DOCSLIB.ORG

South Stream Pipeline – Russian Sector – Underwater Sound Analysis

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
South Stream Pipeline – Russian Sector – Underwater Sound Analysis Appendix 12.3: Underwater Noise Study URS-EIA-REP-204635 South Stream Pipeline – Russian Sector – Underwater Sound Analysis Submitted to: South Stream Transport B.V. Authors: Mikhail Zykov Loren Bailey Terry Deveau Roberto Racca JASCO Applied Sciences Ltd. 22 November 2013 Suite 202, 32 Troop Ave. Dartmouth, NS B3B 1Z1 Canada P001226-002 Phone: +1-902-405-3336 Document 00691 Fax: +1-902-405-3337 Version 1.0 www.jasco.com JASCO APPLIED SCIENCES South Stream Pipeline – Russian Sector – Underwater Sound Analysis Suggested citation: Zykov, Mikhail, et al. 2013. South Stream Pipeline – Russian Sector – Underwater Sound Analysis. JASCO Document 00691, Version 1.0. Technical report by JASCO Applied Sciences for South Stream Transport B.V. i South Stream Pipeline – Russian Sector – Underwater Sound Analysis JASCO APPLIED SCIENCES Contents 1. INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................1 1.1. Scope of the Study ........................................................................................................................ 1 1.2. Project Overview .......................................................................................................................... 1 1.2.1. Near-shore Section .............................................................................................................. 2 1.2.2. Offshore Section, Mid-depth Water. .................................................................................... 2 1.2.3. Offshore section, Deep Water.............................................................................................. 2 1.3. Background–Underwater Acoustics .............................................................................................. 3 1.3.1. Types of Sound Sources ...................................................................................................... 3 1.3.2. Sound Level Metrics ........................................................................................................... 3 1.1.1. Transmission Loss .............................................................................................................. 4 1.1.2. Source Levels ..................................................................................................................... 4 1.3.3. One-third-octave-band Analysis .......................................................................................... 4 1.4. Frequency Weighting ................................................................................................................... 6 1.4.1. Type I (M-weighting) Marine Mammal Frequency Weighting ............................................. 6 1.4.2. Type II Marine Mammal Frequency Weighting ................................................................... 7 1.4.3. Audiogram Weighting ......................................................................................................... 9 1.5. Sound Level Thresholds Criteria ................................................................................................. 11 1.5.1. Injury Assessment ............................................................................................................. 11 1.5.2. Behavioural Assessment ................................................................................................... 12 2. METHODS ............................................................................................................................. 13 2.1. Source Levels ............................................................................................................................. 13 2.1.1. Vessel Source Levels ........................................................................................................ 13 2.1.2. Side-scan Sonar ................................................................................................................ 15 2.1.2.1. Transducer Beam Theory ..................................................................................... 15 2.1.2.2. Rectangular Transducers ...................................................................................... 17 2.1.2.3. Multibeam Systems .............................................................................................. 18 2.1.2.4. Side-scan Sonar .................................................................................................... 18 2.2. Sound Propagation Model........................................................................................................... 19 2.2.1. Two Frequency Regimes: RAM vs. BELLHOP................................................................. 19 2.2.2. N×2-D Volume Approximation ......................................................................................... 20 2.2.3. Sampling of Model Results: Maximum-over-depth Rule ................................................... 22 2.3. Acoustic Impact Estimations ...................................................................................................... 22 2.3.1. Instantaneous Impact, Single Vessel .................................................................................. 23 2.3.2. Instantaneous Impact, Vessel Group .................................................................................. 23 2.3.3. Cumulative Acoustic Impact, 24 Hour Operations ............................................................. 23 2.4. Model Parameters ....................................................................................................................... 23 2.4.1. Bathymetry ....................................................................................................................... 23 2.4.2. Geoacoustic Properties ...................................................................................................... 24 2.4.3. Sound Speed Profiles ........................................................................................................ 26 2.4.4. Geometry and Modelled Volumes ..................................................................................... 27 3. MODELLED SCENARIOS ........................................................................................................ 28 3.1. Sites ........................................................................................................................................... 28 3.2. Single Vessel Scenarios .............................................................................................................. 28 3.3. Vessel Groups ............................................................................................................................ 29 ii Version 1.0 JASCO APPLIED SCIENCES South Stream Pipeline – Russian Sector – Underwater Sound Analysis 3.3.1. Scenario 1: Dredging of Microtunnel Exit Pit and Transition Trench at Site 1.................... 30 3.3.2. Scenario 2: Stationary Pipe-laying at Site 1 ....................................................................... 30 3.3.3. Scenario 3: Pipe-laying with Active Anchor Handling at Site 1 ......................................... 31 3.3.4. Scenario 4: Pipe-laying with Dynamic Positioning at Site 2 ............................................... 32 3.3.5. Scenario 5: Pipe-laying with Anchor Handling Tugs at Site 2 ............................................ 32 3.3.6. Scenario 6: Crew Change (Pipe-laying) at Site 2 ............................................................... 33 3.3.7. Scenario 7: Dredging for Free Span Correction at Site 2 .................................................... 34 3.3.8. Scenario 8: Rock Dumping for Cable Crossings at Site 2 ................................................... 34 3.3.9. Scenario 9: Pipe-laying at Site 3 ........................................................................................ 35 3.3.10. Scenario 10: Crew Change (Pipe-laying) at Site 3............................................................ 35 3.4. Cumulative ................................................................................................................................. 36 3.4.1. Scenario C1: Nearshore Pipeline Section ........................................................................... 37 3.4.2. Scenario C2: Shelf Break .................................................................................................. 38 3.4.3. Scenario C3: Deep Sea ...................................................................................................... 38 4. RESULTS ............................................................................................................................... 40 4.1. Single-Vessel Instantaneous Sound Fields .................................................................................. 40 4.1.1. Vessels Operating at Shallow Water Site (S01) ................................................................. 40 4.1.2. Vessels Operating at Mid-water Site (S02) ........................................................................ 42 4.1.3. Vessels Operating at Deep Water Site (S03) ...................................................................... 45 4.2. Side-Scan Sonar ......................................................................................................................... 48 4.3. Vessel Group Instantaneous Sound Field .................................................................................... 55 4.3.1. Scenario 1: Dredging of Microtunnel Exit Pit and Transition Trench ................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • ADEON Hardware Specification Version 2.3 Atlantic Deepwater
    ADEON Hardware Specification Version 2.3 Atlantic Deepwater Ecosystem Observatory Network (ADEON): An Integrated System for Long-Term Monitoring of Ecological and Human Factors on the Outer Continental Shelf Contract: M16PC00003 Jennifer Miksis-Olds Lead PI John Macri Program Manager 31 May 2018 Approvals: _________________________________ _ 31 May 2018___ Jennifer Miksis-Olds (Lead PI) Date _________________________________ __31 May 2018___ John Macri (PM) Date Hardware Specification Submitted to: ADEON Contract: M16PC00003 Authors: Bruce Martin Craig Hillis Jennifer Miksis-Olds Michael Ainslie Joseph Warren Kevin Heaney JASCO Applied Sciences (Canada) Ltd 12 July 2018 Suite 202, 32 Troop Ave. Dartmouth, NS B3B 1Z1 Canada P001339 Tel: +1-902-405-3336 Document 01412 Fax: +1-902-405-3337 Version 2.3 www.jasco.com Version 2.3 i Suggested citation: Martin B, C.A. Hillis, J. Miksis-Olds, M.A. Ainslie, J. Warren, and K.D. Heaney (2018). Hardware Specification. Document 01412, Version 2.3. Technical report by JASCO Applied Sciences for ADEON. Disclaimer: The results presented herein are relevant within the specific context described in this report. They could be misinterpreted if not considered in the light of all the information contained in this report. Accordingly, if information from this report is used in documents released to the public or to regulatory bodies, such documents must clearly cite the original report, which shall be made readily available to the recipients in integral and unedited form. Version 2.3 i JASCO APPLIED SCIENCES
    [Show full text]
  • Salish Sea Ambient Noise Study: Best Practices (2021)
    Salish Sea Ambient Noise Study: Best Practices (2021) This work was sponsored and financially supported by the Vancouver Fraser Port Authority. Transport Canada provided additional financial support. For bibliographic purposes, this document should be cited as follows: Eickmeier, J., Tollit, D., Trounce, K., Warner, G., Wood, J., MacGillivray, A. and Zizheng Li (2021) Salish Sea Ambient Noise Study: Best Practices (2021). Vancouver, British Columbia, Vancouver Fraser Port Authority, Enhancing Cetacean Habitat and Observation (ECHO) Program. Authors: Justin Eickmeier1, Dominic Tollit2, Krista Trounce3, Graham Warner4, Jason Wood5, Alex MacGillivray6 and Zizheng Li7 1) Justin M. Eickmeier is a Consulting Scientist at SLR Consulting (Canada) Ltd., Vancouver, British Columbia, V6J 1V4 ([email protected]) 2) Dominic J. Tollit is the Principal Scientist at SMRU Consulting North America, Vancouver, British Colunbia, V6B 1A1 ([email protected]) 3) Krista B. Trounce is the Research Manager for the ECHO Program, Vancouver Fraser Port Authority, Vancouver, British Columbia, V6C 3T4 ([email protected]) 4) Graham Warner is a Project Scientist for JASCO Applied Sciences (Canada) Ltd. 5) Jason Wood is Operations Manager & Senior Research Scientist at SMRU Consulting North America 6) Alex MacGillivray is a Senior Scientist for JASCO JASCO Applied Sciences (Canada) Ltd. 7) Zizheng Li is a Project Scientist for JASCO JASCO Applied Sciences (Canada) Ltd. Table of Contents Abstract ............................................................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • ECHO Program Salish Sea Ambient Noise Evaluation
    Vancouver Fraser Port Authority Salish Sea Ambient Noise Evaluation 2016–2017 ECHO Program Study Summary This study was undertaken for Vancouver Fraser Port Authority’s Enhancing Cetacean Habitat and Observation (ECHO) Program to analyze regional acoustic data collected over two years (2016–2017) at three sites in the Salish Sea: Haro Strait, Boundary Pass and the Strait of Georgia. These sites were selected by the ECHO Program to be representative of three sub-areas of interest in the region in important habitat for marine mammals, including southern resident killer whales (SRKW). This summary document describes how and why the project was conducted, its key findings and conclusions. What questions was the study trying to answer? The ambient noise evaluation study investigated the following questions: What were the variabilities and/or trends in ambient noise over time and for each site, and did these hold true for all three sites? What key factors affected ambient noise differences and variability at each site? What are the key requirements for future monitoring of ambient noise to better understand the contribution of commercial vessel traffic to ambient noise levels, and how ambient noise may be monitored in the future? Who conducted the project? JASCO Applied Sciences (Canada) Ltd., SMRU Consulting North America, and the Coastal & Ocean Resource Analysis Laboratory (CORAL) of University of Victoria were collaboratively retained by the port authority to conduct the study. All three organizations were involved in data collection and analysis at one or more of the three study sites over the two-year time frame of acoustic data collection.
    [Show full text]
  • Assessing Auditory Masking for Management of Underwater Anthropogenic Noisea)
    ...................................ARTICLE Assessing auditory masking for management of underwater anthropogenic noisea) Matthew K. Pine,1,b) Katrina Nikolich,1 Bruce Martin,2,c) Corey Morris,3 and Francis Juanes1,d) 1Department of Biology, University of Victoria, 3800 Finnerty Road, Victoria, British Columbia V8P 5C2, Canada 2JASCO Applied Sciences, 202-32 Troop Avenue, Dartmouth, Nova Scotia B3B 1Z1, Canada 3Science Branch, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, P.O. 5667, Saint John’s, Newfoundland A1C 5X1, Canada ABSTRACT: Masking is often assessed by quantifying changes, due to increasing noise, to an animal’s communication or listening range. While the methods used to measure communication or listening ranges are functionally similar if used for vocalizations, they differ in their approaches: communication range is focused on the sender’s call, while the listening range is centered on the listener’s ability to perceive any signal. How these two methods differ in their use and output is important for management recommendations. Therefore it was investigated how these two methods may alter the conclusions of masking assessments based on Atlantic cod calls in the presence of a commercial air gun array. The two methods diverged with increasing distance from the masking noise source with maximum effects lasting longer between air gun pulses in terms of communication range than listening range. Reductions in the cod’s communication ranges were sensitive to fluctuations in the call’s source level. That instability was not observed for the listening range. Overall, changes to the cod’s communication range were more conservative but very sensitive to the call source level. A high level of confidence in the call is therefore required, while confidence in the receiver’s audiogram and soundscape is required for the listening range method.
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix N. Underwater Noise Modelling Study
    Appendix N. Underwater noise modelling study - FPSO facility operations (JASCO 2016b) Potential Impacts of Underwater Noise from Operation of the Barossa FPSO Facility on Marine Fauna ConocoPhillips Barossa Project Submitted to: Christopher Teasdale Senior Consultant–Marine Science ANZ Infrastructure & Environment Jacobs Authors: Craig McPherson Michael Wood Roberto Racca JASCO Applied Sciences (Australia) Pty Ltd. 19 August 2016 Unit 4, 61-63 Steel Street Capalaba, Queensland, 4157 P001241-002 Tel: +61 7 3823 2620 Document 01117 Mob: +61 4 3812 8179 Version 1.0 www.jasco.com JASCO APPLIED SCIENCES Potential Impacts of Underwater Noise from Operation of the Barossa FPSO Facility Suggested citation: McPherson, C.R, M. Wood and R. Racca 2016. Potential Impacts of Underwater Noise from Operation of the Barossa FPSO Facility on Marine Fauna, ConocoPhillips Barossa Project. Document 01117, Version 1.0. Technical report by JASCO Applied Sciences for Jacobs. Version 1.0 i JASCO APPLIED SCIENCES Potential Impacts of Underwater Noise from Operation of the Barossa FPSO Facility Contents 1. INTRODUCTION 1 2. GENERAL EFFECTS OF CONTINUOUS SOUND ON MARINE SPECIES 2 2.1. Marine Mammals 3 2.1.1. Acoustic Masking 3 2.1.2. Behavioural disturbance 4 2.1.3. Non-auditory effects 5 2.2. Fishes 5 2.2.1. Behavioural disturbance 5 2.2.2. Acoustic Masking 6 2.3. Elasmobranchs 6 2.4. Turtles 6 2.5. Sea Snakes 7 2.6. Invertebrates 7 3. ACOUSTIC THRESHOLDS 9 3.1. Marine Mammals 9 3.1.1. Behavioural responses 9 3.1.2. Injury and hearing sensitivity changes 9 3.1.1.
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix E. Underwater Noise Monitoring Survey (JASCO 2016A)
    Appendix E. Underwater noise monitoring survey (JASCO 2016a) Passive Acoustic Monitoring of Ambient Noise and Marine Mammals—Barossa Field July 2014 to July 2015 Submitted to: Christopher Teasdale Senior Consultant–Marine Science ANZ Infrastructure & Environment Jacobs Authors: Craig McPherson Katie Kowarski Julien Delarue Christopher Whitt Jeff MacDonnell Bruce Martin JASCO Applied Sciences (Australia) Pty Ltd. 10 August 2016 Unit 4, 61-63 Steel Street Capalaba, Queensland, 4157 P001241-001 Tel: +61 7 3823 2620 Document 00997 Mob: +61 4 3812 8179 Version 1.0 www.jasco.com JASCO APPLIED SCIENCES Passive Acoustic Monitoring of Ambient Noise and Marine Mammals Suggested citation: McPherson, C., K. Kowarski, J. Delarue, C. Whitt, J. MacDonnell and B. Martin. 2016. Passive Acoustic Monitoring of Ambient Noise and Marine Mammals—Barossa Field: . JASCO Document 00997, Version 1.0. Technical report by JASCO Applied Sciences for Jacobs. Version 1.0 JASCO APPLIED SCIENCES Passive Acoustic Monitoring of Ambient Noise and Marine Mammals Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................... 1 1. INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................... 3 1.1. Acoustic Monitoring Study ........................................................................................................... 3 1.2. Anthropogenic Activity near the Barossa Field ..........................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix 8.1: Underwater Noise Assessment
    Appendix 8.1: Underwater Noise Assessment URS-EIA-REP-203876 South Stream Pipeline – Turkish Sector – Underwater Sound Analysis Submitted to: South Stream Transport B.V. Authors: Mikhail Zykov Loren Bailey Terry Deveau Roberto Racca JASCO Applied Sciences Ltd. 25 November 2013 Suite 202, 32 Troop Ave. Dartmouth, NS B3B 1Z1 Canada P001226-003 Phone: +1-902-405-3336 Document 00699 Fax: +1-902-405-3337 Version 1.0 www.jasco.com JASCO APPLIED SCIENCES South Stream Pipeline – Turkish Sector – Underwater Sound Analysis Suggested citation: Zykov, Mikhail, et al. 2013. South Stream Pipeline – Turkish Sector – Underwater Sound Analysis. JASCO Document 00699, Version 1.0. Technical report by JASCO Applied Sciences for South Stream Transport B.V. i South Stream Pipeline – Turkish Sector – Underwater Sound Analysis JASCO APPLIED SCIENCES Contents 1. INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................1 1.1. Scope of the Study ........................................................................................................................ 1 1.2. Project Overview .......................................................................................................................... 1 1.3. Background–Underwater Acoustics .............................................................................................. 1 1.3.1. Types of Sound Sources ...................................................................................................... 2 1.3.2. Sound
    [Show full text]
  • South Fork Wind Farm
    Turbine Foundation and Cable Installation at South Fork Wind Farm Underwater Acoustic Modeling of Construction Noise Submitted to: Stantec Consulting Services Inc. Authors: Samuel L. Denes David G. Zeddies M. Michelle Weirathmueller 8 February 2021 P001383 JASCO Applied Sciences (USA) Inc Document 01584 8630 Fenton Street; Suite 218 Version 4.0 Silver Spring, MD USA Tel: +1-301-565-3500 www.jasco.com Version 4.0 i Suggested citation: Denes., S.L., D.G. Zeddies, and M.M. Weirathmueller. 2018. Turbine Foundation and Cable Installation at South Fork Wind Farm: Underwater Acoustic Modeling of Construction Noise. Document 01584, Version 4.0. Technical report by JASCO Applied Sciences for Stantec Consulting Services Inc. Disclaimer: The results presented herein are relevant within the specific context described in this report. They could be misinterpreted if not considered in the light of all the information contained in this report. Accordingly, if information from this report is used in documents released to the public or to regulatory bodies, such documents must clearly cite the original report, which shall be made readily available to the recipients in integral and unedited form. JASCO APPLIED SCIENCES Turbine Foundation and Cable Installation at South Fork Wind Farm Executive Summary Deepwater Wind South Fork LLC (DWSF) is proposing to install an offshore wind energy facility consisting of the South Fork Wind Farm (SFWF), located in its lease area on the Atlantic Outer Continental Shelf, as well as the offshore and onshore components of the South Fork Export Cable (SFEC). The SFWF will consist of up to 15 wind turbine generators (WTG) and an offshore substation, each of which will be supported by a foundation, as well as an inter-array cable connecting the WTG to the offshore substation.
    [Show full text]
  • Download Download
    U n d er w a ter S o u n d M easurements o f H ig h F r e q u e n c y S o n a r s U sin g a Se a b e d - m o u n t e d R e c o r d e r Graham Warner1, Andrew McCrodan2, Jeff MacDonnell3, and Eric Lumsden4 1,2JASCO Applied Sciences, 2305-4464 Markham St., BC, Canada, V8Z 7X8 1 [email protected] 3,4JASCO Applied Sciences, 202-32 Troop Ave., NS, Canada, B3B 1Z1 1. INTRODUCTION several 1 km long parallel track lines. The lines were offset at horizontal distances between 0 and 400 m from the There is concern among regulatory agencies that sonars AMAR (Figure 2). operating below 180 kHz (upper frequency limit for high frequency marine mammal listeners) could produce sounds causing auditory injury or induce behavioural effects, and that sonars operating above 180 kHz could leak energy into the audible range. The regulatory permit for Statoil USA E&P Inc.’s 2011 marine survey program in the Alaskan Chukchi Sea required underwater sound measurements of high and low frequency sound sources used in the program. We used a seabed-mounted Autonomous Multichannel Acoustic Recorder (AMAR, JASCO Applied Sciences) to accurately measure high frequency sonar sound levels (Warner and McCrodan, 2011). Figure. 1. Photograph of an AMAR with float collar being deployed (left) and map of the measurement location off northwest 2. METHODS Alaska (right). 2.1 Measurement Equipment Underwater sound level measurements were made using a 1 km seabed-mounted Autonomous Multichannel Acoustic Recorder (AMAR, JASCO Applied Sciences) with a Reson TC4014 hydrophone (nominal sensitivity -186 dB re 1 200 m V/uPa).
    [Show full text]
  • Proposal Template
    CRP Acoustic Monitoring Study Outline Sound Source Verification Prepared by: JASCO Applied Sciences (Australia) Pty Ltd. Brisbane Technology Park PO Box 4037 Eight Mile Plains, Qld 4113 Australia Tel: +61 7 3147 8286 Fax: +61 7 3147 8001 http://www.jasco.com Submitted to: Ray Wood Chatham Rock Phosphate Ltd. PO Box 231, Takaka 7142, New Zealand 18 October 2014 CRP Acoustic Monitoring Study Outline 18 October 2014 Contents 1. INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................................... 1 1.1. Proposal Contact Information...................................................................................................... 1 1.2. Background and Project Description ........................................................................................... 1 1.3. Project Experience ...................................................................................................................... 1 2. TECHNICAL AND SCOPE PROPOSAL ....................................................................................................... 2 2.1. Background ................................................................................................................................. 2 2.2. Program Design Considerations ................................................................................................. 2 2.3. Recording Instrumentation and hydrophones ............................................................................. 3 2.3.1. Recording
    [Show full text]
  • OWET Project Report Cover Page Jasco Applied Sciences
    Dec 09 Assessment of Underwater Noise Generated by Wave Energy Devices Prepared by JASCO Applied Sciences on behalf of Oregon Wave Energy Trust Oregon Wave Energy Trust (OWET) – with members from fishing and environmental groups, industry and government – is a nonprofit public-private partnership funded by the Oregon Innovation Council in 2007. Its mission is to serve as a connector for all stakeholders involved in wave energy project development – from research and development to early stage community engagement and final deployment and energy generation – positioning Oregon as the North America leader in this nascent industry and delivering its full economic and environmental potential for the state. OWET’s goal is to have ocean wave energy producing 2 megawatts of power – enough to power about 800 homes – by 2010 and 500 megawatts of power by 2025. www.oregonwave.org Assessment of Underwater Noise Generated by Wave Energy Devices Submitted to: Oregon Wave Energy Trust Authors: Melanie Austin Nicole Chorney James Ferguson Del Leary Caitlin O’Neill Holly Sneddon JASCO Applied Sciences Suite 2101, 4464 Markham St. 22 December 2009 Victoria, BC, V8Z 7X8, Canada Phone: +1.250.483.3300 P001081-001 Fax: +1.250.483.3301 Version 1.0 www.jasco.com JASCO Applied Sciences Assessment of Underwater Noise Generated by Wave Energy Devices Acknowledgements The correspondence with Sofia Patricio (Wave Energy Centre, Portugal), Roger Bedard (Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, CA) and Bruce Mate (Oregon State University) is appreciated. Suggested citation: Austin, M., Chorney, N., Ferguson, J., Leary, D., O’Neill, C., and Sneddon., H. 2009. Assessment of Underwater Noise Generated by Wave Energy Devices.
    [Show full text]
  • CSA Low Energy Sources Modeling.Docx
    JASCO APPLIED SCIENCES Underwater Sound Modeling of Low Energy Geophysical Equipment Operations Underwater Sound Modeling of Low Energy Geophysical Equipment Operations Submitted to: CSA Ocean Sciences Inc. Stuart, FL Contract: PSA2389 Author: Mikhail Zykov JASCO Applied Sciences 13 September 2013 Suite 202, 32 Troop Ave. Dartmouth, NS B3B 1Z1 Canada P001212-001 Phone: +1-902-405-3336 Document 00600 Fax: +1-902-405-3337 Version 2.0 www.jasco.com Created from 00256 Acoustics Report Template.dotx version 2.8 i Document Version Control Version Date Name Change 1.0 2013 Jun 28 M. Zykov Version 1 Draft released to client for review. 2.0 2013 Aug 30 M. Zykov Version 2 released to client. Suggested citation: Zykov. M. 2013. Underwater Sound Modeling of Low Energy Geophysical Equipment Operations. JASCO Document 00600, Version 2.0. Technical report by JASCO Applied Sciences for CSA Ocean Sciences Inc. JASCO APPLIED SCIENCES Underwater Sound Modeling of Low Energy Geophysical Equipment Operations Contents 1. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................... 1 1.1. Project Description ............................................................................................................................ 1 1.2. Acoustic Metrics ................................................................................................................................ 1 2. MODEL METHODOLOGY ...........................................................................................................
    [Show full text]