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 ...... 55 4.3.2. Scenario 2: Stationary Pipe-laying at Site 1 ...... 56 4.3.3. Scenario 3: Pipe-laying with Active Anchor Handling at Site 1 ...... 56 4.3.4. Scenario 4: Pipe-laying with Dynamic Positioning at Site 2 ...... 59 4.3.5. Scenario 5: Pipe-laying with Anchor Handling Tugs at Site 2 ...... 61 4.3.6. Scenario 6: Crew Change (Pipe-laying) at Site 2 ...... 61 4.3.7. Scenario 7: Dredging for Free Span Correction at Site 2 ...... 62 4.3.8. Scenario 8: Rock Dumping for Cable Crossings at Site 2 ...... 63 4.3.9. Scenario 9: Pipe-laying (J-Lay) at Site 3...... 63 4.3.10. Scenario 10: Crew Change (Pipe-laying) at Site 3...... 64 4.4. Cumulative Exposure ...... 66 4.4.1. Scenario C1: Nearshore Pipeline Section ...... 66 4.4.2. Scenario C2: Shelf Break Pipeline Section ...... 68 4.4.3. Scenario C3: Deep Sea Pipeline Section ...... 70 5. REMARKS ON EFFECT RANGE ESTIMATES ...... 72 LITERATURE CITED ...... 73 APPENDIX A. TABLES OF THRESHOLD RANGES AND AREAS ...... A-1
Version 1.0 iii South Stream Pipeline – Russian Sector – Underwater Sound Analysis JASCO APPLIED SCIENCES
Figures
Figure 1. Ambient noise power spectrum (grey line) and the corresponding 1/3-octave-band levels (black line), plotted on a logarithmic frequency scale. 5 Figure 2. The standard M-weighting functions for the four underwater functional marine mammal hearing groups (Southall et al. 2007). 7 Figure 3. Type II frequency weighting functions for the cetacean functional hearing groups, low- frequency (LF), mid-frequency (MF), and high-frequency (HF). Modified from Finneran and Jenkins (2012). 9 Figure 4. One-third-octave-band audiograms for bottlenose dolphin, harbor porpoise, anchovy, herring, shad, and sturgeon . Dotted lines represent extended hearing thresholds for modelling purposes. 11 Figure 5. Source levels for the modelled vessels in 1/3-octave-bands. The numbers in the brackets indicate the broadband level in dB re 1 µPa at 1 m (rms SPL). 15 Figure 6. Typical 3-D beam pattern for a circular transducer (Massa 2003). 16 Figure 7. Vertical cross section of a beam pattern measured in situ from a transducer used by Kongsberg (source: pers. comm. with the manufacturer). 17 Figure 8. Calculated beam pattern for a rectangular transducer with a 4° × 10° beamwidth. The beam power function is shown relative to the on-axis level using the Robinson projection. 17 Figure 9. Calculated beam pattern for two rectangular transducers engaged simultaneously, with individual beamwidths of 1.5° × 50°, and a declination angle of 25°. The beam power function is shown relative to the on-axis level using the Robinson projection. 18 Figure 10. Vertical beam pattern calculated for the Edgetech Full Chirp Side-scan Sonar with two beams 70° × 0.8° width in the (left) along- and (right) across-track directions. 19 Figure 11. The N×2-D and maximum-over-depth modelling approach used by MONM. 21 Figure 12. Maximum-over-depth sound exposure level (SEL) colour contour maps for two arbitrary sources. 22 Figure 13. Comparison of sound speed profiles for February (left) and August (right) at all three modelled sites, derived from data obtained from GDEM V 3.0 (Teague et al. 1990, Carnes 2009). 26 Figure 14. Mean monthly sound speed profiles for February and August for Site 3 in the Black Sea (44.156° N, 37.494°W) derived from data obtained from GDEM V 3.0 (Teague et al. 1990, Carnes 2009). 27 Figure 15. Tracks geometry for cumulative exposure modelling at three sites. 37 Figure 16. Broadband (10 Hz–20 kHz) maximum-over-depth sound pressure levels for the anchor-handling tug at the shallow water site (S01). Blue contours indicate water depth in metres. 42 Figure 17. Broadband (10 Hz–20 kHz) maximum-over-depth sound pressure levels for the anchor-handling tug at the mid-water site (S02). Blue contours indicate water depth in metres. 45 Figure 18. Broadband (10 Hz–20 kHz) maximum-over-depth sound pressure levels for the pipe- laying vessel at the deep water site (S03). Blue contours indicate water depth in metres. 47 Figure 19. Behavioural Response Function (BRF) per Finneran and Jenkins (2012). 48 Figure 20. Narrowband (1 Hz at 75 kHz) maximum-over-depth sound pressure levels for the Edgetech Full Spectrum Chirp side-scan sonar at the shallow water site (S01). Blue contours indicate water depth in metres. 50 Figure 21. Narrowband (1 Hz at 75 kHz) maximum-over-depth sound pressure levels for the Edgetech Full Spectrum Chirp side-scan sonar at the mid- water site (S02). Blue contours indicate water depth in metres. 52
iv Version 1.0 JASCO APPLIED SCIENCES South Stream Pipeline – Russian Sector – Underwater Sound Analysis
Figure 22. Narrowband (1 Hz at 75 kHz) maximum-over-depth sound pressure levels for the Edgetech Full Spectrum Chirp side-scan sonar at the deep water site (S03). Blue contours indicate water depth in metres. 54 Figure 23. Broadband (10 Hz–20 kHz) maximum-over-depth sound pressure levels for the pipe- laying vessel group with active anchor handling (VG03) at the shallow water site (S01). Blue contours indicate water depth in metres. 58 Figure 24. Broadband (10 Hz–20 kHz) maximum-over-depth sound pressure levels for the pipe- laying vessel group (VG04) at the mid-water site (S02). Blue contours indicate water depth in metres. 60 Figure 25. Broadband (10 Hz–20 kHz) maximum-over-depth sound pressure levels for the pipe- laying vessel group (VG09) at the deep water site (S03). Blue contours indicate water depth in metres. 65 Figure 26. Colour-shaded zones depict broadband (10 Hz–20 kHz) unweighted cumulative SEL levels for the C1 shallow water pipe-laying scenario at site S01. The acoustic field is modelled for conditions prevalent in February. Blue contours indicate water depth in metres. 67 Figure 27. Colour-shaded zones depict broadband (10 Hz–20 kHz) unweighted cumulative SEL levels for the C2 mid-water pipe-laying scenario at site S02. The acoustic field is modelled for conditions prevalent in February. Blue contours indicate water depth in metres. 69 Figure 28. Colour-shaded zones depict broadband (10 Hz–20 kHz) unweighted cumulative SEL levels for the C3 deep water pipe-laying scenario at site S03. The acoustic field is modelled for conditions prevalent in February. Blue contours indicate water depth in metres. 71
Tables
Table 1. The low (flo) and high (fhi) frequency cut-off parameters of the standard M-weighting functions for the four underwater functional marine mammal hearing groups (Southall et al. 2007). 7 Table 2. Type II frequency weighting parameters for the cetacean functional hearing groups. Modified from Finneran and Jenkins (2012). 8 Table 3. List of species and their representative audiograms. 10 Table 4. List of the vessels to be engaged in the construction activities of the nearshore and offshore sections of the South Stream pipeline project. The proxy vessel that was used to establish the broadband source level (indicated) is also provided for each proposed vessel. 14 Table 5. Estimated geoacoustic profile for Site 1, which represents thin sand layer over bedrock in the nearshore area. Within each depth range, each parameter varies linearly within the stated range. 25 Table 6. Estimated geoacoustic profile for Site 2, which represents thin silt layer over bedrock in the on the coastal shelf break. Within each depth range, each parameter varies linearly within the stated range. 25 Table 7. Estimated geoacoustic profile for Site 3, which represents the Black Sea Abyssal. Within each depth range, each parameter varies linearly within the stated range. 25 Table 8. Proposed modelling locations and their parameters. 28 Table 9. Proposed single vessel scenarios and their modelling parameters. 29 Table 10. Vessel spread for dredging of microtunnel exit pit and transition trench at Site 1. 30 Table 11. Vessel spread for stationary pipe-laying at Site 1. 31 Table 12. Vessel spread for pipe-laying with active anchor handling at Site 1. 32 Table 13. Vessel spread for pipe-laying with dynamic positioning at Site 2. 32 Table 14. Vessel spread for pipe-laying with active anchor handling at Site 2. 33 Table 15. Vessel spread for pipe-laying crew change at Site 2. 34
Version 1.0 v South Stream Pipeline – Russian Sector – Underwater Sound Analysis JASCO APPLIED SCIENCES
Table 16. Vessel spread for free span correction dredging at Site 2. 34 Table 17. Vessel spread rock dumping at Site 2. 35 Table 18. Vessel spread for pipe-laying at Site 3. 35 Table 19. Vessel spread for pipe-laying crew change at Site 3. 36 Table 20. Generic activities considered for cumulative exposure modeling scenario C1 (nearshore). 38 Table 21. Generic activities considered for cumulative exposure modeling scenario C2 (shelf break). 38 Table 22. Generic activities considered for cumulative exposure modeling scenario C3 (deep sea). 39 Table 23. Behavioural effect 95% ranges (km) and equivalent areas (km2) are tabulated for the shallow water site (S01), based on the horizontal distances from the source to modelled broadband (10–20000 Hz) maximum-over-depth sound level thresholds, without and with audiogram weighting applied for bottlenose dolphin and harbour porpoise. 40 Table 24. Behavioural effect 95% ranges (km) and equivalent areas (km2) are tabulated for the shallow water site (S01), based on the horizontal distances from the source to modelled broadband (10–20000 Hz) maximum-over-depth sound level thresholds, with audiogram weighting applied for anchovy, herring, shad, and sturgeon. 41 Table 25. Behavioural effect 95% ranges (km) and equivalent areas (km2) are tabulated for the mid-water site (S02), based on the horizontal distances from the source to modelled broadband (10–20000 Hz) maximum-over-depth sound level thresholds, without and with audiogram weighting applied for bottlenose dolphin and harbour porpoise. 43 Table 26. Behavioural effect 95% ranges (km) and equivalent areas (km2) are tabulated for the mid-water site (S02), based on the horizontal distances from the source to modelled broadband (10–20000 Hz) maximum-over-depth sound level thresholds, with audiogram weighting applied for anchovy, herring, shad, and sturgeon. 44 Table 27. Behavioural effect 95% ranges (km) and equivalent areas (km2) are tabulated for the deep water site (S03), based on the horizontal distances from the source to modelled broadband (10–20000 Hz) maximum-over-depth sound level thresholds, without and with audiogram weighting applied for bottlenose dolphin and harbour porpoise. 46 Table 28. Behavioural effect 95% ranges (km) and equivalent areas (km2) are tabulated for the deep water site (S03), based on the horizontal distances from the source to modelled broadband (10–20000 Hz) maximum-over-depth sound level thresholds, with audiogram weighting applied for anchovy, herring, shad, and sturgeon. 46 Table 29. Behavioural effect 95% ranges (km) and equivalent areas (km2) are tabulated for the shallow water site (S01) based on the horizontal distances from the source to modelled narrowband (1 Hz at 75 kHz) maximum-over-depth sound level thresholds. 49 Table 30. Behavioural effect 95% ranges (km) and equivalent areas (km2) are tabulated for the mid-water site (S02) based on the horizontal distances from the source to modelled narrowband (1 Hz at 75 kHz) maximum-over-depth sound level thresholds. 51 Table 31. Behavioural effect 95% ranges (km) and equivalent areas (km2) are tabulated for the deep-water site (S03) based on the horizontal distances from the source to modelled narrowband (1 Hz at 75 kHz) maximum-over-depth sound level thresholds. 53 Table 32. Behavioural effect 95% ranges (km) and equivalent areas (km2) are tabulated for the shallow water vessel grouping (VG01), based on the horizontal distances from the loudest source at the center of the group to the modelled broadband (10–20000 Hz) maximum-over- depth sound level thresholds, without and with audiogram weighting applied for bottlenose dolphin and harbour porpoise. 55
vi Version 1.0 JASCO APPLIED SCIENCES South Stream Pipeline – Russian Sector – Underwater Sound Analysis
Table 33. Behavioural effect 95% ranges (km) and equivalent areas (km2) are tabulated for the shallow water vessel grouping (VG01), based on the horizontal distances from the loudest source at the center of the group to the modelled broadband (10–20000 Hz) maximum-over- depth sound level thresholds, with audiogram weighting applied for anchovy, herring, shad, and sturgeon. 55 Table 34. Behavioural effect 95% ranges (km) and equivalent areas (km2) are tabulated for the shallow water vessel grouping (VG02), based on the horizontal distances from the loudest source at the center of the group to the modelled broadband (10–20000 Hz) maximum-over- depth sound level thresholds, without and with audiogram weighting applied for bottlenose dolphin and harbour porpoise. 56 Table 35. Behavioural effect 95% ranges (km) and equivalent areas (km2) are tabulated for the shallow water vessel grouping (VG02), based on the horizontal distances from the loudest source at the center of the group to the modelled broadband (10–20000 Hz) maximum-over- depth sound level thresholds, with audiogram weighting applied for anchovy, herring, shad, and sturgeon. 56 Table 36. Behavioural effect 95% ranges (km) and equivalent areas (km2) are tabulated for the shallow water vessel grouping (VG03), based on the horizontal distances from the loudest source at the center of the group to the modelled broadband (10–20000 Hz) maximum-over- depth sound level thresholds, without and with audiogram weighting applied for bottlenose dolphin and harbour porpoise. 56 Table 37. Behavioural effect 95% ranges (km) and equivalent areas (km2) are tabulated for the shallow water vessel grouping (VG03), based on the horizontal distances from the loudest source at the center of the group to the modelled broadband (10–20000 Hz) maximum-over- depth sound level thresholds, with audiogram weighting applied for anchovy, herring, shad, and sturgeon. 57 Table 38. Behavioural effect 95% ranges (km) and equivalent areas (km2) are tabulated for the mid-water water vessel grouping (VG04), based on the horizontal distances from the loudest source at the center of the group to the modelled broadband (10–20000 Hz) maximum-over- depth sound level thresholds, without and with audiogram weighting applied for bottlenose dolphin and harbour porpoise. 59 Table 39. Behavioural effect 95% ranges (km) and equivalent areas (km2) are tabulated for the mid-water water vessel grouping (VG04), based on the horizontal distances from the loudest source at the center of the group to the modelled broadband (10–20000 Hz) maximum-over- depth sound level thresholds, with audiogram weighting applied for anchovy, herring, shad, and sturgeon. 59 Table 40. Behavioural effect 95% ranges (km) and equivalent areas (km2) are tabulated for the mid-water water vessel grouping (VG05), based on the horizontal distances from the loudest source at the center of the group to the modelled broadband (10–20000 Hz) maximum-over- depth sound level thresholds, without and with audiogram weighting applied for bottlenose dolphin and harbour porpoise. 61 Table 41. Behavioural effect 95% ranges (km) and equivalent areas (km2) are tabulated for the mid-water water vessel grouping (VG05), based on the horizontal distances from the loudest source at the center of the group to the modelled broadband (10–20000 Hz) maximum-over- depth sound level thresholds, with audiogram weighting applied for anchovy, herring, shad, and sturgeon. 61 Table 42. Behavioural effect 95% ranges (km) and equivalent areas (km2) are tabulated for the mid-water water vessel grouping (VG06), based on the horizontal distances from the loudest source at the center of the group to the modelled broadband (10–20000 Hz) maximum-over- depth sound level thresholds, without and with audiogram weighting applied for bottlenose dolphin and harbour porpoise. 61
Version 1.0 vii South Stream Pipeline – Russian Sector – Underwater Sound Analysis JASCO APPLIED SCIENCES
Table 43. Behavioural effect 95% ranges (km) and equivalent areas (km2) are tabulated for the mid-water water vessel grouping (VG06), based on the horizontal distances from the loudest source at the center of the group to the modelled broadband (10–20000 Hz) maximum-over- depth sound level thresholds, with audiogram weighting applied for anchovy, herring, shad, and sturgeon. 62 Table 44. Behavioural effect 95% ranges (km) and equivalent areas (km2) are tabulated for the mid-water water vessel grouping (VG07), based on the horizontal distances from the loudest source at the center of the group to the modelled broadband (10–20000 Hz) maximum-over- depth sound level thresholds, without and with audiogram weighting applied for bottlenose dolphin and harbour porpoise. 62 Table 45. Behavioural effect 95% ranges (km) and equivalent areas (km2) are tabulated for the mid-water water vessel grouping (VG07), based on the horizontal distances from the loudest source at the center of the group to the modelled broadband (10–20000 Hz) maximum-over- depth sound level thresholds, with audiogram weighting applied for anchovy, herring, shad, and sturgeon. 62 Table 46. Behavioural effect 95% ranges (km) and equivalent areas (km2) are tabulated for the mid-water water vessel grouping (VG08), based on the horizontal distances from the loudest source at the center of the group to the modelled broadband (10–20000 Hz) maximum-over- depth sound level thresholds, without and with audiogram weighting applied for bottlenose dolphin and harbour porpoise. 63 Table 47. Behavioural effect 95% ranges (km) and equivalent areas (km2) are tabulated for the mid-water water vessel grouping (VG08), based on the horizontal distances from the loudest source at the center of the group to the modelled broadband (10–20000 Hz) maximum-over- depth sound level thresholds, with audiogram weighting applied for anchovy, herring, shad, and sturgeon. 63 Table 48. Behavioural effect 95% ranges (km) and equivalent areas (km2) are tabulated for the deep water vessel grouping (VG09), based on the horizontal distances from the loudest source at the center of the group to the modelled broadband (10–20000 Hz) maximum-over-depth sound level thresholds, without and with audiogram weighting applied for bottlenose dolphin and harbour porpoise. 63 Table 49. Behavioural effect 95% ranges (km) and equivalent areas (km2) are tabulated for the deep water vessel grouping (VG09), based on the horizontal distances from the loudest source at the center of the group to the modelled broadband (10–20000 Hz) maximum-over-depth sound level thresholds, with audiogram weighting applied for anchovy, herring, shad, and sturgeon. 64 Table 50. Behavioural effect 95% ranges (km) and equivalent areas (km2) are tabulated for the deep water vessel grouping (VG10), based on the horizontal distances from the loudest source at the center of the group to the modelled broadband (10–20000 Hz) maximum-over-depth sound level thresholds, without and with audiogram weighting applied for bottlenose dolphin and harbour porpoise. 64 Table 51. Behavioural effect 95% ranges (km) and equivalent areas (km2) are tabulated for the deep water vessel grouping (VG10), based on the horizontal distances from the loudest source at the center of the group to the modelled broadband (10–20000 Hz) maximum-over-depth sound level thresholds, with audiogram weighting applied for anchovy, herring, shad, and sturgeon. 64 Table 52. Injury effect ranges (km) and areas (km2) are tabulated for the shallow-water site (S01) based on maximum-over-depth sound level thresholds. Conditions are for the month of February. 66 Table 53. Injury effect ranges (km) and areas (km2) are tabulated for the mid-depth water site (S02) based on maximum-over-depth sound level thresholds. Conditions are for the month of February. 68
viii Version 1.0 JASCO APPLIED SCIENCES South Stream Pipeline – Russian Sector – Underwater Sound Analysis
Table 54. Injury effect ranges (km) and areas (km2) are tabulated for the deep-water site (S03) based on maximum-over-depth sound level thresholds. Conditions are for the month of February. 70
Version 1.0 ix
JASCO APPLIED SCIENCES South Stream Pipeline – Russian Sector – Underwater Sound Analysis
1. Introduction
1.1. Scope of the Study
JASCO Applied Sciences has performed an acoustic propagation modelling study to estimate the extent of potential noise effects on marine mammals and fish during the construction of the South Stream natural gas pipeline at the bottom of the Black Sea. The study provides estimates of effect ranges from different acoustic aspects of the operations: Instantaneous sound exposure from individual vessels Aggregate instantaneous sound exposure from a group of vessels operating in the vicinity of each other Cumulative sound exposure for 24 hours of typical operations The acoustic propagation model accounted for the variation of the bathymetry, geoacoustic properties of the sea bottom, and seasonal variation of the sound speed profile in the water column. Two sound speed profiles were considered, notionally bracketing the upper and lower bounds in terms of the acoustic propagation footprint. A total of 34 scenarios for individual vessels, 20 scenarios for vessel groups, and 3 cumulative scenarios were modelled. The acoustic source levels for the vessels were estimated based on available measurements of the actual vessels or realistic proxies, suitably scaled where appropriate. The type, size, and the total propulsion power of the vessels were considered in the estimation.
1.2. Project Overview
The landfall section of the pipeline is located near Varvarovka village, about 8 km south of Anapa and 40 km north-west of Novorossiysk. The shoreline crossing will be done through small-bore tunnels (microtunnels), which will exit at the sea bottom at about 23 m isobath, 450 m offshore. A transition trench will lead the pipeline from the tunnel exit pits to the 30 m isobath, located 850 m off-shore. At this point, the near-shore section of the pipeline ties in with the offshore section. The offshore section of the pipeline consists of two parts: shallow water and deep water. It starts at 30 m isobath, from where the pipeline continues perpendicular to the shoreline, makes 90° turn to South-East and then follows the shoreline at about 4.5 km distance for approximately 22 km at water depths of 50–100 m. Another turn to the South directs the pipeline across the slope. The slope grade is about 15% - the water depth increases from 100 m to 1600 m within a 10 km stretch of the pipeline. After that, the slope grade decreases to less than 1% and the water depth continues to increase 2000 m at which depth the sea bottom flattens out for the abyssal part of the Black Sea. Along its route, the South Stream pipeline will cross other existing underwater pipelines and cables at several places. Construction of special crossings will be required at those locations. The specific types of pipe-lay operations performed at different sections are defined by the requirements of the construction process and the water depth. In particular, the choice of vessels used for a given operation is largely driven by the water depth. This is a primary consideration in the setting up of realistic acoustic modelling scenarios.
Version 1.0 1 South Stream Pipeline – Russian Sector – Underwater Sound Analysis JASCO APPLIED SCIENCES
1.2.1. Near-shore Section The construction of the near-shore section will require the following main activities: Surveys of the pipeline route prior to, during and after the pipe-laying process; Dredging of the microtunnel exit pit and transition trench; Pipe-laying; Backfilling of the microtunnel exit pit and transition trench. The vessel GSP Prince (7,600 kW) will be involved in the surveying operations using a remotely operated vessel (ROV) with side-scan sonar and/or multibeam sonar installed. Dredging will be performed by cutter-suction dredger MRTS Dikson (3,500 kW) or clam- shell crane dredge Kahmari (920 kW). The pipe-laying process will involve the small pipe- laying vessel Tog Mor (3,750 kW) propelled using a set of anchors distributed around the vessel at about 700–800 m distance. The positioning of the anchors will be performed using anchor-handling tug Normand Neptune (14,000 kW). The same tug can be used for pulling the pipe through the tunnels. The dredger Taccola (4,300 kW) will be used for backfilling operations. The tug Normand Flipper (7,160 kW) or similar will be used as a support vessel, as well as for handling barges with dredged materials. The fast-supply vessel GSP Lyra (2,520 kW) will be used for crew changes.
1.2.2. Offshore Section, Mid-depth Water. The construction of the mid-depth offshore section will require the following main activities: Surveys of the pipeline route prior to, during and after the pipe-laying process; Offshore pipe-laying; Seabed intervention works; Crossings of existing offshore cables; Tie-in of the near-shore / offshore sections. As in the construction of the near-shore section of the pipeline, GSP Prince (7,600 kW) will be involved in the surveying operations using a ROV; Normand Flipper (7,160 kW) or similar tug will be used as a support vessel; and GSP Lyra (2,520 kW) will be used for crew changes. Seabed interventions will be performed by the vessel Calamity Jane (15,000 kW) equipped with remote operated trencher. The rock dumping vessel Tertness (8,400 kW) will facilitate the construction of cable crossings. The pipe-laying will be performed by Castoro Sei (20,500 kW), a specialized vessel designed for intermediate depths. Castoro Sei can use either the anchor system or dynamic positioning system for station holding and propulsion. It is not expected that the anchor system would be used for pipe-laying over much of this section, though it could be possible at the shallower depths. The tug Normand Neptune (14,000 kW) will be used for anchor-handling or general support for the pipe-laying vessel.
1.2.3. Offshore section, Deep Water. The construction of the offshore section of the pipeline in deep water will involve similar activities and vessels as the mid-depth water offshore section (see above) with one exception: the large pipe-laying vessel Castorone (67,000 kW) or Saipem 7000 (70,000 kW) will be utilized instead of the Castoro Sei.
2 Version 1.0 JASCO APPLIED SCIENCES South Stream Pipeline – Russian Sector – Underwater Sound Analysis
1.3. Background–Underwater Acoustics
This section describes some basic principles and terms used in underwater acoustics, which will be relevant to the understanding of the model based estimation of sound exposure.
1.3.1. Types of Sound Sources Underwater sounds can be classified in two major categories: continuous or impulsive. Continuous sounds, which include sound from stationary sources such as dredging operations at a marine terminal or moving sources such as transiting ships, gradually vary in intensity with time. Impulsive sounds, such as sounds from survey equipment or pile driving, are characterized by brief, intermittent acoustic events with rapid (usually less than a second) onset and decay back to ambient levels. All sources considered in this study except side-scan sonar produce continuous sounds.
1.3.2. Sound Level Metrics Underwater sound amplitude is measured in decibels (dB) relative to a fixed reference pressure of p0 = 1 μPa. Because the loudness of impulsive noise, from seismic airguns for example, is not generally proportional to the instantaneous acoustic pressure, several sound level metrics are commonly used to evaluate the loudness of impulsive noise and its effects on marine life.
The zero-to-peak SPL, or peak SPL (Lpk, dB re 1 µPa), is the maximum instantaneous sound pressure level in a stated frequency band attained by an acoustic event, p(t): 2 tp )(max L log10 10pk 2 p0 (1) The peak SPL metric is commonly quoted for impulsive sounds, but it does not account for the duration or bandwidth of the noise. At high intensities, the peak SPL can be a valid criterion for assessing whether a sound is potentially injurious; however, because the peak SPL does not account for the duration, it is a poor indicator of perceived loudness.
The root-mean square (rms) SPL (Lp, dB re 1 µPa) is the rms pressure level in a stated frequency band over a time window (T, s) containing the acoustic event: 1 L log10 2 )( pdttp 2 (2) p 10 0 T T Think of the rms SPL as a measure of the average pressure or as the effective pressure over the duration of an acoustic event, such as the emission of one acoustic pulse or sweep. Because the window length, T, is the divisor, events more spread out in time have a lower rms SPL for the same total acoustic energy. 2 The sound exposure level (SEL, LE, dB re 1 µPa ·s) is a measure of the total acoustic energy contained in one or more acoustic events. The SEL for a single event is computed from the time-integral of the squared pressure over the full event duration (T100): 2 )(log10 pTdttpL 2 E 10 00 T100 (3)
Version 1.0 3 South Stream Pipeline – Russian Sector – Underwater Sound Analysis JASCO APPLIED SCIENCES
where T0 is a reference time interval of 1 s. The SEL represents the total acoustic energy received at some location during an acoustic event; it measures the sound energy to which an organism at that location would be exposed. Cumulative SEL SEL can be a cumulative metric if calculated over periods containing multiple acoustic events. The cumulative SEL (LEC) can be computed by summing (in linear units) the SELs of the N individual events (LEi).
N LEi L 10log10 10 (4) E 10C i1 Obtaining rms SPL from SEL Because the rms SPL and SEL are both computed from the integral of square pressure, these metrics are related by a simple expression, which depends only on the duration of the energy time window T:
Ep log10 10 TLL (5) TLL 458.0log10 Ep 901090 (6) where the 0.458 dB factor accounts for the rms SPL containing 90% of the total energy from the per-pulse SEL.
1.1.1. Transmission Loss Transmission Loss (TL) is a measure of how sound levels change between a source and receiver over some distance. TL depends on the frequency and acoustic environment, including water sound speed profile, bathymetry, and subbottom geoacoustic properties. TL is calculated from source and received levels according to the equation: SLTL RL (7) where SL is the source level (dB re 1 µPa at 1 m) and RL is the received sound pressure level (dB re 1 µPa) , and TL is the transmission loss (dB re 1 m).
1.1.2. Source Levels Source level is a measure of the intensity of sound that a source emits, measured at a reference distance of 1 m. For point sources, such as a small transducer, source levels can be measured directly with a hydrophone at 1 m distance. For larger sources, source levels must be determined indirectly by measuring received levels at larger distances and back- propagating the levels to a reference distance of 1 m. For example, because ships radiate sound from their hull and propeller, their source levels must be measured at a distance such that the TL from the different points on the ship emitting sound is roughly the same. Source levels are calculated by re-arranging Equation 7 to the following:
TLRLSL (8)
1.3.3. One-third-octave-band Analysis Sounds that are composed of single frequencies are called “tones”; however, most sounds are generally composed of a broad range of frequencies (“broadband” sound) rather than pure
4 Version 1.0 JASCO APPLIED SCIENCES South Stream Pipeline – Russian Sector – Underwater Sound Analysis tones. The distribution of sound power over frequency is described by the spectrum (or power spectral density, S(f)). The spectrum describes the fine scale features of the frequency distribution of a sound source. A coarser representation of the sound power distribution is often better suited to quantitative analysis. Frequency-band analysis divides the power spectrum into discrete passbands. The most common frequency band analysis scheme used in underwater acoustics is 1/3-octave-band analysis, which divides the power spectrum into adjacent passbands one-third of an octave wide (where an octave corresponds to a doubling of frequency). The advantage of modelling using 1/3-octave-bands is that it can resolve the frequency dependent propagation characteristics of a particular environment and efficiently compute the broadband sound pressure level.
th i )( The band pressure levels in the i 1/3-octave-band ( Lb ) is computed from the power spectrum:
fhi i)( )(log10 dffSL b 10 flo 20/1 chi iff )(10 20/1 clo iff )(10 if i 1010)( c (9) th where f is the frequency, and fc(i) is the center frequency of the i band. The sum of all band pressure levels is equal to the levels of the broadband signal:
i)( Lb 10/ L p 10 10log10 (10) n where n is the number of bands. Figure 1 shows an example of a noise power spectrum and the corresponding 1/3-octave-band levels.
Figure 1. Ambient noise power spectrum (grey line) and the corresponding 1/3-octave-band levels (black line), plotted on a logarithmic frequency scale.
Version 1.0 5 South Stream Pipeline – Russian Sector – Underwater Sound Analysis JASCO APPLIED SCIENCES
1.4. Frequency Weighting
The potential for anthropogenic noise to affect marine animals depends on how well the animal can hear the noise. Noises are less likely to disturb or injure animals if they are at frequencies that the animal cannot hear well except when the sound pressure is so high that it can cause physical injury. For sound levels that are too low to cause physical injury, frequency weighting based on audiograms may be applied to weight the importance of sound levels at particular frequencies in a manner reflective of an animal’s sensitivity to those frequencies (Nedwell and Turnpenny 1998, Nedwell et al. 2007).
1.4.1. Type I (M-weighting) Marine Mammal Frequency Weighting Based on a literature review of marine mammal hearing and on physiological and behavioural responses to anthropogenic sound, Southall et al. (2007) proposed standard frequency weighting functions—referred to as M-weighting functions—for five functional hearing groups of marine mammals: Low-frequency cetaceans (LFCs)—mysticetes (baleen whales) Mid-frequency cetaceans (MFCs)—some odontocetes (toothed whales) High-frequency cetaceans (HFCs)—odontocetes specialized for using high- frequencies Pinnipeds in water—seals, sea lions and walrus Pinnipeds in air (not addressed here) The discount applied by the M-weighting functions for less-audible frequencies is less than that indicated by the corresponding audiograms (where available) for member species of these hearing groups. The rationale for applying a smaller discount than suggested by audiograms is due in part to an observed characteristic of mammalian hearing that perceived equal loudness curves increasingly have less rapid roll-off outside the most sensitive hearing frequency range as sound levels increase. This is why, for example, C-weighting curves for humans, used for assessing loud sounds such as blasts, are flatter than A-weighting curves, used for quiet to mid-level sounds. Additionally, out-of-band frequencies, though less audible, can still cause physical injury if pressure levels are sufficiently high. The M- weighting functions therefore are primarily intended to be applied at high sound levels where effects such as temporary or permanent hearing threshold shifts may occur. The use of M-weighting is considered precautionary (in the sense of overestimating the potential for exposure) when applied to lesser effects such as onset of behavioural response. Figure 2 shows the decibel frequency weighting of the four underwater M-weighting functions.
6 Version 1.0 JASCO APPLIED SCIENCES South Stream Pipeline – Russian Sector – Underwater Sound Analysis
Figure 2. The standard M-weighting functions for the four underwater functional marine mammal hearing groups (Southall et al. 2007).
The M-weighting functions have unity gain (0 dB) through the passband and their high and low frequency roll-offs are approximately –12 dB per octave. The amplitude response in the frequency domain of the M-weighting functions is defined by:
f 2 f 2 fG lo 11log20)( (11) 10 2 2 f f hi
The roll-off and passband of these functions are controlled by the parameters flo and fhi, the estimated lower and upper hearing limits specific to each functional hearing group (Table 1).
Table 1. The low (flo) and high (fhi) frequency cut-off parameters of the standard M-weighting functions for the four underwater functional marine mammal hearing groups (Southall et al. 2007).
Functional hearing group flo (Hz) fhi (Hz)
Low-frequency cetaceans (LFC) 7 22 000 Mid-frequency cetaceans (MFC) 150 160 000 High-frequency cetaceans (HFC) 200 180 000 Pinnipeds in water (Pw) 75 75 000
1.4.2. Type II Marine Mammal Frequency Weighting Subjective loudness measurements have recently been obtained for a bottlenose dolphin, which has allowed for the development of equal-loudness contours for this animal (Finneran and Schlundt 2011). Equal loudness contours (also called Fletcher-Munson curves) are the sound levels over the frequency spectrum for which a listener perceives constant loudness. These curves are the basis of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) noise regulation 1910.95. The equal-loudness contours determined by Finneran and Schlundt (2011) better match the frequency dependence of TTS onset data (Schlundt et al. 2000) than audiograms or the M-weighting curves. For this reason, and as an analogous use of equal- loudness contours in humans, the dolphin equal-loudness contours were used to develop
Version 1.0 7 South Stream Pipeline – Russian Sector – Underwater Sound Analysis JASCO APPLIED SCIENCES marine mammal frequency weighting functions for the U.S. Navy (Finneran and Jenkins 2012). The (inverse) equal-loudness contours were fit with equations of the same form as the M-weighting function (Equation 11). To distinguish the new weighting functions from the ones described above, they are called Type II, and the standard weight functions of the previous section, Type I. The Type II fits suggest steeper roll-off at lower frequencies than the mid-frequency M-weighting curve. Because data for the equal-loudness contours did not cover the entire spectral range of the Type I M-weighting functions, the Type II M-weighting curves were modified rather than simply replaced. The lowest frequency for which subjective loudness data were obtained was 3 kHz, therefore Finneran and Jenkins (2012) took a conservative approach and set the mid- frequency M-weighting curve and the inverted equal loudness contour equal at 3 kHz. The result is that below 3 kHz the overall function is identical to the Type I M-weighting curves and above 3 kHz the overall function is equal to the fitted (inverse) equal-loudness contour. For LF and HF animals a similar procedure was used but the fitting parameters for the inverted equal-loudness contours were adjusted appropriately for LF and MF species, respectively. Because the subjective loudness data was from a cetacean those data were not extended to develop new frequency weighting functions for pinniped species. Type II frequency weighting functions for cetaceans are calculated as:
f 2 f 2 KfG low1 11log20)( (12) 1011 f 2 f 2 hi1
f 2 f 2 KfG low2 11log20)( 1022 f 2 f 2 hi2 (13) where flow1 and fhi1 are the same parameter values for Type I M-weighting, and flow 2 and fhi2 are the fitted parameters for the inverted equal-loudness contour adjusted for hearing group. K2 is used to normalize the G2 equation to zero at 10 kHz (the reference frequency for the subjective loudness studies) and K1 is used to set the G1 equation equal to the G2 equation at 3 kHz for mid-frequency and high-frequency species. For low-frequency species, K1 was adjusted so that the flat portion of the G2 was 16.5 dB below the peak level of G2 (as it was for the mid-frequency cetaceans). G1 and G2 are equal at 267 Hz for low-frequency species. Parameters for each of the cetacean groups are shown in Table 2 and the resulting Type II frequency weight curves are shown in Figure 3.
Table 2. Type II frequency weighting parameters for the cetacean functional hearing groups. Modified from Finneran and Jenkins (2012).
Cetacean functional hearing K1 flow1 fhi1 K2 flow2 fhi2 Inflection group (dB) (Hz) (Hz) (dB) (Hz) (Hz) point (Hz)
Low-frequency −16.5 7 22,000 0.9 674 12,130 267
Mid-frequency −16.5 150 160,000 1.4 7,829 95 520 3 000
High-frequency −19.4 200 180,000 1.4 9,480 108 820 3,000
8 Version 1.0 JASCO APPLIED SCIENCES South Stream Pipeline – Russian Sector – Underwater Sound Analysis
Figure 3. Type II frequency weighting functions for the cetacean functional hearing groups, low- frequency (LF), mid-frequency (MF), and high-frequency (HF). Modified from Finneran and Jenkins (2012).
1.4.3. Audiogram Weighting Audiograms represent the hearing threshold for pure tones as a function of frequency. These species-specific sensitivity curves are generally U-shaped, with higher hearing thresholds at opposite ends of the audible frequency range. Noise levels above hearing threshold are calculated by subtracting species-specific audiograms from the received 1/3-octave-band sound levels. The audiogram-weighted 1/3-octave-band levels are summed to yield broadband sound levels relative to each species’ hearing threshold. Audiogram-weighted levels are expressed in units of dB above hearing threshold (dB re HT). Sound levels less than 0 dB re HT are below the typical hearing threshold for a species and therefore it is likely the animal does not hear them. Table 3 provides the marine mammal and fish species that may be found along the pipeline routes, along with the species-specific audiograms that were used to represent the hearing thresholds of each.
Version 1.0 9 South Stream Pipeline – Russian Sector – Underwater Sound Analysis JASCO APPLIED SCIENCES
Table 3. List of species and their representative audiograms.
Species Representative audiogram
Marine mammals Bottlenose dolphin Bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus ponticus) (Tursiops truncatus ponticus) Harbor porpoise Harbor porpoise (Phocoena phocoena relicta) (Phocoena phocoena relicta) Short beaked common dolphin Bottlenose dolphin (Delphinus delphis ponticus) (Tursiops truncatus ponticus) Fish Sprat Atlantic herring (Sprattus sprats) (Clupea harengus) Anchovy Anchovy (Engraulis enchrasicolus) (Anchoa mitchili) Kilka Atlantic herring (Cluponella cultriventris) (Clupea harengus) Shad American shad (Alosa maeotica and A.caspia) (Alosa sapidissima) Sturgeon Lake sturgeon (Huso huso and Acipenser gueldenstaedtii) (Acipenser fluvescens)
Six audiograms were used to represent the above species (Figure 4), with some substitutions being made based on availability of audiograms and similarity within groups of species. The bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus ponticus) audiogram (Johnson, 1967) was used for both species of dolphin. Harbor seal audiogram data were based on Kastelein et al. (2002). Four fish audiograms were used. The herring audiogram data (Enger, 1967) were used to represent species of sprat and kilka. Audiogram data for anchovy, shad, and sturgeon were provided by Ladich and Fay (2013). To fit the modelled range of frequencies, audiograms were extended from the lowest measured frequency down to 10 Hz and from the highest measured frequency to 20 kHz. Although the extended portion of the audiogram data is not physiologically accurate, these animals likely have a higher hearing threshold at frequencies outside their hearing range, making the extensions a conservative approximation of hearing thresholds.
10 Version 1.0 JASCO APPLIED SCIENCES South Stream Pipeline – Russian Sector – Underwater Sound Analysis
Figure 4. One-third-octave-band audiograms for bottlenose dolphin, harbor porpoise, anchovy, herring, shad, and sturgeon . Dotted lines represent extended hearing thresholds for modelling purposes.
1.5. Sound Level Thresholds Criteria
1.5.1. Injury Assessment In keeping with the latest scientific approaches, injury effects assessment has been based on the cumulative sound exposure level (SEL) over a period of 24 hours. The pipe-laying operation (loudest among any possible activities at the three representative sites) has been modelled including realistic motion of pipe-lay vessel and support vessels such as pipe carrier ships shuttling to resupply (see sample maps listed in spreadsheet). Two sets of criteria are available and currently considered valid for the assessment of ranges to injury (onset of PTS) from continuous noise: the Southall et al. (2007) criteria and the Finneran and Jenkins (2012) criteria also referenced as the US Navy criteria. The former uses a single threshold of 215 dB re µPa2-s SEL weighted according to the hearing class of the subjects using Type I weighting curves (M-weighting). The latter uses variable thresholds and newer Type II weighting functions that take into account subjective loudness and some additional data collected since the Southall et al. study. For Mid Frequency cetaceans (MFC; in the project area, primarily dolphins) the threshold is 198 dB re µPa2-s SEL with Type 2 MFC weighting. For High Frequency cetaceans (HFC; in the project area, primarily harbour porpoises) the threshold is 187 dB re µPa2-s SEL with Type 2 HFC weighting. The results of the SEL based assessment can be presented in terms of the modelled area exposed to cumulative levels above the threshold over a 24 hour period (area of effect), as well as a range of effect that provides a linear “width” of the footprint relative to the main pipe-lay vessel. Because of the irregular and elongated shape of the cumulative footprint along the pipe-lay route, the effect range cannot be computed as a radius for equivalent area and is instead measured from the swath width of the footprint with suitable consideration of its shape.
Version 1.0 11 South Stream Pipeline – Russian Sector – Underwater Sound Analysis JASCO APPLIED SCIENCES
The assessment of fish injury range is by far the most uncertain scientifically. The approach used in this study is derived from the work of Stadler and Woodbury (2009) whose criteria are based on hearing studies of fish exposed to airgun sounds. The Stadler and Woodbury criteria are commonly used for pile driving injury range estimation but can be reasonably applied to continuous sound, with some important considerations: In terms of the SEL metric, exposure to a few loud sounds is more damaging to fish than exposure to a larger number or longer duration of quieter sounds (Halvorsen et al. 2012). Therefore, use of Stadler and Woodbury (2009) criteria are precautionary when applied to exposure to continuous sound – and may possibly yield very conservative estimates of effect range and area. There are no data to indicate that shipping and shipping-like sounds can damage the hearing of fish with swim bladders but lacking specializations for enhanced acoustic pressure reception. Fish are typically sensitive only to low frequency sounds, with the best hearing range of most fish from about 100 Hz to 400 Hz. A low-pass filter with a corner frequency of 2 kHz is a conservative weighting function that rejects sounds at frequencies that fish do not hear, and is used in this study.
1.5.2. Behavioural Assessment The “traditional” unweighted rms SPL criterion for behavioural effects onset at 120 dB re µPa cannot be outright dismissed despite its inability to account for species specific hearing differences, and it is included in this study at least for completeness and reference to common practice. It is also a criterion still invoked as the only acceptable approach for the harbour porpoise by studies as recent as Finneran and Jenkins (2012), who explicitly exclude that species from weighted metrics criteria because of its unique susceptibility and reaction to sound stimuli. Behavioural criteria based on weighted metrics, such as those proposed by Finneran and Jenkins (2012) for marine mammal species other than harbour porpoises, are questionable in the case of continuous sounds such as those from vessels. The relatively high reaction thresholds that arise from their use would be difficult to defend by comparison with empirical evidence. We consider audiogram based behavioural effect criteria to be the most justified for this assessment, given the well-defined identity of the relevant species in the region and the availability of reliable audiograms for those very species or reasonable surrogates. The most uncertain element in the use of audiogram-referenced levels (dB relative to hearing threshold or dBht) is the threshold to adopt for onset of behavioural disturbance. Nedwell et al (2005) proposed fixed thresholds of 75 and 90 dBht for all species as onset of mild and pronounced behavioural reactions respectively. The precautionary validity especially of the higher threshold has been called into question, and evidence can be found for reaction at significantly lower levels above hearing threshold: analysis based on measurements by Williams et al (2002) suggests that behavioural effects in resident killer whales may arise at levels of 65 dBht. Taking all factors into account we consider the 75 dBht threshold to be a reasonably conservative estimator of behavioural onset, and we have used it in the audiogram based assessment for this work.
12 Version 1.0 JASCO APPLIED SCIENCES South Stream Pipeline – Russian Sector – Underwater Sound Analysis
2. Methods
2.1. Source Levels
2.1.1. Vessel Source Levels There were no available measurement data for any of the vessels that were proposed for the pipe-laying operations for the South Stream project; JASCO, however, has an extensive collection of vessel source levels obtained either from field measurements performed by the company or from third party reports. This collection allows us to estimate the source levels of the vessels of interest by substituting for them the source level from a proxy vessel with similar specifications, for which measurements are available. When a proxy vessel is used, its specifications—type of vessel, propulsion power, deadweight, and length—are considered. In case the proxy vessel had different propulsion power specifications, the broadband source level was adjusted using simple formula
P log10SLSL ref P ref . (14) Here, the broadband source level (SL) of the vessel of interest operating at a given propulsion power (P) is estimated from the source level of a similar reference vessel (SLref) with a different propulsion power installed (Pref). The same equation was used to scale down the broadband source level for the same vessel operating at reduced propulsion power. The list of the vessels proposed for the South Stream pipeline construction project, which were considered in this study, is provided in Table 4. Figure 5 provides the source level spectrums in 1/3-octave bands that were used to estimate the impact of the specific vessels.
Version 1.0 13 South Stream Pipeline – Russian Sector – Underwater Sound Analysis JASCO APPLIED SCIENCES
Table 4. List of the vessels to be engaged in the construction activities of the nearshore and offshore sections of the South Stream pipeline project. The proxy vessel that was used to establish the broadband source level (indicated) is also provided for each proposed vessel. Representative vessel Proxy vessel
Vessel type Propulsion Broadband SL Propulsio Name power Name n power (kW) (dB re 1 µPa at 1 m) (kW) Anchor handling Normand Katun1 9,000 14,000 189 tug/support tug Neptune Crane dredge Kahmari 920 177 Viking2 900 Cutter-suction MRTS Dikson City of Chester3 2720 3,500 183 dredge Trenching dredge Calamity Jane 15,000 183 Far Samson4 24,000 Fast supply vessel GSP Lyra 2,520 188 Rebound5 250 Pipe-laying vessel Castorone Solitaire6 48,000 67,000 192 (deep water, DP) Pipe-laying vessel Castoro Sei Castoro Otto7 21,000 (mid-depth, 20,500 183 anchored) Pipe-laying vessel Castoro Sei Solitaire6 48,000 20,500 187 (mid-depth, DP) Pipe-laying vessel Tog Mor Castoro II1 5,000 3,750 169 (shallow, anchored) Rock dumping vessel Taccola DSV Fu Lai7 8,800 4,300 181 (shallow) Rock dumping vessel Tertness DSV Fu Lai7 8,800 8,400 184 (mid-depth) 1Hannay et al. (2004) 2Dickerson et al. (2001)3Robinson et al. (2011) 4Johansson and Andersson (2012) 5Kipple and Gabriele (2003) 6Nedwell and Edwards (2004) 7MacGillivray (2006)
14 Version 1.0 JASCO APPLIED SCIENCES South Stream Pipeline – Russian Sector – Underwater Sound Analysis
Figure 5. Source levels for the modelled vessels in 1/3-octave-bands. The numbers in the brackets indicate the broadband level in dB re 1 µPa at 1 m (rms SPL).
2.1.2. Side-scan Sonar According to the project description documents, GSP Prince is the best vessel to provide survey support before, during, and after the pipe-laying operation. The survey equipment will be installed on a Remote Operated Vehicle (ROV) and will likely consist of side-scan sonar and/or multibeam echosounder. Both sonars emit high frequency acoustic energy (> 50 kHz) from two or more rectangular transducers.
2.1.2.1. Transducer Beam Theory Mid- and high-frequency underwater acoustic sources for geophysical measurements create an oscillatory overpressure through rapid vibration of a surface, using either electromagnetic forces or the piezoelectric effect of materials. A vibratory source based on the piezoelectric effect is commonly referred to as a transducer, and may be capable of receiving, as well as emitting, signals. Transducers are usually designed to produce an acoustic wave of a specific frequency, often in a highly directive beam. The directional capability increases with increasing operating frequency. The main parameter characterizing directivity is the beamwidth, defined as the angle subtended by diametrically opposite “half power” (-3 dB) points of the main lobe (Massa 2003). For different transducers, the beamwidth varies from 180° (almost omnidirectional) to a few degrees. Transducers are usually built with either circular or rectangular active surfaces. For circular transducers, the beam pattern in the horizontal plane (assuming a downward pointing main beam) is equal in all directions. The beam pattern of a rectangular transducer is variable with the azimuth in the horizontal plane.
Version 1.0 15 South Stream Pipeline – Russian Sector – Underwater Sound Analysis JASCO APPLIED SCIENCES
The acoustic radiation pattern, or beam pattern, of a transducer is the relative measure of acoustic transmitting or receiving power as a function of spatial angle. Directionality is generally measured in decibels relative to the maximum radiation level along the central axis perpendicular to the transducer surface. The pattern is defined largely by the operating frequency of the device and the size and shape of the transducer. Beam patterns generally consist of a main lobe, extending along the central axis of the transducer, and multiple secondary lobes separated by nulls. The width of the main lobe depends on the size of the active surface relative to the sound wavelength in the medium. Larger transducers produce narrower beams. Figure 6 shows a 3-dimensional (3-D) visualization of a typical beam pattern for a circular transducer. The true beam pattern of a transducer can be obtained only by in situ measurement of the emitted energy around the device. Such data, however, are not always available, and for propagation modelling it is often sufficient to estimate the beam pattern of the source based on transducer beam theory. An example of a measured beam pattern is shown in Figure 7.
Figure 6. Typical 3-D beam pattern for a circular transducer (Massa 2003).
16 Version 1.0 JASCO APPLIED SCIENCES South Stream Pipeline – Russian Sector – Underwater Sound Analysis
Figure 7. Vertical cross section of a beam pattern measured in situ from a transducer used by Kongsberg (source: pers. comm. with the manufacturer).
2.1.2.2. Rectangular Transducers Rectangular transducer beam directivities were calculated from the standard formula for the beam pattern of a rectangular acoustic array (Kinsler et al. 1950; ITC 1993). This expression is the product of the toroidal beam patterns of two line arrays, where the directional characteristics in the along- and across-track directions are computed from the respective beamwidths. The directivity function of a toroidal beam relative to the on-axis pressure amplitude is: L )sin(sin 50 R )( L L )sin( and bw , (15) where Lλ is the transducer dimension in wavelengths, θbw is the beamwidth in degrees, and ϕ is the angle from the transducer axis. Here again, the beam pattern of a transducer can be calculated using either the specified beamwidth in each plane or the dimensions of the active surface and the operating frequency of the transducer. The calculated beam pattern for a rectangular transducer with along- and across-track beamwidths of 4° and 10°, respectively, is shown in Figure 8.
Figure 8. Calculated beam pattern for a rectangular transducer with a 4° × 10° beamwidth. The beam power function is shown relative to the on-axis level using the Robinson projection.
Version 1.0 17 South Stream Pipeline – Russian Sector – Underwater Sound Analysis JASCO APPLIED SCIENCES
2.1.2.3. Multibeam Systems High-frequency systems often have two or more transducers, e.g., side-scan and multibeam sonar. Typical side-scan sonar use two transducers, with the central axes directed perpendicular to the survey track and at some depression angle below the horizontal. In contrast, multibeam bathymetry systems can have upward of 100 transducers. Such systems generally consist of rectangular transducers and have a narrow beamwidth in the horizontal (along-track) plane (0.2°–3°) and a wide beamwidth in the vertical (across-track) plane. For multibeam systems, the beam patterns of individual transducers are calculated separately and then combined into the overall pattern of the system based on the engagement type of the beams, which can be simultaneous or successive. If the beams are engaged successively, the source level of the system in a given direction is assumed to be the maximum source level realized from the individual transducers; if the beams are engaged simultaneously, the beam pattern of the system is simply the sum of all beam patterns. Figure 9 shows the predicted beam pattern for two rectangular transducers engaged simultaneously. These transducers have along- and across-track beamwidths of 1.5° and 50°, respectively.
Figure 9. Calculated beam pattern for two rectangular transducers engaged simultaneously, with individual beamwidths of 1.5° × 50°, and a declination angle of 25°. The beam power function is shown relative to the on-axis level using the Robinson projection.
2.1.2.4. Side-scan Sonar The exact model of the side-scan sonar to be used during survey for the South Stream pipe installation project is not known. Out of wide variety of side-scan sonars on the market, Edgetech Full Spectrum Chrip Side-scan Sonar was selected for modelling as this model specifically designed for installation on the ROVs. Edgetech sonar consists of two transducers that feature 70°×0.8° beams directed at 10–20° angle below the horizontal plain (Figure 10). The peak level is estimated at 210 dB re 1 µPa at 1 m (Edgetech 2000), conversely, 207 dB re 1 µPa at 1 m rms SPL. The operational frequency is 75 kHz and the pulse length is 13 ms. The per-pulse SEL can be derived from the rms SPL and the pulse length using Equation 5. The per-pulse SEL is estimated at 188.1 dB re 1 µPa²·s.
18 Version 1.0 JASCO APPLIED SCIENCES South Stream Pipeline – Russian Sector – Underwater Sound Analysis
Figure 10. Vertical beam pattern calculated for the Edgetech Full Chirp Side-scan Sonar with two beams 70° × 0.8° width in the (left) along- and (right) across-track directions.
2.2. Sound Propagation Model
Underwater sound propagation (i.e., transmission loss) at frequencies of 10 Hz to 20 kHz was predicted with JASCO’s Marine Operations Noise Model (MONM).
2.2.1. Two Frequency Regimes: RAM vs. BELLHOP At frequencies ≤2 kHz and for omnidirectional sources, MONM computes acoustic propagation via a wide-angle parabolic equation solution to the acoustic wave equation (Collins 1993) based on a version of the U.S. Naval Research Laboratory’s Range-dependent Acoustic Model (RAM), which has been modified to account for an elastic seabed. The parabolic equation method has been extensively benchmarked and is widely employed in the underwater acoustics community (Collins et al. 1996). MONM-RAM accounts for the additional reflection loss at the seabed due to partial conversion of incident compressional waves to shear waves at the seabed and sub-bottom interfaces, and it includes wave
Version 1.0 19 South Stream Pipeline – Russian Sector – Underwater Sound Analysis JASCO APPLIED SCIENCES attenuations in all layers. MONM-RAM’s predictions have been validated against experimental data in several underwater acoustic measurement programs conducted by JASCO (Hannay and Racca 2005, Aerts et al. 2008, Funk et al. 2008, Ireland et al. 2009, O’Neill et al. 2010, Warner et al. 2010). MONM-RAM incorporates the following site- specific environmental properties: a modelled area bathymetric grid, underwater sound speed as a function of depth, and a geoacoustic profile based on the overall stratified composition of the seafloor. At frequencies >2 kHz, MONM employs the widely-used BELLHOP Gaussian beam ray- trace propagation model (Porter and Liu 1994) and accounts for increased sound attenuation due to volume absorption at these higher frequencies following Fisher and Simmons (1977). This type of attenuation is significant for frequencies higher than 5 kHz and cannot be neglected without noticeable effect on model results at long ranges from the source. MONM- BELLHOP accounts for the source directivity, specified as a function of both azimuthal angle and depression angle. MONM-BELLHOP incorporates the following site-specific environmental properties: a bathymetric grid of the modelled area and underwater sound speed as a function of depth. In contrast to MONM-RAM, the geoacoustic input for MONM- BELLHOP consists of only one interface, namely the sea bottom. This is an acceptable limitation because the influence of the sub-bottom layers on the propagation of acoustic waves with frequencies above 1 kHz is negligible. Both propagation models account for full exposure from a direct acoustic wave, as well as exposure from acoustic wave reflections.
2.2.2. N×2-D Volume Approximation MONM computes acoustic fields in three dimensions by modelling transmission loss within two-dimensional (2-D) vertical planes aligned along radials covering a 360° swath from the source, an approach commonly referred to as N×2-D. These vertical radial planes are separated by an angular step size of , yielding N = 360°/ number of planes (Figure 11).
20 Version 1.0 JASCO APPLIED SCIENCES South Stream Pipeline – Russian Sector – Underwater Sound Analysis
Figure 11. The N×2-D and maximum-over-depth modelling approach used by MONM.
MONM treats frequency dependence by computing acoustic transmission loss at the center frequencies of 1/3-octave-bands. Sufficiently many 1/3-octave-bands, starting at 10 Hz, are modelled to include the majority of acoustic energy emitted by the source. At each center frequency, the transmission loss is modelled within each of the N vertical planes as a function of depth and range from the source. The 1/3-octave-band received per-pulse SELs are computed by subtracting the band transmission loss values from the directional SL in that frequency band. Composite broadband received SELs are then computed by summing the received 1/3-octave-band levels. The received per-pulse SEL sound field within each vertical radial plane is sampled at various ranges from the source, generally with a fixed radial step size. At each sampling range along the surface, the sound field is sampled at various depths, with the step size between samples increasing with depth below the surface. The step sizes are chosen to provide increased coverage near the depth of the source and at depths of interest in terms of the sound speed profile. For areas with deep water, sampling is not performed at depths beyond those reachable by marine mammals in the area of interest. The received per-pulse SEL at a surface sampling location is taken as the maximum value that occurs over all samples within the water column below, i.e., the maximum-over-depth received per-pulse SEL. These maximum-over-depth per-pulse SELs are presented as colour contours around the source (e.g., Figure 12).
Version 1.0 21 South Stream Pipeline – Russian Sector – Underwater Sound Analysis JASCO APPLIED SCIENCES
MONM’s predictions have been validated against experimental data from several underwater acoustic measurement programs conducted by JASCO (Hannay and Racca 2005, Aerts et al. 2008, Funk et al. 2008, Ireland et al. 2009, O’Neill et al. 2010, Warner et al. 2010).
Figure 12. Maximum-over-depth sound exposure level (SEL) colour contour maps for two arbitrary sources.
2.2.3. Sampling of Model Results: Maximum-over-depth Rule The received SEL sound field within each vertical radial plane is sampled at various ranges from the source, generally with a fixed radial step size. At each sampling range along the surface, the sound field is sampled at various depths, with the step size between samples increasing with depth below the surface. The received SEL at a surface sampling location is taken as the maximum value that occurs over all samples within the water column below, i.e., the maximum-over-depth received SEL. This provides a conservative prediction of the received sound level around the source, independent of depth. These maximum-over-depth SELs are presented as colour contours around the source. In principle, the sound field can be sampled at a vertical step size as fine as the acoustic field modelling grid, which varies from 2 m for low frequencies to 6 cm for high frequencies. Such a fine grid of samples, however, would be inefficient and provide a needlessly large quantity of data. The depth spacing between samples is therefore chosen based on the vertical variability of the acoustic field. Vertical variability depends on the variability of the sound speed profile, which is higher at the top of the water column and lower at greater depths. For areas with deep water, sampling is not performed at depths beyond those reachable by marine mammals in the area of interest. At each surface sampling location, the sound field was sampled at the following depths: 2 m every 5 m from 5 to 25 m every 25 m from 50 to 100 m every 50 m from 150 to 500 m every 100 m from 600 to 2200 m
2.3. Acoustic Impact Estimations
The acoustic impact estimations were performed in three ways:
22 Version 1.0 JASCO APPLIED SCIENCES South Stream Pipeline – Russian Sector – Underwater Sound Analysis
Instantaneous impact from single vessel Instantaneous impact from a group of vessels Cumulative impact over 24 hours of typical operations
2.3.1. Instantaneous Impact, Single Vessel To calculate distances to specified sound level thresholds, the maximum level over all sampled depths was calculated at each horizontal sampling point within the modelled region. The radial grid of maximum-over-depth sound levels was then resampled (by linear triangulation) to produce a regular Cartesian grid (50 m cell size). The contours and threshold ranges were calculated from these flat Cartesian projections of the modelled acoustic fields of each vessel separately. To obtain the distances to the specified M-weighted sound level thresholds, the relative level value was applied to the acoustic field modelling frequency (Equations 11–13 ).
2.3.2. Instantaneous Impact, Vessel Group The aggregate field for a group of vessels was calculated by summing up the acoustic fields of each individual vessel in the group using Equation 4. Prior to summation, the acoustic field representing the acoustic footprint of each vessel was shifted according to the position of that specific vessel in the group. The contours and threshold ranges for the aggregate field were calculated in the same manner as for the single vessel impact estimation (Section 2.3.1). The threshold affected areas were also calculated from the gridded field by multiplying the grid cell area by the number of grid cells that have the value above the threshold.
2.3.3. Cumulative Acoustic Impact, 24 Hour Operations For 24 hour impact assessment separate track for each vessel was identified. First, the cumulative field for each individual vessel in the scenario was estimated. For that, multiple copies of the 1 second SEL field were created with 50 m shift along the track. All those fields were summed up and a correction factor to account for the vessel speed along the track was applied. Second, the cumulative fields for each vessel were summed up yielding the total cumulative field for 24 hour operation. The contours and threshold ranges for the cumulative field were calculated in the same manner as for the single vessel impact estimation (Section 2.3.1). The threshold affected areas were also calculated from the gridded field by multiplying the grid cell area by the number of grid cells that have the value above the threshold.
2.4. Model Parameters
2.4.1. Bathymetry The bathymetry is reproduced from the GEBCO Digital Atlas published by the British Oceanographic Data Centre on behalf of the IOC and IHO, 2008. The Digital Atlas provides the gridded elevation coverage for the Earth with 30 arc minute resolution (~900 × 900 m for the studied region). The bathymetry data were re-gridded to cover a 400 × 400 km region,
Version 1.0 23 South Stream Pipeline – Russian Sector – Underwater Sound Analysis JASCO APPLIED SCIENCES with a horizontal resolution of 500 × 500 m. The grid was created in the projected coordinates of the Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) Zone 37.
2.4.2. Geoacoustic Properties MONM requires specific values that describe the acoustic properties of the sediment in the propagation area: Sediment layer thickness Density Compressional sound speed Compressional attenuation Shear sound speed Shear attenuation
There is limited information available on the geoacoustic properties of the sediments for the Russian shelf of the Black Sea. Shimkus et al. (1978) provided seismic profiles for the shelf area and description of the bedrock samples obtained by dredging. Both, the seismic profiles and the fact that the bedrock is exposed in some areas, suggest that the unconsolidated sediment cover is thin in the area. The average thickness of the unconsolidated sediment layer was assumed to be 20 m for both Sites 1 and 2. The surficial sediments type for Site 1 was assumed to be sand and silt for Site 2. The geoacoustic parameters for the top layer were estimated using a sediment grain-shearing model (Buckingham 2005) that computes the acoustic properties of the sediments from porosity and grain-size. The assumed geoacoustic profiles for modelling Site 1 and 2 are presented in Table 5 and Table 6 respectively.
24 Version 1.0 JASCO APPLIED SCIENCES South Stream Pipeline – Russian Sector – Underwater Sound Analysis
Table 5. Estimated geoacoustic profile for Site 1, which represents thin sand layer over bedrock in the nearshore area. Within each depth range, each parameter varies linearly within the stated range.
S-wave Depth below Density P-wave P-wave S-wave Material attenuation seafloor (m) (g/cm3) speed (m/s) attenuation (dB/λ) speed (m/s) (dB/λ) 0–10 1.7 1645–1890 0.77–1.465 250 0.15 Sand 10–20 1.7 1890–2015 1.465–1.73 20–1000 2.5–2.6 3000–4000 0.4 Bedrock > 1000 2.6 4000 0.4
Table 6. Estimated geoacoustic profile for Site 2, which represents thin silt layer over bedrock in the on the coastal shelf break. Within each depth range, each parameter varies linearly within the stated range.
S-wave Depth below Density P-wave P-wave S-wave Material attenuation seafloor (m) (g/cm3) speed (m/s) attenuation (dB/λ) speed (m/s) (dB/λ) 0–10 1.5–1.7 1510–1615 0.36–0.67 Silt 10–20 1.7 1615–1660 0.67–0.82 150 0.05 20–1000 2.5–2.6 3000–4000 0.4 Bedrock > 1000 2.6 4000 0.4
The geoacoustic profile for the deep part of the Black Sea was constructed based on the well log from Deep Sea Drilling Program (DSDP) Leg 42 Site 379 located approximately 175 km to the southwest from the chose modelling location (The Shipboard Scientific Party 1978). The well site is located in the abyssal part of the Black Sea. The report provides information on the compressional sound speed and density profile down to 670 m below the sea floor. Also the estimated depth of the acoustic basement is reported. The assumed geoacoustic profile for modelling Site 3 is presented in Table 7.
Table 7. Estimated geoacoustic profile for Site 3, which represents the Black Sea Abyssal. Within each depth range, each parameter varies linearly within the stated range.
S-wave Depth below Density P-wave P-wave S-wave Material attenuation seafloor (m) (g/cm3) speed (m/s) attenuation (dB/λ) speed (m/s) (dB/λ)
0–10 1.4–1.5 1500–1600 0.17–0.36 10–85 1.5–1.7 1600–1700 0.36–0.7 85–150 Terrigenous mud 1.7–1.8 1700–1800 0.7–0.8 150–370 1.8–1.9 1800–1850 0.8–1.0 100 0.03 370–1000 1.9 1850–2000 1.0–1.3
1000–2000 Acoustic 2.5–2.6 3000–4000 0.4 > 2000 basement 2.6 4000 0.4
Version 1.0 25 South Stream Pipeline – Russian Sector – Underwater Sound Analysis JASCO APPLIED SCIENCES
2.4.3. Sound Speed Profiles The sound speed profiles for the modelled sites were derived from temperature and salinity profiles from the U.S. Naval Oceanographic Office’s Generalized Digital Environmental Model V 3.0 (GDEM; Teague et al. 1990, Carnes 2009). GDEM provides an ocean climatology of temperature and salinity for the world’s oceans on a latitude-longitude grid with 0.25° resolution, with a temporal resolution of one month, based on global historical observations from the U.S. Navy’s Master Oceanographic Observational Data Set (MOODS). The climatology profiles include 78 fixed depth points to a maximum depth of 6800 m (where the ocean is that deep), including 55 standard depths between 0 and 2000 m. The GDEM temperature-salinity profiles were converted to sound speed profiles according to the equations of Coppens ( 1981): 23.021.57.4505.1449),,,( tttSTzc 32 2 Stt 35009.0126.0333.1 18.03.16 ZZ 2 (16) z Z 2cos0026.01 1000 T t 10 where z is water depth (m), T is temperature (°C), S is salinity (psu), and ϕ is latitude (radians). Mean monthly sound speed profiles were derived from the GDEM dataset for February and August at all three modelled sites, and the difference was sufficiently small (Figure 13) to use a single deep-water sound speed profile from Site 3 (Figure 14) for all modelled locations.
Figure 13. Comparison of sound speed profiles for February (left) and August (right) at all three modelled sites, derived from data obtained from GDEM V 3.0 (Teague et al. 1990, Carnes 2009).
26 Version 1.0 JASCO APPLIED SCIENCES South Stream Pipeline – Russian Sector – Underwater Sound Analysis
Figure 14. Mean monthly sound speed profiles for February and August for Site 3 in the Black Sea (44.156° N, 37.494°W) derived from data obtained from GDEM V 3.0 (Teague et al. 1990, Carnes 2009).
Since the operational period was not finalized at the time the modelling was conducted, location-specific sound speed profiles were used for August to estimate conservative distances to received sound levels thresholds. The difference in temperature over depth translates into a near-surface sound channel, which promotes sound propagation to longer distances.
2.4.4. Geometry and Modelled Volumes Sound fields were modelled along a series of radial profiles covering 360° with a horizontal angular resolution of = 5° for a total of N = 72 radial planes. The horizontal step size for virtual receivers along the profiles was 20 m. Each profile extended 100 km from the source or the shoreline, whichever was closer. The transmission loss modelling results were obtained for at least two different source depths at each (see Table 9 in Section 3.2).
Version 1.0 27 South Stream Pipeline – Russian Sector – Underwater Sound Analysis JASCO APPLIED SCIENCES
3. Modelled Scenarios
3.1. Sites
The pipeline route proposed by South Stream covers over 225 km and is divided into two offshore sections of pipeline: The near-shore section, which commences approximately 400 m offshore at the underwater pipeline exit pits (23 m depth) and extends 425 m to a water depth of 30 m And the offshore section, which extends from the edge of the near-shore section and passes through approximately 225 km of Russian EEZ water, to a maximum water depth of approximately 2200 m. Three locations were selected to cover the range of environmental parameters such as water depth, geoacoustic properties of the sea bottom, and the water column sound speed profile. Site 1 lies in the shallow near-shore section, where possible operations include dredging, pipe-laying with anchor handling. Site 2 lies in the mid-depth offshore section, where trenching, rock dumping, and pipe-laying with anchor handling may occur. Site 3 is in the deep offshore section where deep-water pipe-laying will take place. Support vessels will be present during operations at all three locations. The important attributes of the selected locations (coordinates, water depth) are provided in Table 8.
Table 8. Proposed modelling locations and their parameters.
Geographic UTM coordinates Water depth at Location coordinates (Zone) the source (m)
Site 1: Shallow 44° 48' N 37° 21' E 4962384 369692 (37) 23 Site 2: Mid-depth 44° 38' N 37° 31' E 4943834 382912 (37) 80 Site 3: Deep 44° 09' N 37° 30' E 4890322 379585 (37) 2000
3.2. Single Vessel Scenarios
Several single vessel scenarios were modelled at each of the three sites. Each scenario was modelled in both summer (August) and winter (February) conditions, resulting in 28 single vessel scenarios. The important attributes and modelling parameters of each scenario are outlined in Table 9.
28 Version 1.0 JASCO APPLIED SCIENCES South Stream Pipeline – Russian Sector – Underwater Sound Analysis
Table 9. Proposed single vessel scenarios and their modelling parameters. Broadband Source Frequency Vessel Description source level depth (m) range (Hz) (dB) S01: Shallow 1 Dikson (MRTS) Cutter suction dredger 15 183 10–20000 2 Kahmari 2 Dredger (grab crane) 15 177 10–20000 Trailer suction hopper dredger, 3 Taccola (Jan de Nul) 6 181 10–20000 rock dumping 4 Tog Mor Pipe-lay vessel 6 169 10–20000 5 Normand Neptune Anchor handling tug 6 189 10–20000 6 GSP Lyra Support vessel, crew changes 2 188 10–20000 S02: Mid-depth
1 Calamity Jane Multi-service vessel, trenching 6 183 10–20000
2 Tertnes (Van Oord) Rock dumping vessel 6 184 10–20000 3 Castoro Sei Pipe-lay vessel 14 183 10–20000 4 Normand Neptune Anchor handling tug 6 189 10–20000 5 GSP Lyra Support vessel, crew changes 2 188 10–20000 S03: Deep 1 Saipem 7000, Pipe-lay vessel 7 192 10–20000 Castorone 2 Normand Neptune Anchor handling tug 7 189 10–20000 3 GSP Lyra Support vessel, crew changes 2 188 10–20000
3.3. Vessel Groups
This section discusses the modelled acoustic fields of sound generated during specific operations that require the use of multiple vessels acting in close proximity. Ten scenarios were considered, each with the acoustic field modelled in both winter and summer conditions. For each scenario, only the vessels that make significant contributions to the acoustic field were included in the model. All proposed vessels for each operation have been considered, but those that have source levels too small to impact modelling results, as well as vessels that are not scheduled to be present consistently throughout the extent of the operation, are not included in the modelled acoustic field. Vessels without known source levels have been modelled using a reference vessel of a similar type, with a correction factor to account for differences in size and power output. Correction factors are also used to account for a vessel operating below 100% load.
Version 1.0 29 South Stream Pipeline – Russian Sector – Underwater Sound Analysis JASCO APPLIED SCIENCES
3.3.1. Scenario 1: Dredging of Microtunnel Exit Pit and Transition Trench at Site 1 In the last 1.4 km of the landfall section, the pipelines will be housed in microtunnels, which will terminate in exit pits 400 m offshore, at a depth of 23 m. The near-shore section commences at the exit pits, where the pipelines will be buried in trenches to a depth of approximately 2.5-3 m for a distance of approximately 170 m. Each pipeline’s exit pit and transition trench will be excavated in a single dredging operation, using one of three proposed vessel types: a Cutter Suction Dredger (CSD), a grab crane, or a Trailing Suction Hopper Dredger (TSHD). This scenario is modelled using the CSD Dikson, as it is both likely to be used and produces high source levels. Two tugs will be present at all times, one for transporting the CSD and another for transporting dredged spoil. Other vessels which may be present, but will not contribute significantly to the acoustic field of the operation and have not been represented in the model include two small survey vessels, a fast supply vessel for crew changes, and a small fuel/waste water collection vessel. Once dredging and pipe-laying operations are completed, backfilling of the microtunnel exit pit and transition trench will commence. The same vessel spread will be used, with the exception that the two small survey vessels will not be present. Since the survey vessels were not a significant source of noise in the presence of the larger vessels used during the dredging operation, it can be assumed that the acoustic field for backfilling will be similar to that of dredging. A summary of the primary vessels and modelling parameters can be found in Table 10.
Table 10. Vessel spread for dredging of microtunnel exit pit and transition trench at Site 1.
Load Reference Correction Coordinates Vessel Activity (%) vessel factor (dB) X Y Dikson CSD, dredging Dikson 100 0 0 0 (3,795 kW) (3,795 kW) Mustang Tug, transport of Normand Neptune 100 −4.9 200 −200 (4,536 kW) Dikson (13,880 kW) Mustang Tug, transport of Normand Neptune 100 −4.9 −50 50 (4,536 kW) dredged spoil (13,880 kW)
3.3.2. Scenario 2: Stationary Pipe-laying at Site 1 A shallow water pipe-lay vessel will be used to install the pipelines in microtunnels and subsequently complete pipe-laying in the near-shore section to a tie-in location at a depth of 30 m. During pipe-laying in the near-shore section, the pipe-lay vessel prepares the pipe on board and then lowers it into the water by advancing an appropriate distance by moving its anchors with the assistance of anchor handling tugs. This scenario describes the acoustic field during pipeline preparation, when the pipe-lay vessel is stationary and the tugs are idle. During stationary preparation of the pipeline, the two tugs will be idle and on stand-by approximately 200 m from the pipe-lay vessel Tog Mor. Also included in the model is a survey vessel, GSP Prince, which will be present throughout the operation for pre-lay and post-lay surveying. Other vessels that may be present during the operation, but will not contribute significantly to the acoustic field, include two multi service vessels for support and supplies, a fast supply
30 Version 1.0 JASCO APPLIED SCIENCES South Stream Pipeline – Russian Sector – Underwater Sound Analysis vessel for crew changes, a collection vessel for fuel and wastewater, and a rescue vessel for emergencies. A summary of the primary vessels and modelling parameters can be found in Table 11.
Table 11. Vessel spread for stationary pipe-laying at Site 1.
Reference Correction Coordinates Vessel Activity Load (%) vessel factor (dB) X Y Tog Mor Tog Mor Pipe-laying 100 0 0 0 (3,750 kW) (3,750 kW) Normand Neptune Anchor handling Normand Neptune 20 −7 0 200 (13,880 kW) tug, idle (13,880 kW) Normand Neptune Anchor handling Normand Neptune 20 −7 0 −200 (13,880 kW) tug, idle (13,880 kW) GSP Prince Normand Neptune Survey, transit 30 −8.2 −200 −200 (7,604 kW) (13,880 kW)
3.3.3. Scenario 3: Pipe-laying with Active Anchor Handling at Site 1 During pipe-laying in the near-shore section, the pipe-lay vessel prepares the pipeline on board and then lowers it into the water by advancing an appropriate distance by moving its anchors with the assistance of anchor handling tugs. This scenario describes the acoustic field during pipe-lay vessel transit, when anchor handling tugs are actively maneuvering the anchors and the pipeline is lowered into the water. It is proposed that the anchored pipe-lay vessel Tog Mor will deploy 8 to 12 anchors in a semi-circular pattern. Two anchor handling tugs will run the anchors out in a pattern that allows the pipe-lay vessel to move itself forward by adjusting the lengths of the anchor lines. During forward advancement, as the pipe is lowered into the water, the two tugs will be positioned at anchors around the pipe-lay vessel. It is convention that the anchor line length is approximately five times the water depth, which places the tugs at approximately 125 m from the pipe-lay vessel. During active anchor handling, the two anchor handling tugs will be operating at 100% load, which will increase their source levels significantly. As a result, the GSP Prince will no longer be a primary contributor to the acoustic field. Other vessels that may be present during the operation, but will not contribute significantly to the acoustic field, include two multi service vessels for support and supplies, a fast supply vessel for crew changes, a collection vessel for fuel and wastewater, and a rescue vessel for emergencies. A summary of the primary vessels and modelling parameters is in Table 12.
Version 1.0 31 South Stream Pipeline – Russian Sector – Underwater Sound Analysis JASCO APPLIED SCIENCES
Table 12. Vessel spread for pipe-laying with active anchor handling at Site 1.
Reference Correction Coordinates Vessel Activity Load (%) vessel factor (dB) X Y Tog Mor Tog Mor Pipe-laying 100 0 0 0 (3,750 kW) (3,750 kW) Normand Neptune Anchor handling Normand Neptune 100 0 125 0 (13,880 kW) tug, active (13,880 kW) Normand Neptune Anchor handling Normand Neptune 100 0 −60 −100 (13,880 kW) tug, active (13,880 kW)
3.3.4. Scenario 4: Pipe-laying with Dynamic Positioning at Site 2 Pipe-laying in the mid-depth offshore section (30-600m depth) will likely be completed by the intermediate pipe-lay vessel Castoro Sei, which will maneuver using dynamic positioning (DP) thrusters. DP is a computer controlled system that allows the vessel to maintain position without the use of anchors. Although the pipe-lay vessel will not advance using anchors, three anchor handling tugs will be present throughout the operation as general support vessels and on standby in case the pipe-lay vessel loses DP functionality and needs to rely anchor handling. GSP Prince, a survey vessel, will also be present throughout the pipe-laying operation for pre-lay and post-lay surveying of the pipeline and seabed. Vessels which may be present, but will not contribute significantly to the acoustic field, include pipeline supply vessels, a multiservice vessel for ROV support diving and supply, a crew change vessel, a maintenance vessel for the delivery of spare parts, a collection vessel for fuel and wastewater, and a rescue vessel for emergencies. A summary of the primary vessels and modelling parameters can be found in Table 13.
Table 13. Vessel spread for pipe-laying with dynamic positioning at Site 2.
Coordinates Reference Correction Vessel Activity Load (%) vessel factor (dB) X Y Castoro Sei Castoro Sei Pipe-laying 100 0 0 0 (20,500 kW) (20,500 kW) Normand Neptune Anchor handling Normand Neptune 20 −7 0 −500 (13,880 kW) tug, idle (13,880 kW) Normand Neptune Anchor handling Normand Neptune 20 −7 500 0 (13,880 kW) tug, idle (13,880 kW) Normand Neptune Anchor handling Normand Neptune 20 −7 −400 400 (13,880 kW) tug, idle (13,880 kW) GSP Prince Normand Neptune Survey, transit 30 −8.2 −700 0 (7,604 kW) (13,880 kW)
3.3.5. Scenario 5: Pipe-laying with Anchor Handling Tugs at Site 2 Offshore pipe-laying in the mid-depth section (water depths of 30-600m) may be performed using the S-Lay technique, or a combination of S-Lay and J-Lay techniques; the method using will be determined by the award of construction contracts, so it can be assumed that either technique may be used. Intermediate pipe-lay vessels, which employ the S-Lay
32 Version 1.0 JASCO APPLIED SCIENCES South Stream Pipeline – Russian Sector – Underwater Sound Analysis method, are capable of operating in depths of 20-600m, and are advanced by pulling on anchor lines or, in some cases, utilizing dynamic positioning (DP) thrusters. This scenario models pipe-laying at approximately 600m depth using the S-Lay technique and a vessel that is advanced using an array of anchors and the assistance of three anchor handling tugs. During advancement of the pipe-lay vessel, it is assumed that two tugs are actively moving anchors and one is idling in close proximity on stand-by. Due to high source levels, the acoustic field will be dominated by the pipe-lay vessel Castoro Sei and the three anchor handling tugs. Although there are several other vessels present, their combined contribution to the acoustic field will be minimal, and they can safely be left out of the model without significant impact to the results. The vessels which have not been modelled include the GSP Prince, which will be present throughout the operation for pre-lay and post-lay surveying, three pipe supply vessels, two multi service vessels for support and supplies, a fast supply vessel for crew changes, a maintenance vessel, a collection vessel for fuel and wastewater, and a rescue vessel for emergencies. A summary of the primary vessels and modelling parameters can be found in Table 14.
Table 14. Vessel spread for pipe-laying with active anchor handling at Site 2.
Reference Correction Coordinates Vessel Activity Load (%) vessel factor (dB) X Y Castoro Sei Castoro Sei Pipe-laying 100 0 0 0 (20,500 kW) (20,500 kW) Normand Neptune Anchor handling Normand Neptune 100 0 0 −500 (13,880 kW) tug, active (13,880 kW) Normand Neptune Anchor handling Normand Neptune 100 0 500 0 (13,880 kW) tug, active (13,880 kW) Normand Neptune Anchor handling Normand Neptune 20 −7 −400 400 (13,880 kW) tug, idle (13,880 kW)
3.3.6. Scenario 6: Crew Change (Pipe-laying) at Site 2 A crew change during pipe-laying at mid-depths will likely occur during the stationary pipeline preparation stage of the operation. For maximum source levels, it is assumed that the crew change vessel is in transit at 100% load approximately 250-300 m from the pipe-lay vessel. The anchor handling tugs will be idling on stand by approximately 500 m away so that a crew change can be safely performed. Since the anchor handling tugs will be present regardless of the pipe-lay vessel’s transit method, this scenario applies equally to pipe-laying using anchors or DP thrusters. With the presence of the crew change vessel, the survey vessel GSP Prince, although present, is no longer a primary contributor to the acoustic field. Other vessels which may be present, but will not contribute significantly to the acoustic field include three pipe supply vessels, two multi service vessels for support and supplies, a maintenance vessel, a collection vessel for fuel and wastewater, and a rescue vessel for emergencies. A summary of the primary vessels and modelling parameters can be found in Table 15.
Version 1.0 33 South Stream Pipeline – Russian Sector – Underwater Sound Analysis JASCO APPLIED SCIENCES
Table 15. Vessel spread for pipe-laying crew change at Site 2.
Reference Correction Coordinates Vessel Activity Load (%) vessel factor (dB) X Y Castoro Sei Castoro Sei Pipe-laying 100 0 0 0 (20,500 kW) (20,500 kW) Normand Neptune Anchor handling Normand Neptune 20 −7 0 −500 (13,880 kW) tug, idle (13,880 kW) Normand Neptune Anchor handling Normand Neptune 20 −7 500 0 (13,880 kW) tug, idle (13,880 kW) Normand Neptune Anchor handling Normand Neptune 20 −7 −400 400 (13,880 kW) tug, idle (13,880 kW) GSP Lyra GSP Lyra Transit 100 0 200 −200 (2,520 kW) (2,520 kW)
3.3.7. Scenario 7: Dredging for Free Span Correction at Site 2 To minimize seabed disturbance, the pipeline will be laid directly on the seabed over most of the 225 km offshore section. Although the pipeline route has been designed to minimize seabed intervention requirements, some intervention will be necessary in specific areas. Typical pre-installation intervention methods include dredging and placing of supports in areas where freespan pipeline sections are anticipated. It is anticipated that approximately 42,500 m3 of seabed sediments will require dredging to level out the seabed in areas of predicted pipeline spanning before the pipeline is laid. Dredging is necessary in water depths of approximately 110-150 m, where conventional dredging vessels such as CSDs and TSHDs are unable to operate. Dredging at these depths is likely to be undertaken using special ROV dredging tools and vehicles designed to work in deep water, which are controlled by operators aboard the multiservice vessel Calamity Jane. During the dredging operation, spare parts and equipment will be delivered by the maintenance vessel Normand Flipper, which has been included in the modelled acoustic field. Other vessels that may be present during the operation, but will not contribute significantly to the acoustic field, include a fast supply vessel for crew changes, a collection vessel for fuel and wastewater, and a rescue vessel for emergencies. A summary of the primary vessels and modelling parameters can be found in Table 16.
Table 16. Vessel spread for free span correction dredging at Site 2.
Reference Correction Coordinates Vessel Activity Load (%) vessel factor (dB) X Y Calamity Jane Calamity Jane Pipe-laying 100 0 0 0 (15,086 kW) (15,086 kW) Normand Flipper Anchor handling Normand Neptune 20 −3 100 −300 (7,160 kW) tug, idle (13,880 kW)
3.3.8. Scenario 8: Rock Dumping for Cable Crossings at Site 2 To minimize seabed disturbance, the pipeline will be laid directly on the seabed over most of the 225 km offshore section. Although the pipeline route has been designed to minimize seabed intervention requirements, some intervention will be necessary in specific areas. It is
34 Version 1.0 JASCO APPLIED SCIENCES South Stream Pipeline – Russian Sector – Underwater Sound Analysis proposed that the fall-pipe rock dumping vessel Tertnes will be employed for both pre- and post-lay seabed intervention, which will involve placing rock berms to reshape the seabed, covering the pipelines where there is a risk of damage from potential rockfall, and protecting pipelines at cables and cable crossings. Although rock dumping vessel Tertnes will be the only vessel present for the majority of the rock dumping operation, there will be at least one delivery of spare parts and equipment by the maintenance vessel Normand Flipper, which has been included in the modelled acoustic field. Other vessels that may be present during the operation, but will not contribute significantly to the acoustic field, include a fast supply vessel for crew changes, a collection vessel for fuel and wastewater, and a rescue vessel for emergencies. A summary of the primary vessels and modelling parameters can be found in Table 17.
Table 17. Vessel spread rock dumping at Site 2.
3.3.9. Scenario 9: Pipe-laying at Site 3 Pipe-laying in water depths of 600 m and greater will be completed using the deep-water pipe-lay vessel Saipem 7000 Castorone, likely utilizing the J-Lay method. The pipe-lay vessel will maneuver using DP thrusters, as anchors are not used in depths greater than 600 m. Other vessels which will be present throughout the operation and will contribute significantly to the acoustic field include a general support tug, at least one pipeline supply vessel, and a survey vessel for pre-lay and post-lay surveying. Vessels which may be present, but will not contribute significantly to the acoustic field, include a multiservice vessel for ROV support diving and supply, a maintenance vessel for the delivery of spare parts, a collection vessel for fuel and wastewater, and a rescue vessel for emergencies. A summary of the primary vessels and modelling parameters can be found in Table 18.
Table 18. Vessel spread for pipe-laying at Site 3.
Load Correction Coordinates Vessel Activity Reference vessel (%) factor (dB) X Y Saipem 7000, Saipem 7000, Castorone Pipe-laying 100 Castorone 0 0 0 (70,000 kW) (70,000 kW) Normand Neptune Normand Neptune Support, idle 20 -7 0 -500 (13,880 kW) (13,880 kW) Pipeline Normand Flipper Normand Neptune supply, 100 -3 100 -300 (7,160 kW) (13,880 kW) transfer GSP Prince Survey, Normand Neptune 30 -8.2 200 -200 (7,604 kW) Transit (13,880 kW)
3.3.10. Scenario 10: Crew Change (Pipe-laying) at Site 3 Since the deep-water pipe-lay vessel will maneuver using DP, most support vessels will not be affected by a crew change. It is assumed that the pipe supply vessel is on standby, and for
Version 1.0 35 South Stream Pipeline – Russian Sector – Underwater Sound Analysis JASCO APPLIED SCIENCES maximum source levels, the crew change vessel is in transit at 100% load approximately 250- 300m from the pipe-lay vessel. With the presence of the crew change vessel, the survey vessel GSP Prince, although present, is no longer a primary contributor to the acoustic field. Other vessels which may be present, but will not contribute significantly to the acoustic field, include a multiservice vessel for ROV support diving and supply, a maintenance vessel for the delivery of spare parts, a collection vessel for fuel and wastewater, and a rescue vessel for emergencies A summary of the primary vessels and modelling parameters can be found in Table 19.
Table 19. Vessel spread for pipe-laying crew change at Site 3.
Coordinates Load Reference Correction Vessel Activity (%) vessel factor (dB) X Y Saipem 7000, Saipem 7000, Castorone Pipe-laying 100 Castorone 0 0 0 (70,000 kW) (70,000 kW) Normand Neptune Normand Neptune Support, idle 20 −7 500 0 (13,880 kW) (13,880 kW) Normand Flipper Pipeline Normand Neptune 20 −3 0 400 (7,160 kW) supply, idle (13,880 kW) GSP Lyra Crew change, GSP Lyra 100 −8.2 200 200 (2,520 kW) transit (2,520 kW)
3.4. Cumulative
One cumulative exposure scenario was modeled per site. The cumulative scenario estimates the cumulative acoustic exposure field around the pipe-laying operation over 24 hours. Only activities that happen during a typical day of operations were assessed. Johansson and Andersson (2012) reported vessel tracks in the proximity of the pipe-laying operation during Nord Stream construction project in Baltic Sea. The pattern of these tracks was taken into account when designing the tracks for the three cumulative scenarios in this study (Figure 15). The supply operations were assumed to occur from the port of Novorossiysk.
36 Version 1.0 JASCO APPLIED SCIENCES South Stream Pipeline – Russian Sector – Underwater Sound Analysis
Figure 15. Tracks geometry for cumulative exposure modelling at three sites.
3.4.1. Scenario C1: Nearshore Pipeline Section The stretch of the nearshore section of the pipeline was assumed to be 350 m (Table 20). The pipe –laying vessel is operating along the stretch for 24 hours. The post-laying survey vessel follows parallel track with 50 m offset and 5 knots speed. Anchor handling tug is present in
Version 1.0 37 South Stream Pipeline – Russian Sector – Underwater Sound Analysis JASCO APPLIED SCIENCES the area for the whole period and follows the track around the pipe-laying track. The track with approximate radius of 750 m from the middle of the pipe-laying vessel track is supposed to simulate the anchor handling activities. The supply tug and crew change vessel approaches the pipe-laying vessel once.
Table 20. Generic activities considered for cumulative exposure modeling scenario C1 (nearshore). Track Speed along Duty Time on the Track # Activity length the track Vessel cycle track (km) (kn) (%) 1 Pipe-laying 0.35 0.008 24 hr Tog Mor 60 2 Supply in 40 10 2 hr 15 min Normand Flipper 100 3 Supply out 40 10 2 hr 15 min Normand Flipper 100 4 Crew change 40 30 45 min GSP Lyra 100 5 Survey 0.35 4 3 min GSP Prince 30 Anchor 6 3 0.07 24 hr Normand Neptune 60 handling
3.4.2. Scenario C2: Shelf Break The pipe-laying operation at this site will be performed by mid-size pipe-laying vessel most likely utilizing dynamic positioning system. The assumed productivity is about 3 km of pipeline per 24 hr period. The length of the pipe-laying vessel track was chosen accordingly (Table 21). The post-laying survey vessel follows parallel track with 50 m offset and 5 knots speed. Support tug is present in the area for the whole period and follows a zigzag track 500– 1000 m from the pipe-laying vessel track. The supply tug vessel approaches the pipe-laying vessel three times and crew change occurs once.
Table 21. Generic activities considered for cumulative exposure modeling scenario C2 (shelf break). Track Speed along Duty Time on the Track # Activity length the track Vessel cycle track (km) (kn) (%) 1 Pipe-laying 3 0.06 24 hr Castoro Sei 60 2 Supply 1 in 32 10 1 hr 45 min Normand Flipper 100 3 Supply 1 out 32 10 1 hr 45 min Normand Flipper 100 2 Supply 2 in 32 10 1 hr 45 min Normand Flipper 100 3 Supply 2 out 32 10 1 hr 45 min Normand Flipper 100 2 Supply 3 in 32 10 1 hr 45 min Normand Flipper 100 3 Supply 3 out 32 10 1 hr 45 min Normand Flipper 100 4 Crew change 32 30 35 min GSP Lyra 100 5 Survey 3 4 25 min GSP Prince 30 Anchor 6 4 0.08 24 hr Normand Neptune 20 handling
3.4.3. Scenario C3: Deep Sea The pipe-laying operation at this site will be performed by large size pipe-laying vessel utilizing dynamic positioning system. The assumed productivity is about 3 km of pipeline per
38 Version 1.0 JASCO APPLIED SCIENCES South Stream Pipeline – Russian Sector – Underwater Sound Analysis
24 hr period. The length of the pipe-laying vessel track was chosen accordingly (Table 22). The post-laying survey vessel follows parallel track with 50 m offset and 5 knots speed. Support tug is present in the area for the whole period and follows a zigzag track 500–1000 m from the pipe-laying vessel track. The supply tug vessel approaches the pipe-laying vessel three times and crew change occurs once.
Table 22. Generic activities considered for cumulative exposure modeling scenario C3 (deep sea). Track Speed along Duty Time on the Track # Activity length the track Vessel cycle track (km) (kn) (%) 1 Pipe-laying 3 0.06 24 hr Castoro Sei 60 2 Supply 1 in 37 10 2 hr Normand Flipper 100 3 Supply 1 out 37 10 2 hr Normand Flipper 100 2 Supply 2 in 37 10 2 hr Normand Flipper 100 3 Supply 2 out 37 10 2 hr Normand Flipper 100 2 Supply 3 in 37 10 2 hr Normand Flipper 100 3 Supply 3 out 37 10 2 hr Normand Flipper 100 4 Crew change 37 30 40 min GSP Lyra 100 5 Survey 3 4 25 min GSP Prince 30 Anchor 6 4 0.08 24 hr Normand Neptune 20 handling
Version 1.0 39 South Stream Pipeline – Russian Sector – Underwater Sound Analysis JASCO APPLIED SCIENCES
4. Results
4.1. Single-Vessel Instantaneous Sound Fields
4.1.1. Vessels Operating at Shallow Water Site (S01) The summary of behavioural effect ranges and areas according to unweighted and audiogram weighted criteria for the six vessels operating at the shallow water site (S01) for the February and August time frames are presented in Table 23 and Table 24. The 95% range radii (km) and equivalent area (km2) are shown for bottlenose dolphin, harbour porpoise, anchovy, herring, shad, and sturgeon. Quantities marked “n/a” are too small to estimate. A map of maximum-over-depth unweighted sound pressure levels around one of the representative vessel sources for the February time frame at this site is provided in Figure 16.
Table 23. Behavioural effect 95% ranges (km) and equivalent areas (km2) are tabulated for the shallow water site (S01), based on the horizontal distances from the source to modelled broadband (10–20000 Hz) maximum-over-depth sound level thresholds, without and with audiogram weighting applied for bottlenose dolphin and harbour porpoise. Unweighted BDolphin HPorpoise to 120 dB re to 75 dBht to 75 dBht Month 1 µPa Range Area Range Area Range Area (km) (km2) (km) (km2) (km) (km2)
Dredging (cutter suction) Feb 11.5 202.0 0.34 0.33 0.80 1.99 Vessel: Dikson (MRTS) Aug 7.2 75.3 0.36 0.43 0.97 2.13
Dredging (crane) Vessel: Feb 5.7 56.1 n/a n/a n/a n/a Kahmari 2 Aug 3.8 21.9 n/a n/a n/a n/a
Pipe-laying Vessel: Tog Mor Feb 1.3 4.3 n/a n/a n/a n/a (Allseas) Aug 1.2 3.3 n/a n/a n/a n/a
Rock dumping Vessel: Feb 9.2 127.0 0.15 0.07 0.46 0.63 Taccola (Jan de Nul) Aug 5.3 42.7 0.14 0.06 0.45 0.61
Anchor handling Vessel: Feb 24.9 675.0 n/a n/a 0.07 0.02 Norman Neptune Aug 9.6 131.0 n/a n/a 0.07 0.02 Feb 21.7 642.0 1.03 3.01 1.80 7.94 Support vessel: GSP Lyra Aug 8.9 122.0 0.99 2.40 1.75 6.63
40 Version 1.0 JASCO APPLIED SCIENCES South Stream Pipeline – Russian Sector – Underwater Sound Analysis
Table 24. Behavioural effect 95% ranges (km) and equivalent areas (km2) are tabulated for the shallow water site (S01), based on the horizontal distances from the source to modelled broadband (10–20000 Hz) maximum-over-depth sound level thresholds, with audiogram weighting applied for anchovy, herring, shad, and sturgeon. Anchovy Herring Shad Sturgeon to 75 dBht to 75 dBht to 75 dBht to 75 dBht Month Range Area Range Area Range Area Range Area (km) (km2) (km) (km2) (km) (km2) (km) (km2)
Dredging (cutter suction) Feb n/a n/a 0.07 0.02 n/a n/a n/a n/a Vessel: Dikson (MRTS) Aug n/a n/a 0.07 0.02 n/a n/a n/a n/a
Dredging (crane) Vessel: Feb n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Kahmari 2 Aug n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
Pipe-laying Feb n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Vessel: Tog Mor (Allseas) Aug n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
Rock dumping Vessel: Feb n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Taccola (Jan de Nul) Aug n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
Anchor handling Vessel: Feb n/a n/a 0.26 0.21 n/a n/a n/a n/a Norman Neptune Aug n/a n/a 0.25 0.20 n/a n/a n/a n/a
Support vessel Vessel: GSP Feb n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Lyra Aug n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
Version 1.0 41 South Stream Pipeline – Russian Sector – Underwater Sound Analysis JASCO APPLIED SCIENCES
Figure 16. Broadband (10 Hz–20 kHz) maximum-over-depth sound pressure levels for the anchor- handling tug at the shallow water site (S01). Blue contours indicate water depth in metres.
4.1.2. Vessels Operating at Mid-water Site (S02) The summary of behavioural effect ranges and areas according to unweighted and audiogram weighted criteria for the six vessels operating at the mid-water site (S02) for the February and
42 Version 1.0 JASCO APPLIED SCIENCES South Stream Pipeline – Russian Sector – Underwater Sound Analysis
August time frames are presented in Table 23 and Table 24. The 95% range radii (km) and equivalent area (km2) are shown for bottlenose dolphin, harbour porpoise, anchovy, herring, shad, and sturgeon. Quantities marked “n/a” are too small to estimate. A map of maximum- over-depth unweighted sound pressure levels around one of the representative vessel sources for the February time frame at this site is provided in Figure 17.
Table 25. Behavioural effect 95% ranges (km) and equivalent areas (km2) are tabulated for the mid- water site (S02), based on the horizontal distances from the source to modelled broadband (10– 20000 Hz) maximum-over-depth sound level thresholds, without and with audiogram weighting applied for bottlenose dolphin and harbour porpoise.
Unweighted BDolphin HPorpoise to 120 dB re to 75 dBht to 75 dBht 1 µPa
Range Area Range Area Range Area (km) (km2) (km) (km2) (km) (km2)
Trenching Vessel: Feb 5.8 59.0 n/a n/a n/a n/a Calamity Jane (Allseas) Aug 4.1 26.6 n/a n/a n/a n/a
Pipe-laying (moored) Feb 7.0 117.0 n/a n/a < 0.05 0.01 Vessel: Castoro Sei Aug 5.6 52.1 n/a n/a < 0.05 0.01 Pipe-laying (dyn. Feb 20.2 673.0 < 0.05 0.01 0.11 0.05 positioning) Vessel: Castoro Sei Aug 9.8 121.0 < 0.05 0.01 0.11 0.05
Rock dumping Vessel: Feb 9.2 181.0 0.11 0.05 0.27 0.25 Tertnes (Van Oord) Aug 4.6 36.0 0.11 0.05 0.30 0.28
Anchor handling Vessel: Feb 21.2 536.0 n/a n/a < 0.05 0.01 Norman Neptune Aug 9.2 110.0 n/a n/a < 0.05 0.01
Support vessel Vessel: Feb 15.3 489.0 0.45 0.67 1.05 3.33 GSP Lyra Aug 7.8 73.7 0.46 0.58 1.25 3.76
Version 1.0 43 South Stream Pipeline – Russian Sector – Underwater Sound Analysis JASCO APPLIED SCIENCES
Table 26. Behavioural effect 95% ranges (km) and equivalent areas (km2) are tabulated for the mid- water site (S02), based on the horizontal distances from the source to modelled broadband (10– 20000 Hz) maximum-over-depth sound level thresholds, with audiogram weighting applied for anchovy, herring, shad, and sturgeon. Anchovy Herring Shad Sturgeon to 75 dBht to 75 dBht to 75 dBht to 75 dBht
Range Area Range Area Range Area Range Area (km) (km2) (km) (km2) (km) (km2) (km) (km2)
Trenching Vessel: Calamity Feb. n/a n/a < 0.05 0.01 n/a n/a n/a n/a Jane (Allseas) Aug. n/a n/a < 0.05 0.01 n/a n/a n/a n/a
Pipe-laying (moored) Vessel: Feb. n/a n/a < 0.05 0.01 n/a n/a n/a n/a Castoro Sei Aug. n/a n/a < 0.05 0.01 n/a n/a n/a n/a
Pipe-laying (dyn. positioning) Feb. n/a n/a 0.07 0.02 n/a n/a n/a n/a Vessel: Castoro Sei Aug. n/a n/a 0.07 0.02 n/a n/a n/a n/a
Rock dumping Vessel: Tertnes Feb. n/a n/a < 0.05 0.01 n/a n/a n/a n/a (Van Oord) Aug. n/a n/a < 0.05 0.01 n/a n/a n/a n/a
Anchor handling Vessel: Feb. n/a n/a 0.26 0.08 n/a n/a n/a n/a Norman Neptune Aug. n/a n/a 0.16 0.08 n/a n/a n/a n/a
Support vessel Vessel: GSP Feb. n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Lyra Aug. n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
44 Version 1.0 JASCO APPLIED SCIENCES South Stream Pipeline – Russian Sector – Underwater Sound Analysis
Figure 17. Broadband (10 Hz–20 kHz) maximum-over-depth sound pressure levels for the anchor- handling tug at the mid-water site (S02). Blue contours indicate water depth in metres.
4.1.3. Vessels Operating at Deep Water Site (S03) The summary of behavioural effect ranges and areas according to unweighted and audiogram weighted criteria for the six vessels operating at the deep water site (S03) for the February
Version 1.0 45 South Stream Pipeline – Russian Sector – Underwater Sound Analysis JASCO APPLIED SCIENCES and August time frames are presented in Table 23 and Table 24. The 95% range radii (km) and equivalent area (km2) are shown for bottlenose dolphin, harbour porpoise, anchovy, herring, shad, and sturgeon. Quantities marked “n/a” are too small to estimate. A map of maximum-over-depth unweighted sound pressure levels around one of the representative vessel sources for the February time frame at this site is provided in Figure 18.
Table 27. Behavioural effect 95% ranges (km) and equivalent areas (km2) are tabulated for the deep water site (S03), based on the horizontal distances from the source to modelled broadband (10– 20000 Hz) maximum-over-depth sound level thresholds, without and with audiogram weighting applied for bottlenose dolphin and harbour porpoise.
Unweighted BDolphin HPorpoise to 120 dB re to 75 dBht to 75 dBht 1 µPa
Range Area Range Area Range Area (km) (km2) (km) (km2) (km) (km2) Pipe-laying Feb 34.9 3140.0 0.11 0.05 0.22 0.17 Vessel: Saipem 7000, Castorone Aug 11.7 449.0 0.11 0.05 0.22 0.17
Support tug Feb 9.9 244.0 n/a n/a 0.05 0.01 Vessel: Norman Neptune Aug 8.0 208.0 n/a n/a 0.05 0.01
Support vessel Feb 15.2 676.0 0.35 0.42 0.67 1.50 Vessel: GSP Lyra Aug 5.7 108.0 0.38 0.48 0.78 2.01
Table 28. Behavioural effect 95% ranges (km) and equivalent areas (km2) are tabulated for the deep water site (S03), based on the horizontal distances from the source to modelled broadband (10– 20000 Hz) maximum-over-depth sound level thresholds, with audiogram weighting applied for anchovy, herring, shad, and sturgeon.
Anchovy Herring Shad Sturgeon to 75 dBht to 75 dBht to 75 dBht to 75 dBht
Range Area Range Area Range Area Range Area (km) (km2) (km) (km2) (km) (km2) (km) (km2) Pipe-laying Feb n/a n/a 0.14 0.06 n/a n/a n/a n/a Vessel: Saipem 7000, Castorone Aug n/a n/a 0.14 0.06 n/a n/a n/a n/a
Support tug Vessel: Feb n/a n/a 0.11 0.05 n/a n/a n/a n/a Norman Neptune Aug n/a n/a 0.11 0.05 n/a n/a n/a n/a
Support vessel Vessel: Feb n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a GSP Lyra Aug n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
46 Version 1.0 JASCO APPLIED SCIENCES South Stream Pipeline – Russian Sector – Underwater Sound Analysis
Figure 18. Broadband (10 Hz–20 kHz) maximum-over-depth sound pressure levels for the pipe-laying vessel at the deep water site (S03). Blue contours indicate water depth in metres.
Version 1.0 47 South Stream Pipeline – Russian Sector – Underwater Sound Analysis JASCO APPLIED SCIENCES
4.2. Side-Scan Sonar
As a representative sonar source, modelling is included for an Edgetech Full Spectrum Chirp side-scan sonar, a type likely to be used in a ROV mounted application (as would be used for pipeline route inspection). This source is modelled at the three site locations for an instantaneous, i.e., not cumulative, scenario. See Table 29 for shallow water, Table 30 for mid-water, and Table 31 for deep water results summaries. Representative coverage maps are shown for these three locations in Figure 20, Figure 21, and Figure 22, respectively.
There are well-accepted impact criteria for sonar sources that are based on the instantaneous root-mean-square sound pressure level metric (rms SPL). For injury we use the generic (NMFS) standard threshold of 180 dB re 1 µPa unweighted. For behaviour effects we follow Finneran and Jenkins (2012), which provides criteria specifically for sonar type sources. Their criteria for mid-frequency and high-frequency cetaceans are based on Type I weighting of the SPL and do not provide a single threshold value but rather refer to a Behavioural Response Function (BRF)—see Figure 19.
Figure 19. Behavioural Response Function (BRF) per Finneran and Jenkins (2012).
For a reasonably precautionary result we choose a 25% probability of response that maps to a weighted SPL of 160 dB re dB re 1 µPa. Using this threshold we compute the effect range and area for mid and high frequency cetaceans. Finneran and Jenkins (2012), however, exclude harbour porpoises from this criterion due to the high susceptibility to disturbance of this species, and they recommend adopting the generic (NMFS) standard threshold of 120 dB re 1 µPa unweighted. We therefore provide effect range and area also based on that criterion, which is significantly more precautionary.
48 Version 1.0 JASCO APPLIED SCIENCES South Stream Pipeline – Russian Sector – Underwater Sound Analysis
Table 29. Behavioural effect 95% ranges (km) and equivalent areas (km2) are tabulated for the shallow water site (S01) based on the horizontal distances from the source to modelled narrowband (1 Hz at 75 kHz) maximum-over-depth sound level thresholds. Range (km) Area (km2)
Generic (NMFS) injury threshold (180 dB Feb < 0.01 < 0.0001 re 1 µPa rms SPL, unweighted) Aug < 0.01 < 0.0001
Generic (NMFS) behaviour threshold Feb 0.98 0.46 (120 dB re 1 µPa rms SPL, unweighted) Aug 0.99 0.47
Mid-Frequency Cetaceans behaviour Feb 0.22 0.0011 (160 dB re 1 uPa SPL MFC Type I) Aug 0.22 0.0011
High-Frequency Cetaceans behaviour Feb 0.23 0.0013 (160 dB re 1 uPa SPL HFC Type I) Aug 0.23 0.0013
Version 1.0 49 South Stream Pipeline – Russian Sector – Underwater Sound Analysis JASCO APPLIED SCIENCES
Figure 20. Narrowband (1 Hz at 75 kHz) maximum-over-depth sound pressure levels for the Edgetech Full Spectrum Chirp side-scan sonar at the shallow water site (S01). Blue contours indicate water depth in metres.
50 Version 1.0 JASCO APPLIED SCIENCES South Stream Pipeline – Russian Sector – Underwater Sound Analysis
Table 30. Behavioural effect 95% ranges (km) and equivalent areas (km2) are tabulated for the mid- water site (S02) based on the horizontal distances from the source to modelled narrowband (1 Hz at 75 kHz) maximum-over-depth sound level thresholds. Range (km) Area (km2)
Generic (NMFS) injury threshold (180 dB Feb < 0.01 < 0.0001 re 1 µPa rms SPL, unweighted) Aug < 0.01 < 0.0001
Generic (NMFS) behaviour threshold Feb 0.95 0.23 (120 dB re 1 µPa rms SPL, unweighted) Aug 1.01 0.23
Mid-Frequency Cetaceans behaviour Feb 0.14 0.0007 (160 dB re 1 uPa SPL MFC Type I) Aug 0.14 0.0007
High-Frequency Cetaceans behaviour Feb 0.14 0.0007 (160 dB re 1 uPa SPL HFC Type I) Aug 0.14 0.0007
Version 1.0 51 South Stream Pipeline – Russian Sector – Underwater Sound Analysis JASCO APPLIED SCIENCES
Figure 21. Narrowband (1 Hz at 75 kHz) maximum-over-depth sound pressure levels for the Edgetech Full Spectrum Chirp side-scan sonar at the mid- water site (S02). Blue contours indicate water depth in metres.
52 Version 1.0 JASCO APPLIED SCIENCES South Stream Pipeline – Russian Sector – Underwater Sound Analysis
Table 31. Behavioural effect 95% ranges (km) and equivalent areas (km2) are tabulated for the deep- water site (S03) based on the horizontal distances from the source to modelled narrowband (1 Hz at 75 kHz) maximum-over-depth sound level thresholds. Range (km) Area (km2)
Generic (NMFS) injury threshold (180 dB Feb < 0.01 < 0.0001 re 1 µPa rms SPL, unweighted) Aug < 0.01 < 0.0001
Generic (NMFS) behaviour threshold Feb 0.90 0.18 (120 dB re 1 µPa rms SPL, unweighted) Aug 0.90 0.18
Mid-Frequency Cetaceans behaviour Feb 0.12 0.0005 (160 dB re 1 uPa SPL MFC Type I) Aug 0.12 0.0005
High-Frequency Cetaceans behaviour Feb 0.12 0.0005 (160 dB re 1 uPa SPL HFC Type I) Aug 0.12 0.0005
Version 1.0 53 South Stream Pipeline – Russian Sector – Underwater Sound Analysis JASCO APPLIED SCIENCES
Figure 22. Narrowband (1 Hz at 75 kHz) maximum-over-depth sound pressure levels for the Edgetech Full Spectrum Chirp side-scan sonar at the deep water site (S03). Blue contours indicate water depth in metres.
54 Version 1.0 JASCO APPLIED SCIENCES South Stream Pipeline – Russian Sector – Underwater Sound Analysis
4.3. Vessel Group Instantaneous Sound Field
The summary of behavioural effect ranges and areas according to unweighted and audiogram weighted criteria for 3 vessel groupings operating at the shallow water site (S01), 5 groupings at the mid-water site (S02), and 2 groupings at the deep water site (S03), for the February and August time frames, are presented in the following sections. Table 32 through Table 51. The 95% range radii (km) and equivalent area (km2) are shown for bottlenose dolphin, harbour porpoise, anchovy, herring, shad, and sturgeon. Quantities marked “n/a” are too small to estimate. A map of maximum-over-depth unweighted sound pressure levels around one of the representative vessel groupings for the February time frame at each of the three sites is also provided in Figure 23, Figure 24, and Figure 25, respectively.
4.3.1. Scenario 1: Dredging of Microtunnel Exit Pit and Transition Trench
Table 32. Behavioural effect 95% ranges (km) and equivalent areas (km2) are tabulated for the shallow water vessel grouping (VG01), based on the horizontal distances from the loudest source at the center of the group to the modelled broadband (10–20000 Hz) maximum-over-depth sound level thresholds, without and with audiogram weighting applied for bottlenose dolphin and harbour porpoise.
Unweighted BDolphin HPorpoise to 120 dB re to 75 dBht to 75 dBht 1 µPa
Range Area Range Area Range Area (km) (km2) (km) (km2) (km) (km2)
Dredging: Microtunnel Exit Feb 23.7 734.0 0.35 0.35 0.81 2.04 and Transition Trench Aug 10.3 150.0 0.38 0.44 0.98 2.16
Table 33. Behavioural effect 95% ranges (km) and equivalent areas (km2) are tabulated for the shallow water vessel grouping (VG01), based on the horizontal distances from the loudest source at the center of the group to the modelled broadband (10–20000 Hz) maximum-over-depth sound level thresholds, with audiogram weighting applied for anchovy, herring, shad, and sturgeon.
Anchovy Herring Shad Sturgeon to 75 dBht to 75 dBht to 75 dBht to 75 dBht
Range Area Range Area Range Area Range Area (km) (km2) (km) (km2) (km) (km2) (km) (km2) Dredging: Microtunnel Feb n/a n/a 0.39 0.21 n/a n/a n/a n/a Exit and Transition Trench Aug n/a n/a 0.39 0.20 n/a n/a n/a n/a
Version 1.0 55 South Stream Pipeline – Russian Sector – Underwater Sound Analysis JASCO APPLIED SCIENCES
4.3.2. Scenario 2: Stationary Pipe-laying at Site 1
Table 34. Behavioural effect 95% ranges (km) and equivalent areas (km2) are tabulated for the shallow water vessel grouping (VG02), based on the horizontal distances from the loudest source at the center of the group to the modelled broadband (10–20000 Hz) maximum-over-depth sound level thresholds, without and with audiogram weighting applied for bottlenose dolphin and harbour porpoise.
Unweighted BDolphin HPorpoise to 120 dB re to 75 dBht to 75 dBht 1 µPa
Range Area Range Area Range Area (km) (km2) (km) (km2) (km) (km2) Feb 14.9 280.0 0.28 0.01 0.28 0.01 Pipe-Laying Stationary Aug 7.9 90.1 0.28 0.01 0.28 0.01
Table 35. Behavioural effect 95% ranges (km) and equivalent areas (km2) are tabulated for the shallow water vessel grouping (VG02), based on the horizontal distances from the loudest source at the center of the group to the modelled broadband (10–20000 Hz) maximum-over-depth sound level thresholds, with audiogram weighting applied for anchovy, herring, shad, and sturgeon. Anchovy Herring Shad Sturgeon to 75 dBht to 75 dBht to 75 dBht to 75 dBht
Range Area Range Area Range Area Range Area (km) (km2) (km) (km2) (km) (km2) (km) (km2)
Pipe-Laying Feb n/a n/a 0.34 0.14 n/a n/a n/a n/a Stationary Aug n/a n/a 0.35 0.12 n/a n/a n/a n/a
4.3.3. Scenario 3: Pipe-laying with Active Anchor Handling at Site 1
Table 36. Behavioural effect 95% ranges (km) and equivalent areas (km2) are tabulated for the shallow water vessel grouping (VG03), based on the horizontal distances from the loudest source at the center of the group to the modelled broadband (10–20000 Hz) maximum-over-depth sound level thresholds, without and with audiogram weighting applied for bottlenose dolphin and harbour porpoise.
Unweighted HPorpoise BDolphin to 75 dBht to 120 dB re 1 µPa to 75 dBht
Range Area Range Area Range Area (km) (km2) (km) (km2) (km) (km2)
Pipe-Laying with Active Feb 46.7 2320.0 0.15 0.01 0.20 0.05 Anchor Handling Aug 12.2 204.0 0.15 0.01 0.18 0.05
56 Version 1.0 JASCO APPLIED SCIENCES South Stream Pipeline – Russian Sector – Underwater Sound Analysis
Table 37. Behavioural effect 95% ranges (km) and equivalent areas (km2) are tabulated for the shallow water vessel grouping (VG03), based on the horizontal distances from the loudest source at the center of the group to the modelled broadband (10–20000 Hz) maximum-over-depth sound level thresholds, with audiogram weighting applied for anchovy, herring, shad, and sturgeon. Anchovy Herring Shad Sturgeon to 75 dBht to 75 dBht to 75 dBht to 75 dBht
Range Area Range Area Range Area Range Area (km) (km2) (km) (km2) (km) (km2) (km) (km2) Pipe-Laying with Feb n/a n/a 0.45 0.60 n/a n/a n/a n/a active anchor handling Aug n/a n/a 0.43 0.49 n/a n/a n/a n/a
Version 1.0 57 South Stream Pipeline – Russian Sector – Underwater Sound Analysis JASCO APPLIED SCIENCES
Figure 23. Broadband (10 Hz–20 kHz) maximum-over-depth sound pressure levels for the pipe-laying vessel group with active anchor handling (VG03) at the shallow water site (S01). Blue contours indicate water depth in metres.
58 Version 1.0 JASCO APPLIED SCIENCES South Stream Pipeline – Russian Sector – Underwater Sound Analysis
4.3.4. Scenario 4: Pipe-laying with Dynamic Positioning at Site 2
Table 38. Behavioural effect 95% ranges (km) and equivalent areas (km2) are tabulated for the mid- water water vessel grouping (VG04), based on the horizontal distances from the loudest source at the center of the group to the modelled broadband (10–20000 Hz) maximum-over-depth sound level thresholds, without and with audiogram weighting applied for bottlenose dolphin and harbour porpoise. Unweighted to 120 dB re 1 µPa BDolphin to 75 dBht HPorpoise to 75 dBht
2 2 2 Range (km) Area (km ) Range (km) Area (km ) Range (km) Area (km )
Pipe- Feb 31.4 1630.0 0.70 0.02 0.57 0.06 Laying (DP) Aug 16.5 270.0 0.70 0.02 0.57 0.06
Table 39. Behavioural effect 95% ranges (km) and equivalent areas (km2) are tabulated for the mid- water water vessel grouping (VG04), based on the horizontal distances from the loudest source at the center of the group to the modelled broadband (10–20000 Hz) maximum-over-depth sound level thresholds, with audiogram weighting applied for anchovy, herring, shad, and sturgeon.
Anchovy Herring Shad Sturgeon to 75 dBht to 75 dBht to 75 dBht to 75 dBht
Range Area Range Area Range Area Range Area (km) (km2) (km) (km2) (km) (km2) (km) (km2) Feb n/a n/a 0.70 0.08 n/a n/a n/a n/a Pipe-Laying (DP) Aug n/a n/a 0.70 0.07 n/a n/a n/a n/a
Version 1.0 59 South Stream Pipeline – Russian Sector – Underwater Sound Analysis JASCO APPLIED SCIENCES
Figure 24. Broadband (10 Hz–20 kHz) maximum-over-depth sound pressure levels for the pipe-laying vessel group (VG04) at the mid-water site (S02). Blue contours indicate water depth in metres.
60 Version 1.0 JASCO APPLIED SCIENCES South Stream Pipeline – Russian Sector – Underwater Sound Analysis
4.3.5. Scenario 5: Pipe-laying with Anchor Handling Tugs at Site 2
Table 40. Behavioural effect 95% ranges (km) and equivalent areas (km2) are tabulated for the mid- water water vessel grouping (VG05), based on the horizontal distances from the loudest source at the center of the group to the modelled broadband (10–20000 Hz) maximum-over-depth sound level thresholds, without and with audiogram weighting applied for bottlenose dolphin and harbour porpoise.
Unweighted BDolphin HPorpoise to 120 dB re to 75 dBht to 75 dBht 1 µPa
Range Area Range Area Range Area (km) (km2) (km) (km2) (km) (km2)
Pipe-Laying with Active Feb 45.3 2870.0 0.57 0.01 0.55 0.04 Anchor Handling Aug 24.7 556.0 0.57 0.01 0.55 0.04
Table 41. Behavioural effect 95% ranges (km) and equivalent areas (km2) are tabulated for the mid- water water vessel grouping (VG05), based on the horizontal distances from the loudest source at the center of the group to the modelled broadband (10–20000 Hz) maximum-over-depth sound level thresholds, with audiogram weighting applied for anchovy, herring, shad, and sturgeon. Anchovy Herring Shad Sturgeon to 75 dBht to 75 dBht to 75 dBht to 75 dBht
Range Area Range Area Range Area Range Area (km) (km2) (km) (km2) (km) (km2) (km) (km2) Pipe-Laying with Feb n/a n/a 0.65 0.32 n/a n/a n/a n/a Active Anchor Handling Aug n/a n/a 0.65 0.28 n/a n/a n/a n/a
4.3.6. Scenario 6: Crew Change (Pipe-laying) at Site 2
Table 42. Behavioural effect 95% ranges (km) and equivalent areas (km2) are tabulated for the mid- water water vessel grouping (VG06), based on the horizontal distances from the loudest source at the center of the group to the modelled broadband (10–20000 Hz) maximum-over-depth sound level thresholds, without and with audiogram weighting applied for bottlenose dolphin and harbour porpoise.
Unweighted BDolphin HPorpoise to 120 dB re to 75 dBht to 75 dBht 1 µPa
Range Area Range Area Range Area (km) (km2) (km) (km2) (km) (km2)
Crew Change (for pipe-laying Feb 25.3 1190.0 0.68 0.68 1.17 3.37 operation) Aug 15.0 195.0 0.72 0.60 1.48 3.80
Version 1.0 61 South Stream Pipeline – Russian Sector – Underwater Sound Analysis JASCO APPLIED SCIENCES
Table 43. Behavioural effect 95% ranges (km) and equivalent areas (km2) are tabulated for the mid- water water vessel grouping (VG06), based on the horizontal distances from the loudest source at the center of the group to the modelled broadband (10–20000 Hz) maximum-over-depth sound level thresholds, with audiogram weighting applied for anchovy, herring, shad, and sturgeon. Anchovy Herring Shad Sturgeon to 75 dBht to 75 dBht to 75 dBht to 75 dBht
Range Area Range Area Range Area Range Area (km) (km2) (km) (km2) (km) (km2) (km) (km2)
Crew Change (for Feb n/a n/a 0.60 0.05 n/a n/a n/a n/a pipe-laying operation) Aug n/a n/a 0.60 0.05 n/a n/a n/a n/a
4.3.7. Scenario 7: Dredging for Free Span Correction at Site 2
Table 44. Behavioural effect 95% ranges (km) and equivalent areas (km2) are tabulated for the mid- water water vessel grouping (VG07), based on the horizontal distances from the loudest source at the center of the group to the modelled broadband (10–20000 Hz) maximum-over-depth sound level thresholds, without and with audiogram weighting applied for bottlenose dolphin and harbour porpoise.
Unweighted BDolphin HPorpoise to 120 dB re to 75 dBht to 75 dBht 1 µPa
Range Area Range Area Range Area (km) (km2) (km) (km2) (km) (km2) Dredging: Free Span Feb 12.9 291.0 n/a n/a n/a n/a Correction, Equipment Delivery Aug 7.8 81.0 n/a n/a n/a n/a
Table 45. Behavioural effect 95% ranges (km) and equivalent areas (km2) are tabulated for the mid- water water vessel grouping (VG07), based on the horizontal distances from the loudest source at the center of the group to the modelled broadband (10–20000 Hz) maximum-over-depth sound level thresholds, with audiogram weighting applied for anchovy, herring, shad, and sturgeon.
Anchovy Herring Shad Sturgeon to 75 dBht to 75 dBht to 75 dBht to 75 dBht
Range Area Range Area Range Area Range Area (km) (km2) (km) (km2) (km) (km2) (km) (km2) Dredging: Free Span Feb n/a n/a 0.36 0.04 n/a n/a n/a n/a Correction, Equipment Delivery Aug n/a n/a 0.36 0.04 n/a n/a n/a n/a
62 Version 1.0 JASCO APPLIED SCIENCES South Stream Pipeline – Russian Sector – Underwater Sound Analysis
4.3.8. Scenario 8: Rock Dumping for Cable Crossings at Site 2
Table 46. Behavioural effect 95% ranges (km) and equivalent areas (km2) are tabulated for the mid- water water vessel grouping (VG08), based on the horizontal distances from the loudest source at the center of the group to the modelled broadband (10–20000 Hz) maximum-over-depth sound level thresholds, without and with audiogram weighting applied for bottlenose dolphin and harbour porpoise.
Unweighted BDolphin HPorpoise to 120 dB re to 75 dBht to 75 dBht 1 µPa
Range Area Range Area Range Area (km) (km2) (km) (km2) (km) (km2) Rock-Dumping: Cable Feb 17.7 475.0 0.11 0.05 0.30 0.27 Crossing, Equipment Delivery Aug 8.7 90.7 0.11 0.05 0.32 0.30
Table 47. Behavioural effect 95% ranges (km) and equivalent areas (km2) are tabulated for the mid- water water vessel grouping (VG08), based on the horizontal distances from the loudest source at the center of the group to the modelled broadband (10–20000 Hz) maximum-over-depth sound level thresholds, with audiogram weighting applied for anchovy, herring, shad, and sturgeon. Anchovy Herring Shad Sturgeon to 75 dBht to 75 dBht to 75 dBht to 75 dBht
Range Area Range Area Range Area Range Area (km) (km2) (km) (km2) (km) (km2) (km) (km2) Rock-Dumping: Cable Feb n/a n/a 0.36 0.04 n/a n/a n/a n/a Crossing, Equipment Delivery Aug n/a n/a 0.36 0.04 n/a n/a n/a n/a
4.3.9. Scenario 9: Pipe-laying (J-Lay) at Site 3
Table 48. Behavioural effect 95% ranges (km) and equivalent areas (km2) are tabulated for the deep water vessel grouping (VG09), based on the horizontal distances from the loudest source at the center of the group to the modelled broadband (10–20000 Hz) maximum-over-depth sound level thresholds, without and with audiogram weighting applied for bottlenose dolphin and harbour porpoise.
Unweighted BDolphin HPorpoise to 120 dB re to 75 dBht to 75 dBht 1 µPa
Range Area Range Area Range Area (km) (km2) (km) (km2) (km) (km2) Feb 42.8 4710.0 0.50 0.06 0.40 0.19 Pipe-Laying (J-Lay) Aug 12.3 500.0 0.50 0.06 0.40 0.19
Version 1.0 63 South Stream Pipeline – Russian Sector – Underwater Sound Analysis JASCO APPLIED SCIENCES
Table 49. Behavioural effect 95% ranges (km) and equivalent areas (km2) are tabulated for the deep water vessel grouping (VG09), based on the horizontal distances from the loudest source at the center of the group to the modelled broadband (10–20000 Hz) maximum-over-depth sound level thresholds, with audiogram weighting applied for anchovy, herring, shad, and sturgeon. Anchovy Herring Shad Sturgeon to 75 dBht to 75 dBht to 75 dBht to 75 dBht
Range Area Range Area Range Area Range Area (km) (km2) (km) (km2) (km) (km2) (km) (km2) Feb n/a n/a 0.70 0.12 n/a n/a n/a n/a Pipe-Laying (J-Lay) Aug n/a n/a 0.70 0.12 n/a n/a n/a n/a
4.3.10. Scenario 10: Crew Change (Pipe-laying) at Site 3
Table 50. Behavioural effect 95% ranges (km) and equivalent areas (km2) are tabulated for the deep water vessel grouping (VG10), based on the horizontal distances from the loudest source at the center of the group to the modelled broadband (10–20000 Hz) maximum-over-depth sound level thresholds, without and with audiogram weighting applied for bottlenose dolphin and harbour porpoise.
Unweighted BDolphin HPorpoise to 120 dB re to 75 dBht to 75 dBht 1 µPa
Range Area Range Area Range Area (km) (km2) (km) (km2) (km) (km2)
Crew Change: (for pipe- Feb 44.3 5080.0 0.60 0.49 0.91 1.67 laying operation) Aug 12.6 518.0 0.63 0.56 1.01 2.28
Table 51. Behavioural effect 95% ranges (km) and equivalent areas (km2) are tabulated for the deep water vessel grouping (VG10), based on the horizontal distances from the loudest source at the center of the group to the modelled broadband (10–20000 Hz) maximum-over-depth sound level thresholds, with audiogram weighting applied for anchovy, herring, shad, and sturgeon.
Anchovy Herring Shad Sturgeon to 75 dBht to 75 dBht to 75 dBht to 75 dBht
Range Area Range Area Range Area Range Area (km) (km2) (km) (km2) (km) (km2) (km) (km2) Crew Change: (for Feb n/a n/a 0.50 0.10 n/a n/a n/a n/a pipe-laying operation) Aug n/a n/a 0.50 0.10 n/a n/a n/a n/a
64 Version 1.0 JASCO APPLIED SCIENCES South Stream Pipeline – Russian Sector – Underwater Sound Analysis
Figure 25. Broadband (10 Hz–20 kHz) maximum-over-depth sound pressure levels for the pipe-laying vessel group (VG09) at the deep water site (S03). Blue contours indicate water depth in metres.
Version 1.0 65 South Stream Pipeline – Russian Sector – Underwater Sound Analysis JASCO APPLIED SCIENCES
4.4. Cumulative Exposure
In the tabular results in this section, the effect range is not related to the effect area by a regular mathematical expression or geometric formula, which would lack meaning given the elongated shape of the cumulative exposure area along the pipeline track. The ranges were instead derived by considering the maximum off-track width to which the given level was estimated to reach, thus establishing the closest equivalent to a vessel-centric “safety range” concept for the cumulative exposure metric.
4.4.1. Scenario C1: Nearshore Pipeline Section
Table 52. Injury effect ranges (km) and areas (km2) are tabulated for the shallow-water site (S01) based on maximum-over-depth sound level thresholds. Conditions are for the month of February. Range (km) Area (km2)
Mid-Frequency Cetaceans injury 2 n/a n/a (215 dB re 1 µPa -s MFC Type I)
Mid-Frequency Cetaceans injury n/a n/a (198 dB re 1 µPa2-s MFC Type II)
High-Frequency Cetaceans injury 2 n/a n/a (215 dB re 1 µPa -s HFC Type I)
High-Frequency Cetaceans injury 2 0.06 1.1 (172 dB re 1 µPa -s HFC Type II)
Fish injury, body mass > 2 g 1.6 6.2 (187 dB re 1 µPa2-s LP filter 2kHz)
66 Version 1.0 JASCO APPLIED SCIENCES South Stream Pipeline – Russian Sector – Underwater Sound Analysis
Figure 26. Colour-shaded zones depict broadband (10 Hz–20 kHz) unweighted cumulative SEL levels for the C1 shallow water pipe-laying scenario at site S01. The acoustic field is modelled for conditions prevalent in February. Blue contours indicate water depth in metres.
Version 1.0 67 South Stream Pipeline – Russian Sector – Underwater Sound Analysis JASCO APPLIED SCIENCES
4.4.2. Scenario C2: Shelf Break Pipeline Section
Table 53. Injury effect ranges (km) and areas (km2) are tabulated for the mid-depth water site (S02) based on maximum-over-depth sound level thresholds. Conditions are for the month of February. Range (km) Area (km2)
Mid-Frequency Cetaceans injury n/a n/a (215 dB re 1 µPa2-s MFC Type I)
Mid-Frequency Cetaceans injury n/a n/a (198 dB re 1 µPa2-s MFC Type II)
High-Frequency Cetaceans injury n/a n/a (215 dB re 1 µPa2-s HFC Type I)
High-Frequency Cetaceans injury 0.05 0.6 (172 dB re 1 µPa2-s HFC Type II)
Fish injury, body mass > 2g 1.1 6.0 (187 dB re 1 µPa2-s LP filter 2kHz)
68 Version 1.0 JASCO APPLIED SCIENCES South Stream Pipeline – Russian Sector – Underwater Sound Analysis
Figure 27. Colour-shaded zones depict broadband (10 Hz–20 kHz) unweighted cumulative SEL levels for the C2 mid-water pipe-laying scenario at site S02. The acoustic field is modelled for conditions prevalent in February. Blue contours indicate water depth in metres.
Version 1.0 69 South Stream Pipeline – Russian Sector – Underwater Sound Analysis JASCO APPLIED SCIENCES
4.4.3. Scenario C3: Deep Sea Pipeline Section
Table 54. Injury effect ranges (km) and areas (km2) are tabulated for the deep-water site (S03) based on maximum-over-depth sound level thresholds. Conditions are for the month of February. Range (km) Area (km2)
Mid-Frequency Cetaceans injury n/a n/a (215 dB re 1 µPa2-s MFC Type I)
Mid-Frequency Cetaceans injury n/a n/a (198 dB re 1 µPa2-s MFC Type II)
High-Frequency Cetaceans injury n/a n/a (215 dB re 1 µPa2-s HFC Type I)
High-Frequency Cetaceans injury 0.02 1.3 (172 dB re 1 µPa2-s HFC Type II) Fish injury, body mass > 2g (187 dB re 1 µPa2-s LP filter 0.4 3.9 2kHz)
70 Version 1.0 JASCO APPLIED SCIENCES South Stream Pipeline – Russian Sector – Underwater Sound Analysis
Figure 28. Colour-shaded zones depict broadband (10 Hz–20 kHz) unweighted cumulative SEL levels for the C3 deep water pipe-laying scenario at site S03. The acoustic field is modelled for conditions prevalent in February. Blue contours indicate water depth in metres.
Version 1.0 71 South Stream Pipeline – Russian Sector – Underwater Sound Analysis JASCO APPLIED SCIENCES
5. Remarks on Effect Range Estimates
With the exception of fish for which an injury effect range of about 1 to 1.6 km and effect area of 5 to 6.8 km2 are predicted for a 24-hour operation depending on site, the injury footprint of the operations is estimated to be virtually insignificant. The injury result for fish must be considered with the caveats listed in section 1.5.1, primarily deriving from the fact that impact results derived from studies of exposure to pulse sound are likely to be overly precautionary (possibly by a wide margin) when applied to continuous sound exposure. Based on audiogram weighted criteria, behavioural effect ranges for individual and group vessel operations are only estimated to be significant for dolphins, porpoises and to some degree herring, with effect ranges never exceeding 2km for the loudest source at any modelled location. The comparison of injury and behavioural effect ranges may in specific cases, particularly for fish species, appear counterintuitive to the expectation that behavioural effects should extend to markedly greater distances than injury. This inconsistency arises, aside from the large uncertainty in current estimation of the effects of continuous noise on fish, from the different exposure metrics on which the results are based: an instantaneous sound pressure level for behavioural effects, and an accumulation of acoustic energy over time for injury effects.
72 Version 1.0 JASCO APPLIED SCIENCES South Stream Pipeline – Russian Sector – Underwater Sound Analysis
Literature Cited
[ITC] International Transducer Corporation. 1993. Application Equations for Underwater Sound Transducers (pamphlet). International Transducer Corporation, Santa Barbara, CA.
Aerts, L., M. Blees, S. Blackwell, C. Greene, K. Kim, D. Hannay, and M. Austin. 2008. Marine mammal monitoring and mitigation during BP Liberty OBC seismic survey in Foggy Island Bay, Beaufort Sea, July-August 2008: 90-day report. LGL Report P1011-1. Report by LGL Alaska Research Associates Inc., LGL Ltd., Greeneridge Sciences Inc. and JASCO Applied Sciences for BP Exploration Alaska. 199 p. http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/permits/bp_liberty_monitoring.pdf.
ANSI S1.4-1983. R2006. American National Standard Specification for Sound Level Meters. American National Standards Institute, New York.
Buckingham, M.J. 2005. Compressional and shear wave properties of marine sediments: Comparisons between theory and data. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 117(1): 137-152.
Carnes, M.R. 2009. Description and Evaluation of GDEM-V 3.0. NRL Memorandum Report 7330-09-9165. US Naval Research Laboratory, Stennis Space Center, MS. 21 p.
Collins, M.D. 1993. A split-step Padé solution for the parabolic equation method. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 93: 1736-1742.
Collins, M.D., R.J. Cederberg, D.B. King, and S. Chin-Bing. 1996. Comparison of algorithms for solving parabolic wave equations. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 100(1): 178-182.
Coppens, A.B. 1981. Simple equations for the speed of sound in Neptunian waters. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 69(3): 862-863.
Dickerson, C., K.J. Reine, and D.G. Clarke. 2001. Characterization of underwater sounds produced by bucket dredging operations (webpage). U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Vicksburg, MS. http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/elpubs/pdf/doere14.pdf.
Edgetech. 2000. AUV/UUV Sonar Payload. Technical Data sheet.
Enger, P.S. 1967. Hearing in herring. Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology 22(2): 527- 538.
Finneran, J. and A.K. Jenkins. 2012. Criteria and Thresholds for Navy Acoustic Effects Analysis Technical Report. SPAWAR Marine Mammal Program.
Finneran, J.J. and C.E. Schlundt. 2011. Subjective loudness level measurements and equal loudness contours in a bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus). Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 130(5): 3124-3136.
Version 1.0 73 South Stream Pipeline – Russian Sector – Underwater Sound Analysis JASCO APPLIED SCIENCES
Fisher, F.H. and V.P. Simmons. 1977. Sound absorption in sea water. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 62(3): 558-564.
Funk, D., D. Hannay, D. Ireland, R. Rodrigues, and W. Koski (eds.). 2008. Marine mammal monitoring and mitigation during open water seismic exploration by Shell Offshore Inc. in the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas, July–November 2007: 90-day report. LGL Report P969-1. Prepared by LGL Alaska Research Associates Inc., LGL Ltd., and JASCO Research Ltd. for Shell Offshore Inc., National Marine Fisheries Service (US), and US Fish and Wildlife Service. 218 p. http://www- static.shell.com/static/usa/downloads/alaska/shell2007_90-d_final.pdf.
Halvorsen, M.B., B.M. Casper, C.M. Woodley, T.J. Carlson, and A.N. Popper. 2012. Threshold for onset of injury in Chinook salmon from exposure to impulsive pile driving sounds. PLoS ONE 7(6): e38968.
Hannay, D., A. MacGillivray, M. Laurinolli, and R. Racca. 2004. Sakhalin Energy: Source Level Measurements from 2004 Acoustics Program. Version 1.5. Technical report prepared for Sakhalin Energy by JASCO Applied Sciences.
Hannay, D. and R. Racca. 2005. Acoustic model validation. Document 0000-S-90-04-T- 7006-00-E, Revision 02. Technical report for Sakhalin Energy Investment Company Ltd. by JASCO Research Ltd. 34 p. http://www.sakhalinenergy.com/en/documents/doc_33_jasco.pdf.
Ireland, D.S., R. Rodrigues, D. Funk, W. Koski, and D. Hannay. 2009. Marine mammal monitoring and mitigation during open water seismic exploration by Shell Offshore Inc. in the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas, July–October 2008: 90-Day Report. LGL Report P1049-1. 277 p.
Johansson, A.T. and M.H. Andersson. 2012. Ambient underwater noise levels at Norra Midsjöbanken during construction of the Nord Stream pipeline. FOI-R--3469--SE. FOI, Swedish Defence Research Agency for Nord Stream AG and Naturvårdsverket (Swedish Environment Protection Agency). 65 p. http://www.nord-stream.com/press- info/library/?pk=194.
Johnson, C.S. 1967. Sound detection thresholds in marine mammals. In Tavolga, W. (ed.). Marine Bioacoustics. Pergamon, New York. pp. 247-260.
Kastelein, R.A., P. Bunskoek, M. Hagedoorn, W.W.L. Au, and D. de Haan. 2002. Audiogram of a harbor porpoise (Phocoena phocoena) measured with narrow-band frequency- modulated signals. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 112(1): 334-344.
Kinsler, L.E., A.R. Frey, A.B. Coppens, and J.V. Sanders. 1950. Fundamentals of acoustics. John Wiley & Sons Inc., New York.
Kipple, B. and C. Gabriele. 2003. Glacier Bay watercraft noise: report to Glacier Bay National Park by the Naval Surface Warfare Cent-Detachment Bremerton. Technical Report NSWCCD-71-TR-2003/522.
Ladich, F. and R. Fay. 2013. Auditory evoked potential audiometry in fish. Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries 23(3): 317-364.
74 Version 1.0 JASCO APPLIED SCIENCES South Stream Pipeline – Russian Sector – Underwater Sound Analysis
MacGillivray, A.O. 2006. Underwater acoustic source level measurements of Castoro Otto and Fu Lai. JASCO Applied Sciences Ltd.
Massa, D.P. 1999. Choosing and ultrasonic sensor for proximity or distance measurement; part 2: Optimizing sensor selection (webpage). Sensors, March 1, 1999. http://www.sensorsmag.com/sensors/acoustic-ultrasound/choosing-ultrasonic-sensor- proximity-or-distance-measurement-838.
Nedwell, J.R. and A.W. Turnpenny. 1998. The use of a generic frequency weighting scale in estimating environmental effect. Workshop on Seismics and Marine Mammals. 23– 25th June, London, U.K.
Nedwell, J.R. and B. Edwards. 2004. A review of measurements of underwater man-made noise carried out by Subacoustech Ltd, 1993 – 2003. Report ref: 534R0109. Subacoustech. 131 p. http://www.subacoustech.com/information/downloads/reports/534R0109.pdf.
Nedwell, J.R., J. Lovell, and A.W.H. Turnpenny. 2005. Experimental validation of a species‐ specific behavioral impact metric for underwater noise. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 118(3): 2019-2019.
Nedwell, J.R., A.W.H. Turnpenny, J. Lovell, S.J. Parvin, R. Workman, and J.A.L. Spinks. 2007. A validation of the dBht as a measure of the behavioural and auditory effects of underwater noise. Report No. 534R1231 prepared by Subacoustech Ltd. for the UK Department of Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform under Project No. RDCZ/011/0004. www.subacoustech.com/information/downloads/reports/534R1231.pdf.
O’Neill, C., D. Leary, and A. McCrodan. 2010. Sound source verification. (Chapter 3) In Blees, M.K., K.G. Hartin, D.S. Ireland, and D. Hannay (eds.). Marine mammal monitoring and mitigation during open water seismic exploration by Statoil USA E&P Inc. in the Chukchi Sea, August-October 2010: 90-day report. LGL Report P1119. Prepared by LGL Alaska Research Associates Inc., LGL Ltd., and JASCO Applied Sciences Ltd. for Statoil USA E&P Inc., National Marine Fisheries Service (US), and US Fish and Wildlife Service. pp. 1-34.
Porter, M.B. and Y.-C. Liu. 1994. Finite-element ray tracing. In: Lee, D. and M.H. Schultz (eds.). Proceedings of the International Conference on Theoretical and Computational Acoustics. Volume 2. World Scientific Publishing Co. pp. 947-956.
Robinson, S.P., P.D. Theobald, G. Hayman, L.S. Wang, P.A. Lepper, V. Humphrey, and S. Mumford. 2011. Measurement of Noise Arising from Marine Aggregate Dredging Operations. MALSF (MEPF Ref no. 09/P108).
Schlundt, C.E., J.J. Finneran, D.A. Carder, and S.H. Ridgway. 2000. Temporary shift in masked hearing thresholds of bottlenose dolphins, Tursiops truncatus, and white whales, Delphinapterus leucas, after exposure to intense tones. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 107(6): 3496-3508.
Version 1.0 75 South Stream Pipeline – Russian Sector – Underwater Sound Analysis JASCO APPLIED SCIENCES
Shimkus, K.M., Ya. P. Malovitsky, and S.I. Shumenko. 1978. In Ross, D. A., Y. P. Neprochnov, et al. 1978. Initial Reports of the Deep Sea Drilling Project, Volume 42, Part 2: Washington (U.S. Government Printing Office), p. 469-482.
The Shipboard Scientific Party, 1978. Site 379. In Ross, D. A., Neprochnov, Y. P., et al. 1978. Initial Reports of the Deep Sea Drilling Project, Volume 42, Part 2: Washington (U.S. Government Printing Office), p. 29-118.
Southall, B.L., A.E. Bowles, W.T. Ellison, J.J. Finneran, R.L. Gentry, C.R. Greene Jr., D. Kastak, D.R. Ketten, J.H. Miller, et al. 2007. Marine mammal noise exposure criteria: Initial scientific recommendations. Aquatic Mammals 33(4): 411-521.
Stadler, J.H. and D.P. Woodbury. 2009. Assessing the effects to fishes from pile driving: Application of new hydroacoustic criteria. Inter-Noise 2009: Innovations in Practical Noise Control, 2009 August 23-26, Ottawa, Canada.
Teague, W.J., M.J. Carron, and P.J. Hogan. 1990. A comparison between the Generalized Digital Environmental Model and Levitus climatologies. Journal of Geophysical Research 95(C5): 7167-7183.
Warner, G., C. Erbe, and D. Hannay. 2010. Underwater sound measurements. (Chapter 3) In Reiser, C.M., D.W. Funk, R. Rodrigues, and D. Hannay (eds.). Marine Mammal Monitoring and Mitigation during Open Water Shallow Hazards and Site Clearance Surveys by Shell Offshore Inc. in the Alaskan Chukchi Sea, July-October 2009: 90- Day Report. LGL Report P1112-1. Report by LGL Alaska Research Associates Inc. and JASCO Applied Sciences for Shell Offshore Inc., National Marine Fisheries Service (US), and US Fish and Wildlife Service. pp. 1-54. http://www- static.shell.com/static/usa/downloads/alaska/report_2009_shell_90- d_report_plus_appendices.pdf.
Williams, R., D.E. Bain, J.K.B. Ford, and A.W. Trites. 2002. Behavioral responses of male killer whales to a “leapfrogging” vessel. Journal of Cetacean Research and Management 4: 305-310.
76 Version 1.0 JASCO APPLIED SCIENCES South Stream Pipeline – Russian Sector – Underwater Sound Analysis
Appendix A. Tables of Threshold Ranges and Areas
A.1. Single-Vessel Instantaneous Sound Fields
A.1.1. Vessels Operating at Shallow Water Site (S01)
Table A-1. Behavioural effect 95% ranges (km) and equivalent areas (km2) are tabulated for the shallow water site (S01) unweighted rms SPL radii for specific to modelled broadband (10–20000 Hz) maximum-over-depth sound levels, for both February and August time frames, for six single-vessel activity sources. February Dredging Dredging Rock Anchor Support rms SPL (cutter Pipe-laying (crane) dumping handling vessels (dB re suction) 1 µPa) R95% Ae R95% Ae R95% Ae R95% Ae R95% Ae R95% Ae 180 170 160 71 0.02 150 112 0.03 71 0.02 316 0.3 224 0.18 140 650 1.31 255 0.19 71 0.02 427 0.55 1340 4.26 1210 3.79 130 2760 14.8 1350 4.24 304 0.29 1870 7.85 5600 47.1 5070 46.3 120 11500 202 5730 56.1 1330 4.32 9170 127 24900 675 21700 642
August Dredging Dredging Rock Anchor Support rms SPL (cutter Pipe-laying (crane) dumping handling vessels (dB re suction) 1 µPa) R95% Ae R95% Ae R95% Ae R95% Ae R95% Ae R95% Ae 180 170 160 < 50 0.01 150 100 0.03 71 0.02 300 0.27 206 0.13 140 602 1.05 250 0.16 < 50 0.01 400 0.5 1160 3.12 1120 2.82 130 2030 8.74 1130 3.15 269 0.25 1680 5.56 3740 22.2 4090 25.5 120 7170 75.3 3830 21.9 1210 3.31 5320 42.7 9590 131 8940 122
Version 1.0 A-1 South Stream Pipeline – Russian Sector – Underwater Sound Analysis JASCO APPLIED SCIENCES
Table A-2. Behavioural effect 95% ranges (km) and equivalent areas (km2) are tabulated for dredging (cutter suction) activity at the shallow water site (S01), based on the horizontal distances from the source to modelled broadband (10–20000 Hz) maximum-over-depth sound levels, for both February and August time frames, with audiogram weighting applied for bottlenose dolphin harbour porpoise, herring, anchovy, shad, and sturgeon. February Activity: Dredging (cutter suction)—Vessel: Dikson (MRTS) Bottlenose Harbour American Lake Dolphin Porpoise Pacific Herring Bay Anchovy dBht Shad Sturgeon cetaceous cetaceous
R95% Ae R95% Ae R95% Ae R95% Ae R95% Ae R95% Ae 90 71 0.02 80 112 0.05 427 0.53 75 335 0.33 800 1.99 71 0.02 70 680 1.5 1380 5.14 180 0.1 60 2140 10.5 3290 22.4 1060 2.84 50 5040 47.7 7040 87.9 4390 33.7 40 10900 198 16200 415 18900 463 71 0.02
August Activity: Dredging (cutter suction)—Vessel: Dikson (MRTS) Bottlenose Harbour American Lake dBht Dolphin Porpoise Pacific Herring Bay Anchovy Shad Sturgeon cetaceous cetaceous
R95% Ae R95% Ae R95% Ae R95% Ae R95% Ae R95% Ae 90 71 0.02 80 255 0.06 585 0.64 75 364 0.43 966 2.13 71 0.02 70 851 1.66 1510 5.1 180 0.11 60 2060 8.73 3070 17.6 886 2.19 50 4320 32.5 5810 58.5 2950 15.8 40 8140 106 11400 190 10600 146 71 0.02
A-2 Version 1.0 JASCO APPLIED SCIENCES South Stream Pipeline – Russian Sector – Underwater Sound Analysis
Table A-3. Behavioural effect 95% ranges (km) and equivalent areas (km2) are tabulated for dredging (crane) activity at the shallow water site (S01), based on the horizontal distances from the source to modelled broadband (10–20000 Hz) maximum-over-depth sound levels, for both February and August time frames, with audiogram weighting applied for bottlenose dolphin harbour porpoise, herring, anchovy, shad, and sturgeon. February Activity: Dredging (crane)—Vessel: Kahmari 2 Bottlenose Harbour American Lake Dolphin Porpoise Pacific Herring Bay Anchovy dBht Shad Sturgeon cetaceous cetaceous
R95% Ae R95% Ae R95% Ae R95% Ae R95% Ae R95% Ae 90 80 75 70 100 0.03 60 < 50 0.01 158 0.09 541 0.82 50 381 0.44 828 2.12 2260 10.4 40 1500 5.8 2550 14.3 10200 159
August Activity: Dredging (crane)—Vessel: Kahmari 2 Bottlenose Harbour American Lake dBht Dolphin Porpoise Pacific Herring Bay Anchovy Shad Sturgeon cetaceous cetaceous
R95% Ae R95% Ae R95% Ae R95% Ae R95% Ae R95% Ae 90 80 75 70 100 0.02 60 < 50 0.01 292 0.11 450 0.65 50 403 0.49 982 2.2 1700 6.51 40 1590 5.42 2400 11.1 6250 55
Version 1.0 A-3 South Stream Pipeline – Russian Sector – Underwater Sound Analysis JASCO APPLIED SCIENCES
Table A-4. Behavioural effect 95% ranges (km) and equivalent areas (km2) are tabulated for pipe- laying activity at the shallow water site (S01), based on the horizontal distances from the source to modelled broadband (10–20000 Hz) maximum-over-depth sound levels, for both February and August time frames, with audiogram weighting applied for bottlenose dolphin harbour porpoise, herring, anchovy, shad, and sturgeon. February Activity: Pipe-laying—Vessel: Tog Mor (Allseas) Bottlenose Harbour American Lake Dolphin Porpoise Pacific Herring Bay Anchovy dBht Shad Sturgeon cetaceous cetaceous
R95% Ae R95% Ae R95% Ae R95% Ae R95% Ae R95% Ae 90 80 75 70 60 < 50 0.01 112 0.05 50 100 0.03 255 0.22 566 0.97 40 602 1.06 1170 3.77 2210 9.71
August Activity: Pipe-laying—Vessel: Tog Mor (Allseas) Bottlenose Harbour American Lake dBht Dolphin Porpoise Pacific Herring Bay Anchovy Shad Sturgeon cetaceous cetaceous
R95% Ae R95% Ae R95% Ae R95% Ae R95% Ae R95% Ae 90 80 75 70 60 112 0.05 50 100 0.03 255 0.21 522 0.78 40 522 0.81 1120 2.99 1870 6.81
A-4 Version 1.0 JASCO APPLIED SCIENCES South Stream Pipeline – Russian Sector – Underwater Sound Analysis
Table A-5. Behavioural effect 95% ranges (km) and equivalent areas (km2) are tabulated for rock dumping activity at the shallow water site (S01), based on the horizontal distances from the source to modelled broadband (10–20000 Hz) maximum-over-depth sound levels, for both February and August time frames, with audiogram weighting applied for bottlenose dolphin harbour porpoise, herring, anchovy, shad, and sturgeon. February Activity: Rock dumping—Vessel: Taccola (Jan de Nul) Bottlenose Harbour American Lake Dolphin Porpoise Pacific Herring Bay Anchovy dBht Shad Sturgeon cetaceous cetaceous
R95% Ae R95% Ae R95% Ae R95% Ae R95% Ae R95% Ae 90 80 < 50 0.01 180 0.1 75 150 0.07 461 0.63 70 364 0.43 860 2.29 112 0.04 60 1410 5.28 2450 13.5 585 1.02 50 3900 29.9 6310 71.9 2460 12.4 40 10000 167 15600 387 12000 210
August Activity: Rock dumping—Vessel: Taccola (Jan de Nul) Bottlenose Harbour American Lake dBht Dolphin Porpoise Pacific Herring Bay Anchovy Shad Sturgeon cetaceous cetaceous
R95% Ae R95% Ae R95% Ae R95% Ae R95% Ae R95% Ae 90 80 < 50 0.01 180 0.1 75 141 0.06 450 0.61 70 403 0.47 832 1.84 112 0.05 60 1430 4.26 2330 10.6 501 0.8 50 3470 21.4 5100 44.7 2210 8.23 40 6810 76.7 9330 138 6140 59
Version 1.0 A-5 South Stream Pipeline – Russian Sector – Underwater Sound Analysis JASCO APPLIED SCIENCES
Table A-6. Behavioural effect 95% ranges (km) and equivalent areas (km2) are tabulated for anchor handling activity at the shallow water site (S01), based on the horizontal distances from the source to modelled broadband (10–20000 Hz) maximum-over-depth sound levels, for both February and August time frames, with audiogram weighting applied for bottlenose dolphin harbour porpoise, herring, anchovy, shad, and sturgeon. February Activity: Anchor handling—Vessel: Norman Neptune Bottlenose Harbour American Lake Dolphin Porpoise Pacific Herring Bay Anchovy dBht Shad Sturgeon cetaceous cetaceous
R95% Ae R95% Ae R95% Ae R95% Ae R95% Ae R95% Ae 90 80 112 0.05 75 71 0.02 255 0.21 70 71 0.02 158 0.1 583 1.02 60 559 0.77 901 2.28 2190 9.46 50 2280 10.2 3370 21.7 9190 122 40 11200 166 15800 327 51000 2650 224 0.16
August Activity: Anchor handling—Vessel: Norman Neptune Bottlenose Harbour American Lake dBht Dolphin Porpoise Pacific Herring Bay Anchovy Shad Sturgeon cetaceous cetaceous
R95% Ae R95% Ae R95% Ae R95% Ae R95% Ae R95% Ae 90 80 141 0.06 75 71 0.02 250 0.2 70 71 0.02 158 0.08 532 0.8 60 474 0.61 806 1.72 1830 6.71 50 1820 6.18 2760 13.2 5600 46.8 40 5170 40.8 6670 70.2 13600 231 180 0.11
A-6 Version 1.0 JASCO APPLIED SCIENCES South Stream Pipeline – Russian Sector – Underwater Sound Analysis
Table A-7. Behavioural effect 95% ranges (km) and equivalent areas (km2) are tabulated for Support vessel activity at the shallow water site (S01), based on the horizontal distances from the source to modelled broadband (10–20000 Hz) maximum-over-depth sound levels, for both February and August time frames, with audiogram weighting applied for bottlenose dolphin harbour porpoise, herring, anchovy, shad, and sturgeon. February Activity: Support vessels—Vessel: GSP Lyra Bottlenose Harbour American Lake Dolphin Porpoise Pacific Herring Bay Anchovy dBht Shad Sturgeon cetaceous cetaceous
R95% Ae R95% Ae R95% Ae R95% Ae R95% Ae R95% Ae 90 71 0.02 250 0.19 80 532 0.85 1090 3.35 75 1030 3.01 1800 7.94 70 1770 7.61 3000 18.9 < 50 0.01 60 4810 43.6 7610 101 335 0.31 50 12300 239 20400 643 1520 4.92 40 63700 3600 71000 5310 7410 75
August Activity: Support vessels—Vessel: GSP Lyra Bottlenose Harbour American Lake dBht Dolphin Porpoise Pacific Herring Bay Anchovy Shad Sturgeon cetaceous cetaceous
R95% Ae R95% Ae R95% Ae R95% Ae R95% Ae R95% Ae 90 71 0.02 255 0.2 80 501 0.76 1060 2.62 75 992 2.4 1750 6.63 70 1690 6.2 2790 14.6 < 50 0.01 60 4180 30.4 5850 57.7 320 0.31 50 7760 98.1 10600 172 1400 3.8 40 14100 275 24300 637 4750 29.8
Version 1.0 A-7 South Stream Pipeline – Russian Sector – Underwater Sound Analysis JASCO APPLIED SCIENCES
A.1.2. Vessels Operating at Mid-Water Site (S02)
Table A-8. Behavioural effect 95% ranges (km) and equivalent areas (km2) are tabulated for the mid- water site (S02) unweighted rms SPL radii for specific modelled broadband (10–20000 Hz) maximum- over-depth sound levels, for both February and August time frames, for six single-vessel activity sources. February Pipe-laying Pipe-laying Rock Anchor Support rms SPL Trenching (dynamic (moored) dumping handling vessels (dB re positioning) 1 µPa) R95% Ae R95% Ae R95% Ae R95% Ae R95% Ae R95% Ae 180 170 160 150 < 50 0.01 < 50 0.01 112 0.04 71 0.02 292 0.12 112 0.05 140 350 0.38 335 0.37 539 0.92 364 0.44 776 1.68 515 0.89 130 1150 4.12 1540 6.32 3400 25.3 1610 6.53 3590 25.3 3550 36.8 120 5790 59 7030 117 20200 673 9150 181 21200 536 15300 489
August Pipe-laying Pipe-laying Rock Anchor Support rms SPL Trenching (dynamic (moored) dumping handling vessels (dB re positioning) 1 µPa) R95% Ae R95% Ae R95% Ae R95% Ae R95% Ae R95% Ae 180 170 160 150 < 50 0.01 < 50 0.01 100 0.03 71 0.02 269 0.13 112 0.05 140 350 0.38 403 0.46 750 1.29 447 0.58 806 1.66 515 0.68 130 1060 3.24 1450 5.59 2260 11.9 1400 4.84 2130 11.2 1900 7.85 120 4050 26.6 5610 52.1 9780 121 4590 36 9230 110 7800 73.7
A-8 Version 1.0 JASCO APPLIED SCIENCES South Stream Pipeline – Russian Sector – Underwater Sound Analysis
Table A-9. Behavioural effect 95% ranges (km) and equivalent areas (km2) are tabulated for trenching activity at the mid-water site (S02), based on the horizontal distances from the source to modelled broadband (10–20000 Hz) maximum-over-depth sound levels, for both February and August time frames, with audiogram weighting applied for bottlenose dolphin harbour porpoise, herring, anchovy, shad, and sturgeon. February Activity: Trenching—Vessel: Calamity Jane (Allseas) Bottlenose Harbour American Lake Dolphin Porpoise Pacific Herring Bay Anchovy dBht Shad Sturgeon cetaceous cetaceous
R95% Ae R95% Ae R95% Ae R95% Ae R95% Ae R95% Ae 90 80 75 < 50 0.01 70 < 50 0.01 112 0.05 60 71 0.02 180 0.1 532 0.93 50 354 0.41 743 1.71 1930 10.7 40 1840 8.84 3620 40.6 8680 153 < 50 0.01
August Activity: Trenching—Vessel: Calamity Jane (Allseas) Bottlenose Harbour American Lake dBht Dolphin Porpoise Pacific Herring Bay Anchovy Shad Sturgeon cetaceous cetaceous
R95% Ae R95% Ae R95% Ae R95% Ae R95% Ae R95% Ae 90 80 75 < 50 0.01 70 < 50 0.01 112 0.05 60 71 0.02 158 0.1 559 0.97 50 354 0.38 971 2.11 1610 7.05 40 1420 4.78 2110 10.7 6160 63.8 < 50 0.01
Version 1.0 A-9 South Stream Pipeline – Russian Sector – Underwater Sound Analysis JASCO APPLIED SCIENCES
Table A-10. Behavioural effect 95% ranges (km) and equivalent areas (km2) are tabulated for pipe- laying (moored) activity at the mid-water site (S02), based on the horizontal distances from the source to modelled broadband (10–20000 Hz) maximum-over-depth sound levels, for both February and August time frames, with audiogram weighting applied for bottlenose dolphin harbour porpoise, herring, anchovy, shad, and sturgeon. February Activity: Pipe-laying (moored)—Vessel: Castoro Sei Bottlenose Harbour American Lake Dolphin Porpoise Pacific Herring Bay Anchovy dBht Shad Sturgeon cetaceous cetaceous
R95% Ae R95% Ae R95% Ae R95% Ae R95% Ae R95% Ae 90 80 75 < 50 0.01 < 50 0.01 70 < 50 0.01 100 0.03 71 0.02 60 158 0.09 354 0.4 583 0.93 50 721 1.66 2330 9.05 2820 17.3 40 3660 43.5 6650 128 12600 284 < 50 0.01
August Activity: Pipe-laying (moored)—Vessel: Castoro Sei Bottlenose Harbour American Lake dBht Dolphin Porpoise Pacific Herring Bay Anchovy Shad Sturgeon cetaceous cetaceous
R95% Ae R95% Ae R95% Ae R95% Ae R95% Ae R95% Ae 90 80 75 < 50 0.01 < 50 0.01 70 < 50 0.01 71 0.02 71 0.02 60 158 0.09 781 0.74 583 0.97 50 1080 2.7 1890 6.66 2100 11.1 40 2980 17.1 4560 39.3 8150 99.3 < 50 0.01
A-10 Version 1.0 JASCO APPLIED SCIENCES South Stream Pipeline – Russian Sector – Underwater Sound Analysis
Table A-11. Behavioural effect 95% ranges (km) and equivalent areas (km2) are tabulated for pipe- laying (dynamic positioning) activity at the mid-water site (S02), based on the horizontal distances from the source to modelled broadband (10–20000 Hz) maximum-over-depth sound levels, for both February and August time frames, with audiogram weighting applied for bottlenose dolphin harbour porpoise, herring, anchovy, shad, and sturgeon. February Activity: Pipe-laying (dynamic positioning)—Vessel: Castoro Sei Bottlenose Harbour American Lake Dolphin Porpoise Pacific Herring Bay Anchovy dBht Shad Sturgeon cetaceous cetaceous
R95% Ae R95% Ae R95% Ae R95% Ae R95% Ae R95% Ae 90 80 71 0.02 < 50 0.01 75 < 50 0.01 112 0.05 71 0.02 70 112 0.05 224 0.17 269 0.19 60 430 0.63 1030 3.21 971 2.87 50 2510 15.4 3900 47.9 5790 70.2 40 6730 134 12300 345 42400 2410 71 0.02
August Activity: Pipe-laying (moored)—Vessel: Castoro Sei Bottlenose Harbour American Lake dBht Dolphin Porpoise Pacific Herring Bay Anchovy Shad Sturgeon cetaceous cetaceous
R95% Ae R95% Ae R95% Ae R95% Ae R95% Ae R95% Ae 90 80 71 0.02 < 50 75 < 50 0.01 112 0.05 71 0.02 70 112 0.05 269 0.24 316 0.29 60 901 1.11 1340 3.98 1050 3.09 50 2240 8.81 3470 21.5 4090 27.2 40 5320 48.1 9200 110 20500 476 71 0.02
Version 1.0 A-11 South Stream Pipeline – Russian Sector – Underwater Sound Analysis JASCO APPLIED SCIENCES
Table A-12. Behavioural effect 95% ranges (km) and equivalent areas (km2) are tabulated for rock dumping activity at the mid-water site (S02), based on the horizontal distances from the source to modelled broadband (10–20000 Hz) maximum-over-depth sound levels, for both February and August time frames, with audiogram weighting applied for bottlenose dolphin harbour porpoise, herring, anchovy, shad, and sturgeon. February Activity: Rock dumping—Vessel: Tertnes (Van Oord) Bottlenose Harbour American Lake Dolphin Porpoise Pacific Herring Bay Anchovy dBht Shad Sturgeon cetaceous cetaceous
R95% Ae R95% Ae R95% Ae R95% Ae R95% Ae R95% Ae 90 < 50 0.01 80 71 0.02 150 0.07 75 112 0.05 269 0.25 < 50 0.01 70 224 0.17 602 1.15 71 0.02 60 1110 3.71 3150 24.8 461 0.69 50 4300 55.3 7000 144 2550 13.1 40 11700 296 18100 723 13000 325
August Activity: Rock dumping—Vessel: Tertnes (Van Oord) Bottlenose Harbour American Lake dBht Dolphin Porpoise Pacific Herring Bay Anchovy Shad Sturgeon cetaceous cetaceous
R95% Ae R95% Ae R95% Ae R95% Ae R95% Ae R95% Ae 90 < 50 0.01 80 71 0.02 150 0.07 75 112 0.05 300 0.28 < 50 0.01 70 250 0.2 886 1.07 71 0.02 60 1320 4.09 1800 7.39 500 0.7 50 3080 17.6 4830 40.8 1790 7.36 40 7320 82.7 13800 194 7390 60.5
A-12 Version 1.0 JASCO APPLIED SCIENCES South Stream Pipeline – Russian Sector – Underwater Sound Analysis
Table A-13. Behavioural effect 95% ranges (km) and equivalent areas (km2) are tabulated for anchor handling activity at the mid-water site (S02), based on the horizontal distances from the source to modelled broadband (10–20000 Hz) maximum-over-depth sound levels, for both February and August time frames, with audiogram weighting applied for bottlenose dolphin harbour porpoise, herring, anchovy, shad, and sturgeon. February Activity: Anchor handling—Vessel: Norman Neptune Bottlenose Harbour American Lake Dolphin Porpoise Pacific Herring Bay Anchovy dBht Shad Sturgeon cetaceous cetaceous
R95% Ae R95% Ae R95% Ae R95% Ae R95% Ae R95% Ae 90 80 71 0.02 75 < 50 0.01 255 0.08 70 < 50 0.01 100 0.03 391 0.44 60 180 0.11 403 0.53 1350 5.04 50 886 2.36 2660 12 6260 67.3 40 5330 77.1 9860 228 46800 2720 112 0.05
August Activity: Anchor handling—Vessel: Norman Neptune Bottlenose Harbour American Lake dBht Dolphin Porpoise Pacific Herring Bay Anchovy Shad Sturgeon cetaceous cetaceous
R95% Ae R95% Ae R95% Ae R95% Ae R95% Ae R95% Ae 90 80 < 50 0.01 75 < 50 0.01 158 0.08 70 < 50 0.01 100 0.03 354 0.39 60 180 0.11 412 0.49 1070 3.44 50 1110 2.83 1470 5.17 4450 31.8 40 2810 15.6 4730 36.5 26500 564 112 0.05
Version 1.0 A-13 South Stream Pipeline – Russian Sector – Underwater Sound Analysis JASCO APPLIED SCIENCES
Table A-14. Behavioural effect 95% ranges (km) and equivalent areas (km2) are tabulated for Support vessel activity at the mid-water site (S02), based on the horizontal distances from the source to modelled broadband (10–20000 Hz) maximum-over-depth sound levels, for both February and August time frames, with audiogram weighting applied for bottlenose dolphin harbour porpoise, herring, anchovy, shad, and sturgeon. February Activity: Support vessels—Vessel: GSP Lyra Bottlenose Harbour American Lake Dolphin Porpoise Pacific Herring Bay Anchovy dBht Shad Sturgeon cetaceous cetaceous
R95% Ae R95% Ae R95% Ae R95% Ae R95% Ae R95% Ae 90 < 50 0.01 112 0.05 80 212 0.15 500 0.82 75 453 0.67 1050 3.33 70 962 2.85 2780 15.8 60 4070 48.3 6790 132 141 0.07 50 11600 269 18100 703 680 1.45 40 27000 1440 42500 3530 4310 30.2
August Activity: Support vessels—Vessel: GSP Lyra Bottlenose Harbour American Lake dBht Dolphin Porpoise Pacific Herring Bay Anchovy Shad Sturgeon cetaceous cetaceous
R95% Ae R95% Ae R95% Ae R95% Ae R95% Ae R95% Ae 90 < 50 0.01 112 0.05 80 212 0.15 828 0.71 75 461 0.58 1250 3.76 70 1210 3.48 1510 6.55 60 2400 14.4 3870 35.8 112 0.05 50 5840 77.1 9960 156 922 1.65 40 19900 380 28600 1050 2360 9.81
A-14 Version 1.0 JASCO APPLIED SCIENCES South Stream Pipeline – Russian Sector – Underwater Sound Analysis
A.1.3. Vessels Operating at Deep Water Site (S03)
Table A-15. Behavioural effect 95% ranges (km) and equivalent areas (km2) are tabulated for the deep water site (S03) unweighted rms SPL radii for specific modelled broadband (10–20000 Hz) maximum-over-depth sound levels, for both February and August time frames, for six single-vessel activity sources. February August Support Support rms SPL Pipe-laying Support tug Pipe-laying Support tug (dB re vessels vessels 1 µPa) R95% Ae R95% Ae R95% Ae R95% Ae R95% Ae R95% Ae 180 170 160 < 50 0.01 < 50 0.01 150 158 0.09 112 0.05 112 0.05 158 0.09 112 0.05 112 0.05 140 552 1.01 427 0.6 391 0.49 608 1.24 461 0.69 427 0.6 130 4430 43.8 1320 5.79 3280 28.3 2280 17.2 1480 7.27 1580 8.25 120 34900 3140 9940 244 15200 676 11700 449 8000 208 5700 108
Version 1.0 A-15 South Stream Pipeline – Russian Sector – Underwater Sound Analysis JASCO APPLIED SCIENCES
Table A-16. Behavioural effect 95% ranges (km) and equivalent areas (km2) are tabulated for pipe- laying activity at the deep water site (S03), based on the horizontal distances from the source to modelled broadband (10–20000 Hz) maximum-over-depth sound levels, for both February and August time frames, with audiogram weighting applied for bottlenose dolphin harbour porpoise, herring, anchovy, shad, and sturgeon. February Activity: Pipe-laying—Vessels: Saipem 7000, Castorone Bottlenose Harbour American Lake Dolphin Porpoise Pacific Herring Bay Anchovy dBht Shad Sturgeon cetaceous cetaceous
R95% Ae R95% Ae R95% Ae R95% Ae R95% Ae R95% Ae 90 80 < 50 0.01 112 0.05 71 0.02 75 112 0.05 224 0.17 141 0.06 70 200 0.12 381 0.48 255 0.22 60 610 1.26 2450 8.09 814 2.21 50 3620 40.1 6430 137 6360 107 40 11100 373 21600 1510 58500 8750 112 0.05
August Activity: Pipe-laying—Vessels: Saipem 7000, Castorone Bottlenose Harbour American Lake dBht Dolphin Porpoise Pacific Herring Bay Anchovy Shad Sturgeon cetaceous cetaceous
R95% Ae R95% Ae R95% Ae R95% Ae R95% Ae R95% Ae 90 80 < 50 0.01 112 0.05 71 0.02 75 112 0.05 224 0.17 141 0.06 70 200 0.12 427 0.6 269 0.24 60 707 1.64 1450 6.99 901 2.66 50 3590 23.2 5980 53.9 2980 29.3 40 8120 129 12000 272 12900 540 112 0.05
A-16 Version 1.0 JASCO APPLIED SCIENCES South Stream Pipeline – Russian Sector – Underwater Sound Analysis
Table A-17. Behavioural effect 95% ranges (km) and equivalent areas (km2) are tabulated for support tug activity at the deep water site (S03), based on the horizontal distances from the source to modelled broadband (10–20000 Hz) maximum-over-depth sound levels, for both February and August time frames, with audiogram weighting applied for bottlenose dolphin harbour porpoise, herring, anchovy, shad, and sturgeon. February Activity: Support tug—Vessel: Norman Neptune Bottlenose Harbour American Lake Dolphin Porpoise Pacific Herring Bay Anchovy dBht Shad Sturgeon cetaceous cetaceous
R95% Ae R95% Ae R95% Ae R95% Ae R95% Ae R95% Ae 90 80 71 0.02 75 < 50 0.01 112 0.05 70 < 50 0.01 100 0.03 212 0.15 60 180 0.11 320 0.34 680 1.52 50 570 1.09 1010 3.42 2120 14.9 40 4920 68.2 9520 227 26200 1460 100 0.03
August Activity: Support tug—Vessel: Norman Neptune Bottlenose Harbour American Lake dBht Dolphin Porpoise Pacific Herring Bay Anchovy Shad Sturgeon cetaceous cetaceous
R95% Ae R95% Ae R95% Ae R95% Ae R95% Ae R95% Ae 90 80 < 50 0.01 75 < 50 0.01 112 0.05 70 < 50 0.01 71 0.02 224 0.17 60 158 0.09 320 0.34 738 1.77 50 671 1.48 1220 4.92 2360 18.4 40 4160 26.1 5990 61.8 10200 342 100 0.03
Version 1.0 A-17 South Stream Pipeline – Russian Sector – Underwater Sound Analysis JASCO APPLIED SCIENCES
Table A-18. Behavioural effect 95% ranges (km) and equivalent areas (km2) are tabulated for support vessel activity at the deep water site (S03), based on the horizontal distances from the source to modelled broadband (10–20000 Hz) maximum-over-depth sound levels, for both February and August time frames, with audiogram weighting applied for bottlenose dolphin harbour porpoise, herring, anchovy, shad, and sturgeon. February Activity: Support vessel—Vessel: GSP Lyra Bottlenose Harbour American Lake Dolphin Porpoise Pacific Herring Bay Anchovy dBht Shad Sturgeon cetaceous cetaceous
R95% Ae R95% Ae R95% Ae R95% Ae R95% Ae R95% Ae 90 < 50 0.01 112 0.05 80 206 0.14 381 0.48 75 354 0.42 673 1.5 70 618 1.27 3010 10.5 60 3620 38.7 6460 134 141 0.06 50 10900 340 18100 1010 461 0.69 40 27000 2230 42500 5630 1420 6.71
August Activity: Support vessel—Vessel: GSP Lyra Bottlenose Harbour American Lake dBht Dolphin Porpoise Pacific Herring Bay Anchovy Shad Sturgeon cetaceous cetaceous
R95% Ae R95% Ae R95% Ae R95% Ae R95% Ae R95% Ae 90 < 50 0.01 112 0.05 80 206 0.14 412 0.58 75 381 0.48 781 2.01 70 700 1.61 1370 6.18 60 2300 17.5 3710 41.8 112 0.05 50 5690 107 9240 228 515 0.89 40 13400 496 13800 560 1760 10.2
A-18 Version 1.0 JASCO APPLIED SCIENCES South Stream Pipeline – Russian Sector – Underwater Sound Analysis
A.2. Side-Scan Sonar
A.2.1. Side-Scan Sonar Operating at Shallow Water Site (S01)
Table A-19. Behavioural effect 95% ranges (km) and equivalent areas (km2) are tabulated for the shallow water site (S01) unweighted rms SPL radii, and mid- and high-frequency Type I weighting, for modelled narrowband (1 Hz at 75 kHz) maximum-over-depth sound levels, for both February and August time frames, for the Edgetech Full Spectrum Chirp side-scan sonar source. February Mid-frequency High-frequency rms SPL Unweighted (dB re Type I Type I 1 µPa) R95% Ae R95% Ae R95% Ae 180 4 0.0000785 4 0.0000785 4 0.0000785 170 74 0.000254 37 0.000154 64 0.000201 160 255 0.00166 218 0.00113 225 0.00126 150 482 0.00754 442 0.00581 449 0.00608 140 722 0.029 683 0.0232 690 0.0243 130 919 0.118 897 0.091 902 0.0951 120 976 0.461 979 0.372 977 0.387
August Mid-frequency High-frequency rms SPL Unweighted (dB re Type I Type I 1 µPa) R95% Ae R95% Ae R95% Ae 180 4 0.0000785 4 0.0000785 4 0.0000785 170 74 0.000254 37 0.000154 47 0.000201 160 262 0.00166 220 0.00113 228 0.00126 150 497 0.00785 461 0.00608 468 0.00636 140 732 0.0296 692 0.0232 699 0.0243 130 942 0.117 912 0.0908 922 0.0951 120 987 0.473 984 0.385 983 0.403
Version 1.0 A-19 South Stream Pipeline – Russian Sector – Underwater Sound Analysis JASCO APPLIED SCIENCES
A.2.2. Side-Scan Sonar Operating at Mid-Depth Water Site (S02)
Table A-20. Behavioural effect 95% ranges (km) and equivalent areas (km2) are tabulated for the mid- water site (S02) unweighted rms SPL radii, and mid- and high-frequency Type I weighting, for modelled narrowband (1 Hz at 75 kHz) maximum-over-depth sound levels, for both February and August time frames, for the Edgetech Full Spectrum Chirp side-scan sonar source. February Mid-frequency High-frequency rms SPL Unweighted (dB re Type I Type I 1 µPa) R95% Ae R95% Ae R95% Ae 180 4 0.0000785 4 0.0000785 4 0.0000785 170 62 0.000201 50 0.000201 52 0.000201 160 162 0.000908 136 0.000707 141 0.000707 150 335 0.00407 294 0.00302 298 0.00322 140 574 0.0181 535 0.0141 541 0.0150 130 791 0.0670 756 0.0539 764 0.0564 120 954 0.229 930 0.189 935 0.195
August Mid-frequency High-frequency rms SPL Unweighted (dB re Type I Type I 1 µPa) R95% Ae R95% Ae R95% Ae 180 4 0.0000785 4 0.0000785 4 0.0000785 170 65 0.000254 50 0.000201 52 0.000201 160 165 0.000908 136 0.000707 141 0.000707 150 335 0.00407 301 0.00322 308 0.00342 140 569 0.0177 528 0.0141 538 0.0145 130 873 0.0688 834 0.0547 843 0.0573 120 1010 0.229 983 0.190 991 0.196
A-20 Version 1.0 JASCO APPLIED SCIENCES South Stream Pipeline – Russian Sector – Underwater Sound Analysis
A.2.3. Side-Scan Sonar Operating at Deep Water Site (S03)
Table A-21. Behavioural effect 95% ranges (km) and equivalent areas (km2) are tabulated for the deep water site (S03) unweighted rms SPL radii, and mid- and high-frequency Type I weighting, for modelled narrowband (1 Hz at 75 kHz) maximum-over-depth sound levels, for both February and August time frames, for the Edgetech Full Spectrum Chirp side-scan sonar source. February Mid-frequency High-frequency rms SPL Unweighted (dB re Type I Type I 1 µPa) R95% Ae R95% Ae R95% Ae 180 4 0.0000785 4 0.0000785 4 0.0000785 170 37 0.000154 28 0.000113 28 0.000113 160 131 0.000616 115 0.000531 118 0.000531 150 290 0.00322 261 0.00229 266 0.00246 140 490 0.0129 451 0.0102 460 0.0106 130 713 0.0491 673 0.0394 683 0.0408 120 904 0.176 877 0.141 883 0.148
August Mid-frequency High-frequency rms SPL Unweighted (dB re Type I Type I 1 µPa) R95% Ae R95% Ae R95% Ae 180 4 0.0000785 4 0.0000785 4 0.0000785 170 37 0.000154 28 0.000113 28 0.000113 160 131 0.000616 115 0.000531 118 0.000531 150 290 0.00322 260 0.00229 266 0.00246 140 489 0.0129 450 0.00985 459 0.0106 130 712 0.0491 673 0.0387 682 0.0408 120 904 0.175 876 0.141 882 0.148
Version 1.0 A-21 South Stream Pipeline – Russian Sector – Underwater Sound Analysis JASCO APPLIED SCIENCES
A.3. Vessel Group Instantaneous Sound Field
Table A-22. Behavioural effect 95% ranges (km) and equivalent areas (km2) are tabulated for unweighted rms SPL radii for specific to modelled broadband (10–20000 Hz) maximum-over-depth sound levels, for both the February time frame, for the 10 vessel group scenarios. February
rms SPL VG01 VG02 VG03 VG04 VG05 (dB re 1 µPa) R95% Ae R95% Ae R95% Ae R95% Ae R95% Ae 180 283 283 112 700 0.01 566 0.01 170 283 283 112 700 0.01 566 0.01 160 283 283 0.01 180 0.05 700 0.01 566 0.01 150 403 0.3 361 0.18 522 0.78 702 0.1 750 0.53 140 1300 4.29 1030 2.58 1990 8.38 1000 2.98 1360 5.37 130 5320 48 3760 23.2 8440 107 4890 52.4 6160 72.3 120 23700 734 14900 280 46700 2320 31400 1630 45300 2870
February
rms SPL VG06 VG07 VG08 VG09 VG10 (dB re 1 µPa) R95% Ae R95% Ae R95% Ae R95% Ae R95% Ae 180 566 0.01 316 316 400 283 170 566 0.01 316 316 700 0.01 500 0.01 160 566 0.01 316 316 700 0.02 500 0.02 150 552 0.16 364 0.05 364 0.06 700 0.18 453 0.23 140 1020 3.12 776 1.22 765 1.25 800 1.8 820 1.86 130 5530 68 2500 16.4 3300 23.4 4500 60.4 6420 132 120 25300 1190 12900 291 17700 475 42800 4710 44300 5080
A-22 Version 1.0 JASCO APPLIED SCIENCES South Stream Pipeline – Russian Sector – Underwater Sound Analysis
Table A-23. Behavioural effect 95% ranges (km) and equivalent areas (km2) are tabulated for unweighted rms SPL radii for specific to modelled broadband (10–20000 Hz) maximum-over-depth sound levels, for both August time frame, for the 10 vessel group scenarios. August
rms SPL VG01 VG02 VG03 VG04 VG05 (dB re 1 µPa) R95% Ae R95% Ae R95% Ae R95% Ae R95% Ae 180 283 283 112 700 0.01 566 0.01 170 283 283 112 700 0.01 566 0.01 160 283 283 0.01 180 0.05 700 0.01 566 0.01 150 391 0.28 361 0.17 472 0.62 702 0.1 752 0.45 140 1150 3.26 955 2.04 1640 5.72 1040 3.05 1330 4.36 130 3660 22.3 2890 13.9 5100 40.6 2990 20.5 4300 32.6 120 10300 150 7860 90.1 12200 204 16500 270 24700 556
August
rms SPL VG06 VG07 VG08 VG09 VG10 (dB re 1 µPa) R95% Ae R95% Ae R95% Ae R95% Ae R95% Ae 180 566 0.01 316 316 400 283 170 566 0.01 316 316 700 0.01 500 0.01 160 566 0.01 316 316 700 0.02 500 0.02 150 550 0.13 381 0.05 412 0.06 700 0.17 453 0.23 140 1120 3.1 820 1.22 873 1.33 856 2.17 901 2.35 130 2770 19.3 1820 8.64 1950 10 2710 23.9 2930 28.2 120 15000 195 7780 81 8720 90.7 12300 500 12600 518
Version 1.0 A-23 South Stream Pipeline – Russian Sector – Underwater Sound Analysis JASCO APPLIED SCIENCES
A.3.1. Scenario VG01: Dredging of Microtunnel Exit Pit and Transition Trench
Table A-24. Behavioural effect 95% ranges (km) and equivalent areas (km2) are tabulated for dredging of microtunnel exit pit and transition trench activity at the shallow water site (S01), based on the horizontal distances from the source to modelled broadband (10–20000 Hz) maximum-over-depth sound levels, for both February and August time frames, with audiogram weighting applied for bottlenose dolphin harbour porpoise, herring, anchovy, shad, and sturgeon. February Activity: Dredging of microtunnel exit pit and transition trench Bottlenose Harbour American Lake Dolphin Porpoise Pacific Herring Bay Anchovy dBht Shad Sturgeon cetaceous cetaceous
R95% Ae R95% Ae R95% Ae R95% Ae R95% Ae R95% Ae 90 283 283 0.02 283 80 112 0.05 427 0.54 320 0.05 75 354 0.35 806 2.04 391 0.21 70 707 1.58 1400 5.24 604 0.92 283 60 2170 10.9 3360 23.1 2150 9.61 283 283 50 5320 52.8 7520 99.4 8820 121 283 283 283 40 14300 294 21100 671 49600 2720 361 0.17 283 283
August Activity: Dredging of microtunnel exit pit and transition trench Bottlenose Harbour American Lake dBht Dolphin Porpoise Pacific Herring Bay Anchovy Shad Sturgeon cetaceous cetaceous
R95% Ae R95% Ae R95% Ae R95% Ae R95% Ae R95% Ae 90 283 283 0.02 283 80 255 0.06 585 0.67 320 0.04 75 381 0.44 982 2.16 391 0.2 70 875 1.71 1520 5.16 552 0.76 283 60 2090 8.93 3090 18 1690 6.27 283 283 50 4430 34.5 5890 60.7 5510 46.4 283 283 283 40 8450 115 11800 202 14800 260 361 0.16 283 283
A-24 Version 1.0 JASCO APPLIED SCIENCES South Stream Pipeline – Russian Sector – Underwater Sound Analysis
A.3.2. Scenario VG02: Stationary Pipe-laying at Site 1
Table A-25. Behavioural effect 95% ranges (km) and equivalent areas (km2) are tabulated for stationary pipe-laying activity at the shallow water site (S01), based on the horizontal distances from the source to modelled broadband (10–20000 Hz) maximum-over-depth sound levels, for both February and August time frames, with audiogram weighting applied for bottlenose dolphin harbour porpoise, herring, anchovy, shad, and sturgeon. February Activity: Stationary pipe-laying at Site 1 Bottlenose Harbour American Lake Dolphin Porpoise Pacific Herring Bay Anchovy dBht Shad Sturgeon cetaceous cetaceous
R95% Ae R95% Ae R95% Ae R95% Ae R95% Ae R95% Ae 90 283 283 283 0.01 80 283 0.01 283 0.01 283 0.01 75 283 0.01 283 0.01 335 0.14 70 283 0.01 320 0.04 472 0.56 60 403 0.4 652 1.23 1660 5.94 283 50 1560 5.53 2380 12.4 6620 66.2 283 0.01 283 283 40 7030 79.9 10200 163 31900 1030 320 0.08 283 0.01 283 0.01
August Activity: Stationary pipe-laying at Site 1 Bottlenose Harbour American Lake dBht Dolphin Porpoise Pacific Herring Bay Anchovy Shad Sturgeon cetaceous cetaceous
R95% Ae R95% Ae R95% Ae R95% Ae R95% Ae R95% Ae 90 283 283 283 0.01 80 283 0.01 283 0.01 283 0.01 75 283 0.01 283 0.01 354 0.12 70 283 0.01 250 0.04 461 0.49 60 403 0.31 652 1.04 1410 4.21 283 50 1320 3.79 2060 8.45 4360 29.3 283 0.01 283 283 40 4030 26.9 5450 49.6 10900 164 320 0.07 283 0.01 283 0.01
Version 1.0 A-25 South Stream Pipeline – Russian Sector – Underwater Sound Analysis JASCO APPLIED SCIENCES
A.3.3. Scenario VG03: Pipe-laying with Active Anchor Handling at Site 1
Table A-26. Behavioural effect 95% ranges (km) and equivalent areas (km2) are tabulated for pipe- laying with active anchor handling activity at the shallow water site (S01), based on the horizontal distances from the source to modelled broadband (10–20000 Hz) maximum-over-depth sound levels, for both February and August time frames, with audiogram weighting applied for bottlenose dolphin harbour porpoise, herring, anchovy, shad, and sturgeon. February Activity: Pipe-laying with active anchor handling at Site 1 Bottlenose Harbour American Lake Dolphin Porpoise Pacific Herring Bay Anchovy dBht Shad Sturgeon cetaceous cetaceous
R95% Ae R95% Ae R95% Ae R95% Ae R95% Ae R95% Ae 90 112 112 112 80 112 150 0.01 250 0.14 75 150 0.01 200 0.05 453 0.6 70 206 0.08 335 0.3 922 2.29 112 60 850 1.84 1330 4.56 3230 18.5 112 112 50 3490 22.2 5080 46.3 13300 229 150 0.01 112 112 40 19300 438 28300 983 94100 8100 381 0.4 112 150 0.01
August Activity: Pipe-laying with active anchor handling at Site 1 Bottlenose Harbour American Lake dBht Dolphin Porpoise Pacific Herring Bay Anchovy Shad Sturgeon cetaceous cetaceous
R95% Ae R95% Ae R95% Ae R95% Ae R95% Ae R95% Ae 90 112 112 112 80 112 150 0.01 250 0.14 75 150 0.01 180 0.05 427 0.49 70 200 0.06 316 0.26 873 1.85 112 60 757 1.35 1190 3.37 2690 12.4 112 112 50 2470 11.4 3620 22.8 7490 81.6 150 0.01 112 112 40 6350 65.2 8420 110 22000 470 354 0.32 112 150 0.01
A-26 Version 1.0 JASCO APPLIED SCIENCES South Stream Pipeline – Russian Sector – Underwater Sound Analysis
A.3.4. Scenario VG04: Pipe-laying with Dynamic Positioning at Site 2
Table A-27. Behavioural effect 95% ranges (km) and equivalent areas (km2) are tabulated for pipe- laying with dynamic positioning activity at the shallow water site (S02), based on the horizontal distances from the source to modelled broadband (10–20000 Hz) maximum-over-depth sound levels, for both February and August time frames, with audiogram weighting applied for bottlenose dolphin harbour porpoise, herring, anchovy, shad, and sturgeon. February Activity: Pipe-laying with active dynamic positioning at Site 2 Bottlenose Harbour American Lake Dolphin Porpoise Pacific Herring Bay Anchovy dBht Shad Sturgeon cetaceous cetaceous
R95% Ae R95% Ae R95% Ae R95% Ae R95% Ae R95% Ae 90 700 0.01 700 0.01 700 0.01 80 700 0.01 566 0.03 700 0.02 75 700 0.02 566 0.06 702 0.08 70 566 0.06 550 0.22 652 0.79 60 636 0.97 1140 3.99 1650 7.71 700 0.01 50 2910 22.5 4370 58.9 7500 130 700 0.01 700 0.01 700 0.01 40 7750 170 15500 522 76100 7670 602 0.06 700 0.01 700 0.01
August Activity: Pipe-laying with active dynamic positioning at Site 2 Bottlenose Harbour American Lake dBht Dolphin Porpoise Pacific Herring Bay Anchovy Shad Sturgeon cetaceous cetaceous
R95% Ae R95% Ae R95% Ae R95% Ae R95% Ae R95% Ae 90 700 0.01 700 0.01 700 0.01 80 700 0.01 566 0.03 700 0.02 75 700 0.02 566 0.06 702 0.07 70 566 0.06 602 0.32 658 0.85 60 901 1.44 1390 4.35 1430 5.91 700 0.01 50 2260 10.5 3590 23.7 5420 51.1 700 0.01 700 0.01 700 0.01 40 5490 56.5 9400 127 35500 1540 602 0.06 700 0.01 700 0.01
Version 1.0 A-27 South Stream Pipeline – Russian Sector – Underwater Sound Analysis JASCO APPLIED SCIENCES
A.3.5. Scenario VG05: Pipe-laying with Anchor Handling Tugs at Site 2
Table A-28. Behavioural effect 95% ranges (km) and equivalent areas (km2) are tabulated for pipe- laying with anchor handling tugs activity at the shallow water site (S02), based on the horizontal distances from the source to modelled broadband (10–20000 Hz) maximum-over-depth sound levels, for both February and August time frames, with audiogram weighting applied for bottlenose dolphin harbour porpoise, herring, anchovy, shad, and sturgeon. February Activity: Pipe-laying with anchor handling tugs at Site 2 Bottlenose Harbour American Lake Dolphin Porpoise Pacific Herring Bay Anchovy dBht Shad Sturgeon cetaceous cetaceous
R95% Ae R95% Ae R95% Ae R95% Ae R95% Ae R95% Ae 90 566 0.01 566 0.01 566 0.01 80 566 0.01 566 0.01 552 0.05 75 566 0.01 550 0.04 652 0.32 500 70 550 0.04 600 0.14 854 1.47 500 60 658 0.63 943 2.37 2190 14.3 566 0.01 500 500 50 2380 14.2 4100 51.9 11600 217 566 0.01 566 0.01 566 0.01 40 9500 235 21000 790 96400 13800 602 0.19 566 0.01 566 0.01
August Activity: Pipe-laying with anchor handling tugs at Site 2 Bottlenose Harbour American Lake dBht Dolphin Porpoise Pacific Herring Bay Anchovy Shad Sturgeon cetaceous cetaceous
R95% Ae R95% Ae R95% Ae R95% Ae R95% Ae R95% Ae 90 566 0.01 566 0.01 566 0.01 80 566 0.01 566 0.01 550 0.03 75 566 0.01 550 0.04 652 0.28 500 70 550 0.04 600 0.11 814 1.31 500 60 667 0.69 1050 2.72 1750 8.46 566 0.01 500 500 50 1750 6.91 2450 14.6 6650 75.1 566 0.01 566 0.01 566 0.01 40 5000 47.1 8990 104 59800 3160 602 0.16 566 0.01 566 0.01
A-28 Version 1.0 JASCO APPLIED SCIENCES South Stream Pipeline – Russian Sector – Underwater Sound Analysis
A.3.6. Scenario VG06: Crew Change (Pipe-laying) at Site 2
Table A-29. Behavioural effect 95% ranges (km) and equivalent areas (km2) are tabulated for crew change (pipe-laying) activity at the shallow water site (S02), based on the horizontal distances from the source to modelled broadband (10–20000 Hz) maximum-over-depth sound levels, for both February and August time frames, with audiogram weighting applied for bottlenose dolphin harbour porpoise, herring, anchovy, shad, and sturgeon. February Activity: Crew change (pipe-laying) at Site 2 Bottlenose Harbour American Lake Dolphin Porpoise Pacific Herring Bay Anchovy dBht Shad Sturgeon cetaceous cetaceous
R95% Ae R95% Ae R95% Ae R95% Ae R95% Ae R95% Ae 90 566 0.02 500 0.06 566 0.01 80 495 0.16 721 0.84 566 0.01 75 680 0.68 1170 3.37 602 0.05 70 1090 2.9 2890 16.1 602 0.32 60 4110 48.9 6950 134 1280 5.08 566 0.01 50 11800 278 18300 722 5900 65.7 566 0.01 566 0.01 566 0.01 40 27700 1540 45000 3840 40300 2340 602 0.05 566 0.01 566 0.01
August Activity: Crew change (pipe-laying) at Site 2 Bottlenose Harbour American Lake dBht Dolphin Porpoise Pacific Herring Bay Anchovy Shad Sturgeon cetaceous cetaceous
R95% Ae R95% Ae R95% Ae R95% Ae R95% Ae R95% Ae 90 566 0.02 500 0.06 566 0.01 80 495 0.16 763 0.74 566 0.01 75 716 0.6 1480 3.8 602 0.05 70 1430 3.52 1690 6.64 610 0.31 60 2510 14.5 4030 36.3 1180 4.13 566 0.01 50 6050 78.4 10200 159 4240 31.7 566 0.01 566 0.01 566 0.01 40 20100 403 29700 1100 23100 499 602 0.05 566 0.01 566 0.01
Version 1.0 A-29 South Stream Pipeline – Russian Sector – Underwater Sound Analysis JASCO APPLIED SCIENCES
A.3.7. Scenario VG07: Dredging for Free Span Correction at Site 2
Table A-30. Behavioural effect 95% ranges (km) and equivalent areas (km2) are tabulated for dredging for free span correction activity at the shallow water site (S02), based on the horizontal distances from the source to modelled broadband (10–20000 Hz) maximum-over-depth sound levels, for both February and August time frames, with audiogram weighting applied for bottlenose dolphin harbour porpoise, herring, anchovy, shad, and sturgeon. February Activity: Dredging for free span correction at Site 2 Bottlenose Harbour American Lake Dolphin Porpoise Pacific Herring Bay Anchovy dBht Shad Sturgeon cetaceous cetaceous
R95% Ae R95% Ae R95% Ae R95% Ae R95% Ae R95% Ae 90 316 316 316 80 316 316 364 0.01 75 316 316 364 0.04 70 316 364 0.04 585 0.39 316 60 403 0.11 510 0.39 1110 3.52 316 316 50 838 1.67 1550 7.27 5390 48 316 316 316 40 4020 49.6 7340 150 32800 1390 364 0.04 316 316
August Activity: Dredging for free span correction at Site 2 Bottlenose Harbour American Lake dBht Dolphin Porpoise Pacific Herring Bay Anchovy Shad Sturgeon cetaceous cetaceous
R95% Ae R95% Ae R95% Ae R95% Ae R95% Ae R95% Ae 90 316 316 316 80 316 316 364 0.01 75 316 316 364 0.04 70 316 364 0.04 585 0.36 316 60 403 0.1 541 0.38 1180 2.77 316 316 50 1060 1.57 1600 4.92 3570 22.4 316 316 316 40 2260 11.4 3930 28.1 18500 266 364 0.04 316 316
A-30 Version 1.0 JASCO APPLIED SCIENCES South Stream Pipeline – Russian Sector – Underwater Sound Analysis
A.3.8. Scenario VG08: Rock Dumping for Cable Crossings at Site 2
Table A-31. Behavioural effect 95% ranges (km) and equivalent areas (km2) are tabulated for rock dumping for cable crossings activity at the shallow water site (S02), based on the horizontal distances from the source to modelled broadband (10–20000 Hz) maximum-over-depth sound levels, for both February and August time frames, with audiogram weighting applied for bottlenose dolphin harbour porpoise, herring, anchovy, shad, and sturgeon. February Activity: Rock dumping for cable crossings at Site 2 Bottlenose Harbour American Lake Dolphin Porpoise Pacific Herring Bay Anchovy dBht Shad Sturgeon cetaceous cetaceous
R95% Ae R95% Ae R95% Ae R95% Ae R95% Ae R95% Ae 90 316 316 0.01 316 80 316 0.02 150 0.08 364 0.01 75 112 0.05 304 0.27 364 0.04 70 292 0.19 602 1.18 585 0.34 316 60 1130 3.89 3150 26.1 1080 3.3 316 316 50 4430 58.6 7170 149 5550 54 316 316 316 40 12100 335 20900 838 35400 1790 381 0.02 316 316
August Activity: Rock dumping for cable crossings at Site 2 Bottlenose Harbour American Lake dBht Dolphin Porpoise Pacific Herring Bay Anchovy Shad Sturgeon cetaceous cetaceous
R95% Ae R95% Ae R95% Ae R95% Ae R95% Ae R95% Ae 90 316 316 0.01 316 80 316 0.02 150 0.08 364 0.01 75 112 0.05 316 0.3 364 0.04 70 292 0.22 894 1.11 585 0.34 316 60 1350 4.15 1810 7.56 1190 3 316 316 50 3120 18.3 4850 42.1 3420 21.6 316 316 316 40 7760 87.3 14700 208 18500 255 381 0.02 316 316
Version 1.0 A-31 South Stream Pipeline – Russian Sector – Underwater Sound Analysis JASCO APPLIED SCIENCES
A.3.9. Scenario VG09: Pipe-laying (J-Lay) at Site 3
Table A-32. Behavioural effect 95% ranges (km) and equivalent areas (km2) are tabulated for pipe- laying (J-Lay) activity at the shallow water site (S03), based on the horizontal distances from the source to modelled broadband (10–20000 Hz) maximum-over-depth sound levels, for both February and August time frames, with audiogram weighting applied for bottlenose dolphin harbour porpoise, herring, anchovy, shad, and sturgeon. February Activity: Pipe-laying (J-Lay) at Site 3 Bottlenose Harbour American Lake Dolphin Porpoise Pacific Herring Bay Anchovy dBht Shad Sturgeon cetaceous cetaceous
R95% Ae R95% Ae R95% Ae R95% Ae R95% Ae R95% Ae 90 700 0.01 700 0.01 700 0.01 80 700 0.02 500 0.06 500 0.04 75 500 0.06 400 0.19 702 0.12 70 403 0.16 461 0.57 600 0.46 60 667 1.45 2670 10.7 1100 3.79 700 0.01 50 3720 44.3 6580 143 9540 169 700 0.01 400 700 0.01 40 12500 506 24800 1990 72300 13600 501 0.09 700 0.01 700 0.01
August Activity: Pipe-laying (J-Lay) at Site 3 Bottlenose Harbour American Lake dBht Dolphin Porpoise Pacific Herring Bay Anchovy Shad Sturgeon cetaceous cetaceous
R95% Ae R95% Ae R95% Ae R95% Ae R95% Ae R95% Ae 90 700 0.01 700 0.01 700 0.01 80 700 0.02 500 0.06 500 0.04 75 500 0.06 403 0.19 702 0.12 70 403 0.16 474 0.68 602 0.51 60 750 1.83 1480 7.22 1200 4.48 700 0.01 50 3590 23.6 5380 58.7 3760 46.6 700 0.01 400 700 0.01 40 8120 143 12000 339 14600 698 501 0.09 700 0.01 700 0.01
A-32 Version 1.0 JASCO APPLIED SCIENCES South Stream Pipeline – Russian Sector – Underwater Sound Analysis
A.3.10. Scenario VG10: Crew Change (Pipe-laying) at Site 3
Table A-33. Behavioural effect 95% ranges (km) and equivalent areas (km2) are tabulated for crew change (pipe-laying) activity at the shallow water site (S03), based on the horizontal distances from the source to modelled broadband (10–20000 Hz) maximum-over-depth sound levels, for both February and August time frames, with audiogram weighting applied for bottlenose dolphin harbour porpoise, herring, anchovy, shad, and sturgeon. February Activity: Crew change (pipe-laying) at Site 3 Bottlenose Harbour American Lake Dolphin Porpoise Pacific Herring Bay Anchovy dBht Shad Sturgeon cetaceous cetaceous
R95% Ae R95% Ae R95% Ae R95% Ae R95% Ae R95% Ae 90 500 0.02 400 0.07 500 0.01 80 461 0.18 626 0.56 400 0.03 75 602 0.49 906 1.67 501 0.1 70 856 1.44 3040 13.9 501 0.38 60 4610 44.2 6770 146 966 2.93 500 0.01 50 12000 386 20200 1170 6510 138 500 0.01 283 500 0.01 40 29900 2650 48200 7290 63400 11000 501 0.07 500 0.01 500 0.01
August Activity: Crew change (pipe-laying) at Site 3 Bottlenose Harbour American Lake dBht Dolphin Porpoise Pacific Herring Bay Anchovy Shad Sturgeon cetaceous cetaceous
R95% Ae R95% Ae R95% Ae R95% Ae R95% Ae R95% Ae 90 500 0.02 400 0.07 500 0.01 80 461 0.18 650 0.66 400 0.03 75 632 0.56 1010 2.28 501 0.1 70 922 1.89 1570 6.81 501 0.4 60 2470 18.3 4010 50.9 1060 3.54 500 0.01 50 6090 119 9330 272 3330 36.7 500 0.01 283 500 0.01 40 13200 529 14300 605 13300 576 501 0.07 500 0.01 500 0.01
Version 1.0 A-33 South Stream Pipeline – Russian Sector – Underwater Sound Analysis JASCO APPLIED SCIENCES
A.4. Cumulative Exposure
Table A-34. Injury effect areas (km2) are tabulated for the C1 nearshore pipe-laying scenario at site S01 for 24-hour cumulative SEL exposure for unweighted, fish-weighted, and MFC and HFC Types I and II weightings, using the maximum-over-depth acoustic field calculated for the month of February.
Scenario C1: Pipe Laying at Shallow Water Site S01 Un- Fish (0.01 Type I Type I Type II Type II cSEL weighted – 2 kHz) MFC HFC MFC HFC (dB re Area Area Area Area Area Area 1 µPa2-s) (km2) (km2) (km2) (km2) (km2) (km2)) 215 0.015 0.015 n/a n/a n/a n/a 210 0.055 0.055 0.02 0.005 n/a n/a 200 0.097 0.097 0.084 0.077 n/a n/a 198 0.17 0.17 0.088 0.084 n/a n/a 190 3.95 3.6 1.36 0.81 0.048 0.012 187 6.76 6.16 3.34 2.57 0.073 0.03 180 23.8 23 12.1 9.46 0.39 0.13 172 214 203 102 74.7 2.92 1.1 170 329 313 182 141 4.18 1.69
Table A-35. Injury effect areas (km2) are tabulated for the C2 mid-water pipe-laying scenario at site S02 for 24-hour cumulative SEL exposure for unweighted, fish-weighted, and MFC and HFC Types I and II weightings, using the maximum-over-depth acoustic field calculated for the month of February.
Scenario C2: Pipe Laying at Mid-Water Site S02 Un- Fish (0.01 Type I Type I Type II Type II cSEL weighted – 2 kHz) MFC HFC MFC HFC (dB re Area Area Area Area Area Area 1 µPa2-s) (km2) (km2) (km2) (km2) (km2) (km2)) 215 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 210 0.055 0.055 0.02 0.012 n/a n/a 200 0.13 0.13 0.12 0.1 n/a n/a 198 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.12 n/a n/a 190 2.97 2.82 0.61 0.32 0.045 0.03 187 6.28 5.97 2.23 1.5 0.08 0.04 180 20.6 19.8 9.89 8.42 0.22 0.13 172 246 234 128 91 1.69 0.59 170 471 457 228 194 3.04 0.91
A-34 Version 1.0 JASCO APPLIED SCIENCES South Stream Pipeline – Russian Sector – Underwater Sound Analysis
Table A-36. Injury effect areas (km2) are tabulated for the C3 deep-water pipe-laying scenario at site S03 for 24-hour cumulative SEL exposure for unweighted, fish-weighted, and MFC and HFC Types I and II weightings, using the maximum-over-depth acoustic field calculated for the month of February.
Scenario C3: Pipe Laying at Deep Water Site S03 Un- Fish (0.01 Type I Type I Type II Type II cSEL weighted – 2 kHz) MFC HFC MFC HFC (dB re Area Area Area Area Area Area 1 µPa2-s) (km2) (km2) (km2) (km2) (km2) (km2)) 215 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 210 0.033 0.03 0.018 0.012 n/a n/a 200 0.23 0.22 0.084 0.07 n/a n/a 198 0.31 0.3 0.16 0.11 0.0075 n/a 190 1.39 1.07 0.94 0.88 0.045 0.04 187 4.63 3.91 1.78 1.63 0.06 0.045 180 14.4 13.8 10.2 8.94 0.53 0.16 172 466 431 300 219 1.83 1.34 170 1170 1100 677 574 2.48 1.65
Version 1.0 A-35