paper products, rags, glass, metal bottles, crockery
5
Ground food waste
6
Unground food waste
7
Mixed refuse types
Sign (ship):
Rank:
Sign (Port or Vessel Receiver):
Position:
22
APPENDIX 3
INADEQUACY REPORTING FORM
Non-availability or inadequacy of reception facilities for the disposal of garbage should be
reported in accordance with Guidelines for the Implementation of Annex V MARPOL
73/78. Paragraph 7.1.1.
Country
Name of port or area/Location
Type and amount of garbage for discharge to facility:
Food waste
Cargo-associated waste
Maintenance waste
Other
Amount not accepted by the facility:
Food waste
Cargo-associated waste
Maintenance waste
Other
Special problems encountered:
Undue delay
Inconvenient location of facilities
Unreasonable charges for use of facilities
Special national regulations
Other
Remarks:
Name of ship/Call Sign/Port of Registry
Owner or operator
Date:
Signature of master:
23
Maritime Operations
Vessel Manual
APPENDIX 4
Ship’s name:
RECORD OF GARBAGE DISPOSAL
HARRIER EXPLORER
Distinctive No. or Letters: 3EIE3
IMO No.: 7807380
Garbage categories:
1:
2:
3:
4:
5:
6:
Plastic
Floating dunning, lining, or packing materials.
Ground paper products, rags, glass, metal, bottles, crockery, etc.
Paper products, rags, glass, metal, bottles, crockery, etc.
Food waste.
Incinerator ash except from plastic products which may contain toxic or heavy metal residues.
NOTE: THE DISCHARGE OF ANY GARBAGE OTHER THAN FOOD WASTE PROHIBITED IN SPECIAL AREAS. ONLY GARBAGE DISCHARGED INTO THE SEA
MUST BE CATEGORIZED. GARBAGE OTHER THAN CATEGORY 1 DISCHARGED TO RECEPTION FACILITIES NEED ONLY BE LISTED AS A TOTAL ESTIMATED
AMOUNT
Date /
Time
Position of the ship
Estimated amount discharge into sea
(m³)
Cat. 2
Cat. 3
Cat. 4
Cat. 5
Cat. 6
Estimated Amount
Discharge to
Reception
Facilities or to
Other ship (m³)
Cat. 1
Other
Estimated
Amount
Incinerated
(m³)
Certification/
Signature
Page 24
DEr NORSKE
DNV ld No:
VERTTAS l??:1,,.,,",
2012-02-27
INTERNATIONAL SEWAGE POLLUTION
PREVENTION CERTIFICATE
lssued under the provisions of the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1973, as moditied by the
Protocolof 1978 relating thereto, as amended, (heroinafter referred to as'the Convention")
under the authority oI the Government of
THE REPUBLIC OF PANAMA
by Det Norske Veritas AS
Particulars of Ship
Name of Ship:
:' H
AB
B!_E
Distinctive Number or Letters:
9EIEq
Port of Registry:
P_4!tAlr4.4
B
EX P l=gR E_B::
Gross Tonnage:
IMO Number:
z9g7_qq9_
Number of persons which the ship is certified to
carry:
!7_
Date of building contract:
Date on which keel was laid or ship was at a similar
stage of construction or, where applicable, date on
which work for a conversion or an alteration or
modification of a major character was commenced: 1978-11-01
Date of delivery:
1979-06-01
tr
tr
Existing ship
New ship
Remarks/Recom mendations
Dst
:
NoRSKE VERnAS AS, Vedtasv€ien 1,
Form No.: ISPP
501a
lssue:
NOl322 Hovik, Norway, Tel.: +47 67 57 99 00, Fax r47 67 57 99
mober
2010
t
1,
Oq.No. NO 945 748 931
MvA
wwwdnv.@m
paoe .t of 3
Name of ship: "HARRIER EXPLORER"
Certificate No: 1 2083
Date of issue: 2012-02-27
THIS IS TO CERTIFY:
That the ship is equipped with:
Sewage Treatment Plant*
Sewage Comminuting and Disinfecting System.
Sewage Holding Tank*
Pipeline for the discharge to a reception facility.
Description of the sewage treatment plant
Type
designation:
._O_BQA
!14
Name of manufacturer:
The sewage treatment plant is cqrtified by the Administration to meet the effluent standards as provided for
in resotution: X MEpC.2(Vt) n MEpC.159(ss).1
Description of sewage comminuting and disinfecting system
Type designation:
Name of manufacturer:
Standard of sewage after disinfection
..-__.--- __.--.-.--.-_
Description of sewage holding tank(s)
Total capacity of the holding
Location:
1.4
2
3
tank(s): fl...q
?ng p.eqh.?e.{!,
m3
lr,
g?:_s_g_...
A pipeline for the discharge of sewage to a reception facility, fitted with a standard shore connection.
That the ship has been surveyed in accordance with Regulation 4 of Annex lV of the Convention.
That the survey shows that the structure, equipment, systems, fittings, arrangements and materials of the ship
and
the condition thereof are in all respects satisfactory and that the shif compliel with the applicable requirements of
Annex lV of the Convention.
This Certificate is valid until
201Gl2{12 subiect to surveys in accordance with Regulation 4 of Annex lV
of the convention.
Completion date of survey on which this Certificate is based: 2012-01-og
lssued at Hovik, Norway on 2O12-O2-27
for Det Norske Veritas AS
(-,O. t/*MLt"*-
Kjellaug Oppedal Hurlen
Head of Section
Entries in boxes shall be made by inserting either a cross (x) for the answers 'yes' and 'applicable' or a dash (-) for the
answers ,no, and 'not applicable, as
appropriate
Equipment installed on ships keel laid on or after 1st January 2010 or new installations fitted onboard ships on or after 1st
January 2010 should be
according to Resolution MEPC.1 59(55)
Insert the date of expiry as specified by the Administration in accordance with regulation 8.1 of Annex lV of the
Convention. The day and the month of this
date correspond to the anniversary date as defined in Regulation 1.8 of Annex lV ol the Convention.
DE"r NoRSKE VERnAS AS, Ve.itasveien
Form
No.: ISPP
50'la
1
, NO-1 322 H6vik,
lssue: October
2O1O
Nolway, Tsl.: {47 67 57 gg oo, Faxi +47 61 57 99
1 1
, Org.No. NO 945 ?48
931
MvA
vtrw.dnv.com
page2or3
of ship: "HARRIER EXPLORER"
Certificate No: 12083
Date of issue:' 201 2-02-27
Endorsement where the tenerval survey has been completed and r€gulaflon g.4 applies
The shiP.cornplies with the r€levant provisions of the Convention, and this C€rtificate shall, in accordance with Regulation 8.4 of
Annex lV ot the Convention, bs accapted as valid until (yyyy-mmdd).
Date:
Det Norske Veritas AS
Endorsement to extend the validity of the certificate until reaching the port of survey or for a
periode of grace where regulation 8.5 or 8.6 applies
This Certificate shall, in accordance with Regulation 8.5* or 8.6* of Annex lV of the Convention, be accepted as valid until
(yyyy-mm-dd).
Place:
Signature:
DEr NoRsxE VERnAS AS, Verltasroisn
Form No.: ISPP
5O1a
lssrF:
1
,
NO.l 322 Hovilq Noft!6y, Tel.: +47 67 57 90 ()o, Fa* r.67 67 57 99
Octob
2010
1|,
Org.No. NO 946 7,{8
gt.t MVA wrw.dw.com
page 3 cf 3
DET NORSKE
VERTTAS
Certificate no.:
l??:if
issue:
2012-02-27
INTERNATIONAL AIR POLLUTION
PREVENTION CERTIF'ICATE
lssued underlhe provisions ofthe Protocol of 1997 as amended by resolution MEPC.I76(58) in 2008, to amend the
International Convention tor the Prevention of Pollution trom Ships, '1973, as modified by the irotocol of 1978 related thereto
(hereinafter referred to as the Convention") under the authoritv of the Government of
Particulars of Ship
Name of Ship:
fia.RElER EXPLORER"
9_HE_q
Port of Registry:
Gross Tonnage:
IMO Number:
Type of ship:
tr
tr
Tanker
Ship other than tanker
THIS IS TO CERTIFY:
.
2.
1
That the ship has been surveyed in accordance with rsgulation 5 of Annex Vl of the Convention: and
That the survey shows that the equipment, systems, fittings, arrangements and materials fully comply with the applicable
requirements of Annex Vl of the Convention.
Remarks/Recom mendations:
This Certificate is valid until 201G12€1 sublect to surveys in accordance with Begulation 5 ot Annex Vl of the Convention.
Completion date of survey on which this Certilicate is based: 2012-01-08
lssusd at Hsvik, Non
ay
on 2012-02-27
Head of Section
DET NORSKE VERIAS AS, Vedtasv€ien 1, NO-l322 Hovik, Norway, T6l.: r47 67 57 99 OO,
Form No.:
IAPPlola
lssue: Ociober
2011
Far {47 67 57 99
t 1, OQ.No. NO 945 748 931
MVA www.dnv.com
page l of6
Date of issue:
2012-02-27
\
Endols€m€nt for annual and interfnedlate surueys
THIS lS TO CEFTIFY that, at a suruey required by Regulation 5 of Annex Vl of the Convention, the ship was found to comply
with the relevant orovisions of that Annex..
1
st annual survey:
Place:
Date:
Signature:
Stamp
.-..-.-..-..-.....
Suruevor. Det Norske Vedtas AS
2nd annual/intermediate
1
survey:
Place:
Date:
I
3rd annual/intermediate survey:
Place:
Date:
4th annual survey:
Place:
Date:
Annual,/lntermediat€ survey in accoldance with R€gulation 9.8.3
THIS lS TO CERTIFY that, at an annuamntermediate 1 survey in accordan@ with Regulation g.8.3 of Annex Vt ol th6
Convention, the ship was found to comply with the relovant provisions of that Annex.
Place:
-_--_-_.-_...,_,__,-_--_-
Date:
Endo6€ment to extend the certiffcate it valid to. less than s ye6r3 wher€ Regulaton 9.3 applios
The ship complies with the relevant provisions of the Annex, and this Cortificate shall. in accordancs with
Regulation 9.3 of Annex Vl of the Convention, b6 accepted as valid until:
Place:
,-_--------.--.-_---__,-_
Date:
r, Det Norske Veritas AS
Delete as appropriate.
DET NORSKE VERTTAS AS, Vedlasvoi€n 1, NO-l322 Hovik, Norway, Tel.: {47 6? 57 gg oo, Faxi +47 67 57 99
Form
No.: |APP
tola
lssue: October
2011
1I, o€.No. NO 945 748 931 t VA www.dnv.con
page2ol6
,/
Date of issue:' 2012-02-27
Endorsement where the renewal survey has been completed and Regulation 9.4 applies.
The ship complies with the relevant provisions of the Annex, and this Certificate shall, in accordance with
Regulation 9.4 of Annex Vl of the Convention, be accepted as valid until:
Place:
Date:
Signature:
Stamp
Survevor. Det Norske Veritas AS
Endo6€ment to extend the valldlty of the Certlflcate until leachlng th€ po ot suruoy or iol a period of graceJrherc
Regulation 9.5 or 9.6 applies.
This Csrtificate shall, in accordance with Regulation 9.5 2 or 9.6'? of Annex Vl
of the Convention, be
acceDted as valid until:
Place:
Date:
Signature:
Endorsement for advancement of anniversary date where Regulation 9.8 applies.
ln accordance with Regulation 9.8 of Annex Vl of the Convention, the new anniversary date is:
Place:
Date:
ln accordance with Regulation 9.8 of Annex Vl of the Convention, the new anniversary date is:
Place:
Date:
, Det Norske Veritas AS
2
Delete as appropriate
DET NORSKE VERIAS AS, Vedtasveion 1, NO-1322 H6vik, Noru/ay, Tel.:
Form No.:
IAPPl0la
lssue:
Ociober2o|I
+4767579900, Fax: r47 67579911, O€.No.
- NO945 748 93t MVA www.dnv.clm
page3of6
\
DET NORSKE VERITAS
SUPPLEMENT TO
INTERNATIONAL AIR POLLUTION
Record no.:
12083
Date of issue:
2012-02-27
(IAPP CERTIFICATE)
RECORD OF CONSTRUCTION AND EQUIPMENT
In rospect of the provisions of Annsx Vl of the Intemational Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1979, as
modiliod by the Protocol of 1978 relating thereto (hereinafter relerred to as the Convention").
This Record shall be permanently attached to the IAPP Certilicate. The IAPP certilicate shall be avaitable on boaid the shiD at
all times.
The Record shall be at least in English, French or Spanish. lf an oflicial language of the issuing country is also used, this shall
prevail in case of a dispute or discrepancy.
Entries in boxes shall be made by inserting either a cross (x) for the answers "yes" and -applicable'or a dash
C) for the answers
'no" and "not applicable" as appropriate.
unless othen/vise stated, regulations mentioned in this Record reter to regulations of Annex Vl of the convention and resolutions
or circulars refer to those adopted by the International Maritime Organization.
1.
1.1
1.2
1.3
Particulars of Ship
Name of
Ship
.HARR|EF EXPLORER"
IMO number
7807380
Date on which keel was laid or ship was at
similar stage of construction
1.4
Length of Ship
2.
2.1
2.1'1
3
1gZ8-11
-m
Control ot emissions from ships
Ozone-depletlngsubstances(Regulationl2)
The tollowing fire-extinguishing systems, other systems and equipment containing ozone-depleting substances,
other than hydro'chlorofluorocarbons (HCFCS), installed before 19 May 2OO5 may continue in
seriice:
System equipment
2'1.2
Location on board
luJl[y'l3"",t",j:ms
System equipment
3
Substance
and€quipment containins hydro-chlorofluoroca]bons (HcFcs) insraled berore
Location on board
n
L1
1
January
E
Substance
Completed only in respect of ships constructed on or after 1 January 2016, which are specially designed, and used solely, for recreational purposes
and
to which, in accordance with regulation 13.5.2.1 , the NOx emission limit as given by regulation 13.5:1 .1 will not appry.
DET NORSKE
Form
VERIAS AS, V€ritasveien
lssue;
No.: |APP
tola
1, NOn 322 Hovik, Nolway, Tel.:
October2011
{47 67 57 99 oo, Fax: +47 67 57 99
1.1,
OQ.No. NO 945 748 931
tWA
vwtw.dnv.con
page4or6
Record no.: 12083
/
2.2
2.2.1
Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) (Regulation 13)
(a),
The following marine diesel engines with power output greater than 130 kW
installed on this ship comply with
the applicable emission limit of Regulation 13 in accordance with the revised NOx Technical Code:
Enoine #1
Manufacturer and model
Serial Number
Use
Power Output (kW)
Rated speed (rpm)
Date of install. (vwv/mm/dd)
Acc, to reg.
Date of major
13.2.2
conversion
Acc. to reg.
(yyyy/mm/dd)
13.2.3
Exempted bv req. 13.1.1.2
Tier Reo. 13.3
Tier I Reo. 13.4
Tier I Req. 13.2.2. or 13.5.2
Tier ll Req 13.5.1.1
Approved Method exists
Approved Method not
commerciallv avai lable
Approved Method installed
2.3
2.3.1
caterpillar
Enoine #2
Gaterpillar
Enqine #3
Caterpillar
Enqine #4
Caterpillar
Inc.,
35128
s2M00123
Aux. Enq.
Inc.,
35128
s2M00125
Aux. Enq.
lnc.,
35128
s2K00267
Aux. Enq.
lnc.,
Aux. Eno.
1678
1925
1678
1925
969
1200
465
1800
20rJ7-09-22
2007-09-22
2007-09-22
2007-09-22
n
tr
l
l
n
Enqine #5
Enqine #6
Enqine #7
tr
n
tr
cl8
cYN00282
T
!
l
tr
Sulphur Oxides (SO, and particulate mafter (Regulation 14)
When the ship operates outside of an Emission Control Area specified in regulation 14.3, the ship uses:
2.3.1.1 fuel oil with a sulphur content as documented by bunker delivery notes that does not exceed the limit value of:
o 4.5O/o m/m (not applicable on or after 1 January 2012); or
o 3.50% m/m (not applicable on or after 1 January 2O2O): or
. 0.50% m/m, and/or
2.3.1.2 an equivalent arrangement approved in accordance with regulation 4.1 as listed in 2.6 that is at least as
effective in terms of SOx emission reductions as compared to using a fuel oil with a sulphur content limit value
o
.
.
2.3.2
of:
4.50o/o m/m (not applicable on
or after 1 January 2012); or
3.50% m/m (not applicable on or after 1 January 2020); or
0.507" m/m
When the ship operates inside an Emission Control Area specified in regulation 14.3, the ship uses:
2.3.2.1 fuel oil with a sulphur content as documented by bunker delivery notes that does not exceed the limit value of:
o 1 .00"/" m/m (not applicable on or after 1 January 2015); or
o 0.1 0"/" m/m, and/or
2.3.2.2 an equivalent arrangement approved in accordance with regulation 4.1 as listed in 2.6 that is at least as
effective in terms of SOx emission reductions as compared to using a fuel oil with a sulphur content limit value
o
.
2.4
2.4.1
of:
1
.OO"/"
m/m (not applicable on or after 1 January 2015); or
H
0.10h mlm
Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) (Regulation 15)
The tanker has a vapour collection system installed and approved in accordance with IMO MSC/Circ.S8S
2.4.2.1 For a tanker carrying crude oil, there is an approved VOC Management Plan
2.4.2.2 VOC Management Plan approval reference:
2.5
2.5.1
(5):
tr
E
Shipboard Incineration (Regulation 16)
The ship has an incinerator:
2.5.1.1 installed on or after 1 January 2000 which complies with resolution MEPC .76(40) as amended
2.5.1.2 installed before 1 January 2000 which
2.5.1.2.1 complies with resolution MEPC.59(33)
\
2.5.1 .2.2 complies with resolution MEPC.76(40)
2.5.1.2.3 does not comply with resolution MEPC.59(33) or resolution MEPC.76(40)
4
5
Note that Reg.13 is not applicable for lifeboat engines, emergency diesel generators and emergency fire pump diesel engines.
Ships with DNV Class notation VCS-1 or VCS-2 (compliance with USCG CFR 46 Part 39) comply with tMO tr/SC/Circ.585.
DET NoRSKE VERIAS AS, Vedtas.r€i€n
Form
No.: |APP
lola
1
, NO-l 322 Hovik, Norwtsy, Tel.:
lssue: Oclober
2011
r47 67 57 99
OO,
Far r47 67 57 99
1 1
,
Org.No. NO 945 7,tg 931 MVA wwwdnv.@m
page 5 of 6
2.6 Equivalents (Regulation 4)
The ship has been allowed to us€ the Jollowing titting, material, applianc€ or apparatus to be fittod in a ship or other pr@edures,
alternative fuel
fu€l oils,
oils. or compliance
comolianco methods
melhods used as an
en alternative
allalnrriv;r^to that
rhar required
ra^,,ira,r bv
hr, this
ihi. Annex:
^h6^w.
System or equipment
Eqiuvalent used
Approval reference
Remarks / Supplementary information:
THls ls
fssued
ro
OERTIFY that this Record is correct in arr respects.
at Hsvik, Norway on 2012-02-27
roklt
rr fJlErlAiLl
-S? R\tL t.
=
F rs--
-+1sv6a+
./
/
, l/t_r/&{
i/""::::::i."""
Surveyor
DET NORSKE VERnAS AS, Vedlasveien
Form No.: IAPP
101a
1
, NO-1
lssue: October
322 Hovik, NorsEy, Tet.: +47 67 57 99 oo, Fax: r47 87 57 90
2011
1 1
, Org.No. NO 945 748
9g1 MVA rlrflw.dnv.com
_
-__^ 6^ of
Page
6
Ceftificate no.:
1 20834
Date of issue:
DET NORSKE VERITAS
INTERNATIONAL OIL POLLUTION
2012-02-27
This Certificate shall be supplemented by Record of
Construction and Equipment
lssued under the provisions of the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1973, as moditied by the
Protocol of 1978 relating thereto, as amended, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Convention,') under the authoritv of the'
Government of
Particulars of Ship
Name of Ship:
Port of Registry:
Gross Tonnage:
Deadweight of ship (metric tons) 1 :
IMO Number:
Type of ship:
tr
oit ranker
tr
tr
Ship other than an oil tanker with cargo tanks coming under Regulation 2(2) of Annex I of the
Convention
Ship other than any of the above
THIS IS TO CEBTIFY:
'1.
2.
That the ship has been surveyed in accordance with Regutation 6 of Annex I of the convention.
That the survey shows that the structure, equipment, systems, finings, arrangements and material of the ship and the
condition thereof are in all respects satisfactory and that the ship complies with the applicablo requirements of Annex I of
the Convention.
RemarkYBecommendations:
This Certilicate is valid until 2ol6-12-31 2 subject to surveys in accordance with Regulation 6 oI Annex I of the convention.
Completion date ot survey on which this Certificate is based: 2Oi 2-01-08
lssued at Hsvik, Norway on 2012-02-27
{*.o
.
fuqlt^r*.
Head of Section
2'
Foroiltankerc
Insert the date ol expiry as specilied by the Administration in accordance with Regulation 1 0.1 ol Annex I of the Convention. The day and the month of this dat€
corespond lo annivercary date as delined in Regulation 1.27 of Annex lol the Conv€nlion, unless am€nded in accordanc€ with Re6uhtion 10.8 ol Annex I ol
the Convenlion,
DET NORSKE VERITAS AS, Veritaw€ien
Form No.: IOPP
501a
I,
NO-1322 Hovik, Norway, Tel.: +47 67 57 99 oo, Fax: +47 67 57 99 11, Orc.No. NO 945 748 931
lssue: January
2O1O
-
MVA www.dnv_com
page 1 of 3
\
!
Certificate No: 12083A
Endorsement lor annual and intermediats sutveys
THIS lS TO CERTIFY that, at a survey required by Regulation 6 of Annex I of the Convention, the ship was found to compty w1h
the relevant provisions of the Convention.
1st annual survey:
Place:
Date:
Signature:
2nd annual/intermediate 3 survey:
Place:
Date:
Su
3rd annual/intermediate
3
survey:
Place:
r, Det Norske Veritas AS
Date:
Signature:
Su
4th annual survey:
Place:
Date:
Annual/intermediate survey in accordance with Regulation 1o.g.g
THIS lS TO CERTIFY that, at an annual/intermediate 3 survey in accordance with Regulation 10.8.3 of Annex I of the
Convention, the ship was found to comply with the relevant piovisions of the Conventlon.
Place:
Date:
Signature
Endorsement to extend the Certificate if valid for less than 5 years where Regulation 10.3 applies
The ship complies with the relevant provisions of the Convention, and this Certificate shall, in accordance
withRegu|ation10.3ofAnnex|oftheConvention,beacceptedasvalidunti|:.
Place:
'
Date:
Delete as appropriate.
DE.r NoRsxE VERITAS AS, Veritesvelen 1, NO-1322 Hovik, NoMay, Tel.: +47 67 57 99 oo, Fax: {4? 67 57
99
Form
No.: IOPP
501a
lssue:
January2o1o
1
1, Org.No. NO 945 748
931 |VVA www.dnv.com
page2ol3
,!
Date of issuel' 2012-02-27
/
Endorsement where the renewal survey has been completed and Regulation 10.4 applies.
The ship complies with the relevant provisions of the Convention, and this Certificate shall, in accordance
with Regulation 10.4 of Annex I of the Convention, be accepted as valid until:.
Place:
Date:
Stamp
Surveyor, Det Norske Veritas AS
Endo6ement to extend the validity of the Certificato untll reachlng tho pod ot sulvey or for a peliod of grace wherc
Regulation 10.5 or 10.6 applies.
This Csrtificate shall, in accordance with Regulation 10.5
4
4
or 10.6 of Annex I of the Convention, be
Place:
Date:
Endorsement for advancement of anniversary date where Regulation 10.8 applies.
In accordance with Regulation 10.8 of Annex I of the Convention, the new anniversary date is:....
Place:
Date:
Signature:
Stamp
Survevor, Det Norske Veritas AS
Place:
Date:
Delete as appropriate
DEr NoRSKE VERlrAs AS, vedtasveien 1, NO-1322 Hovik, Noflvay, Tel.: +47675799oo, FaK +47675799II, Ory.No. No 945
Form No.: IOPP 50'1a lssue: January
2010
7,tB 931
MVA www.dnv.@m
page 3 of 3
[6
ry
VERTTAS
DET NORSKE
SUPPLEMENT TO THE INTERNATIONAL
Record no.:
l??3.ot,".,",
2012.02.27
OLPOLLUTION
(IOPP
-
CERTIFICATE)
FORM A
RECORD OF CONSTRUCTION AND EQUIPMENT FOR SHIPS
OTHER THAN OIL TANKERS
in respect of the provisions ol Annex I of the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1923, as
modified by the Protocol ol '1978 relating thereto (hereinafter referred to as "the Convention").
This lorm is to be used for the third type of ships as categorized in the IOPP Certificate, i.e. "ships other than any of the above".
For oil tankers and ships other than oil tankers with cargo tanks coming under Begulation 2.2 of Annex I of the ionvention,
Form B shall be used.
This Record shall be permanently attached to the IOPP certificate. The loPP Certificate shall be availabte on board the shiD at
all times.
Entries in boxes shall be made by ins€rting either a cross (x) for the answers "yes" and "applicable" or a dash (-) for the answers
"no" and "not applicable' as appropriate
Flegulations mentioned in this Record refer to Regulations ol Annex I ol the Convention and resolutions refer to those adooted
by the International Maritime Organization.
1.
1.1
1.2
Particulars of shap
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.5.1
1.5.2
Name of ship
::H AR R
Distinctive number or letters
9-EIE9
IMO number
z8_97_q80_
Port of registry
!_E
R EIP_!:o
fAN4rvtA
Gross tonnage
19q9_
Date of build:
Date of building contract:
Date on which keel was laid or ship was at a
similar stage of
1.5.3
.!.92-a.:l.l_-9.1.
Date of
1.6
.6,1
!S29.:Q9:_01
1
Major conversion (if applicable):
Date of conversion
1.6.2
Date on which conversion was
'1.6.3
1.7
2.
2.1
2.1 .1
2.2
2.2.1
2.2.2
RF_R ::
construction:
delivery:
contract:
Date of completion of
commenced:
conversion:
.:........... . ........
:...............
..
-:... . .....-.--.--.--..
The ship has been accepted by the administration as a "ship delivered on or before 31 December 1929" under
Regulation 1.28.1 due to unforeseen detay in delivery
..........................
tr
EOUIPiIENT FOR THE CONTROL OF OIL DISCHARGE FROM MACHINERY SPACE BILGES AND OIL FUEL
TANKS
(Begulations 16 and 14)
Carriage of ballast water in oil fuel tanks
The ship may under normat conditions carry ballast water in oil tanks
Type ot oil filtering equipment fitted:
................
Oilfiltering (15 ppm) equipmenr (Regutation 14.6)
Oilfiltering (15 ppm) equipment with atarm and automatic stopping device (Regutation
2.3
Approval standards
2.3.1
The separating / filtering equipment:
.1
.2
has been approved in accordance with Resolution A.3gg(X)
has been approved in accordance with Resolution
...................t|
tr
tr
14.7)
t .......................r,........................
MEPC.6O(33)
tr
................................tj1
Equipment installed on ships keel laid on or after 30 April 1994 should be in accordance with Resolution MEPC.6O(33).
DETNoRSKE VERnAS AS, Ve tasveien 1, NO-1322 Hovik, Norway, Tel.: +47 8757 gg}O,Faxi +47 67 57 S€ 11, OA.No. NO 94S748931
Form
No.: IOPP
503a
lssue:January
2012
tVA
wlvwdnv.com
paoeiot4
DEr NoRsrr VpRnes AS, Veritasveien 1 , No-1322 Hovik, Norway, Tel.: +47 67 57 99 oo,
Form No.: IOPP 503a lssue:January 2012
Record no.:
12083A
Fax: +47 67 57 99
1
1, Org.No. NO 945 74g 931 MVA
www.dnv.com
Page 2 of 4
/t
I
V'
,/
./
3.
Record no.:
12083A
MEANS FOR RETENTION AND DISPOSAL OFOIL RESIDUES (SLUDGE) (Regulation 12)
AND OtLy BTLGE WATER HOLDING TANK(S) 3
The ship is
with oil residue (sl
tanks for retention of oil residues
on board as follows:
Volume (m3)
Total volu
3.2
Means
3.2.1
lncinerator for oil
residues (sludge),
maximum capacity: 65
for the disposal of oil residues (sludge) retained in oil residue (sludge) tanks:
Eun
E
Erw
ksrn
!
tr
tr
tr
kcal/h
3.2.2
3.2.3
Auxiliary boiler suitable for burning oil residues (sludge)
3.3
The shi ts providecl
rovided with holding tank(s) for the retention on board of oily bilge water as follows:
Tank ldentification 3
Tank Location
Other acceptable means, state which:
Frames
(from-to)
Lateral Position
Bilge Tank
78-85
c
34.00
Bilge Water Settling Tank
53-55
S
2.30
Volume (m3)
(P-C-S)
Total volume
4.
4.1
5.
5.1
36.30
STANDARD DISCHARGECONNECTTON (Regutation 13)
The ship is provided with a pipeline for the discharge of residues from machinery bilges to reception facilities,
fitted with a standard discharge connection in accordance with Regulation 13...,.......
SHIPBOARD OIUMARINE POLLUTION EMERGENCY PLAN (SOpEp / SMpEp) (Regutation 37)
The ship is provided with Shipboard Oil Pollution Emergency Plan in compliance with Regulation 37 ...........
5,2
The ship is provided with a Shipboard Marine Pollution Emergency Plan in compliance with Regulation g7.3
6.
EXEMPTION
6.1
Exemptions have been granted by the Administration from the requirements of Chapter 3 of Annex I of the
Convention in accordance with Regulation 3.1 on those items listed under paragrapnls; of this Record
7.
EQUIVALENTS
7.1
(Regulation 5)
Equivalents have been approved by the Administration for certain requirements of Annex
paragraph(s) of this Record
listed under
8.
tr
.....E
tr
I
REMARKS / SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
Oily bilge water holding tank(s) are not required by the Convention, if such tank(s) are provided they shall be listed in table under paragraph
3.3
Dsr NoRSKE VERnAS AS, V€ritasveien l, NO-1322 Hovik, NoMay, T6l.: + 47 67 57 gg @,
Form No.: IOPP 503a lssue:January 2012
Faxt +47 67 57 99 11, Org.No. NO 945 748 931
MVA wwwdnv.com
pagegof4
'.-'/
THls ls
ro
-=J
Record no.:- 12083A
OERTIFY that this Record is correct in all respects.
lssued at Hovik, Norway on 2O12-O2-27
ffi
lzztr,
/, Itngvaldsen
tyhney
Surveyor
DETNoRSxEVERnAS AS, Vedtswolen 1, NO-1322 Hovik, Nor$/ay, Tel.: +4787579900, Fax +470757 091t, oq.No. No945748931
MVA www.dnv.com
Form
No.: IOPP
503a
lssue: January
2012
page4of4
MV POLAR PRINCE
GARBAGE MANAGEMENT
PLAN
DISTINCTIVENUMBERSORLETTERS:CFK9552
IMONUMBER:5329566
PORTOFREGISTRY:Ottawa
TONNAGE:2062GRT
TYPE:CargoShip
Version 2 – Revised 15.08.2012
1
Table of Content
Section 1 – Introduction
3
Section II – Regulatory Requirements
3
Section III – Prevention of Pollution from Garbage
4
Section IV – Plan Details
-
Designated persons in charge of carrying out the plan
Procedures for collecting and storing garbage
Procedures for disposing of garbage
Training
Record keeping and placard posting
6
6
9
10
11
11
Appendix I – Garbage Record Book
14
Appendix II – Ship Garbage Receipt
15
2
SECTION I - INTRODUCTION
The purpose of the plan is to ensure the vessel complies with International and Canadian
regulations for the management of garbage and to reduce the impact of the vessel upon the
environment due to operations and by the generation and disposal of garbage.
In accordance with regulation 9 of Annex V of the International Convention for the Prevention
of Pollution from Ships, 1973 as modified by the Protocol of 1978 (MARPOL 73/78), a record is
to be kept of each discharge operation or completed incineration. This includes discharges at sea,
to reception facilities, or to other ships.
SECTION II - REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS
A ship of 400 tons gross tonnage or more and a ship that is certified to carry 15 persons or more
shall keep on board a garbage management plan that meets the format requirements of regulation
9(2) of Annex V to the Pollution Convention.
Every member of the crew shall comply with the requirements of the garbage management plan.
The garbage management plan shall specify the person in charge of carrying out the plan and set
out written procedures for collecting, storing, processing and disposing or discharging of
garbage, including the use of the equipment on board.
The garbage management plan shall, in the case of a Canadian ship, be written in English or
French; and in the case of a ship that is not a Canadian ship, be written in the working language
of the crew.
3
SECTION III – PREVENTION OF POLLUTION FROM GARBAGE
The table below summarizes the legislated prohibition and allowances for the discharge of
garbage at sea:
GARBAGE TYPE
All Plastics-includes
synthetic ropes, fishing
nets, plastic bags and
incinerated plastics
Floating dunnage, lining
and packing materials
Paper, rags, glass, metal,
bottles, crockery and
similar refuse
All other garbage including
paper, rags. Glass, etc
Comminuted or ground
Food waste not
comminuted or ground
*Food waste comminuted
INSIDE TERRITORIAL
SEAS (12 M) & SHIPPING
SAFETY CONTROL
ZONES
IN SPECIAL AREAS
***
OUTSIDE SPECIAL
AREAS &
TERRITORIAL SEAS
DISPOSAL PROHIBITED
DISPOSAL PROHIBITED
DISPOSAL PROHIBITED
DISPOSAL PROHIBITED
DISPOSAL PROHIBITED
25 miles from the nearest
land
DISPOSAL PROHIBITED
DISPOSAL PROHIBITED
More than 12 miles from the
nearest land
DISPOSAL PROHIBITED
DISPOSAL PROHIBITED
nearest land
DISPOSAL PROHIBITED
nearest land
nearest land
nearest land in the Wider
Caribbean Area only
nearest land
DISPOSAL PROHIBITED
or ground
Mixed refuse types
DISPOSAL PROHIBITED
**
**
* Comminuted or ground garbage must be able to pass through a screen with a mesh size no
larger than 25mm.
** When garbage is mixed with other harmful substances having different disposal or discharge
requirements, the more stringent disposal requirements shall apply. For example, any mixed
garbage containing plastic material may not be discharged overboard
*** Refer to MARPOL Convention for up-to-date listing of special areas.
4
Under Canadian Pollution Legislation:
1. All ships in Section II waters and Canadian ships in waters seaward of the outermost
limits of Section II waters are authorized to discharge garbage if (a) in the case of
dunnage, lining material or packing material that does not contain plastics and is capable
of floating, the discharge is made as far as practicable from the nearest land but under no
circumstances shall the distance of the ship from the nearest land be less than 25 nautical
miles at the time of discharge;
2. subject to the next paragraph, in the case of garbage other than plastics and garbage that
is referred to in the paragraph above the discharge is made as far as practicable from the
nearest land but under no circumstances shall the distance of the ship from the nearest
land be less than 12 nautical miles at the time of discharge; and
3. in the case of garbage that is referred to in the previous paragraph that has been passed
through a comminuter or grinder such that the comminuted or ground garbage is capable
of passing through a screen with openings no greater than 25 mm, the discharge is made
as far as practicable from the nearest land but under no circumstances shall the distance
of the ship from the nearest land be less than 3 nautical miles at the time of discharge.
Special Requirements
4. Subject to the next paragraph, the discharge of garbage is prohibited from a ship that is
alongside or within 500 m of a fixed or floating platform located more than 12 nautical
miles from the nearest land and engaged in the exploration, exploitation and associated
offshore processing of seabed mineral resources;
5. A ship that is alongside or within 500 m of a fixed or floating platform located more than
12 nautical miles from the nearest land and engages in the exploration, exploitation and
associated offshore processing of seabed mineral resources is authorized to discharge
food wastes only if the food wastes have been passed through a comminuter or grinder
such that the comminuted or ground food wastes are capable of passing through a screen
with openings no greater than 25 mm.
“Section II waters” means any portion of the territorial sea or of fishing zone 4, 5 or 6 that is not
within a shipping safety control zone.
5
SECTION IV – PLAN DETAILS
Designated persons in charge of carrying out the plan
The Master is responsible for the implementation of the plan and the Chief Officer is responsible
for the execution of the plan and for all record keeping. The Chief Officer is the designated
Garbage Management Officer (GMO).
Each crewmember is required to assist the GMO in ensuring that the collection, separation and
processing of garbage is efficient in all areas of the ship and that the procedures onboard are
carried out in accordance with this plan.
Procedures for collecting and storing garbage
Appropriate garbage receptacles are located throughout the vessel in most personal and work
spaces. For use in collecting regular garbage, these receptacles are non combustible; for
collection of oily rags, the receptacles are fitted with self-closing lids. Receptacles located in the
galley and messroom contain covers.
General Waste
Receptacles located in the messroom are to be used for the separation of (a) regular dry garbage,
(b) food waste and (c) glass containers, domestic cans and refundable items. This station is
labelled as such. Crewmembers shall endeavour to clean and place personal glass containers &
domestic cans in this receptacle at this station and not in personal garbage receptacles in cabins
and lounge.
6
Regular dry garbage from personal and work space is collected and stored in a box secured on
the boat deck adjacent to the incinerator. The box top and garbage is covered to prevent garbage
from blowing around and accidental discharge overboard. When required to be incinerated, food
waste is stored in the same box as regular dry garbage.
Wooden pallets and similar dunnage is cut into small pieces, collected and stored adjacent to the
box secured on the boat deck adjacent to the incinerator.
Glass containers, domestic cans and refundable items are collected from the messroom station
and stored in proper storage units in cargo hold #2.
Metal scrap is collected from work areas and stored in cargo hold #2 in a marked container.
Insulation is collected from work areas and stored in cargo hold #2 in a marked container.
Hazardous Waste
Oily rags, absorbent pads and oil spill materials are collected from work stations and stored in a
marked container secured on the boat deck adjacent to the incinerator. This is an approved
environmental containment unit with tight fitting cover.
Batteries are collected from work areas and personal cabins and stored in marked containers or
area in the electrical workshop.
Printer ink cartridges are collected from work areas and stored in marked containers or area in
the electrical workshop.
7
Burned-out fluorescent ballasts and tubes are collected from work areas and personal cabins and
stored in marked boxes in the light-bulb locker.
Pressurized containers (aerosol cans and propane cylinders) and other non-combustible products
are collected from work areas and personal cabins and stored in cargo hold #2 in marked
containers.
Materials containing PCBs are collected from work areas and stored in cargo hold #2 in a
marked container.
Used oil filters are drained of oil, collected from the engine room and stored in a marked
container secured on the boat deck adjacent to the incinerator.
All crewmembers are responsible for ensuring that personal garbage is properly moved from
their respective cabins to the storage area. The supervisor of each work station (deck, engine
room and galley) is responsible for ensuring that garbage is collected from respective work
stations and moved to the storage area. The bosun is responsible for moving the glass containers,
domestic cans and refundable items to cargo hold #2.
8
The vessel isn’t fitted with processing equipment (glass and metal compactor, paper and
cardboard shredder, etc.) for garbage and, as such, the garbage goes directly from the storage
area to the incineration or disposal site.
The vessel is fitted with an Atlas Incinerator which complies with the requirements of the
following requirements in the following regulations standards: Annex A.1, item No. A.1/2.7 and
Annex B, Module B in the Directive. MARPOL 73/78 as amended, Annex VI Regulation
16(2)(a), IMO Res. MEPC. 76(40) (See appendix A) and copies of type approval certificates
Appendix B.
The incinerator is fitted in a 20 foot standard container located on the boat deck, port side, aft. It
is rated to burn 100kg of solid waste per hour via hopper feed system. The following types of
garbage, as listed for storage above, are incinerated:
¾
¾
¾
¾
¾
¾
¾
¾
¾
Paper
Cardboard
Plastic
Wood
Cleaning rags
Oily rags
Food
Oil filters
Rope
The following types of garbage, as listed above, in not incinerated:
¾
¾
¾
¾
¾
¾
¾
¾
Glass containers
Domestic cans
Fluorescent ballasts and tubes
Batteries
Pressurized containers (aerosol cans and propane cylinders)
Metallic scrap
Insulation
Materials containing PCBs
9
The Chief Engineer is responsible to the GMO for the operation of the incinerator and burning of
garbage.
For incinerator operating and maintenance procedures, refer to the Manufacturer’s Manual
located in the Chief Engineer’s cabin.
Procedures for disposing of garbage
Under normal conditions, GX Technology policy only permits the overboard discharge of food
waste, when permitted (as per the table contained in Section III), when 12 nautical miles or more
from the nearest land.
Due to special needs, overboard discharge of garbage other than food waste may be permitted if
authorized by the Master. Strict adherence must be made to the legislated requirements at all
times.
Overboard discharge of incinerator ash is strictly forbidden as it may contain plastic residue.
Incinerator ash is to be collected from the incinerator and stored in marked containers for storage
in cargo hold #2.
Prior to discharging garbage over the side, the designated crew member must contact the bridge
and obtain permission. It is the responsibility of the OOW to ensure that discharge is permitted.
All garbage waste retained on board, including incinerator ash and hazardous materials will be
disposed of ashore at a recognized reception facility. Printer ink cartridges may be returned to
marked address for refilling or proper recycling.
10
Training
Garbage management familiarization is included in the vessel familiarization program and is a
requirement of all crewmembers, supernumeraries and passengers joining the vessel. It is the
responsibility of the GMO to ensure that all are familiarized with onboard garbage management
procedures and their responsibility.
Record keeping & placard posting
Entries in the Garbage Record Book shall be made on each of the following occasions:
1. When garbage is discharged into the sea:
a) Date and time of discharge
b) Position of the ship (latitude and longitude) Note: for cargo residue discharges, include
discharge start and stop positions
c) Category of garbage discharged
d) Estimated amount discharged for each category in cubic metres
e) Signature of the officer in charge of the operation or OOW.
2. When garbage is discharged to reception facilities ashore or to other ships:
a) Date and time of discharge
b) Port of facility, or name of ship
c) Category of garbage discharged
d) Estimated amount discharged for each category in cubic metres
e) Signature of the officer in charge of the operation or OOW.
3. When garbage is incinerated:
a) Date and time of start and stop of incineration
b) Position of the ship (latitude and longitude)
c) Estimated amount incinerated in cubic metres
d) Signature of the officer in charge of the operation or OOW.
4. Accidental or other exceptional discharges of garbage:
a) Time of occurrence
b) Port or position of the ship at the time of occurrence.
11
c) Estimated amount and category of garbage.
d) Circumstances of disposal, escape or loss, the reason therefore and general remarks.
e) All incineration of solid waste will be entered in the incinerator logbook and the vessel’s
garbage record book.
The Garbage Record Book and this plan are kept on the bridge for easy access.
In addition, record of incinerator activity is recorded in the Incinerator Logbook.
The GMO will obtain from the operator of port reception facilities, or from the master of the ship
receiving the garbage, a receipt or certificate specifying the estimated amount of garbage
transferred. The receipts or certificates must be kept on board the ship with the garbage record
book for two years. If a receipt is not available from the reception facility, own receipt is to be
completed by the GMO and signed by reception facility.
The information placard found on the following page is to be signed by the Master and posted in
multiple locations on board the vessel.
12
The following table summarizes the legislative permitted discharge of garbage into the sea.
GARBAGE TYPE
All Plastics-includes
synthetic ropes, fishing
nets, plastic bags and
incinerated plastics
Floating dunnage, lining
and packing materials
Paper, rags, glass, metal,
bottles, crockery and
similar refuse
All other garbage including
paper, rags. Glass, etc
Comminuted or ground
Food waste not
comminuted or ground
*Food waste comminuted
INSIDE TERRITORIAL
SEAS (12 M) & SHIPPING
SAFETY CONTROL
ZONES
IN SPECIAL AREAS
OUTSIDE SPECIAL
AREAS &
TERRITORIAL SEAS
DISPOSAL PROHIBITED
DISPOSAL PROHIBITED
DISPOSAL PROHIBITED
DISPOSAL PROHIBITED
DISPOSAL PROHIBITED
25 miles from the nearest
land
DISPOSAL PROHIBITED
DISPOSAL PROHIBITED
nearest land
DISPOSAL PROHIBITED
DISPOSAL PROHIBITED
nearest land
DISPOSAL PROHIBITED
nearest land
nearest land
nearest land in the Wider
Caribbean Area only
nearest land
DISPOSAL PROHIBITED
or ground
Mixed refuse types
DISPOSAL PROHIBITED
**
**
* Comminuted or ground garbage must be able to pass through a screen with a mesh size no
larger than 25mm.
** When garbage is mixed with other harmful substances having different disposal or discharge
requirements, the more stringent disposal requirements shall apply. For example, any mixed
garbage containing plastic material may not be discharged overboard
GX Technology policy only permits the overboard discharge of non comminuted or ground
food waste when permitted by the table above. Unless authorized by the Master, no other
form of overboard discharge is permitted.
All crew must contact the bridge and receive authorization
to discharge anything into the sea
13
Appendix I – Garbage Record Book
14
Appendix II – Ship Garbage Receipt
15

Polarcus Amani specification.indd

Transcription

Similar documents

Dynamax Rifle Instructions

Dipmap!of!sea!floor,!offshore!Italy! Dipmap!of!a!seismic!surface!

Pellet Airgun - ActionSportGames

: Seismic Hazard Distribution Map Republic of Moldova

Shooting Airguns at Home

Tidelands Geophysical Enhances Onshore Seismic

What`s the Best Airgun For Me?

The Advancements and Future Applications of the Kuwait National

end-of-experiment-phase-TOMO-Etna - MED-SUV