ENDANGERED SPECIES RESEARCHEndang Species Res

Vol. 30: 171–186, 2016doi: 10.3354/esr00722

Published May 31

INTRODUCTION

The US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Admin-istration (NOAA) is a steward of the nation’s oceans,with a variety of statutory mandates for conservationand management of coastal and marine ecosystems

and resources of ecological, economic, and culturalsignificance. To this end, NOAA is charged with pro-tecting the long-term health of a wide variety ofaquatic animal populations and the habitats that sup-port them, including whales, dolphins, turtles, fishes,and invertebrates. While these animals fill very dif-

Outside the USA © the Government of the United States 2016.Open Access under Creative Commons by Attribution Licence.Use, distribution and reproduction are un restricted. Authors andoriginal publication must be credited.

Publisher: Inter-Research · www.int-res.com

*Corresponding author: leila.hatch@noaa.gov

Can you hear me here? Managing acoustic habitatin US waters

Leila T. Hatch1,*, Charles M. Wahle2, Jason Gedamke3, Jolie Harrison4, Benjamin Laws4, Sue E. Moore5, John H. Stadler6, Sofie M. Van Parijs7

1Gerry E. Studds Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary, NOAA Office of National Marine Sanctuaries, 175 Edward Foster Road, Scituate, MA 02066, USA

2National Marine Protected Areas Center, NOAA Office of National Marine Sanctuaries, 99 Pacific Street, Suite 100-F, Monterey, CA 93940, USA

3Office of Science and Technology, NOAA Fisheries, 1315 East West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910, USA4Office of Protected Resources, NOAA Fisheries, 1315 East West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910, USA

5Office of Science and Technology, NOAA Fisheries, 7600 Sand Point Way NE, Seattle, WA 98115, USA6Oregon-Washington Coastal Area Office, West Coast Region, NOAA Fisheries, 510 Desmond Dr SE, Lacey, WA 98503, USA

7Northeast Fisheries Science Center, NOAA Fisheries, 166 Water Street, Woods Hole, MA 02543, USA

ABSTRACT: Many marine animals have evolved over millions of years to rely on sound as a fun-damental component of their habitat. Over the last century, increasing noise from human activitieshas significantly affected the quality of underwater acoustic habitats. These changes can lead toreduced ability to detect and interpret environmental cues used to perform critical life functions(e.g. select mates, find food, maintain group structure and relationships, avoid predators, navi-gate). The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), as the US federal agencywith primary responsibility for protecting marine animals and their habitats, is developing anagency-wide strategy that emphasizes the ocean spaces that these animals need, and the impor-tance of acoustic conditions in those places. This strategy seeks to reach beyond initial goals ofreducing acute impacts due to noise (protecting hearing and reducing physical harm) to betteraccount for the importance of underwater sound in marine ecosystems. This paper outlines sci-ence needs associated with acoustic habitat characterization and the assessment of noise impactson habitats, which provide information critical to NOAA’s prioritization of future place-basedresearch and management. NOAA’s spatial management tools are examined relative to acoustichabitat protection goals, which seek to match the ecological scales over which noise is impactingmarine wildlife, including endangered species. Recommended actions are identified to addressthese broad spatial and long temporal scales, including international work on quieting technolo-gies, registries of accumulated noisy events, and an enhanced role for NOAA’s National MarineSanctuaries in science, management, and outreach associated with acoustic habitat protection.

KEY WORDS: Habitat · Marine · Acoustic · Protected areas · Soundscape

OPENPEN ACCESSCCESS

Contribution to the Theme Section ‘21st century paradigms for measuring and managing the effects ofanthropogenic ocean noise’

Endang Species Res 30: 171–186, 2016

ferent roles in marine ecosystems, many of themshare a common and fundamental biological need:the ability to hear, produce, and respond to sound.

The purposeful use of sound for communication bymarine mammals, many fish, and a few marine inver-tebrates is well documented (reviewed by Tyack &Clark 2000, Normandeau Associates 2012, Ladich2015). For example, fin and blue whales produce low-frequency calls that are thought to play roles infinding mates, sharing food resource information, andnavigating at ocean-basin scales (Payne & Webb1971, Morano et al. 2012). In contrast, bottlenose dol-phins use higher-frequency signals to maintain socialstructure, identify individuals, and echolocate duringforaging (Janik & Slater 1998). Fish are well known toproduce loud low-frequency choruses for communi-cating with conspecifics and attracting mates (Myr-berg 1981). Cavitating bubbles produced by snappingshrimp emit sound upon their collapse that stun preyand provide a means for individuals tocommunicate with one another anddefend territories (Versluis et al. 2000).In addition, there is evidence fromboth terrestrial and marine organismsillustrating the ecological importanceof adventitious sounds: those gatheredopportunistically from the surroundinghabitat through eavesdropping ratherthan from a purposeful sender (Barberet al. 2010, Slabbekoorn et al. 2010,Radford et al. 2014).

Many animals hear and respond tofrequencies outside of those they pro-duce, underscoring the importance ofeavesdropping on other species or ofdetecting meaningful sounds made bythe physical environment. Aquaticexamples are wide ranging, includingbaleen whales responding to soundswithin frequencies used by killerwhales (e.g. Goldbogen et al. 2013);herring detecting sounds used byecholocating whales; fish and crab lar-vae using reef sounds dominated bysnapping shrimp as directional cues;sharks approaching the sounds madeby struggling prey; and surface-feed-ing fish responding to sounds of preyfalling into the water (reviewed bySlabbekoorn et al. 2010). Barber et al.(2010, p. 183) summarize a pattern thatappears broadly consistent for bothterrestrial and marine realms:

It is clear that the acoustical environment is not a collec-tion of private conversations between signaler andreceiver but an interconnected landscape of informa-tion network and adventitious sounds.

These complex and dynamic assemblages of natu-ral sounds are inherent aspects of marine habitats(Fig. 1). All of the sound present in a particular loca-tion and time, considered as a whole, comprises a‘soundscape’ (Pijanowski et al. 2011). When exam-ined from the perspective of the animals experienc-ing it, a soundscape may also be referred to as‘acoustic habitat’ (Clark et al. 2009, Moore et al.2012a, Merchant et al. 2015).

Acoustic habitats identified today are often signifi-cantly modified by noise produced by human activi-ties, and thus efforts must be made to characterizeboth their natural and altered conditions. Such activ-ities, and the resulting noise levels that they produce,are increasing throughout coastal and ocean waters

172

Fig. 1. Potential acoustically mediated information pathways (yellow dottedlines) in a marine community, including, but not limited to, purposeful com -munication between individuals, use of echolocation over distances (largeand small), eavesdropping on sounds made by other animals, detection of human activities, and identification of seafloor characteristics, all supportingbiologically important behaviors such as settlement, recruitment, feeding, migration, and reproduction. White circles and blue, green and yellow semi-circles generically represent information-gathering opportunities and sound

production, respectively

Hatch et al.: Managing acoustic habitat

in both time and distribution. There are few aquaticareas where anthropogenic noise is absent. Changesin noise conditions over time are predicted to varyconsiderably among ocean and coastal areas. Insome heavily used areas, several-fold increases inthe contribution of human noise to acoustic habitatshave been measured over just a few decades(Andrew et al. 2002, McDonald et al. 2006). Whilesome marine animals are capable of adjusting com-munication signals in the presence of noise (e.g. Holtet al. 2009, Parks et al. 2010), it is unknown whetherthese changes can transfer between generations orwhether they result in long-term fitness consequences.Relative to the life spans of marine organisms, noiselevels have seen significant growth over just a hand-ful (e.g. some fish, turtles and marine mammals) totens (e.g. some fish and invertebrates) of generations.Given this rapid increase, the potential for true evolutionary adaptation to a noisier environment islimited.

NOAA recognizes the need to develop an approachto underwater noise management that considers notonly its effects on individual animals, but also theimportance of natural sounds in the places wherethose animals live. As the world’s coasts and oceansbecome busier and noisier, NOAA will be challengedto craft and implement new management approachesthat balance the competing needs of coastal andocean resource users and natural acoustic habitats. Inthis paper, we describe key elements of an agency-wide strategy to more comprehensively managenoise impacts on acoustic habitats, including implica-tions for the science needed to assess habitat statusand noise influences. We then examine NOAA’smanagement tools and consider their application toacoustic habitat protection goals, highlighting activi-ties that are underway or could be undertaken toachieve these goals.

BROADENING NOAA’S NOISE MANAGEMENTAPPROACH

Describing acoustic habitats

The place where an animal lives is called its ‘habi-tat’ and is described by its physical and biological at-tributes, including its acoustic conditions. Under stricthabitat definitions, acoustic habitat is an attribute ofthe area surrounding individual animals; however,the concept is commonly expanded to refer to habitatas the place where multiple species occur togetherunder similar environmental conditions. A habitat

can therefore be distinguished from surrounding ha -bitats on the basis of both its species composition andits physical environmental characteristics (e.g. type ofseabed, tidal currents, salinity). An acoustic habitatcan similarly be attributed to an assemblage ofspecies that are known to collectively experience andoften contribute to a natural soundscape that is distin-guishable from surrounding soundscapes. Sound -scape measurements can be associated with aquatichabitats that have been classified using more tradi-tional data types (e.g. McWilliam & Hawkins 2013,Lillis et al. 2014). Such measurements can illustratevariance in space, time, and frequency content, de-pending on what species are present at the time ofmeasurement. For example, natural acoustic habitatswithin tropical reef areas may be heavily dominatedby the popping of snapping shrimp and will thereforediffer dramatically from those within temperate boul-der fields inhabited by the grunting and thrummingof fish such as cusk, sculpin, and cod (e.g. Rountree etal. 2006, Staaterman et al. 2013). Acoustic habitatsmay vary seasonally in association with the presenceof animals that produce sounds, whether they arefeeding, repro ducing, or simply migrating throughthe area (e.g. Moore et al. 2012b, Parks et al. 2014).Environmental sources of sound can also show strongtemporal trends, such as louder, stormier wintermonths and quieter, lower-wind summer months,contributing to large intra-annual differences in natu-ral acoustic habitats (Wenz 1962, Urick 1983). Suchnatural sources of variance must be accounted for infurther evaluating alterations of such habitats bynoise from human activities.

Although a few noise sources produce relativelyconsistent acoustic input to habitats (e.g. large com-mercial shipping), the cumulative footprint of noisefrom human activities is often dynamic. Noise madeby human activities varies widely in its frequencycontent, duration, and loudness. Consequently, an -thropogenic noise can affect acoustic habitats locallyfor brief periods of time as well as chronically overlarge areas for long durations. The characteristics ofnoise sources greatly influence the types of impactsthey may have on marine animals and their acoustichabitats. At close proximity, loud noises can result inhearing damage and other physical injury to, or evendeath of, animals. Sudden, erratic, or acute noisescan additionally be perceived as threats, leading toadverse responses, while frequent and chronic noisecan interrupt communication and disrupt the abilityto detect acoustic cues. All of these types of impactscan have viability consequences (see Fig. 3 in Francis& Barber 2013).

173

Endang Species Res 30: 171–186, 2016

Studies of fishes have quantified the negativeimpacts of noise-disrupted behavioral patterns onforaging success (Purser & Radford 2011) and preda-tor awareness (Voellmy et al. 2014, Simpson et al.2015). Effects of lost listening opportunities in noisyconditions can be assessed for specific, identifiedenvironmental, or adventitious cues of importance, ormore generally based on reduction in the volume ofspace available for acoustic detection (see Box 2 inBarber et al. 2010). Time-series data documentingchanges in noise conditions are not typically avail-able. Estimates of change in the status of acoustichabitats can incorporate contemporary noise meas-urements and predictive modeling with and withoutnoise sources, or historical measurements made inareas with similar oceanographic parameters (e.g.Hatch et al. 2012). More recently, the US NationalPark Service has been developing modeling tech-niques to predict levels of noise under different con-ditions for large areas of the continental USA, withone purpose being to gauge progress towards parksoundscape management goals (Mennitt et al. 2014).

NOAA’s tools for acoustic habitat risk assessment

The need to develop long-term recording assets inUS waters to enable full characterization of localizedacoustic habitats, and support standardized compar-isons both within habitats over time and among habi-tats of potential management interest, is well recog-nized both by NOAA and other federal agencies(Southall et al. 2009). Some places, such as Stellwa-gen Bank National Marine Sanctuary and the north-east region in general, have developed longer-termand higher-resolution monitoring efforts as a result ofestablished collaborations between NOAA scientistsand non-federal partners, relying on substantialfunding from other federal agencies (Van Parijs et al.2015b). Longer-term recordings have also beenfunded by non-NOAA federal agencies associatedwith monitoring the impacts of established noise- producing activities in acoustic habitats of interest toNOAA (e.g. off southern California and North Car-olina associated with military training ranges and inthe Alaskan Arctic associated with oil and gas explo-ration and extraction). NOAA is working with thesepartners to ensure that such data assets can supportassessments of both baseline conditions of acoustichabitats and changes in their status through time.Despite efforts to improve and increase standardizedpassive acoustic data collection, NOAA cannot listento all the places in its management charge all the

time. Sound-field modeling provides opportunitiesto characterize acoustic habitat conditions in placeswith no or limited measurements, and to explorethe predicted consequences associated with changesin the types, distributions and densities of noise- producing activities over time. NOAA has investedin the development of such modeling approacheswithin US waters at various resolutions and scales(http:// cetsound. noaa. gov/ sound_data; Fig. 2).

As NOAA looks to integrate acoustic habitat protec-tion within its science and management activities, it ishelpful to examine which tools developed to supportthe agency’s traditional, species-based noise impactevaluation processes can be leveraged to informbroader evaluation of impacts on acoustic habitats.Noise impact assessments, whether addressing directeffects to individual animals or degraded acoustichabitat, share basic science needs. Chief among themare to identify: (1) which species use or make sound(including hearing, sound production, and sensitivity);(2) the role of sound in their life histories (acousticecology and behavior); and (3) how they use their en-vironments (including their distribution and habitatsthat support biologically important activities, such asreproduction and feeding). However, NOAA’s histori-cal focus on tissue damage and behavioral responseshas underemphasized additional science needs thatwould inform understanding of the consequences ofanthropogenically altered acoustic habitats. For ex-ample, more science is needed to characterize varia-tion in the production or perception of intraspecificcommunication signals in natural areas with differentbackground noise conditions. Likewise, more scienceis needed to better document the quietest signals that

174

Fig. 2. Predicted low-frequency (one-third octave centeredat 100 Hz) average annual noise levels (equivalent, un-weighted sound pressure level in decibels re 1 μPa) at 30 mdepth, summing contributions from a variety of human activ-ities (see http://cetsound.noaa.gov/sound_data) within the US

Exclusive Economic Zone (brown lines)

Hatch et al.: Managing acoustic habitat

animals can (and do) perceive in the wild. Recent in-vestments in the development of models to interpretthe consequences of behavioral responses to noise(e.g. Population Consequences of Disturbance, SMRUConsulting 2015) have the potential to, but have yetto, address the long-term effects on the viability ofpopulations when individuals are less able to hearconspecifics, prey, predators, or key environmentalawareness cues. There is a clear need to ensure thatsuch modeling can address data-poor as well as data-rich management contexts. Tools that are beingadapted to implement ecosystem-based managementof fisheries (e.g. productivity-susceptibility analyses;Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Na-tions 2015) allow for rapid risk assessment when facedwith uncertainty regarding ecological relationships aswell as population demographics. Such techniquescould generate estimates of risk for individual popula-tions and ecosystems due to noise-altered habitat ordisplacement from habitat due to noise, and could in-tegrate risk associated with multiple threat types.

Place-based risk assessments are a particularly use-ful framework for integrating multiple data resourcesin order to inform agency decision-making. Charac-terizations of the co-occurrence of high-value targetspecies, high-value target places, and predicted andmeasured noise levels can inform agency actions atseveral scales (Erbe et al. 2014). In some cases,current passive acoustic monitoring and noise model-ing capacity may be sufficient to support NOAA’s as-signing high risk to a high-value acoustic habitat thatis currently quiet when compared to other areas, andwhere action is necessary to maintain lower noise lev-els. In other cases, high risk may be associated with ahigh-value habitat that is currently relatively loud andwhere action is necessary to reduce noise levels.Given the status of standardized long-term passiveacoustic monitoring and noise modeling capacity inUS waters today, however, available data may or maynot be sufficient to support mitigation design (i.e.identification of dominant noise contributions at vari-ous spatial, temporal, and spectral scales). NOAA’sactions to strengthen protection for high-risk acoustichabitats will therefore need to be adaptive, continuallyimproving both the design and implementation of ef-fective mitigation.

NOAA’s tools for managing acoustic habitat

Historically, NOAA has managed the impacts ofnoise on its trust resources by using legal frameworksdesigned to protect target populations and species.

These populations and species are those that societyhas determined need special care, including thosethat are endangered or threatened, and those thatare of particular ecological, cultural, or economicinterest, including all marine mammals. The Endan-gered Species Act (ESA 1973) and the Marine Mam-mal Protection Act (MMPA 1972) are the primarystatutes by which NOAA requires mitigation strate-gies and monitoring action designed to reduce oreliminate and better understand the impacts thatspecific types of noise have on this limited suite ofspecies. Under these statutes, management actionhas focused on reducing the potential for relativelyloud noise sources (e.g. airguns, sonars, pile drivers)to unambiguously injure animals or cause them torespond behaviorally over (usually) relatively smallspatial and temporal scales. This traditional ap proachhas played an important role in fulfilling NOAA’sstewardship mandates by preventing or minimizingacute harm to individual animals.

The US National Ocean Policy (US NOP; ExecutiveOrder 13547 2010), however, firmly directs federalagencies to implement ecosystem-based approachesto management. Fundamentally place-based, thesemanagement efforts seek to conserve functioning eco -systems and the services they provide. Ecosystem-based management approaches highlight the impor-tance of natural habitats and parallel additionalefforts within NOAA to focus the agency’s manymandates to protect and restore habitats. Inherent inthese policy directives is the need for NOAA to beginto address the widespread degradation of naturalacoustic habitat for a broad range of acoustically sen-sitive species due to increasing noise from accumu-lated anthropogenic sources.

The degree to which NOAA’s management toolscan be used to focus on specific habitats rangeswidely. Many, but not all, areas managed or co-man-aged by NOAA meet the national definition of a mar-ine protected area (MPA). In the US, an MPA isbroadly defined as

an area of the marine environment that has beenreserved by federal, state, territorial, tribal, or local lawsor regulations to provide lasting protection for part or allof the natural and cultural resources therein (ExecutiveOrder 13158 2000, Section 2(a)).

Covering over half the total area of the US’s Exclu-sive Economic Zone (EEZ) and occupying most habi-tat types (Table 1), US MPAs have been establishedby a variety of federal, state, and tribal agencies toprotect a diversity of species (e.g. mammals, fish, in -vertebrates, and plants), cultural resources, and nat-ural ecosystem features and processes. MPAs in the

175

Endang Species Res 30: 171–186, 2016

USA also vary widely in their conservation purposes,and in the associated level, scale, and permanence ofprotection afforded the resources they protect (Table 1,categories discussed in National Marine ProtectedAreas Center 2011). NOAA manages or co-managesonly 13% of MPAs within US waters. However, these13% represent 99% of the total area containedwithin US MPAs. This is due mainly to the existenceof many large sustainable production fishery MPAs,a few large marine mammal MPAs on the east coast,and 4 large National Marine Monuments in thePacific. While two-thirds of US MPAs have a broadecosystems conservation focus, two-thirds of NOAAMPAs focus on the conservation of specific focalresources. The remaining one-third of NOAA MPAs,including 15 sites managed by the Office of NationalMarine Sanctuaries, focus on comprehensively pro-tecting marine ecosystems. Regardless, as the mainfederal managers of large, offshore MPAs, NOAAplays a key role in shaping and executing US marinespatial protection.

A fuller understanding of how and where NOAA’sexisting spatial management tools can be used to sus-tain viable acoustic habitats will help the agency meet

and adapt to the growing threat oceannoise poses to our trust resources.NOAA’s place-based tools can gener-ally be categorized as those that areapplied by the agency to fulfill man-dates to protect specific, high-valuepopulations or species, versus thosethat are applied towards protecting ahigh-value area, including all its attrib-utes (Table 2). Here, we use the term‘high value’ to generalize the manystatute-specific definitions that areused to identify the specific popula-tions, species, and areas that NOAA ismandated to protect (e.g. endangeredor commercially important). The toolslisted here include only those withlinks to NOAA’s statutory authorities oractions. Marine National Monuments,for example, are not de facto includedin this table, as their designation underthe Antiquities Act (1906) is an act ofthe President not the Agency, and doesnot, in and of itself, provide NOAAwith additional statutory authorities tosupport management goals. That said,the NOAA National Marine FisheriesService's Marine National MonumentProgram serves to coordinate the de-

velopment of management plans, scientific explo-ration and research programs under their existing au-thorities (e.g. MMPA, ESA, and Magnuson-StevensFishery Conservation and Management Act, MS-FCMA 1996) within all 4 of the Marine National Mon-uments in the Pacific Islands Region. In addition,NOAA's Office of National Marine Sanctuaries, withauthorities under the National Marine Sanctuaries Act(NMSA 1992), has active management roles within 2Marine National Monuments, Papahanaumokuakeaand Rose Atoll.

The tools listed are not exhaustive of NOAA’s au-thorities, but provide examples of different types ofmeasures within the agency’s jurisdiction that arecurrently or could in the future be applied to addressnoise impacts on acoustic habitat. Some authoritieshave operational areas that can authorize NOAA ac-tions over very large areas, encompassing the full ge-ographic range of target populations, species, or theirhabitats. Cetacean Biologically Important Areas wereidentified for certain cetacean species throughNOAA’s CetMap program (Van Parijs et al. 2015a),and are included here despite their lack of statutoryauthority due to NOAA’s role in supporting their de-

176

All US MPAs NOAA MPAsNumber % Number %

MPA area coverage in US EEZNo. of MPAs in US EEZ 1774 — 227 13US EEZ area covered by MPAs (km2) 6.85M 55 6.78M 99

Primary conservation focus of USMPAs (no. of sites)

Natural heritage 1179 67 80 35Sustainable production 442 25 145 64Cultural heritage 153 9 2 1

Level of protection of US MPAs(no. of sites)

Uniform multiple use 1402 79 187 82Zoned multiple use 111 6 21 9Zoned with no take 35 2 6 3No take 127 7 13 6No impact 16 1 0 0No access 83 5 0 0

Ecological scale of protection(no. of sites)

Focal resource 674 38 164 72Ecosystem scale 1100 62 63 28

MPAs managed by NOAA lineoffice (no. of sites)

NOAA Fisheries 182 10 182 80National Ocean Service 45 3 45 20

Table 1. Prevalence and diversity of management approaches for all existingMarine Protected Areas (MPAs) in US Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) waters,as well as National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)-

managed or co-managed areas

Hatch et al.: Managing acoustic habitat 177

Ob

ject

ive

of N

OA

A’s

NO

AA

exa

mp

les

NO

AA

Sp

atia

l sc

ale

T

emp

oral

sca

le

E

co-

R

ole

for

NO

AA

Rol

e fo

r N

OA

A a

cou

stic

pla

ce-b

ased

sta

tuto

ry

s

yste

m?

aco

ust

ic h

abit

at

hab

itat

man

agem

ent

man

agem

ent

auth

orit

ies

sc

ien

ce

Mea

sure

s ai

med

at

En

dan

ger

ed S

pec

ies

MM

PA

; ES

A

Geo

gra

ph

ic r

ang

e of

L

ong

-ter

m

No

Can

req

uir

e

Cou

ld i

nfl

uen

ce w

ide-

pro

tect

ing

aq

uat

ic

Rec

over

y P

lan

an

d M

arin

e

sp

ecie

s in

clu

din

g

m

onit

orin

g

ra

ng

ing

noi

se m

itig

atio

nan

imal

pop

ula

tion

s

M

amm

al C

onse

rvat

ion

e

very

thin

g b

ut

fore

ign

by

mu

ltip

le U

S a

gen

cies

or s

pec

ies

of h

igh

P

lan

act

ion

are

as

terr

itor

ial

wat

ers

a

nd

in

tern

atio

nal

lyva

lue

Fis

her

y M

anag

emen

t

MS

FC

MA

Geo

gra

ph

ic r

ang

e of

L

ong

-ter

m

Noa

Cou

ld r

equ

ire

(e.

g. q

uie

tin

g d

esig

n

P

lan

act

ion

are

as

spec

ies

incl

ud

ing

US

mon

itor

ing

imp

lem

enta

tion

)

riv

ers

and

est

uar

ies,

coa

sts,

con

tin

enta

l

s

hel

f, a

nd

EE

Z

E

ssen

tial

Fis

h H

abit

at

MS

FC

MA

Geo

gra

ph

ic r

ang

e of

V

aria

ble

: lon

g-t

erm

No

Can

rec

omm

end

sp

ecie

s in

clu

din

g U

S

(pla

nn

ing

) an

d

mon

itor

ing

riv

ers

and

est

uar

ies,

p

roje

ct-b

y-p

roje

ct

c

oast

s, c

onti

nen

tal

(in

tera

gen

cy

s

hel

f, a

nd

EE

Z

c

onsu

ltat

ion

)

I

nci

den

tal

Tak

e A

uth

ori-

MM

PA

; ES

A

Var

iab

le p

roje

ct-b

y-

Var

iab

le: l

ong

-ter

m

N

o

M

ust

req

uir

e

Can

req

uir

e m

ostl

y su

b-

z

atio

n m

itig

atio

n z

ones

;

pro

ject

, mos

tly

sub

-

(so

me

con

sult

atio

n);

mon

itor

ing

reg

ion

al s

cale

, sh

ort-

term

i

nte

rag

ency

con

sult

atio

n

r

egio

nal

; eve

ryth

ing

s

hor

t-te

rm (

mos

t

m

itig

atio

n

act

ion

are

as

bu

t fo

reig

n t

erri

tori

al

con

sult

atio

n a

nd

all

wat

ers

p

erm

itti

ng

)

C

etac

ean

Bio

log

ical

ly

Var

iou

s:

Var

iab

le; s

ub

-reg

ion

al;

T

BD

No

Cou

ld i

nfl

uen

ce

Cou

ld i

nfl

uen

ce r

egio

nal

-

Im

por

tan

t A

reas

MM

PA

, ES

A,

US

riv

ers

and

est

uar

ies,

re

gio

nal

-sca

le

s

cale

lon

g-t

erm

(

Cet

Map

)

N

MS

A,

coas

ts, c

onti

nen

tal

l

ong

-ter

m

m

itig

atio

n

CZ

MA

, etc

.

sh

elf,

an

d E

EZ

mon

itor

ing

E

nd

ang

ered

Sp

ecie

s’

E

SA

Var

iab

le; s

ub

-reg

ion

al;

V

aria

ble

: lon

g-t

erm

No

Can

req

uir

e

Can

req

uir

e sh

ort-

term

C

riti

cal

Hab

itat

US

riv

ers

and

est

uar

ies,

(

pla

nn

ing

) an

d p

roje

ct-

mon

itor

ing

(mos

t co

nsu

ltat

ion

) an

d

c

oast

s, c

onti

nen

tal

by-

pro

ject

infl

uen

ce l

ong

-ter

m (

som

e

s

hel

f, a

nd

EE

Z

(

inte

rag

ency

con

sult

atio

n, p

lan

nin

g)

c

onsu

ltat

ion

s)

m

itig

atio

n

H

abit

at A

reas

of

MS

FC

MA

Var

iab

le; s

ub

-reg

ion

al;

V

aria

ble

: lon

g-t

erm

No

Can

rec

omm

end

C

an r

ecom

men

d n

oise

P

arti

cula

r C

once

rn

U

S r

iver

s an

d e

stu

arie

s,

(p

lan

nin

g)

and

pro

ject

-

m

onit

orin

g

m

itig

atio

n

(E

ssen

tial

Fis

h H

abit

at)

c

oast

s, c

onti

nen

tal

by-

pro

ject

(in

tera

gen

cy

s

hel

f, a

nd

EE

Z

c

onsu

ltat

ion

s)

F

ish

an

d W

ild

life

Coo

rdi-

F

WC

A, F

PA

N

atu

ral

stre

ams

and

in

-

Pro

ject

-by-

pro

ject

N

o

C

ould

in

flu

ence

C

ould

in

flu

ence

con

sid

er-

n

atio

n A

ct a

nd

Fed

eral

l

and

bod

ies

of w

ater

co

nsi

der

atio

n o

f

atio

n o

f m

itig

atio

n b

y

Pow

er A

ct a

ctio

n a

reas

u

sed

by

mig

rato

ry, e

stu

-

m

onit

orin

g b

y ot

her

d

irec

ted

fed

eral

ari

ne,

an

d m

arin

e fi

shes

fe

der

al a

gen

cies

b

ag

enci

esb

A

nad

rom

ous

Fis

h C

onse

r-

AF

CA

G

reat

Lak

es a

nd

Lak

e

L

ong

-ter

m

No

Cou

ld i

nfl

uen

ce

Cou

ld i

nfl

uen

ce c

onsi

der

-

vat

ion

Act

C

ham

pla

in (

Col

um

bia

con

sid

erat

ion

of

at

ion

of

noi

se m

itig

atio

n

act

ion

are

as

Riv

er B

asin

) st

ream

s

n

oise

mon

itor

ing

by

stat

es

u

sed

by

spaw

nin

g f

ish

b

y st

ates

F

ish

ery

Com

mu

nit

y B

ased

M

SF

CM

A

U

S r

iver

s or

est

uar

ies

Lon

g-t

erm

N

o

C

ould

in

flu

ence

C

ould

in

flu

ence

R

esto

rati

on P

rog

ram

u

sed

by

spaw

nin

g a

na-

m

onit

orin

g

m

itig

atio

n

act

ion

are

as

dro

mou

s fi

sh s

pec

ies

Tab

le 2

. E

xam

ple

s of

pla

ce-b

ased

too

ls t

hat

th

e N

atio

nal

Oce

anog

rap

hic

an

d A

tmos

ph

eric

Ad

min

istr

atio

n (

NO

AA

) is

or

cou

ld b

e ap

ply

ing

to

acou

stic

hab

itat

sci

ence

an

dm

anag

emen

t g

oals

, ass

esse

d r

elat

ive

to t

hei

r st

atu

tory

au

thor

itie

s, s

cop

es (

spat

ial,

tem

por

al, a

nd

eco

log

ical

), a

nd

ou

tcom

es. M

MP

A: M

arin

e M

amm

al P

rote

ctio

n A

ct (

1992

);E

SA

: E

nd

ang

ered

Sp

ecie

s A

ct (

1973

); M

SF

CM

A:

Mag

nu

sen

-Ste

ven

s F

ish

ery

Con

serv

atio

n a

nd

Man

agem

ent

Act

(19

96);

NM

SA

: N

atio

nal

Mar

ine

San

ctu

arie

s A

ct (

1992

);C

ZM

A: C

oast

al Z

one

Man

agem

ent A

ct (1

972)

; FW

CA

: Fis

h a

nd

Wil

dli

fe C

oord

inat

ion

Act

(193

4); F

PA

: Fed

eral

Pow

er A

ct (1

920)

; AF

CA

: An

adro

mou

s F

ish

Con

serv

atio

n A

ct

(196

5); O

PA

: Oil

Pol

uti

on A

ct (

1990

); C

RC

A: C

oral

Ree

f C

onse

rvat

ion

Act

(20

00);

EE

Z: E

xclu

sive

Eco

nom

ic Z

one;

TB

D: t

o b

e d

eter

min

ed; N

A: n

ot a

pp

lica

ble

Endang Species Res 30: 171–186, 2016178

Ob

ject

ive

of N

OA

A’s

NO

AA

exa

mp

les

Rel

evan

t

Sp

atia

l sc

ale

T

emp

oral

sca

le

E

co-

R

ole

for

NO

AA

Rol

e fo

r N

OA

A a

cou

stic

pla

ce-b

ased

NO

AA

s

yste

m?

aco

ust

ic h

abit

at

hab

itat

man

agem

ent

man

agem

ent

stat

uto

ry

sc

ien

ce

au

thor

itie

s

Mea

sure

s ai

med

at

Reg

ion

al M

arin

e P

lan

nin

g

Var

iou

s:

Eig

ht

US

reg

ion

s th

at i

n-

Lon

g-t

erm

Y

es

N

A—

not

yet

NA

—n

ot y

et e

stab

lish

edp

rote

ctin

g a

qu

atic

a

reas

M

MP

A, E

SA

, c

lud

e te

rrit

oria

l se

a, E

EZ

,

est

abli

shed

area

s of

hig

h v

alu

e

NM

SA

,

an

d c

onti

nen

tal

shel

f

MS

FC

MA

,

la

nd

war

d o

f m

ean

hig

h-

C

ZM

A, e

tc.

w

ater

lin

e, i

nla

nd

bay

s,

a

nd

est

uar

ies

(ad

dit

ion

al

i

nla

nd

wat

erw

ays

TB

D)

H

abit

at B

luep

rin

t F

ocal

Var

iou

s:

Bou

nd

arie

s of

L

ong

-ter

m

Yes

NA

—p

lan

nin

g

NA

—p

lan

nin

g p

has

e

Are

as

M

MP

A, E

SA

, d

esig

nat

ed s

ites

p

has

e; c

ould

N

MS

A,

(th

oug

h s

erve

s to

coo

r-

in

flu

ence

M

SF

CM

A,

din

ate

acti

viti

es w

ith

mon

itor

ing

pla

ns

C

ZM

A, e

tc.

a

dja

cen

t/in

flu

enci

ng

are

as)

N

atio

nal

Res

ourc

e

OP

A

A

reas

wh

ere

NO

AA

-

I

nci

den

t sp

ecif

ic

Y

es

C

ould

in

flu

ence

C

ould

in

flu

ence

D

amag

e A

sses

smen

t

m

anag

ed r

esou

rces

an

d

mon

itor

ing

mit

igat

ion

a

ctio

n a

reas

t

he

serv

ices

th

ey p

rovi

de

are

dam

aged

by

rele

ase

of

oil

or o

ther

haz

ard

ous

su

bst

ance

s

C

oral

Ree

f C

onse

rvat

ion

CR

CA

U

S j

uri

sdic

tion

s an

d

Lon

g-t

erm

Y

es

C

ould

in

flu

ence

C

ould

in

flu

ence

P

rog

ram

act

ion

are

a

wat

ers

wit

h s

hal

low

-

m

onit

orin

g

m

itig

atio

n

w

ater

cor

al r

eefs

C

oast

al Z

one

CZ

MA

All

ter

rito

rial

US

L

ong

-ter

m (

enh

ance

Y

es

C

an i

nfl

uen

ce c

on-

C

an i

nfl

uen

ce c

onsi

der

a-

Man

agem

ent

Pla

nn

ing

w

ater

s an

d a

dja

cen

t

men

t p

rog

ram

s);

s

ider

atio

n o

f

tion

of

mit

igat

ion

by

stat

es

are

as

lan

d a

reas

p

roje

ct-b

y-p

roje

ct

mon

itor

ing

(

fed

eral

con

sist

ency

)

by

stat

es

N

atio

nal

Est

uar

ine

C

ZM

A

B

oun

dar

ies

of

Lon

g-t

erm

Y

es

C

ould

in

flu

ence

C

ould

in

flu

ence

con

sid

er-

R

esea

rch

Res

erve

s

d

esig

nat

ed s

ites

c

onsi

der

atio

n o

f

atio

n o

f m

onit

orin

g b

y si

te

m

onit

orin

g b

y si

te

l

ead

(st

ate

or u

niv

ersi

ty)

lea

d (

stat

e or

u

niv

ersi

ty)

N

atio

nal

Mar

ine

NM

SA

Bou

nd

arie

s of

des

ig-

L

ong

-ter

m (

man

age-

Y

es

C

ould

req

uir

e (p

er

Cou

ld r

equ

ire

(per

mit

-

San

ctu

arie

s

n

ated

sit

es (

bu

t in

clu

d-

m

ent

pla

nn

ing

); p

roje

ct-

m

itti

ng

) an

d c

an

tin

g)

and

can

rec

omm

end

in

g a

ctiv

itie

s oc

curr

ing

by-

pro

ject

(p

erm

itti

ng

re

com

men

d

(p

lan

nin

g, c

onsu

ltat

ion

)

o

uts

ide

site

s th

at c

ause

of p

roh

ibit

ed a

ctiv

itie

s

(

pla

nn

ing

, con

sult

-

mit

igat

ion

in

jury

wit

hin

sit

es)

and

in

tera

gen

cy

a

tion

) m

onit

orin

g

con

sult

atio

n)

a Pla

ns

in p

roce

ss h

ave

ecos

yste

m f

ocu

s; b

US

Fis

h a

nd

Wil

dli

fe S

ervi

ce, U

S A

rmy

Cor

ps

of E

ng

inee

rs, a

nd

Fed

eral

En

erg

y R

egu

lato

ry C

omm

issi

on

Tab

le 2

(co

nti

nu

ed)

Hatch et al.: Managing acoustic habitat

velopment and their direct link to NOAA’s noise im-pact assessment activities. Similarly, several newtools that support increasing attention by the agencyto ecosystem-based management are listed in thetable. Although many are in early stages of develop-ment and are not accompanied by new statutory au-thorities, they represent promising new mechanismsfor focusing agency attention towards restoration orenhanced protection of high-value aquatic places(e.g. Habitat Blueprint Focal Areas, NOAA Fisheries2015a; Important Ecological Areas, Northeast Re-gional Planning Body 2015). Finally, several tools thatauthorize NOAA to provide technical expertise toother state or federal decision-making processes arelisted, due to the roles that such influence could playin broadening the scope of NOAA’s direct actions.

Scales of applicability (spatial, temporal, and eco-logical) are considered for each tool, in order to ex-amine their limitations and strengths for addressingacoustic habitat management goals. Potential noisemanagement outcomes are classified generally as in-fluencing either mitigation or monitoring of noise ex-posure for target taxa or areas. Mitigation includesactions taken to reduce the occurrence of noise im-pacts. Here, monitoring specifically ad dresses meas-urements taken during noise-producing activities (re-quired of those promoting the activity) in order toevaluate potential for impact that may or may not oc-cur, and the information gained can in form futuremanagement decisions. In addition, NOAA has a va-riety of statutory mandates that support the agency’sown need to monitor noise impacts on the popula-tions, species, and areas it manages. Those measuresare not listed here, nor are more general National En-vironmental Policy Act (NEPA 1969) mandates thatdirect all federal agencies to evaluate environmentalimpacts of proposed activities, including noise im -pacts, to trust resources. These self-directed mandatescan be used to strengthen the agency’s actions to-wards acoustic habitat management priorities.

THE PATH FORWARD

NOAA has embarked on a path to better understandthe importance of sound in marine ecosystems, and tomore effectively manage anthropogenic threats toacoustic habitats using both current and augmentedtools. Growing threats from noise to acoustically sen-sitive species coupled with limited agency resourcesneeded to address these challenges, suggest a need tosimultaneously move forward aggressively whilemaking clear strategic decisions about where and

how to prioritize those efforts in the coming years.While specific decisions in the future will be influ-enced by many factors, the following actions seek tomatch the broad spatial and long temporal ecologicalscales over which noise is impacting acoustic habitats.

Create and support international initiatives toreduce influence from distant noise sources

NOAA acknowledges that addressing chronic noiseconditions within some acoustic habitats of concernwill necessitate management action that can reducenoise exposure over very large spatial scales (Mc-Carthy 2004, Hatch & Fristrup 2009). Drivers for wide-ranging mitigation solutions stem from both presumedspecies-specific communication ranges (e.g. fin andblue whales) and documented propagation distancesfor low-frequency noise sources (e.g. seismic airgunsand ships). Distant sources of noise will have differen-tial impacts within acoustic habitats of interest. Ingeneral, deep-water habitats at northern hemispheremid-latitudes or in highly trafficked seas are likely tobe significantly influenced by wide-ranging noisesources (National Research Council of the US NationalAcademies 2003). Additionally, many highly migra-tory populations of endangered baleen whales areknown to produce low-frequency calls and songsthroug hout most of their ranges (e.g. Charif et al.2001, Oleson et al. 2014). Acoustic con ditions could beconsidered relevant to these species wherever theyoccur. NOAA’s authorities for ad dressing range-widethreats to target populations and listed species oftenexplicitly recognize and direct multilateral approaches(e.g. endangered species recovery planning). Suchdrivers provide important mechanisms for the agencyto engage in long-term, international efforts to reducechronic noise influence, in addition to more nationallyfo cused activities.

Efforts to recover, restore, and ensure sustainableharvest of species over large ranges identify keypartnerships with other agencies and countries, andindustries, with direct mechanisms to influence im -plementation of quieting programs. NOAA has pro-vided such leadership in efforts to develop technicalguidelines to reduce noise from commercial shipsthrough the United Nations’ International MaritimeOrganization. In partnership with the US CoastGuard, NOAA supported the US’s chairing of theseefforts beginning in 2008, with successful passage ofguidelines in 2014 (International Maritime Organiza-tion 2014). NOAA continues to work with inter-agency and non-governmental partners to support

179

Endang Species Res 30: 171–186, 2016

international implementation of these guidelines.Key next steps include pilot programs for select ship-ping companies and, ideally, select ports, with inter-ests in supporting ‘green ship’ development, inwhich new ships are built or existing ships are modi-fied to include quieting in design and operationalgoals. Pilot programs would evaluate time horizonsfor cost recovery (e.g. via increased fuel efficiency,reduced maintenance), consider integration of quiet-ing goals with other environmental protection goalsincluded in green ship design projects, and developmonitoring and docking incentives associated withparticipating ports.

NOAA has been less directly engaged in inter -national efforts to encourage the development of qui-eter technologies to modify or replace other domi-nant low-frequency noise sources, like airguns, otherseismic sources, pile-driving activities, and vesseldynamic positioning systems that are used in a widevariety of offshore energy development phases(e.g. exploration, platform construction, extraction/generation). For such sources, NOAA’s current regu-lation and consultation activity to ad dress physicaland behavioral effects due to acute noise exposurefocuses on noise-reduction techniques to reducepeak pressures or short-term (e.g. 1 d) accumulatedenergy experienced by animals swimming nearby(e.g. some pile-driving sound-attenuation techniques).Broadening such designs to address lost listeningopportunities over larger spatial and longer temporalscales will necessitate setting of engineering targetsthat reference biological effects at those scales.Longer-term effect targets are emerging from model-ing the population-level consequences of displacingharbor porpoises from their habitat in the North Seaas a result of regional wind farm development (SMRUConsulting 2015). However, effect targets assessedvia modeling of consequences mediated through fullecosystems are also important, to ensure that spe-cies-specific noise optimizations benefit habitat con-ditions more holistically. Many of the companies con-ducting noise-producing activities in support ofoffshore energy exploration and production haveincreased their investment in quieting technologies,recognizing that quieter alternatives would be en -vironmentally preferable and would reduce the com-plexity of operating within highly variable interna-tional regulatory constraints. For example, a widerange of international oil companies and the Interna-tional Association of Geophysical Contractors con-tinue to invest in the development of marine vibro-seis technology as an alternative to airgun technologyfor use in seismic data acquisition (E&P Sound &

Marine Life Joint Industry Programme: www.soundandmarinelife.org).

Improve and apply national tools to reduce cumulative impacts

Given the increasing number of noise producersseeking permits from NOAA to authorize impacts,there is a need to address the implications of accu-mulated exposure to acoustic habitats. This need isnot isolated to noise among environmental stressors,nor to the USA alone. Tools to address cumulative,multi-source effects over wider spatial scales areemerging in the European Union associated with theimplementation of the Marine Strategy FrameworkDirective (EU MSFD). The EU MSFD defines its ob -jective, Good Environmental Status, to include therequirement that ‘Introduction of energy (includingunderwater noise) does not adversely affect the ecosystem’ (EU MSFD 2008). Regional registries ofnoise-producing events, developed by individualcountries (e.g. UK and The Netherlands) but withhigh levels of multi-lateral collaboration, are beingused to characterize contributions to national andregional noise budgets. Importantly, these registriescollect information regarding nationally permittednoisy activities both at the times they are proposedand then again after they are completed. Such reg-istries thus allow European countries with collective,regional interest in regulating noise to describe rela-tive, actualized noise contributions to localizedacoustic habitats of concern. Noise predictions basedon registered events can be compared to monitoringdata to estimate remaining contributions from non-registered source types.

A geospatially explicit registry of all federally au -thorized (i.e. NOAA permitted and/or requiring non-NOAA federal action) noise-producing events in USwaters would inform many facets of NOAA’s activi-ties to address cumulative noise impacts on high-riskacoustic habitats. In parallel with EU MSFD efforts,such a registry would inform NOAA’s role in imple-menting the US National Ocean Policy. The USNational Ocean Policy encourages Regional MarinePlanning as

a science-based tool that regions can use to addressspecific ocean management challenges and advancetheir economic development and conservation objec-tives (National Ocean Council 2013a, p. 21).

Regional Marine Planning Bodies have been estab-lished in several US regions, with the northeast andmid-Atlantic regions the furthest advanced towards

180

Hatch et al.: Managing acoustic habitat

finalization of Regional Marine Plans. SeveralRegional Planning Bodies (as well as similar regionalcollaboratives) have invested in mapping coastal andoffshore human use patterns as critical information toinform discussions of compatibility among uses andto achieve ecosystem protection goals. Some noise-producing activities are likely well captured by cur-rent mapping initiatives, including the likely influ-ence of ocean-going (e.g. cargo, tanker) and somemore localized commercial (e.g. fishing, ferries, tug-tow) and recreational (e.g. fishing, pleasure) vesselson regional acoustic habitats (e.g. SoundMap, http://cetsound. noaa. gov/ sound_ data). Others are capturedin more generalized and often low-resolution pro-jected terms, including levels of expected activitywithin boundaries of lease blocks for energy devel-opment or ranges for military activities. Higher-reso-lution information describing actualized activity lev-els evaluated after they oc curred would significantlyimprove place-based characterization of noise contri-butions in areas with high federal authorizationactivity.

In other areas, improving noise estimates will de -mand approaches that account for activity types thatare not federally authorized. In particular, noise innearshore waters can be influenced by a diversity ofhuman activities that may or may not require local,state, tribal, or federal authorizations, including off-shore communication and energy installations, portand harbor operations, maintenance of bridges andwaterways, pleasure craft, and even onshore roadtraffic. Inshore areas are often of high concern forenvironmental management (Table 2), as they sup-port biologically important (and often acousticallysensitive) reproductive and early life stage behav-iors for a wide range of aquatic taxa, includinginvertebrates, fish, and mammals. Measurements ofcoastal noise levels are increasingly collected bynearshore monitoring efforts, although they dispro-portionately sample locations and time periods thatcontain noisy events and are often not regionallycentralized. A new land-based modeling techniquewould, however, leverage the increasing quantityand spatial coverage of coastal noise measurementdata and shows great promise for improving theaccuracy and accessibility of noise predictions overlarge scales. This technique has been applied torelate well-distributed noise measurement data togeospatial datasets that de scribe key anthropogenic,biological, and geophysical predictors of noise, gen-erating maps of noise levels that span the US conti-nental states (Mennitt et al. 2014, www. nature. nps.gov/ sound/ soundmap. cfm). Although necessitating

continual improvements in noise measurement data-bases, this technique re duces reliance on high-reso-lution descriptions of noisy activities. Such regionalto coast-wide noise predictions would improve rep-resentations of cumulative conditions within bothCoastal Zone Management and Regional MarinePlans. States with ap proved Coastal Zone Manage-ment Plans can then determine whether federalactions or permits associated with proposed activi-ties are consistent with the enforceable policies oftheir plans (Coastal Zone Management Act 1972,see Table 2). While Regional Marine Plans may notexplicitly seek to reduce accumulated noise impactswithin high-risk acoustic habitats, such an outcomeis inherent to planning ob jectives that seek to re -duce regulatory burdens for both NOAA and thosepromoting noise-producing activities by improvinginformation regarding place-based cross-sectoraland environmental compatibility (National OceanCouncil 2013b).

Marine planning seeks to augment statutorily di -rected consultation and environmental impact as -sessment processes that are standardly used toaddress noise impacts (Table 2). Registries of feder-ally permitted noise-producing events would allowNOAA, in concert with long-term monitoring capa-bilities, to guide project-specific consultation activityunder the ESA, NMSA and MSFCMA towards longer-term mitigation designs to address noise sources thatare identified as being dominant contributors to bothaccumulated acute and chronic noise in high-riskacoustic habitats. In addition, ‘programmatic’ NEPAevaluations and consultations are increasingly beingperformed by agencies with direct regulatory re -sponsibility for noise-producing activities (Councilon Environmental Quality 2014), often in partnershipwith NOAA. These actions seek to assess implica-tions for populations, species, and places over regionsand multi-regions and over mul ti-year time periods.Cooperative evaluation of environmental conse-quences, including noise consequences, of longer-term and wider-ranging activity is improving inter -agency information sharing and supporting thedevelopment of new tools to support risk assessmentat these scales. Such tools would benefit from inter -agency cooperation to generate and contribute toregistries of noisy events, particularly to improveinformation regarding actualized versus proposedactivity profiles. Programmatic impact as sessmentsand consultations also have the potential to improvecharacterization of noise budgets within acoustichabitats of management concern through longer-term monitoring requirements.

181

Endang Species Res 30: 171–186, 2016

Finally, improved characterizations of accumulatednoisy activity would support NOAA’s decisions re -garding use of the agency’s statutory authorities tostrengthen localized protection for acoustic habitats.NOAA has applied its generalized authorities underthe MMPA and ESA (Table 2) to regulate ship speedsin areas and during time periods when risks of colli-sion with North Atlantic right whales are heightened.These regulations thus applied range-wide authori-ties to direct long-term, though more spatially re -stricted, mitigation in targeted areas. Monitoring re-quired to support this action has in turn supportedbetter understanding of collision risk, as well asmeasuring compliance and informing enforcementactions as necessary. Such generalized authorities areavailable to the agency within several statutes, andprovide opportunity for establishing long-term miti-gation (e.g. seasonal or year-round exclusion or re-duction in noisy activity levels, use of quieter technol-ogy) in a high-risk acoustic habitat. Such actionsmust be supported by a needs analysis documentingthe detrimental (although mostly sub-lethal) conse-quences of the noise source(s) that will be mitigated,on targeted NOAA-managed resource(s), includedin the ‘basis and purpose’ of the rulemaking. In addi-tion, NOAA’s support for the development of Ce -tacean Biologically Important Areas has identifiedplaces, additional to those defined as critical for ESA-listed species, to inform management action acrossthe many permitting and consultation actions cur-rently being taken to address noise impacts on thesespecies. Just as these areas will be modified in the fu-ture to reflect additional scientific information, theirapplication to management actions should be evaluatedover time to determine whether they are effective inenhancing the condition of the acoustic habitats theycontain. Long-term monitoring within biologicallyimportant areas and critical habitats associated withhighly vulnerable and acoustically sensitive cetaceanpopulations (e.g. southern resident killer whales,North Atlantic right whales, Cook Inlet beluga whales)will be critical to establishing baselines for assessingsuccess of multi-action mitigation, and determiningwhether existing or additional place-based manage-ment authorities are or would be effective.

Realize the potential of National MarineSanctuaries

The activities discussed above seek to addresswide-ranging, repeated, and long-term noise expo-sure by leveraging NOAA’s species- and habitat-

specific authorities to achieve noise reduction bene-fits within acoustic habitats where target species co-exist with many other acoustically sensitive andactive species. They also seek to interface with eco-system-protection frameworks such as NOAA’sHabitat Blueprint effort and the US NOP. NationalMarine Sanctuaries, however, represent key NOAAassets to achieve the ecological goals of acoustichabitat protection, due to their mandate to protectwhole and functioning natural ecosystems (Table 2).Given the importance of sound to survivorship andwell-being of diverse marine species and ecosys-tems, this ecosystem protection mandate extends toecologically important environmental characteristicslike sound and thus to the maintenance or restorationof viable acoustic habitats for a range of acousticallysensitive species that inhabit sanctuaries. Preserving,restoring, and maintaining natural acoustic habitatswithin sanctuaries is a complex endeavor, involvingthe development of new scientific capabilities, new management measures and processes, and outreachprograms.

Currently, only 4 National Marine Sanctuaries(Stellwagen Bank, Olympic Coast, Cordell Bank, andChannel Islands) are operating long-term passiveacoustic monitoring systems. Other sites do so peri-odically or are developing longer-term soundscaperesearch programs in partnership with academicinstitutions. The Office of National Marine Sanctuar-ies is seeking to enhance these capabilities in collab-oration with NOAA’s Pacific Marine EnvironmentalLaboratory, NOAA Fisheries, and the US NationalPark Service (NPS) through the development of theNOAA Noise Reference Station Network (NOAAFisheries 2015b). The maturation of the NaturalSounds and Night Skies Division within the NPS hasshowcased the importance of developing system-wide, standardized, calibrated, and long-term noisemeasurement capability to support site-based butcoordinated noise management objectives (Hatch &Fristrup 2009). At Stellwagen Bank National MarineSanctuary, where passive acoustic monitoring hasmore longevity, higher-resolution research focuseson characterizing acoustic variability among differ-ent habitat types, continuing to document species-specific acoustic behaviors, and identifying environ-mental signals of relevance to sanctuary species.

While management of acoustic habitats in pro-tected areas, both terrestrial and aquatic, is relativelynew to environmental protection activity, NationalParks have been operating under defined sound-scape management regulations for over a decade(NPS 2000, 2006). Key lessons have emerged that

182

Hatch et al.: Managing acoustic habitat

should be taken into account as National MarineSanctuaries seek to digest acoustic habitat status andtrend information in order to characterize effects andestablish objectives for threat reduction. The devel-opment of metrics is a controversial step in environ-mental threat management. Both NOAA and NPShave learned that thresholds, in and of themselves,become short-hand for representing the agency’sbroader perspective for how noise influences wild -life. Thus, effect metrics should identify and commu-nicate protection targets associated with acceptablelevels of biological effect, rather than the levels ofnoise that are predicted to produce those effects. Forexample, parks have been successful in translatinginformation regarding noise influence within theirsoundscapes into metrics of acceptable or unaccept-able levels of communication interference, sleep dis-turbance and lost listening capability (NPS 2010).Such metrics are relatable to people (e.g. visitors andmanagers) as well as park wildlife, and synthesizeimpacts associated with many types of noise expo-sure (e.g. rare sudden loud events, accumulated dis-ruptive noise events, and continuous backgroundnoise).

The National Park soundscape management expe-rience further suggests that sites within a system mayor may not share effect level targets for management.Variation among sites in effect reduction or mainte-nance objectives will be driven by a range of factors,including, but not limited to, the status of natural andhuman contributions to their soundscapes and priori-tization of noise protection relative to other managedthreats. However, long-term management action mustreference site-specific estimates of pre-industrial lev-els as baselines for interpreting progress towardsbiologically relevant recovery. The reference condi-tion for park soundscape management is clearlyspecified to be the historical, noise-free environment(NPS 2006, section 8.2.3). Sanctuary managementshould recognize the importance of measuring orestimating anthropogenic noise-free acoustic habitatconditions to calibrate incremental protective actionboth within sites as well as among sites.

Achieving noise management goals within Nation -al Marine Sanctuaries will require multi-facetedaction. Some sources of distant propagating noise, asdiscussed above, will require international as well asother domestic activity. However, proposed activitiesthat may (Stellwagen Bank) or are likely to (all othersanctuaries) result in injury to sanctuary resourcesare required to consult with NOAA (see Table 2).This requirement includes activities that are and arenot prohibited from occurring within specific sanctu-

aries, and it includes activities occurring outsidesanctuary boundaries from which injury inside sanc-tuary boundaries may occur, as is often the case withnoise. NMSA consultation results in recommenda-tions to action agencies, not binding requirements;however, the recommendations carry liability associ-ated with rejection, and they offer the potential forstructured, long-term dialogue between NOAA andother federal agencies, as well as with the public,regarding acoustic habitat management goals and suggested mitigation to achieve those goals. Con -sultation authority can also incentivize stakeholdersto invest in promising new mitigation techniques thatcould be used in proximity to sensitive or protectedsites, including sanctuaries. The application of con-sultation authority to address noise impacts withinsanctuaries is growing exponentially, but is currentlylimited by staff capacity. NOAA’s overlapping author-ities within sanctuaries provide additional opportuni-ties to broaden the protective value of sanctuaries.Most sanctuaries protect resident or seasonal marinemammals, or endangered and threatened species, orcommercial and recreationally important fish speciesand their essential habitat. In some cases, intra-agencyconsultations provide op portunities for NOAA toevaluate the noise implications of its own actions(e.g. issuance of Incidental Harassment Authoriza-tions under the MMPA) on a sanctuary resource, pro-viding opportunities for the agency to coordinate andstrengthen its protective capabilities for specific spe-cies within these sites. Such opportunities are alsoincreasingly being identified, but again are limitedby staff capacity.

Finally, but perhaps most importantly, sanctuariesare a vital NOAA asset for building new constituen-cies to protect our coasts and oceans and for ensuringthat people understand the role of sound and hearingto the healthy functioning of aquatic places. Sanctu-aries, like parks, provide places for local conversa-tions among people with different views about whatis important to them about the current and futurecondition of their ocean. These conversations exposepeople to new scientific information regarding envi-ronmental effects as well as more nuanced perspec-tives on the practices of industries. Like air andwater, the acoustic environment can be polluted and,in the 1970s, the US recognized noise as an environ-mental pollutant that necessitated regulation to pro-tect human health (Noise Control Act 1972). But theprotection of the holistic acoustic conditions thatwildlife, and particularly animals that live under -water, need in order to survive and persist is onlyrecently recognized as warranting international re-

183

Endang Species Res 30: 171–186, 2016

investment. Sanctuaries represent opportunities toeducate current and future generations about theimportance of natural acoustic habitats and what canbe done to reduce the influence of noise on thesehabitats.

Acknowledgements. We thank all NOAA Ocean NoiseStrategy participants for their contributions to ongoing dis-cussions that informed this paper. Mimi D’Iorio (Marine Pro-tected Area Center), Michael Thompson (Stellwagen BankNational Marine Sanctuary), Jesse Cleary (Duke UniversityMarine Laboratory), and Michael Porter and Laurel Hender-son (Heat, Light & Sound Research, Inc.) contributed to fig-ures and tables presented in this paper.

LITERATURE CITED

Anadromous Fish Conservation Act (AFCA) (1965) PublicLaw 89–304, 79 Stat. 1125, 16 USC 757a-757g, asamended by Public Law 89-304. http:// legcounsel. house.gov/Comps/Anadromous%20Fish%20Conservation%20Act.pdf

Andrew RK, Howe BM, Mercer JA (2002) Ocean ambientsound: comparing the 1960s with the 1990s for a receiveroff the California coast. Acoust Res Lett Online 3: 65−70

Barber JR, Crooks KR, Fristrup KM (2010) The costs ofchronic noise exposure for terrestrial organisms. TrendsEcol Evol 25: 180−189

Charif RA, Clapham PJ, Clark CW (2001) Acoustic detec-tions of singing humpback whales in deep waters off theBritish Isles. Mar Mamm Sci 17: 751−768

Clark CW, Ellison WT, Southall BL, Hatch L, Van Parijs SM,Frankel A, Ponirakis D (2009) Acoustic masking in mar-ine ecosystems: intuitions, analysis, and implication. MarEcol Prog Ser 395: 201−222

Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) (1972) Public LawNo. 92–583, 86 Stat. 1280, enacted October 27, 1972, 16U.S.C. §§ 1451–1464, Chapter 33. https:// coast. noaa.gov/ czm/ media/ CZMA _ 10 _ 11 _ 06. pdf

Coral Reef Conservation Act (CRCA) (2000) Public Law106-562; 16 U.S.C. 6401 et seq. www. coris. noaa. gov/activities/ actionstrategy/ 08 _ con s_ act. pdf

Council on Environmental Quality (2014) Final guidance foreffective use of programmatic NEPA reviews. https://www. whitehouse. gov/ sites/ default/ files/ docs/ effective _use _ of _ programmatic _ nepa _ reviews _ final _ dec 2014 _searchable. pdf (accessed 24 June 2015)

Endangered Species Act (ESA) (1973) Public Law 93-205,87 Stat. 884, codified as amended at 16 U.S.C. § ch. 35§1531 et seq. https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2012-title16/ html/ USCODE-2012-title16-chap35-sec1531.htm

Erbe C, Williams R, Sandilands D, Ashe E (2014) Identifyingmodeled ship noise hotspots for marine mammals ofCanada’s Pacific region. PLoS ONE 9: e89820

European Union Marine Strategy Framework Directive(EUMSFD) (2008) Directive 2008/56/EC of the EuropeanParliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 establish-ing a framework for community action in the field of marine environmental policy (Marine Strategy Frame -work Directive). http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ TXT/ ?uri=CELEX:32008L0056

Executive Order 13158 (2000) Executive Order 13158 of 26May 2000. Marine Protected Areas. Fed Reg 65: 34909−34911. Available at www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2000-05-31/ pdf/00-13830.pdf (accessed 24 June 2015)

Executive Order 13547 (2010) Executive Order 13547 of 19July 2010. Stewardship of the Ocean, Our Coasts, andthe Great Lakes. Fed Reg 75: 43023−43027. Available atwww.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/executive-order-stewardship-ocean-our-coasts-and-great-lakes (accessed24 June 2015)

Federal Power Act (FPA) (1920) 16 U.S.C. 791-828c; Chapter285, 41 Stat. 1063, as amended through Public Law 114–94. http:// legcounsel. house. gov/ Comps/ Federal % 20 Power% 20 Act. pdf

Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (FWCA) (1934) 16U.S.C. 661-667e, Chapter 55, 48 Stat. 401, as amendedthrough Public Law 89-72. https:// www. usbr. gov/ power/legislation/ fwca. pdf

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations(2015) Productivity susceptibility assessments. Availableat www.fao.org/fishery/eaf-net/eaftool/eaf_tool_55 (ac -cessed 24 June 2015)

Francis CD, Barber JR (2013) A framework for understand-ing noise impacts on wildlife: an urgent conservation pri-ority. Front Ecol Environ 11: 305−313

Goldbogen JA, Southall BL, DeRuiter SL, Calambokidis Jand others (2013) Blue whales respond to simulatedmid-frequency military sonar. Proc R Soc B 280: 20131657

Hatch LT, Fristrup KM (2009) No barrier at the boundaries: implementing regional frameworks for noise manage-ment in protected natural areas. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 395: 223−244

Hatch LT, Clark CW, Van Parijs SM, Frankel AS, PonirakisDW (2012) Quantifying loss of acoustic communicationspace for right whales in and around a US national mar-ine sanctuary. Conserv Biol 26: 983−994

Holt MM, Noren DP, Veirs V, Emmons CK, Veirs S (2009)Speaking up: killer whales (Orcinus orca) increase theircall amplitude in response to vessel noise. J Acoust SocAm 125: EL27−EL32

International Maritime Organization (2014) Marine Envi-ronmental Protection Committee Annex: guidelines forthe reduction of underwater noise from commercial ship-ping. MEPC Circular 66/17. IMO, London

Janik VM, Slater PJB (1998) Context-specific use suggeststhat bottlenose dolphin signature whistles are cohesioncalls. Anim Behav 56: 829−838

Ladich F (ed) (2015) Sound communication in fishes. Animalsignals and communication, Vol 4. Springer-Verlag,Vienna

Lillis A, Eggleston DB, Bohnenstiehl DR (2014) Estuarinesoundscapes: distinct acoustic characteristics of oysterreefs compared to soft-bottom habitats. Mar Ecol ProgSer 505: 1−17

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and ManagementAct (MSFCMA) (1996) Public Law 94-265, 90 Stat. 331,codified as amended at 16 U.S.C. §§ 1801−1884. www.fisheries.noaa.gov/sfa/laws_policies/msa/documents/msa_amended_2007.pdf

Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA)(1972) Public Law92-522, 86 Stat. 1027, codified as amended at 16 U.S.C.§§ 1361− 1423h. www. nmfs. noaa. gov/ pr/ pdfs/ laws/ mmpa.pdf

McCarthy E (2004) International regulation of underwater

184

Hatch et al.: Managing acoustic habitat

sound: establishing rules and standards to address oceannoise pollution. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston,MA

McDonald MA, Hildebrand JA, Wiggins SM (2006) Increasesin deep ocean ambient noise in the Northeast Pacificwest of San Nicolas Island, California. J Acoust Soc Am120: 711−718

McWilliam JN, Hawkins AD (2013) A comparison of inshoremarine soundscapes. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 446: 166−176

Mennitt D, Sherrill K, Fristrup K (2014) A geospatial modelof ambient sound pressure levels in the contiguousUnited States. J Acoust Soc Am 135: 2746−2764

Merchant ND, Fristrup KM, Johnson MP, Tyack PL, Witt MJ,Blondel P, Parks SE (2015) Measuring acoustic habitats.Methods Ecol Evol 6: 257−265

Moore SE, Randall RR, Southall BL, Ragen TJ, Suydam RS,Clark CW (2012a) A new framework for assessing theeffects of anthropogenic sound on marine mammals in arapidly changing Arctic. BioScience 62: 289−295

Moore SE, Stafford KM, Humfrey M, Berchok C and others(2012b) Comparing marine mammal acoustic habitats inAtlantic and Pacific sectors of the High Arctic: year-longrecords from Fram Strait and the Chukchi Plateau. PolarBiol 35: 475−480

Morano JL, Salisbury DP, Rice AN, Conklin KL, Falk KL,Clark CW (2012) Seasonal and geographical patterns offin whale song in the western North Atlantic Ocean. JAcoust Soc Am 132: 1207−1212

Myrberg AA Jr (1981) Sound communication and intercep-tion in fishes. In: Tavolga WN, Popper AN, Fay RR (eds)Hearing and sound communication in fishes. Springer-Verlag, New York, NY, p 345−425

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (1969) PublicLaw 91-190, 42 U.S.C. 4321-4347, as amended by PublicLaw 94-52, Public Law 94-83, and Public Law 97-258, §4(b). https:// ceq. doe. gov/ laws _ and _ executive _ orders/ the_ nepa _ statute. html

National Marine Protected Areas Center (2011) Definitionand classification system for US Marine ProtectedAreas. http:// marineprotectedareas. noaa. gov/ pdf/ helpful-resources/ factsheets/ mpa_ classification_ may 2011. pdf(accessed 24 June 2015)

National Marine Sanctuaries Act (NMSA) (1992) Title 16,Chapter 32, Sections 1431 et seq USC as amended by PubL 106–513. http:// sanctuaries. noaa.gov/ library/ national/nmsa.pdf

National Ocean Council (2013a) National Ocean Policy Im -plementation Plan. https:// www. whitehouse. gov/ sites/default/ files/ national _ ocean _ policy _ implementation _plan. pdf (accessed 24 June 2015)

National Ocean Council (2013b) Marine planning hand-book. https:// www. whitehouse. gov/ sites/ default/ files/final_ marine_ planning_ handbook. pdf (ac cessed 24June 2015)

National Park Service (2000) Director’s Order #47: sound-scape preservation and noise management. www. nps.gov/ policy/ DOrders/ DOrder47. html (accessed 24 June2015)

National Park Service (2006) Management policies. www. nps.gov/ policy/ mp/ Index 2006. htm (accessed 24 June 2015)

National Park Service (2010) Zion National Park Sound-scape Management Plan. US Department of the Interior,Washington, DC

National Research Council of the US National Academies(2003) Ocean noise and marine mammals. National

Academy Press, Washington, DCNOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration)

Fisheries (2015a) Habitat Blueprint Focal Areas. www.habitat. noaa. gov/ habitatblueprint (acces sed 24 June2015)

NOAA Fisheries (2015b) Sound check: new NOAA effortunderway to monitor underwater sound. www. st. nmfs.noaa. gov/ feature-news/ acoustics (accessed 24 June2015)

Noise Control Act (NCA) (1972) 42 U.S.C. §4901 et seq.www. gsa. gov/ graphics/ pbs/ Noise _ Control _ Act _ of _ 1972.pdf

Normandeau Associates (2012) Effects of noise on fish, fish-eries, and invertebrates in the US Atlantic and Arcticfrom energy industry sound-generating activities. AWorkshop Report for the US Dept of the Interior, Bureauof Ocean Energy Management, Herndon, VA

Northeast Regional Planning Body (2015) Northeast Re -gional Planning Body draft work plan for deliberation −June 3-4, 2015. Available at http: // neoceanplanning. org/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/RPB-Work-Plan-Decision-June-2015.pdf (accessed 24 June 2015)

Oil Pollution Act (OPA) (1990) Public Law 101–380, 33U.S.C. ch 40 § 2701. https:// www. gpo. gov/ fdsys/ pkg/STATUTE-104/ pdf/ STATUTE-104-Pg484. pdf

Oleson EM, Širovi A, Bayless AR, Hildebrand JA (2014)Synchronous seasonal change in fin whale song in theNorth Pacific. PLoS ONE 9: e115678

Parks SE, Johnson M, Nowachek D, Tyack PL (2010) Indi-vidual right whales call louder in increased environmen-tal noise. Biol Lett 7: 33−35

Parks SE, Miksis-Olds JL, Denes SL (2014) Assessing marineecosystem acoustic diversity across ocean basins. EcolInform 21: 81−88

Payne R, Webb D (1971) Orientation by means of long-rangeacoustic signaling in baleen whales. Ann NY Acad Sci188: 110−141

Pijanowski BC, Villanueva-Rivera LJ, Dumyahn SL, FarinaA and others (2011) Soundscape ecology: the science ofsound in the landscape. BioScience 61: 203−216

Purser J, Radford AN (2011) Acoustic noise induces atten-tion shifts and reduces foraging performance in three-spined sticklebacks (Gasterosteus aculeatus). PLoS ONE6: e17478

Radford AN, Kerridge E, Simpson SD (2014) Acoustic com-munication in a noisy world: Can fish compete withanthropogenic noise? Behav Ecol 25: 1022−1030

Rountree RA, Gilmore RG, Goudey CA, Hawkins AD, Lucz -kovich J, Mann D (2006) Listening to fish: applicationsof passive acoustics to fisheries science. Fisheries 31: 433−446

Simpson SD, Purser J, Radford AN (2015) Anthropogenicnoise compromises antipredator behavior in Europeaneels. Glob Change Biol 21: 586−593

Slabbekoorn H, Bouton N, van Opzeeland I, Coers A, tenCate C, Popper AN (2010) A noisy spring: the impact ofglobally rising underwater sound levels on fish. TrendsEcol Evol 25: 419−427

SMRU Consulting (2015) Population consequences of dis -turbance. www. smruconsulting. com/ locations/ europe/pcod/ (accessed 24 June 2015)

Southall B, Berkson J, Bowen D, Brake R and others (2009)Addressing the effects of human-generated sound onmarine life: an integrated research plan for US federalagencies. Interagency Task Force on Anthropogenic

185

Endang Species Res 30: 171–186, 2016

Sound and the Marine Environment of the Joint Subcom-mittee on Ocean Science and Technology, Washington,DC

Staaterman E, Rice AN, Mann DA, Paris CB (2013) Sound-scapes from a tropical eastern Pacific reef and a Carib-bean Sea reef. Coral Reefs 32: 553−557

Tyack PL, Clark CW (2000) Communication and acousticbehavior of dolphins and whales. In: Au WWL, PopperAN, Fay FF (eds) Springer handbook of auditory re -search Vol 12: hearing by whales and dolphins. Springer,New York, NY, p 156−224

Urick RJ (1983) Principles of underwater sound. McGraw-Hill, New York, NY

Van Parijs SM, Curtice C, Ferguson MC (eds) (2015a) Bio-logically Important Areas for cetaceans within US

waters. Aquat Mamm 41(Spec Issue): 1−128Van Parijs SM, Baumgartner M, Cholewiak D, Davis G and

others (2015b) NEPAN: a US northeast passive acousticsensing network for monitoring, reducing threats and theconservation of marine animals. Mar Technol Soc J 49: 70−86

Versluis M, Schmitz B, von der Heydt A, Lohse D (2000)How snapping shrimp snap: through cavitating bubbles.Science 289: 2114−2117

Voellmy IK, Purser J, Simpson SD, Radford AN (2014)Increased noise levels have different impacts on the anti-predator behaviour of two sympatric fish species. PLoSONE 9: e102946

Wenz GM (1962) Acoustic ambient noise in the ocean: spec-tra and sources. J Acoust Soc Am 34: 1936−1956

186

Editorial responsibility: Brandon L. Southall (Guest Editor),Santa Cruz, California, USA

Submitted: June 29, 2015; Accepted: January 4, 2016Proofs received from author(s): April 24, 2016

➤

➤

➤

➤

➤