|
|
|
Noise Headlines and Top Story- Updated June 18, 2009
|
* Court Rejects Petition for Review of East Coast Airspace Redesign EIS
* Switzerland Paints Comprehensive Picture of National Noise Exposure
* NASA Plans New Aviation Environmental Research
* New Standard Published on Noise from Shipboard Equipment
* UK Survey Finds 28 Percent Stressed By Traffic Noise
* Center to Study Combined Health Effects of Noise and Air Pollution
* House Passes FAA Reauthorization Bill; New Provisions Would Address Noise
* Las Vegas Loses Challenge to McCarran Airport Flight Path
* Tucson to Update its Part 150 Noise Study
* FAA Finds Santa Monica Ordinance in Violation of Grant Assurances
|
Group Calls for Improved Mitigation of
Sonar to Protect Marine Mammals
|
The European Cetacean Society (ECS) urged the adoption of regulations that would impose standardized measures to mitigate the impact of sonar on marine mammals. “Mitigation should be applied by all countries using military sonar in the three stages of sonar exercises: before, during, and after sonar use. Mitigation procedures need regulatory support at both international and national levels.”
In a resolution issued earlier this year, ECS argued, “There is sufficient evidence that active sonar exposure even at relatively low levels can have significant impacts on some cetacean species. Beaked whales in particular are vulnerable to serious impacts including mortality from exposure to mid-frequency active sonar.”
Characterizing current mitigation efforts as “generally untested and insufficient for beaked whales,” ECS pointed to studies that indicate a causal link between sonar and mass strandings of cetaceans. “This includes spatiotemporal coincidence between naval exercises and mortalities, and a consistent pathology…pointing to an acoustic source as primary cause of death [and] stranding.”
Practical Measures
On the heels of the resolution, ECS tasked a working group of experts with producing a technical report on practical and effective mitigation techniques that authorities can follow to reduce the impact of active sonar on cetaceans. These include:
• conduct field surveys and modeling to determine areas with low densities of animals and without other risk factors;
• identify a limited number of locations in which such exercises can be confined, with suitable monitoring, including passive acoustic monitoring (PAM);
• widely implement and further develop PAM as an effective tool for identifying low-density areas and for real time monitoring of exercise areas;
• identify avoidance areas or environmentally preferred exercise sites within a transparent process that affords an opportunity for public participation;
• monitor with an appropriately designed array of visual and passive acoustic sensors in the exercise area during operation;
• conduct acoustic monitoring using transparent protocols for detection and classification of cetacean vocalizations;
• conduct pre-sonar watches to detect all available cetaceans visually and acoustically;
• use dedicated, experienced, and independent marine mammal observers, where possible;
• when cetaceans are detected, reduce sonar power and suspend or relocate activities when more animals are detected than had been predicted;
• conduct post-exercise monitoring that includes visual and acoustic cetacean surveys in the immediate area;
• commit to transparent reporting to national authorities.
Copyright 2009 Great Circle Communications LLC. No unauthorized posting, forwarding, or any other form of transmission of this material, by any means, in whole or in part, is allowed.
|
|
For a free sample copy of Noise Regulation Report and to learn how you can get free access to more than 200 of the most important noise research and policy documents of our time- a $150 value- call toll-free (888) 828-5437 (USA) or (215) 517-8078.
|
|
|
|
 |
