There
has never been a serious move in Congress to limit Navy noise-making at sea.
As the Obama administration came in, there were some indications that
the new NOAA admins would be more receptive to efforts by NRDC and others to
at least keep Navy training out of some of the areas most used by ocean life,
but so far, little has changed.
The International Maritime Organization, which oversees international
shipping, has been working (slowly) on voluntary ship-quieting measures; the
US Chamber of Shipping has been receptive to building new ships in ways that
will make them radiate less noise into the seas, but the idea of retrofitting
existing ships is not really on the table.
Some coverage:
IMO:
Shipping noise:
Great research program in Stellwagen bank off Boston:
Bigger-picture approach to considering effect of shipping and other
background noise in reducing "communication space" of animals:
Sonar:
Navy/NRDC cease-fire in 2009:
Lubchenko memo (new NOAA chief):
Mid-frequency sonar new suit:
Low-frequency sonar new suit:
The MFA suit above challenges the LAST round of NMFS permits, covering
2010-2014 (it would seem that the suit was meant to try to push the Navy and
NMFS to take a different, more cautionary route in the new round, for
2014-2018 and 2015-19 (various ranges on different pulses of permitting),
which is what the recent Press Release is about; the LFA suit above challenges
new ones just issued, very similarly to how the current press push by NRDC is
addressing the current Draft Navy EIS and Proposed NMFS rules. The new
EIS and rule covers far more than simply sonar; it covers all Navy training
and testing activities, and more than half of the possible/estimated injuries
are due to non-sonar activities, mostly involving explosives.
The Navy and NMFS considers the "take" estimates to be extreme numbers
based on very conservative thresholds and that there will be far less harm
than the numbers indicate. For example, physical injury thresholds are
set for juvenile whale masses and the level at which 1% of those exposed may
be injured; and the "deafening" that is discussed is in many cases a
frequency-specific overload, which could make that particular frequency
somewhat harder to hear (ie it would be fainter), but not affect other
frequencies of their communication. Likewise the millions of
"behavioral" takes/impacts/changes are considered likely insignificant because
few last for more than a few hours or a day. (the Navy does note that
their counted behavioral takes are likely to affect fewer animals than the
numbers indicate because many will be repeatedly affected; yet not real
quantification of repeated or chronic disruption for any local populations is
considered.)
The fact that the Navy has to quantify all this does highlight the extent
of human noise-making at sea, especially the fact that many of these noise
sources have a "noise footprint" that extends for 150 or more kilometers.
Shipping noise is the single largest noise source in the sea, with oil
and gas exploration second (seismic surveys on the coasts of Brazil, Africa,
and Canada are recorded on most days of the year along the mid-Atlantic
ridge). Navy activities add to this din, but are likely not making as
big a difference for animals as we might fear. Still, this permitting process
is about the only place where we get to raise a stink about it.
One more of the countless ways that humans are making things difficult
for the rest of life.
Jim
Jim
Cummings
Executive
Director, Acoustic Ecology Institute
Needle clusters shirring in the wind—listen close, the
sound gets better
---Gary Snyder, Mountains and Rivers
Without End
=
_______________________________________________
asae
mailing
list
as...@lists.uoregon.edu
https://lists-prod.uoregon.edu/mailman/listinfo/asae