ocean noise management: three lessons from the u.s. michael jasny natural resources defense council...

Ocean noise management: Three lessons from the U.S.

Michael JasnyNatural Resources Defense Council

Management Solutions for Underwater Noise in Canada’s Pacific – Vancouver – June 2013

Lessons

Lessons1. Be honest in estimating take.

1. Estimating take

Risk function for “continuous noise” (e.g., shipping)

Risk function for “non-continuous noise” (e.g., pile-driving)

The received wisdom

120 dB (RMS) 160 dB (RMS)

1. Estimating take

Risk function for “continuous noise” (e.g., shipping)

Risk function for “non-continuous noise” (e.g., pile-driving)

The received wisdom

1. Estimating take

In the United States, take is both a biological and a legal concept.

Take means to “harass, hunt, capture, or kill” or to attempt to do so.

“Harassment” means any act that (a) Has the potential to injure an individual marine

mammal, or(b) Has the potential to disturb an individual marine

mammal by causing disruption of behavioral patterns such as migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering.

U.S. Marine Mammal Protection Act, § 3(13), (18)

1. Estimating take

Developments in the science

On the one hand, scientific developments…

160 dB threshold is “overly simplified, scientifically outdated, and artificially rigid.”

- Clark et al. (2012)

1. Estimating take


a. Intraspecific variability

1. Estimating take


a. Intraspecific variabilityb. Ultra-sensitive species

1. Estimating take


a. Intraspecific variabilityb. Ultra-sensitive speciesc. Negative bias

“Clearly the lack of observed avoidance is not necessarily indicative of a lack of impact”

1. Estimating take


a. Intraspecific variabilityb. Ultra-sensitive speciesc. Negative biasd. Masking effects

1. Estimating take

The MMPA requires the wildlife agencies to authorize “incidental” take but sets regulatory ceilings on the amount

Number of takes from given activity

Ceilings: “small numbers” of marine mammals

Above ceiling: activity cannot be authorized

& “negligible impact” on MM populations

On the other hand, regulatory context…

20102005200019951990

ATOC

JNCCHESS

Bahamas

SURTASS LFA

Arctic PEIS

IMO

MSFD

Focal events in ocean noise management

MFA

1. Estimating take

1. Estimating take

As a legal concept, take in the U.S. is subject to pressures extrinsic to biology.


a. Intraspecific variabilityb. Ultra-sensitive speciesc. Negative biasd. Masking effects

Regulatory need

> The 120 dB and 160 dB criteria have been very hard to dislodge, limiting the agencies’ ability to apply best available science to impact analysis of sub-lethal effects


- U.S. numbers do not represent floor of sub-lethal effects- Need to account for all mechanisms of impact – not just

behavioral disruption, but also masking, stress effects, etc., which may require different units of measurement

- Need to account for negative bias in observation- Understand purpose of quantification of take, e.g.,

determining the scale of impact on different species or the relative consequences of alternative actions


2. Think cumulatively.

2. Think cumulatively

Movement towards more comprehensive view despite law

Under NMFS’ interpretation of MMPA, applicants decide scope of activity




Nonetheless, NMFS encourages user groups – particularly other federal agencies – to undertake programmatic regional review




Nonetheless, NMFS encourages user groups – particularly other federal agencies – to undertake programmatic regional review

NMFS now attempting to develop comprehensive, multi-sector noise management policy


Need for conservative assumptions/ proxies for population impacts

The holy grail of population analysis

What to do in the meantime?

Chart: NRC 2005



Taylor et al. 2007: high probability of not detecting precipitous decline in cetacean pops given present effort

Underscores need for (1) conservative proxies and (2) population-focused survey/ monitoring effort in place that can at least improve the odds

Chart: Taylor et al. 2007



Charts: Moore and Barlow 2013; Miller et al. 2009; Hatch et al. 2012

Data increasingly indicate concern for variety of taxa at population level


Options for conservative assumptions/ proxies for population impacts

Source: CCCSIP EIS

a. Proxies based on degree of exposure or impact

Non-injurious “take”

Impact Listed Non-listedHigh magnitude >2.5% >25%Medium mag 1.25-2.5% 15-25%Low magnitude >1 individual 5-15%Central Coastal California

Seismic Imaging ProjectWill need different proxies for long-term activities.


Options for conservative assumptions/ proxies for population impacts

Chart: Scholik-Schlomer et al. 2011

b. Exceedance of baseline (present levels of acoustic energy)

“[W]e call for initial global action that will reduce the contributions of shipping to ambient noise energy in the 10-300 Hz band by 3 decibels in 10 years and by 10 decibels in 30 years relative to current levels. This goal would be accomplished by reducing noise contributions from individual ships.” - Hamburg Statement (2008)

Low-frequency ambient noise trends in the North Pacific



In assessing risk of adverse population-level effects, it’s critical

(1)to use highly conservative proxies for exceedance, and

(2)to put population-focused survey/ monitoring effort in place for the life of the project



3. Evolve beyond the near field: or, safety zones are so twentieth-century.

3. Evolve beyond the near field

Norway

U.S.

Canada (for non-baleens)

Italy

Australia

MFA sonar shut-down zones c. 2008

• The U.S. helped pioneer the safety zone in the 1990s, initially in the context of seismic airgun exploration in the Arctic and off California, then spreading to naval training, pile-driving, and other activities.

• Much regulatory energy is spent on designing protocols for safety zones and ramp-up – radii, pre-monitoring, stop/ start, etc.

• Now required of virtually every authorized activity in the U.S.

Omnidirectional sound energy levels from a single seismic airgun shot in Harrison Bay, North Slope, Alaska, integrated over 1 second

Map

: Fle

ishm

an e

t al.


Scale of solution must match scale of problem

20102005200019951990

• Habitat-based management (e.g., exclusion areas, ATBAs, shipping lane consolidation and revision, MPA management)

• Noise-quieting methods and technologies (e.g., quiet ship design, technological alternative for seismic airguns, attenuation systems for piledrivers)

• Multi-sector cumulative noise management (region- or population- based)

N.B. Does not displace “near-field” mitigation for high-intensity sources (e.g., pile drivers)

Shifting focus for U.S. mitigation: habitat and technology

U.S./ IMO

Arctic PEIS


Pile-driving


Time-area management

a. Avoiding ensonification of identified areas of biological importance

Arctic: action alternative to protect important bowhead whale habitat from oil & gas exploration noise



a. Avoiding ensonification of identified areas of biological importance

NMFS presently identifying known “biologically important areas” for cetaceans as part of CetMap process – throughout entire U.S. EEZ



b. Reducing take risk by shifting activities out of higher-density areas/ seasons for target species

Massachusetts: USCG shifting shipping lanes within the Stellwagen Bank NMS effected a nearly 50% reduction in right whales exposed to noise levels above NMFS’ take threshold (120 dB); similar effects also achieved through ship-speed reductions



b. Reducing take risk by avoiding high-density areas for target species

Through CetMap process, NMFS has mapped cetacean densities primarily through predictive modeling across entire U.S. EEZ



c. Setting conservation targets: the future?

Agardy et al. 2007: set conservation targets (e.g., keeping X% of primary habitat in acoustically healthy condition, or maintaining present baseline for acoustic habitat) and use MARXAN to design implementation plan; now under consideration by NMFS as part of follow-on to CetMap



c. Setting ecological targets: the future?

Through CetMap process, NMFS is mapping noise levels from major chronic and intermittent sources across entire U.S. EEZ


Noise-quieting methods and technologies

• Major new trend in noise mitigation – in U.S. and elsewhere – for shipping, pile-driving, and oil and gas exploration

• U.S. agencies recognize enormous promise of quieting technology, are proactive but have not yet developed action alternatives for implementation



• Leadership at IMO:

- In 2008, U.S. petitioned the IMO’s Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC) to develop voluntary guidelines to quiet commercial vessels

- Has helped lead correspondence/ working groups

- Guidelines up for MEPC approval in March 2014; further refinement thereafter

• Next phase: green certification and other compliance programs

“The [Central California National Marine Sanctuaries] should work with the Los Angeles, Long Beach, and San Francisco Bay port authorities and industry to establish port-based incentives for the reduction of underwater shipping noise.” - Adopted NMS Joint Working Group recs

Shipping



• Feb. 2013: U.S. BOEM convened major international workshop on quieting technologies for offshore energy (airguns, pile-drivers, vessels)

Pile-driving



• Feb. 2013: Agencies convened major international workshop on quieting technologies for offshore energy (airguns, pile-drivers, vessels)

• But Europe ahead of U.S. for offshore renewables: 5-10 years ahead in offshore wind development, action-forcing by Germany

Pile-driving



• Feb. 2013: Agencies convened major international workshop on quieting technologies for offshore energy (airguns, pile-drivers, vessels)

• But Europe ahead of U.S. for offshore renewables: 5-10 years ahead in offshore wind development, action-forcing by Germany

• U.S. playing catch-up: best available technology will probably be required for turbine construction, but action-forcing regulation would be helpful on this side of the Atlantic

Pile-driving



3. Evolve beyond the near field: e.g., time-area management and noise quieting.

Thank you!

Michael [email protected]

Source: Harwood, Oct. 2011 PCoD symposium

1. Estimating take

MMPA §101(a): There shall be a moratorium on the taking and importation of marine mammals and marine mammal products…, during which time no permit my be issued… except in the following cases:

MMPA §101(a)(5)(A): Upon request therefor by citizens of the United States who engage in a specified activity (other than commercial fishing) within a specified geographical region, the Secretary shall allow… the incidental, but not intentional, taking by citizens while engaging in that activity within that region of small numbers of marine mammals of a species or population stock if the Secretary, after notice… and opportunity for public comment –

(I) finds that the total of such taking during each five-year (or less) period concerned will have a negligible impact on such species or stock…

small numbers and

negligible impact

Illegal to disrupt,injure, or kill marine mammalsunless…

1. Estimating take

U.S.: Navy relocated major exercise to avoid DeSoto Canyon (sperm whales)

Spain: 50 nm exclusion around Canary Islands (beaked whales)

Exclusion areas and siting measures

“Hotspot” driver

Exclusion areas are broadly established on a sector-by-sector basis, or habitat is avoided on a project-by-project basis, to reflect known “hotspots” (i.e., habitat important or risk elevated due to other factors or both)


Programmatic assessment driver

Programmatic approach to environmental assessment or permitting process allows consideration of sector-wide exclusions or siting measures on a regional basis

U.S.: Atlantic Fleet sonar training (2009-2014), alternative 3

U.S.: Arctic oil and gas exploration (2012-2017), alternative 4

• Habitat important for feeding, breeding, migrating, or even resting• Observational data (visual, acoustic tags, etc) site-specific

behavior• Survey data population densities• Correlation with oceanographic features (banks, seamounts, fronts,

steep canyon walls)• Predictive habitat modeling


Bases used in various jurisdictions

U.S.: Navy used predictive modeling to establish siting alternatives/ exclusion areas for Atlantic Fleet sonar training

ocean noise management: three lessons from the u.s. michael jasny natural resources defense council...

Documents

population level slide

scope of activity slide

masking effects slide

lack of impact slide

db rms slide

regulatory context slide

received wisdom slide

conservative proxies