Another informed viewpoint on the sonar debate
August 27th, 2008 by cdunaganJim Cummings, who founded the Acoustic Ecology Institute in Santa Fe, N.M., has stepped up to become an unofficial moderator in the sonar debate between the U.S. Navy and the Natural Resources Defense Council.
Cummings’ report, called “AEI FactCheck: Navy/NRDC Sonar Debate,” finds fault with both the Navy and the environmental group for over-stating or under-stating the actual impacts of sonar. I don’t have the expertise to judge his judgment, but I am encouraged by his ability to weigh the two viewpoints. As I’ve said before, this whole issue has been a balancing act.
If you are interested in the issue of underwater noise, I encourage you to dig down into the AEI Web site.
The following is a sample of Cummings’ analysis to show how he discusses some controversial questions, including whale mortalities, behavioral changes, the Navy’s needs, and so on. This one deals with Level B harassment, which occurs when a marine mammal changes its behavior or experiences temporary hearing loss:
Navy: The Navy and the National Marine Fisheries Service (in issuing IHAs) has tended to term virtually all Level B Harassment as “negligible impacts,” since these impacts are temporary and transient. The thinking is that even when accounting for cumulative and repeated exposures, these changes do not significantly reduce the population’s overall health. Mitigation is designed to protect animals from Level A Harassment (physiological injury) and to account for the seemingly increased sensitivity of beaked whales to as-yet undetermined behavioral responses that can sometimes lead to injury, beaching, and death. The Navy and NMFS look at overall population figures (which are often imprecise) in determining whether the estimated number of either Level A or Level B “takes” will cause significant impacts on the population as a whole.
NRDC: NRDC, and the Federal Judge in California, have zeroed in on the Navy’s own figures that summarize total Level B Harassment, and find that the huge numbers of Level B impacts are, on their face, unacceptable. For example, in its public comments in response to one of the Navy’s early Draft EISs (for the Atlantic Fleet, AFAST), NRDC makes a vigorous argument that the projected 2.7 million Level B harassments are clearly unreasonable, and that the Navy should therefore consider more alternatives that reduce the number of sonar trainings and/or the areas in which they are allowed to take place.
AEI FactCheck: The Atlantic Fleet Active Sonar Training (AFAST) DEIS does indeed estimate that 2.7 million marine mammals will be subjected to Level B Harassment. This may well be a prime example of how ethical considerations color the reactions to ocean noise issues.
For those who believe that we humans should be more mindful of the impact of our actions on wild nature, this number rightfully indicates that massive amounts of noise are being introduced into the oceans. Whether the impact is temporary hearing loss or swimming a few hundred meters to find quieter waters, the conclusion is the same: we should find ways to make less noise. From this perspective, we have an obligation to do our best to make noise — especially intense noise like sonar pings — sparingly, and with real consideration of the rights of animals to be left in peace.
Conversely, looking more closely at the numbers, a legitimate case can be made that these estimates are not nearly as alarming as they appear at first glance, and that the practical effect of even likely repeated exposures may be nothing to be especially concerned about. In worst-case scenarios, it’s unlikely any individual animal will hear sound loud enough to trigger a behavioral response more than once every couple weeks; in most cases, animals will be unlikely to hear sonar more than a few times a year. And, the vast majority of these incidents will involve faint sounds, and very modest behavioral changes, with only a small proportion in the areas close enough to sonar ships to trigger dramatic behavioral change. From this perspective, the ethical dilemma really only kicks in when our noise is loud enough to cause injury or long-term population effects.
There is little we can do to resolve this ethical dimension of the question, which is likely to grow in importance as the public becomes more involved in these issues.
Tags: Acoustic Ecology Institute, Natural Resources Defense Council, Navy, sonar
Scripps Interactive Newspapers Group
August 27th, 2008 at 9:03 pm
“……we should find ways to make less noise. … we have an obligation to do our best to make noise–especially intense noise like sonar pings–sparingly, and with real consideration of the rights of animals to be left in peace….”
Should we halt all ships at sea…containers…the awful noise from speed boats and loud giggles from kids learning to water ski?
No?
Only our national defense submarine fleet is held accountable for the animal’s right to peace……the other noisy ships are acceptable.
What about submarines from other countries? They’re out training and prowling the seas with impunity…only the United States Submarine Fleet is held down and regulated.
Strange. Sharon O’Hara
September 16th, 2008 at 2:41 pm
Only our national defense submarine fleet is held accountable for the animal’s right to peace……the other noisy ships are acceptable.
Sharon, you are absolutely right that the Navy is taking disproportionate heat on this issue. Most marine bioacousticians agree that chronic exposure to moderate noise is likely causing far more “biologically significant” impacts on marine life than occasional impacts by sonar. And indeed, there are moves afoot to encourage the international shipping fleet to adopt various ship-quieting technologies. Uncharacteristically for the current administration, the US is taking a lead role in introducing such efforts within the IMO (International Maritime Organization). Related are new studies of “sound budgets” in Marine Protected Areas, lead by a program in the Stellwagen Bank off Boston. In the long run, there are good reasons to pay close attention to expansion of shipping lanes into currently (relatively) pristine parts of the ocean, where it is possible we could maintain some semblance of a natural acoustic habitat. It appears (to summarize severely) that most fish and whales avoid large tankers to some degree, but that ship traffic does not drive animals away from habitats. Likely there are repeated behavioral disruptions, but perhaps not enough to cause long-term population declines. More troublesome is the possibility of long-term hearing loss in the frequency ranges of ships (making whales more susceptible to being struck–Michel Andre in the Canary Islands has seen some evidence of such hearing loss among sperm whales struck by ships)–and, likely the most important, a dramatic shrinkage of the effective range of communication by great whales as the background ambient sound in the oceans rises.
September 17th, 2008 at 1:52 pm
Thank you, Jim Cummings for your comments – vital comments if we are to understand the real world around and below us.
“…good reasons to pay close attention to expansion of shipping lanes into currently (relatively) pristine parts of the ocean, where it is possible we could maintain some semblance of a natural acoustic habitat. It appears (to summarize severely) that most fish and whales avoid large tankers to some degree, but that ship traffic does not drive animals away from habitats….”
We lost most of our U.S. flagged shipping companies when they were forced to become foreign flagged – very few U.S. flagged container ships out there.
Based on unsafe procedure I’ve seen some of the foreign flag ships do, I wonder if concern of our whales will register and cause them to change ship at sea practice?
Thanks for taking the time to explain and elaborate.
Sharon O’Hara