DOCSLIB.ORG

1 Anthropogenic Underwater Noise: Impacts

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
1 Anthropogenic Underwater Noise: Impacts 1 2 ANTHROPOGENIC UNDERWATER NOISE: IMPACTS ON MARINE AND COASTAL 3 BIODIVERSITY AND HABITATS, AND MITIGATION AND MANAGEMENT MEASURES 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 DRAFT TECHNICAL SERIES 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 Table of Contents 42 43 FOREWORD ........................................................................................ Error! Bookmark not defined. 44 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...................................................................................................................... 45 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................................... 4 46 1. BACKGROUND AND INTRODUCTION .................................................................................... 8 47 Underwater Noise and the Convention on Biological Diversity ....................................................... 10 48 2. UNDERWATER SOUND: CHARACTERISTICS, RELEVANCE AND TRENDS .................. 12 49 Overview of Underwater Sound ....................................................................................................... 12 50 Natural Underwater Sound ............................................................................................................... 15 51 The Importance of Sound for Marine Organisms ............................................................................. 16 52 The Increase in Anthropogenic Underwater Sound .......................................................................... 18 53 3. SOURCES AND TYPES OF UNDERWATER ANTHROPOGENIC NOISE ........................... 20 54 Explosives ......................................................................................................................................... 20 55 Industrial Activities ........................................................................................................................... 22 56 Seismic Exploration .......................................................................................................................... 24 57 Sonar ................................................................................................................................................. 25 58 Ships and Smaller Vessels ................................................................................................................ 28 59 Acoustic Deterrent and Harrassment Devices .................................................................................. 30 60 Other Anthropogenic Sources ........................................................................................................... 31 61 4. KNOWN AND POTENTIAL IMPACTS OF UNDERWATER NOISE ..................................... 33 62 Impacts on Marine Mammals ........................................................................................................... 34 63 Injury and Physical Effects ........................................................................................................... 35 64 Masking......................................................................................................................................... 38 65 Behavioural Changes .................................................................................................................... 41 66 Effects on Marine Fishes .................................................................................................................. 47 67 Injury and Physical Effects ........................................................................................................... 48 68 Behavioural Responses ................................................................................................................. 53 69 Masking......................................................................................................................................... 57 70 Impacts on Other Marine Organisms ................................................................................................ 63 71 Marine Turtles ............................................................................................................................... 63 72 Marine Invertebrates ..................................................................................................................... 64 73 Seabirds ......................................................................................................................................... 68 74 5. Mitigation and Management of Underwater Noise ....................................................................... 70 75 Mitigation Measures and Procedures ................................................................................................ 71 76 Impulsive Noise Mitigation .......................................................................................................... 72 77 Continuous Sound Mitigation ....................................................................................................... 97 78 Monitoring and Mapping Tools ...................................................................................................... 102 2 79 Acoustic and Species Distribution Mapping ............................................................................... 102 80 Passive and Active Acoustic Monitoring .................................................................................... 105 81 Management Frameworks and International Agreements .............................................................. 107 82 Management Frameworks ........................................................................................................... 108 83 International Agreements and Processes ..................................................................................... 113 84 Setting Standards and Guidelines at the National / International level ........................................... 120 85 National and International Standards .......................................................................................... 120 86 Summary ......................................................................................................................................... 122 87 6. FUTURE RESEARCH NEEDS ................................................................................................. 127 88 Anthropogenic Sources and Ambient Noise ................................................................................... 128 89 Baseline Biological Information ..................................................................................................... 129 90 Noise Impacts on Marine Biodiversity ........................................................................................... 130 91 Mitigation and Management ........................................................................................................... 132 92 7. CONCLUSIONS ......................................................................................................................... 137 93 Annexes .............................................................................................................................................. 140 94 Annex 1: Impacts of low-frequency noise on fishes ................................................................ 141 95 Annex 2: Impacts of low-frequency noise on marine invertebrates ........................................ 143 96 97 98 99 3 100 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 101 Introduction and Background 102 Anthropogenic noise in the marine environment has increased markedly over the last 100 or so 103 years as anthropogenic use of the oceans has grown and diversified. Technological advances in 104 vessel propulsion and design, the development of marine industry and the increasing and more diverse 105 human use of the marine environment have all resulted in a noisier underwater realm. Long-term 106 measurements of ocean ambient sound indicate that low frequency anthropogenic noise has increased, 107 which has been primarily attributed to commercial shipping. As well as an increase in commercial 108 shipping, the last half century has also seen an expansion of industrial activities in the marine 109 environment, including oil and gas exploration and production, commercial fishing, and more recently, 110 the development of marine renewable energy. An increase in the number of small motorised vessels in 111 coastal areas has also been reported, where they can dominate some coastal acoustic environments such 112 as partially enclosed bays, harbours and estuaries. 113 114 Anthropogenic noise has gained recognition as a major global pollutant and an important stressor 115 for marine life and acknowledged as an issue that needs to be addressed. The impacts of sound on 116 marine mammals have received particular attention, especially impacts from military use of active 117 sonar, and industrial seismic surveys that coincide with cetacean mass stranding events. Extensive 118 investigation mainly over the last decade by academia, industry, government agencies and international 119 bodies has resulted in a number of reviews of the effects of sound on marine fauna. The issue of 120 underwater noise and its effects on marine biodiversity has received increasing attention at the 121 international level, with recognition by a number of international and regional bodies and organisations. 122 123 Sound is a mechanical disturbance that travels through an elastic medium (e.g., air, water or solids). 124 Water is an excellent medium for
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Undersea Park America's First
    KEY LARGO CORAL REEF America's First i~jl Undersea Park By CHARLES M. BROOKFIELD Photographs by JERRY GREENBERG ,I, ,.;;!' MO ST within sight of the oceanside ~Ii palaces of Miami Beach, a pencil-thin il- Achain of islands begins its 221-mile sweep southwest to the Dry Tortugas. Just offshore, paralleling the scimitar plor%E 6 II curve of these Florida Keys, lies an under­ qy-q sea rampart of exquisite beauty-a living coral reef, the only one of its kind in United States continental waters. Brilliant tropical ~". fish dart about its multicolored coral gardens. Part of the magnificent reef, a segment rough­ ly 21 nautical miles long by 4 wide, off Key Largo, has been .dedicated as America's first undersea park. I know this reef intimately. For more than 30 years I have sailed its warm, clear waters and probed its shifting sands and bizarre for­ mations in quest of sunken ships and their treasure of artifacts. ',." Snorkel diver (opposite, right) glides above brain coral into a fantastic underseascape of elkhorn and staghom in the new preserve off Key Largo, Florida 1~¥~-4 - ce il\ln ·ii Here is a graveyard of countless brave sail­ uncover this interesting fact until two 'years 'ti: ing ships, Spanish galleons, English men-ot­ ago, when I learned that the Willche~lel"s ~j~ war, pirate vessels, and privateers foundered log had been saved. Writing to the Public h~l on the reefs hidden fangs. In the 19th century Record Office in London, I obtained photo­ alone, several hundred vessels met death static-copies of the last few pages.
    [Show full text]
  • Accuracy Assessment of Underwater Photogrammetric Three Dimensional Modelling for Coral Reefs
    The International Archives of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences, Volume XLI-B5, 2016 XXIII ISPRS Congress, 12–19 July 2016, Prague, Czech Republic ACCURACY ASSESSMENT OF UNDERWATER PHOTOGRAMMETRIC THREE DIMENSIONAL MODELLING FOR CORAL REEFS T. Guo a, *, A. Capra b, M. Troyer a, A. Gruen a, A. J. Brooks c, J. L. Hench d, R. J. Schmittc, S. J. Holbrook c, M. Dubbini e a Theoretical Physics, ETH Zurich, 8093 Zurich, Switzerland - (taguo, troyer)@phys.ethz.ch, [email protected] b Dept. of Engineering “Enzo Ferrari”, University of Modena and Reggio Emilia, via Pietro Vivarelli 10/1, 41125 Modena, Italy – [email protected] c Marine Science Institute, University of California, Santa Barbara. Santa Barbara, California 93106-6150, USA – [email protected], (schmitt, holbrook)@lifesci.ucsb.edu d Nicholas School of the Environment, Duke University, Beaufort, NC, USA - [email protected] e Dept. of History Culture Civilization – Headquarters of Geography, University of Bologna, via Guerrazzi 20, 40125 Bologna, Italy [email protected] Commission V, WG V/5 KEY WORDS: Photogrammetry, Underwater 3D Modelling, Accuracy Assessment, Calibration, Point Clouds, Coral Reefs, Coral Growth, Moorea ABSTRACT: Recent advances in automation of photogrammetric 3D modelling software packages have stimulated interest in reconstructing highly accurate 3D object geometry in unconventional environments such as underwater utilizing simple and low-cost camera systems. The accuracy of underwater 3D modelling is affected by more parameters than in single media cases. This study is part of a larger project on 3D measurements of temporal change of coral cover in tropical waters.
    [Show full text]
  • Ecological and Socio-Economic Impacts of Dive
    ECOLOGICAL AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF DIVE AND SNORKEL TOURISM IN ST. LUCIA, WEST INDIES Nola H. L. Barker Thesis submittedfor the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Environmental Science Environment Department University of York August 2003 Abstract Coral reefsprovide many servicesand are a valuableresource, particularly for tourism, yet they are suffering significant degradationand pollution worldwide. To managereef tourism effectively a greaterunderstanding is neededof reef ecological processesand the impactsthat tourist activities haveon them. This study explores the impact of divers and snorkelerson the reefs of St. Lucia, West Indies, and how the reef environmentaffects tourists' perceptionsand experiencesof them. Observationsof divers and snorkelersrevealed that their impact on the reefs followed certainpatterns and could be predictedfrom individuals', site and dive characteristics.Camera use, night diving and shorediving were correlatedwith higher levels of diver damage.Briefings by dive leadersalone did not reducetourist contactswith the reef but interventiondid. Interviewswith tourists revealedthat many choseto visit St. Lucia becauseof its marineprotected area. Certain site attributes,especially marine life, affectedtourists' experiencesand overall enjoyment of reefs.Tourists were not alwaysable to correctly ascertainabundance of marine life or sedimentpollution but they were sensitiveto, and disliked seeingdamaged coral, poor underwatervisibility, garbageand other tourists damagingthe reef. Some tourists found sitesto be
    [Show full text]
  • OCEANS ´09 IEEE Bremen
    11-14 May Bremen Germany Final Program OCEANS ´09 IEEE Bremen Balancing technology with future needs May 11th – 14th 2009 in Bremen, Germany Contents Welcome from the General Chair 2 Welcome 3 Useful Adresses & Phone Numbers 4 Conference Information 6 Social Events 9 Tourism Information 10 Plenary Session 12 Tutorials 15 Technical Program 24 Student Poster Program 54 Exhibitor Booth List 57 Exhibitor Profiles 63 Exhibit Floor Plan 94 Congress Center Bremen 96 OCEANS ´09 IEEE Bremen 1 Welcome from the General Chair WELCOME FROM THE GENERAL CHAIR In the Earth system the ocean plays an important role through its intensive interactions with the atmosphere, cryo- sphere, lithosphere, and biosphere. Energy and material are continually exchanged at the interfaces between water and air, ice, rocks, and sediments. In addition to the physical and chemical processes, biological processes play a significant role. Vast areas of the ocean remain unexplored. Investigation of the surface ocean is carried out by satellites. All other observations and measurements have to be carried out in-situ using research vessels and spe- cial instruments. Ocean observation requires the use of special technologies such as remotely operated vehicles (ROVs), autonomous underwater vehicles (AUVs), towed camera systems etc. Seismic methods provide the foundation for mapping the bottom topography and sedimentary structures. We cordially welcome you to the international OCEANS ’09 conference and exhibition, to the world’s leading conference and exhibition in ocean science, engineering, technology and management. OCEANS conferences have become one of the largest professional meetings and expositions devoted to ocean sciences, technology, policy, engineering and education.
    [Show full text]
  • On Ocean Waveguide Acoustics
    BOOKREVIEW ___________________________________________________ GEORGE V. FRISK ON OCEAN WAVEGUIDE ACOUSTICS acoustic waves with multilayered media is also an ac­ ACOUSTIC WAVEGUIDES: APPLICATIONS TO OCEANIC SCIENCE tive area of research in underwater acoustics. By C. Allen Boyles, Principal Professional Staff, In recent years, the inverse problem of determining The Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory oceanographic properties from acoustic measurements Published by John Wiley & Son, New York, 1984. 321 pp. $46.95 has become increasingly important and has given rise to the term "acoustical oceanography," a variant of "ocean acoustics" that emphasizes the oceanograph­ ic implications of acoustic experiments. A major de­ The field of ocean acoustics is an active area of the­ velopment in this area is time-of-flight acoustic oretical and experimental research, with a continual­ tomography in which front and eddy intensity and ly expanding body of literature in research journals variability over hundreds of kilometers are measured and textbooks. Boyles' book is a welcome addition to acoustically. In ocean-bottom acoustics, direct inverse the literature and provides a useful text for both stu­ methods are being developed that utilize some mea­ dents and practitioners in the field. surement of the acoustic field, such as the plane wave Although electromagnetic waves are strongly ab­ reflection coefficient of the bottom, as direct input to sorbed by water, acoustic waves can, under the prop­ algorithms for determining the acoustic properties of er conditions, propagate over hundreds, even thou­ the bottom. This approach is to be contrasted with sands, of miles through the ocean. As a result, sound conventional techniques in which forward models for waves and sonar assume the major role in the ocean computing the acoustic field are run for different bot­ that electromagnetic waves and radar play in the at­ tom properties until best fits to the data are obtained.
    [Show full text]
  • Overview of the Impacts of Anthropogenic Underwater Sound in the Marine Environment
    Overview of the impacts of anthropogenic underwater sound in the marine environment Biodiversity Series 2009 Overview of the impacts of anthropogenic underwater sound in the marine environment OSPAR Convention Convention OSPAR The Convention for the Protection of the La Convention pour la protection du milieu Marine Environment of the North-East Atlantic marin de l'Atlantique du Nord-Est, dite (the “OSPAR Convention”) was opened for Convention OSPAR, a été ouverte à la signature at the Ministerial Meeting of the signature à la réunion ministérielle des former Oslo and Paris Commissions in Paris anciennes Commissions d'Oslo et de Paris, on 22 September 1992. The Convention à Paris le 22 septembre 1992. La Convention entered into force on 25 March 1998. It has est entrée en vigueur le 25 mars 1998. been ratified by Belgium, Denmark, Finland, La Convention a été ratifiée par l'Allemagne, France, Germany, Iceland, Ireland, la Belgique, le Danemark, la Finlande, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, la France, l’Irlande, l’Islande, le Luxembourg, Sweden, Switzerland and the United Kingdom la Norvège, les Pays-Bas, le Portugal, and approved by the European Community le Royaume-Uni de Grande Bretagne and Spain. et d’Irlande du Nord, la Suède et la Suisse et approuvée par la Communauté européenne et l’Espagne. 2 OSPAR Commission, 2009 Acknowledgements Author list (in alphabetical order) Thomas Götz Scottish Oceans Institute, East Sands University of St Andrews St Andrews, Fife KY16 8LB [email protected] Module 2, 8 Gordon Hastie SMRU Limited New Technology Centre North Haugh St Andrews, Fife KY16 9SR [email protected] Module 2, 8 Leila T.
    [Show full text]
  • Report of the Ad-Hoc Group on the Impacts of Sonar on Cetaceans and Fish (AGISC) (2Nd Edition)
    ICES AGISC 2005 ICES Advisory Committee on Ecosystems ICES CM 2005/ACE:06 Report of the Ad-hoc Group on the Impacts of Sonar on Cetaceans and Fish (AGISC) (2nd edition) By correspondence International Council for the Exploration of the Sea Conseil International pour l’Exploration de la Mer H.C. Andersens Boulevard 44-46 DK-1553 Copenhagen V Denmark Telephone (+45) 33 38 67 00 Telefax (+45) 33 93 42 15 www.ices.dk [email protected] Recommended format for purposes of citation: ICES. 2005. Report of the Ad-hoc Group on Impacts of Sonar on Cetaceans and Fish (AGISC) CM 2006/ACE:06 25pp. For permission to reproduce material from this publication, please apply to the General Secretary. The document is a report of an Expert Group under the auspices of the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea and does not necessarily represent the views of the Council. © 2005 International Council for the Exploration of the Sea ICES AGISC report 2005, 2nd edition | i Contents 1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Participation........................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Terms of Reference ............................................................................................................... 1 1.3 Justification of Terms of Reference....................................................................................... 1 1.4 Framework for response
    [Show full text]
  • Acoustic Tagging of Large Sharks – Potential for Acoustic Interference
    CITIZEN SCIENCE – CS 05-11-17) Acoustic tagging of large sharks – Potential for acoustic interference (CS 05-11-17) – Kim Allen independent researcher Citizen science overview This paper is one of a series of unfunded, independent research initiatives that question mainstream science, Animal ethics approaches and Governments’ apparent acceptance of “Validated” science in the area of wildlife electronic tracking. Clearly, the Australian shark issue is extremely contentious as well as political and emotionally charged. Over $100 million has been expended by State and Federal governments in an attempt to find answers and make our beaches safer. Unfortunately, at no stage has a strategic approach been taken to identify the key disciplines of science that need to be considered, assessed, and applied. Significant investment has been directed into the construction and support of wide-scale acoustic receiver arrays and individual sensors as well as significant tagging of large sharks off our coastline for research and public safety. Previous satellite archival tagging programs conducted by CSIRO gave us good insight into shark movements, however since this time despite significant investment minimal progress appears to have been made and the potential risks appear to have been ignored. This CSIRO document clearly outlines the types of tags that are used for shark research, it also clearly defines the recommended protocols that should be used for shark tagging operations. From photographic details shared in the public domain it is clear that shark tagging operations undertaken by Fisheries departments don’t follow these stringent protocols. (www.cmar.csiro.au/e-print/open/2009/bradfordrw a.pdf ) It is extremely difficult for “Unqualified” Citizen scientists to challenge mainstream research particularly given the potential erosion of future funding sources if technical criticism is determined as valid.
    [Show full text]
  • Passive Acoustics for Monitoring Marine Animals - Progress and Challenges
    Proceedings of ACOUSTICS 2006 20-22 November 2006, Christchurch, New Zealand Passive acoustics for monitoring marine animals - progress and challenges Douglas Cato (1), Robert McCauley (2), Tracey Rogers (3) and Michael Noad (4) (1) Defence Science and Technology Organisation and University of Sydney Institute of Marine Science, Sydney, Australia (2) Centre for Marine Science and Technology, Curtin University, Perth, Western Australia (3) Australian Marine Mammal Research Centre, Zoological Parks Board of NSW and University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia (4) School of Veterinary Science, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia ABSTRACT Pioneering recordings of underwater sounds off New Zealand showed a wide range of high level sounds from marine animals, particularly whales [Kibblewhite et al, J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 41, 644-655, 1967]. Almost 40 years later, a much greater amount of data is available on marine animal sounds and there is now considerable interest in using the sounds to monitor the animals for studies of abundance, migrations and behaviour. Passive acoustic monitoring shows much promise because the animal vocalisations are usually detectable over long distances, allowing a large area to be surveyed. Marine mammals are detectable acoustically at much greater distances than they are visible and passive acoustics has the potential to fill in the gaps in open ocean surveying. There are however challenges, and this paper discusses progress and the steps needed to develop robust methods of surveying the abundance and migrations of marine animals, illustrated by studies in our region. Effective use of passive monitoring requires an understanding of the acoustic behaviour of the animals, a knowledge of the acoustic propagation and ambient noise at the time of the survey and a rigorous statistical analysis.
    [Show full text]
  • Federal Register/Vol. 86, No. 75/Wednesday, April 21, 2021
    21082 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 75 / Wednesday, April 21, 2021 / Rules and Regulations DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lisa Network, and the Wishtoyo Foundation Manning, NMFS, Office of Protected filed a complaint seeking court-ordered National Oceanic and Atmospheric Resources, 301–427–8466. deadlines for the issuance of proposed Administration SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: and final rules to designate critical habitat for the CAM, MX, and WNP 50 CFR Parts 223, 224, and 226 Background DPSs of humpback whales. See Center Under the ESA, we are responsible for for Biological Diversity et al. v. National [Docket No. 210415–0080] determining whether certain species are Marine Fisheries Service, et al., No. threatened or endangered, and, to the 3:18–cv–01628–EDL (N.D. Cal.). The RIN 0648–BI06 maximum extent prudent and parties entered into a settlement determinable, designating critical agreement with the approval and Endangered and Threatened Wildlife habitat for endangered and threatened oversight of the court, and subsequently and Plants: Designating Critical species at the time of listing (16 U.S.C. amended the dates specified in the Habitat for the Central America, 1533(a)(3)(A)(i)). On September 8, 2016, original order. The amended settlement Mexico, and Western North Pacific we published a final rule that revised agreement stipulated that NMFS submit Distinct Population Segments of the listing of humpback whales under a proposed determination concerning Humpback Whales the ESA by removing the original, the designation of critical habitat for taxonomic-level species listing, and in these three DPSs to the Federal Register AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries its place listing four DPSs as endangered by September 26, 2019.
    [Show full text]
  • Acoustic Monitoring Reveals Diversity and Surprising Dynamics in Tropical Freshwater Soundscapes Benjamin L
    Acoustic monitoring reveals diversity and surprising dynamics in tropical freshwater soundscapes Benjamin L. Gottesman, Dante Francomano, Zhao Zhao, Kristen Bellisario, Maryam Ghadiri, Taylor Broadhead, Amandine Gasc, Bryan Pijanowski To cite this version: Benjamin L. Gottesman, Dante Francomano, Zhao Zhao, Kristen Bellisario, Maryam Ghadiri, et al.. Acoustic monitoring reveals diversity and surprising dynamics in tropical freshwater soundscapes. Freshwater Biology, Wiley, 2020, Passive acoustics: a new addition to the freshwater monitoring toolbox, 65 (1), pp.117-132. 10.1111/fwb.13096. hal-02573429 HAL Id: hal-02573429 https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-02573429 Submitted on 14 May 2020 HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. Accepted: 9 February 2018 DOI: 10.1111/fwb.13096 SPECIAL ISSUE Acoustic monitoring reveals diversity and surprising dynamics in tropical freshwater soundscapes Benjamin L. Gottesman1 | Dante Francomano1 | Zhao Zhao1,2 | Kristen Bellisario1 | Maryam Ghadiri1 | Taylor Broadhead1 | Amandine Gasc1 | Bryan C. Pijanowski1
    [Show full text]
  • Full Document (Pdf 2154
    White Paper Research Project T1803, Task 35 Overwater Whitepaper OVERWATER STRUCTURES: MARINE ISSUES by Barbara Nightingale Charles A. Simenstad Research Assistant Senior Fisheries Biologist School of Marine Affairs School of Aquatic and Fishery Sciences University of Washington Seattle, Washington 98195 Washington State Transportation Center (TRAC) University of Washington, Box 354802 University District Building 1107 NE 45th Street, Suite 535 Seattle, Washington 98105-4631 Washington State Department of Transportation Technical Monitor Patricia Lynch Regulatory and Compliance Program Manager, Environmental Affairs Prepared for Washington State Transportation Commission Department of Transportation and in cooperation with U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration May 2001 WHITE PAPER Overwater Structures: Marine Issues Submitted to Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Washington Department of Ecology Washington Department of Transportation Prepared by Barbara Nightingale and Charles Simenstad University of Washington Wetland Ecosystem Team School of Aquatic and Fishery Sciences May 9, 2001 Note: Some pages in this document have been purposefully skipped or blank pages inserted so that this document will copy correctly when duplexed. TECHNICAL REPORT STANDARD TITLE PAGE 1. REPORT NO. 2. GOVERNMENT ACCESSION NO. 3. RECIPIENT'S CATALOG NO. WA-RD 508.1 4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 5. REPORT DATE Overwater Structures: Marine Issues May 2001 6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE 7. AUTHOR(S) 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO. Barbara Nightingale, Charles Simenstad 9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS 10. WORK UNIT NO. Washington State Transportation Center (TRAC) University of Washington, Box 354802 11. CONTRACT OR GRANT NO. University District Building; 1107 NE 45th Street, Suite 535 Agreement T1803, Task 35 Seattle, Washington 98105-4631 12.
    [Show full text]