REVIEWS REVIEWS REVIEWS

378 Marine seismic surveys and ocean noise:

time for coordinated and prudent planning
Douglas P Nowacek1,2*, Christopher W Clark3, David Mann4, Patrick JO Miller5, Howard C Rosenbaum6,
Jay S Golden7, Michael Jasny8, James Kraska1, and Brandon L Southall1,9

Marine seismic surveys use intense (eg ≥ 230 decibel [dB] root mean square [RMS]) sound impulses to explore
the ocean bottom for hydrocarbon deposits, conduct geophysical research, and establish resource claims
under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. The expansion of seismic surveys necessitates
greater regional and international dialogue, partnerships, and planning to manage potential environmental
risks. Data indicate several reasons for concern about the negative impacts of anthropogenic noise on numer-
ous marine species, including habitat displacement, disruption of biologically important behaviors, masking
of communication signals, chronic stress, and potential auditory damage. The sound impulses from seismic
surveys – spanning temporal and spatial scales broader than those typically considered in environmental
assessments – may have acute, cumulative, and chronic effects on marine organisms. Given the international
and transboundary nature of noise from marine seismic surveys, we suggest the creation of an international
regulatory instrument, potentially an annex to the existing International Convention on the Prevention of
Pollution from Ships, to address the issue.
Front Ecol Environ 2015; 13(7): 378–386, doi:10.1890/130286

T he time has come to improve international coordina-

tion among industries, governments, scientists, and
environmental organizations in understanding and manag-
shipping (Hildebrand 2009). Technological improvements
and economic market forces in petroleum and natural gas
exploration have extended the spatial and temporal reach
ing the risks that marine seismic surveys can pose to indi- of seismic surveys, notably into higher latitudes and deeper
vidual animals, populations, and ecosystems. Marine seis- waters, during most months of the year. This not only
mic surveys represent a major contributor to ocean noise in increases the potential total area for development, but in
terms of overall energy and spatiotemporal ranges of influ- some regions (eg the Mediterranean and northeastern
ence; other important contributors include commercial North Atlantic) also raises issues regarding overlapping
jurisdiction and governance. Recently, enabled in part by
declines in sea ice, seismic exploration has expanded
In a nutshell: rapidly into many parts of the Arctic. This has motivated
• Marine seismic surveys produce intense sound impulses to countries bordering the Arctic Ocean to gain exclusive
explore the ocean floor for energy sources and for research access to seabed resources by claiming sovereign rights over
purposes the extended continental shelf, under Part VI of the
• Environmental reviews of seismic surveys are seldom under- United Nations (UN) Convention on the Law of the Sea
taken at scales necessary to meaningfully assess, mitigate, and (UNCLOS 1982). These developments, coupled with the
monitor their impacts; managing exposure of marine animals
to these sounds requires additional attention and data demand for hydrocarbon resources, are key drivers of the
• Current exposure threshold criteria fail to account for the expansion of seismic surveys worldwide. Although the
best available science and the cumulative effects of simulta- market forces governing this expansion are ephemeral,
neous seismic surveys and prolonged, repeated exposures these commercial and political activities are generally
• Increasing marine seismic surveys, especially in ecologically occurring at ever-larger scales and extending into previ-
sensitive areas, require multi-institutional and international
collaboration to effectively manage risks ously unexplored areas. An integrated program for moni-
• We propose that anthropogenic ocean noise be addressed toring, mitigating, and reporting would facilitate develop-
through the revision of the existing MARPOL Convention ment of a knowledge-based understanding of potential
or negotiation of a new convention that more comprehen- risks and solutions; the establishment of such a program
sively evaluates the associated risks, benefits, and procedures would necessitate coordination and prudent planning.
Efforts to monitor the undersea acoustic environment
and manage the impacts of noise generated by human
1
Nicholas School of the Environment, Duke University Marine activities have reached a critical juncture. The European
Laboratory, Beaufort, NC *(dpn3@duke.edu); 2Pratt School of Union (EU) has recognized ocean noise as an indicator of
Engineering, Duke University, Durham, NC; 3Bioacoustics Research environmental quality under its Marine Strategy
Program, Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY; Framework Directive (EU 2008) and is in the process of
4
Humu Labs, Cambridge, MA; continued on p 386 developing targets for achieving “good environmental

www.frontiersinecology.org © The Ecological Society of America

DP Nowacek et al. Coordinated management of ocean noise

(a) (b) 379

Figure 1. (a) Depiction of a marine seismic survey occurring in deep water. The diagram shows a seismic survey vessel relative to
acoustic recorders (data from these recorders are shown in [b]), which are deployed 2 m above the seafloor at three water depths: deep
(642 m), shelf break (395 m), and shelf (69 m). The seismic airgun array is towed at ~10-m depth off the stern. In this case, the
seismic vessel is operating over deep water (1150 m), and later operating over the shelf break (410 m) and shelf (71 m) areas. Note
that the data samples shown in (b) are from sounds from the vessel operating at all three water depths, but seismic signals were
recorded at each recording station when the ship operated at every depth. (b) Spectrograms (each representing higher relative intensity
as brighter color with time on the x axis and frequency on the y axis) illustrating seismic impulses as received by recorders at three
depths (rows) when the seismic survey vessel was operating at three water depths (columns). The three water depths and the three
recorder depths for each of the nine examples are given in (a). The distance (km) from the source (vessel) to the receiver (recorder)
and the received levels (dB re: 1 µPa2-sec) for each impulse are given in the upper right corner of each spectrogram. In the examples
shown here, when the source is operating in deep water (1150 m), the higher received level (77 dB) occurs at the shallowest receiver
(69 m; row 1, column 1) at the longest range (43 km). In contrast, when the source is operating in shallow water (71 m), the lowest
received level (54 dB) occurs at the deepest receiver (642 m; row 3, column 3) at the longest range (48 km).

status” for ocean noise and acute noise-producing activi- 4000 km – from their respective sources (Nieukirk et al.
ties; moreover, in 2014, the EU identified seismic-survey 2004, 2012). While the specific effects of such signals
noise as a factor in the preparation of environmental on marine species at these ranges are not known, cur-
impact assessments (EIAs; EU 2014). Similarly, the US rent monitoring, assessment, and mitigation approaches
recognizes underwater noise in the preparation of EIAs fail to consider both the spatiotemporal extent of the
for oil and gas development in regions under its jurisdic- acoustic phenomena and the potential impacts even at
tion, particularly the Gulf of Mexico, the Atlantic moderate ranges (10–100 km), distances through which
Ocean, and the Arctic Ocean (eg BOEM 2014, a and b). acoustic energy from the pulses can propagate efficiently
These efforts, which are still under development, are (Figure 1). Notably, the survey from which the data in
indicative of the stage and scale of actions required to Figure 1 were acquired occurred in Arctic waters, where
address these critical issues. the sound velocity profile favors a surface duct [Urick
Advances in integrated monitoring, assessment, and 1983], thus resulting in the retention of energy near the
planning are essential for nations in the early phases of surface and efficient propagation of energy onto the
offshore hydrocarbon exploration, such as Greenland shelf when the source vessel is operating over deep
(administered by Denmark), which is presently assem- water. These observations contrast with those reported
bling its initial regulatory structure with regard to seis- by Nieukirk et al. [2012], in which conditions favored
mic surveys. An integrated approach requires increasing downward propagation such that energy from sources in
both the breadth and depth of baseline data on the shallow and shelf-break waters propagated very effi-
demographic trends and overall health of marine animal ciently to deep-water recorders located thousands of
populations, as well as analyzing the cumulative effects kilometers away). An integrated approach to assessment
of exposure to multiple noise sources and the potential must be coupled with appropriate mitigation that
interactions between those sources and other anthro- focuses on the acoustic ecology of marine animals and
pogenic stressors. These analyses must be conducted on the minimization of cumulative acoustic exposures (Rio
appropriate temporal and spatial scales, which may span Declaration 1992).
jurisdictional boundaries or extend beyond national leg- Here, we offer perspectives on the management of seis-
islation. Under certain conditions, seismic survey sig- mic operations and the mitigation of the accompanying
nals can be detected at great distances – in one instance, risks.

© The Ecological Society of America www.frontiersinecology.org

 Coordinated management of ocean noise DP Nowacek et al.

380 To move beyond the currently applied acute-

impact thresholds and to capture a more realistic
metric for the potential impacts of seismic surveys
and other marine noise-generating activities, reg-
ulatory agencies should implement an analytical
function to provide a probabilistic assessment of
impact severity. Such a function should incorpo-
rate the spatial and temporal dynamics and spec-
tral characteristics of the acoustic field generated
by the specific activity (eg a seismic survey), as
well as account for the aggregate sound field
resulting from multiple anthropogenic activities,
industrial or otherwise.

n Increasing the breadth and depth of

baseline data

The fact that insufficient data existed for many

Figure 2. Overlap of seismic surveys and sperm whale (Physeter Gulf of Mexico species prior to the 2010
macrocephalus) locations in the Gulf of Mexico. The black lines and Deepwater Horizon disaster – because of inade-
blotches are seismic survey tracklines reported by the International quate sampling – indicates a broad failure on the
Association of Geophysical Contractors (IAGC) for the period from July part of federal resource-management agencies in
2002 to October 2006. Red dots are locations of sperm whales during the the US. This failure limits scientists’ ability not
same period, as determined by satellite-linked tags attached to individual only to assess the true impacts of the Gulf disas-
whales. Blue colors in the background indicate depth contours, with the ter in retrospect but also to anticipate and plan
darkest blue being the 2000-m contour, the next lighter shade being the for future prevention and remediation.
1000-m contour, and so on. From Jochens et al. (2008). Unfortunately, this lack of baseline biological
data is not unique to the Gulf of Mexico.
n Appropriate impact thresholds Indeed, many places around the world where consider-
able seismic exploration is ongoing or is projected to
The potential impacts of seismic surveys, as with other occur, suffer from similar, or worse, baseline data short-
anthropogenic noise sources, are typically assessed as the falls. For most cetacean populations, numerical abun-
results of individual activities (eg a single survey) dance and trends in abundance are the standard measure-
through relatively simple methods based entirely on ments for assessing population status, but such
expected sound exposure levels and decades-old guide- measurements are difficult to obtain and have limitations
lines (HESS Team 1999). Impact is evaluated on the (eg require decades of research and are complicated by
estimated number of animals subjected to a sound level resolution of temporal trends; see Taylor et al. 2007). It
high enough to possibly cause harm or disturbance. should therefore be a priority to develop additional met-
While sound-exposure levels are clearly important for rics for population health (eg Harwood et al. 2011), such
individual animals over the short spatial and temporal as measures of vital rates, distribution, ranging patterns,
scales generally analyzed, recent documentation of the population structure, and body condition. Where possi-
areas affected by seismic signals indicates that a broader ble, such information should be collected in areas where
paradigm of assessment is required (Guerra et al. 2011; seismic activities are planned or ongoing, and existing
Nieukirk et al. 2012). Given the ubiquity of seismic sur- data should be used to the maximum extent possible.
veys in some areas (Figure 2) and the potential for Next, a reasonable understanding of the ecosystem is
impacts in the large areas currently being opened for needed, as changes in prey availability and distribution
resource exploration (Figure 3), we are concerned about can also drive changes in predator populations and distri-
the simplicity, artificial rigidity, and increasingly out- butions. Obtaining such data is especially critical, as cli-
dated nature of impact thresholds and the methods used mate-driven changes may be altering community struc-
to quantify the potential impacts of discrete activities in ture and function (eg Grebmeier et al. 2006).
environmental assessments and rulemaking. To explore Without sufficient baseline data, we believe it is unreal-
this subject further and to elaborate on related issues (eg istic for regulators to reach scientifically reliable conclu-
masking [Clark and Ellison 2004; Clark et al. 2009; sions about the risks to marine life from marine seismic
Hatch et al. 2012], stress [Warner and Heimstra 1971; surveys. The process for permitting surveys must take
Evans 2003; Otten et al. 2004; Wright et al. 2007], and these data needs into account and be adjusted accord-
behavioral responses [Castellote et al. 2012]), we provide ingly, and perhaps even paused while such information is
additional information in WebPanel 1 and Table 1. gathered.

www.frontiersinecology.org © The Ecological Society of America

DP Nowacek et al. Coordinated management of ocean noise

n Cumulative effects 381

Assessing the impact of seismic surveys

has typically been limited to individual
environmental assessments that often
focus only the loudest sound source (eg
seismic airgun arrays) and for a single sur-
vey. This ignores sub-bottom profilers,
support vessels, undersea communication
systems, shipping vessels, and other major
sources of noise that must be quantita-
tively analyzed in combination with air-
gun surveys to comprehensively estimate
the potential impacts on marine life (eg
Southall et al. 2013). Given our rapidly
improving understanding of the spatial, Legend
temporal, and spectral scales of the SEA Area
acoustic footprints generated by these seis- Licensed blocks July 2012
27th Round blocks on offer
mic activities, this single-source regulatory
approach is no longer appropriate. In some
countries, national legislation – such as Figure 3. Undersea oil and gas lease blocks (rectangles) on offer on submerged
Australia’s Environment Protection and land around the UK and those licensed in 2012 by the UK government (data
Biodiversity Conservation Act, Canada’s obtained from the UK Department of Energy and Climate Change). The areal
Species at Risk Act, and the US’s Marine extent that is available for development is of concern with respect to seismic surveys
Mammal Protection Act and Endangered for several reasons; the Joint Nature Conservation Committee, for example,
Species Act – make regulators responsible receives inadequate notice of survey activity (sometimes only days), which can
for ensuring that activities have minimal occur in any block (M Tasker, pers comm). “SEA” indicates a Strategic
impacts on marine populations, particu- Environmental Assessment area, and the “27th Round” indicates the round of
larly those of threatened or endangered licensing of oil/gas leases from the UK government and includes seismic as well as
species, and for prescribing mitigation other activities; licenses are time-limited.
strategies that would reduce impacts to the
lowest possible level. Regulators are failing to meet their recent Draft Environmental Impact Statement for industrial
statutory obligations if the cumulative exposure to and development in the US Arctic (NMFS 2013), are encourag-
potentially interacting influences of the full suite of ing, at least in that cumulative and potentially interacting
anthropogenic activities occurring in the same region are effects are considered. Specifically in the case of Arctic
being inadequately evaluated. development, though the National Marine Fisheries Service
We acknowledge the practical challenges involved in try- identified and described the problem, the agency neglected
ing to understand and manage interacting and/or cumula- to propose an explicit process for analyzing or accounting for
tive impacts (eg limitations in quantifying impacts, regula- its cumulative impacts. This is clearly a challenging manage-
tory governance within borders that are largely artificial ment task, and some tangible efforts and measures – using a
given the transboundary nature of sound propagation, ani- risk assessment paradigm, for instance – are sorely needed.
mal movements). However, it is essential that standards be The relative value of individual habitats (eg feeding,
applied programmatically and internationally to include all breeding, migratory) should be considered, and repeat
seismic exploration and associated anthropogenic activities exposures of animals that display a strong fidelity to a par-
that could potentially affect marine species or populations ticular habitat should be part of cumulative effects analy-
thereof, and we propose a structure for such application ses. The sustained presence of animals in an area under
below. For migratory and resident marine animals, particu- development is an insufficient indicator of the absence of
larly those with limited dispersal abilities, the potential for adverse impacts, particularly given the challenges of
disturbance from cumulative impacts is high. Migratory detecting population trends (Taylor et al. 2007). Some
baleen whales, for example, are likely to encounter seismic animals may have limited abilities to move elsewhere,
surveys in many parts of their home ranges, including feed- and their decision to remain in an area may likely reflect
ing and breeding grounds and the migration routes between tolerance (ie persisting in an important area despite the
them (eg Rosenbaum et al. 2014). Furthermore, seismic cost) rather than habituation (Bejder et al. 2009). Indeed,
activities need to be managed programmatically and recent studies on seismic-survey impacts have docu-
through multi-year processes, rather than through separate mented responses such as declines in prey capture signals,
harassment authorizations, as has been the standard proce- a proxy for foraging success, in cetaceans that have not
dure in the US. Recent steps toward that end, including the abandoned the affected portions of their home ranges (eg

© The Ecological Society of America www.frontiersinecology.org

 Coordinated management of ocean noise DP Nowacek et al.

382 Table 1. Summary of documented effects of seismic surveys on fish and marine mammals
Species Location Response/effect Received level Reference(s)

Bowhead whale Arctic Change in 120–130 dB re: 1 µPa RMS; Richardson et al. (1999);
(Balaena mysticetus) surface respiration; avoidance; 116–129 dB re: 1 µPa RMS Robertson et al. (2013);
call cessation Blackwell et al. (2013)
Sperm whale Gulf of Mexico Buzz (feeding) rate 135–147 dB re: 1 µPa RMS Miller et al. (2009)
(Physeter macrocephalus) decline
Harbor porpoise North Sea Temporary displacement; 145–151 dB re: 1 µPa2-sec; Thompson et al. (2013);
(Phocoena phocoena) buzz (feeding) rate decline 130–165 dB re: 1 µPa2-sec Pirotta et al. (2014)
Beluga whale Arctic Temporary displacement ~130 dB re: 1 µPa RMS Miller et al. (2005)
(Delphinapterus leucas)
Humpback whale Angola Singing and singers declined 120–150 dB re: 1 µPa peak Cerchio et al. (2014)
(Megaptera novaeangliae)
Fin whale Mediterranean Altered singing and ~15 dB 1 µPa above Castellote et al. (2012)
(Balaenoptera physalus) abandonment of habitat background
Fish (herring, blue whiting Norway Displacement, horizontal Unknown, occurred over Slotte et al. (2004)
[Micromesistius poutassou]) and vertical large study area
Fish (cod, pollock UK (Scotland) Short-term startle, Variable Wardle et al. (2001)
[Pollachius spp]) no long-term effects
Fish (pink snapper Captive Hearing system damage Variable 150–180 dB McCauley et al. (2003)
[Pagrus auratus]) re: 1 µPa RMS

Notes: This is not intended to be a complete compilation, only a sample showing representative species, geographic locations, and documented responses/effects. Ongoing
studies (eg Cato et al. 2011) should provide additional information about effects of seismic surveys. dB = decibel; µPa = micropascal; RMS = root mean square.

Miller et al. 2009; Pirotta et al. 2014). The cumulative, the most recent substantial amendment to the
synergistic, and chronic effects of elevated noise levels, International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution
including those from “intermittent” sounds such as seis- from Ships (MARPOL 1973/1978; Annex VI entered into
mic airguns and sounds at relatively low received levels force 19 May 2005), regulates emissions of air pollution
(eg Figure 1), are detrimental in humans and other mam- from ships. Many parallels exist between air pollution and
mals, affecting hormone systems as well as behavior (eg noise in the ocean; for instance, sound from seismic sur-
Warner and Heimstra 1971; Evans 2003; Otten et al. veys, similar to atmospheric emissions from ships, may
2004; Wright et al. 2007). These effects of elevated noise travel thousands of kilometers from its source. The prece-
levels should be an explicit component of environmental dential authority of an air pollution convention is
impact statements and rulemakings, rather than being strengthened because the EU and various international
vaguely acknowledged but not substantively addressed. authorities, such as the Convention on Biological
Diversity and Convention on Migratory Species, now clas-
n A responsible way forward sify ocean noise as a pollutant. Furthermore, the
International Organization for Standardization (ISO 2012,
Given the transboundary scale and numerous sources of 2014) and the International Maritime Organization (IMO;
anthropogenic sound in the world’s oceans – including IMO 2014) have produced guidelines to, respectively, mea-
noise from marine seismic surveys, which are ubiquitous sure and reduce underwater noise from commercial vessels.
and increasing in abundance – we believe that a responsi- There are several options for creating new and legally
ble path forward should focus on the creation of legally binding commitments to control sources of noise in the
binding international commitments. oceans. First, member states of the IMO could pursue an
Successful precedents exist for crafting such agreements, annex to MARPOL 1973/1978 through the Marine
including the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety (CPD 2000; Environmental Protection Committee. This approach is
UNSCBD 2000) organized under the Convention for attractive because it leverages an existing and effective
Biological Diversity (CBD 1992) and the Convention on framework, and could include radiated underwater noise
Long-range Transboundary Air Pollution (CLRTAP from vessel operation along with geophysical survey
1979). The CLRTAP was the first international legally noise. But it is not without challenges. Provisions within
binding instrument to address issues of air pollution on a MARPOL that cover underwater noise would have to
broad regional basis and, notably, created an institutional amend the Convention’s definition of “harmful sub-
framework for integrating research and policy. Annex VI, stances”, which currently does not capture energy or

www.frontiersinecology.org © The Ecological Society of America

DP Nowacek et al. Coordinated management of ocean noise

sound, and perhaps revise the definition of “discharge”, tected areas (MPAs), or, in keeping with the proposal to 383
which presently omits the release of harmful substances rely on existing international instruments used by the
associated with offshore mineral development (although IMO, they could be designated as areas to be avoided
oil and gas do not have the physical properties of “miner- (ATBAs) or as particularly sensitive sea areas (PSSAs).
als”, they are included as such in the legal regimes govern- The effectiveness of MPAs, ATBAs, or PSSAs could be
ing the seabed in Part XI and the resources of the conti- minimal, however, given the distances that ocean noise –
nental shelf in Part VI of the Law of the Sea Convention, including seismic survey signals – can travel underwater.
and would also have to be considered). MARPOL applies Time and/or area restrictions are often a risk-assessment
solely to “ships”, however, and some might suggest that calculation and represent trade-offs. Time-sharing may be
the term’s definition, while broad, excludes towed airgun impossible when, for example, the waters are available to
arrays. But these issues present only semantic obstacles, animals and surveys for only short windows due to the pres-
which can be overcome if states are committed to the reg- ence of ice (eg Nowacek et al. 2013).
ulation of noise. As an alternative, states could negotiate a
brand new convention to regulate all non-military sources (2) Requirements for sustained monitoring of
of underwater noise, including those emanating from acoustic habitat indicators (eg spatial, seasonal
industrial, geophysical, and civilian vessel sources. The ambient noise levels across species-specific
process for negotiation of such an instrument is lengthy frequencies), with limitations and targets based
but the obstacles would not be insurmountable. Building on the cumulative noise contributions of human
on previous ideas for sustainable governance of ocean activities
issues (Costanza et al. 1998) and integrated ocean man-
agement (Foley et al. 2013), we propose that a convention Such an approach is consistent with the Marine Strategy
on ocean noise could draw upon leading analytical frame- Framework Directive currently being implemented in the
works of decision-making behavior in the context of pol- EU (EU 2008). Monitoring should include data-gather-
icy and governance processes of change (eg the ing efforts that improve baseline knowledge about species
Institutional Analysis and Development [IAD] of concern. This objective can be achieved in part by
Framework [McGinnis 2011] or the social–ecological sys- systematically integrating passive listening capabilities
tem framework [Ostrom 2009; Basurto and Nenadovic into ocean-observing systems. While most governments
2012]). Within one of these frameworks, different scenar- have been slow to implement such practices (Southall et
ios for sustainable planning can be explored. Scenario al. 2012), some examples exist, such as the Australian
planning has been used extensively in the commercial sec- Ocean Data Network Portal (http://portal.aodn.org.
tor, is a well-developed tool in business planning au/aodn).
(Schoemaker 1995), and is emerging as an essential ele-
ment in studies of the environment (Peterson et al. 2003a, (3) Preconditions to develop and implement
b) and global change (Bennett et al. 2003). Importantly, practices that reduce the acoustic footprint of
an accepted international convention would facilitate seismic surveys and other activities
long-range planning in the use of acoustic sources.
We suggest the following as an initial list of measures to Any new convention should encourage the development
be included in a new convention: of less invasive exploration techniques, such as vibroseis
(a vibratory source that emits more continuous energy,
(1) Empirically based restrictions on the time, lower in peak energy than airguns and narrower in fre-
duration, and/or area of activities in known quency), which has been used successfully in terrestrial
biologically important habitats applications for geophysical exploration (Echtler et al.
1996) and shows promise in the marine environment
Many habitats could be included in this measure, such as (Weilgart 2010). Methods to minimize exploration
bowhead whale (Balaena mysticetus) feeding areas in the impacts should also include data-sharing requirements or
Beaufort and Chukchi Seas; feeding areas, calving areas, other reasonable arrangements to help reduce or elimi-
and migration routes for North Atlantic right whales nate duplicative surveys.
(Eubalaena glacialis); areas in the North Sea inhabited by
acoustically sensitive harbor porpoises (Phocoena phocoena) (4) Creation of an intergovernmental science
and fish; blue whale (Balaenoptera musculus) habitat south organization that can coordinate and advance
of Australia; and important sperm whale (Physeter macro- efforts to improve the environmental assessment
cephalus) and Bryde’s whale (Balaenoptera brydei) habitats of acoustic impacts
in the Gulf of Mexico. Understanding marine species’
habitat requirements throughout their entire annual cycle Such efforts should include the development and applica-
in any particular region – relative to the occurrence of seis- tion of metrics for assessing the health of potentially
mic surveys conducted therein – is essential. Such biologi- affected organisms and populations, such as quantitative
cally important habitats could be proposed as marine pro- assessments of vital rates, prey availability, ranging pat-

© The Ecological Society of America www.frontiersinecology.org

 Coordinated management of ocean noise DP Nowacek et al.

384 terns, and body condition (eg population consequences of ration and extraction, as well as by transboundary cargo-
acoustic disturbance [PCAD] or simply “of disturbance” shipping firms. Secondly, a parallel path should be cre-
[PCoD]; Harwood et al. 2011). ated to incorporate anthropogenic noise into life-cycle
(“cradle to grave”) inventory analysis for commercial
(5) Requirements for the preparation of EIAs and products (eg Guinee 2002), thus serving as a catalyst for
strategic or programmatic environmental industry to work with researchers in developing more
assessments that analyze the potential for robust spatial and temporal datasets to better quantify the
cumulative effects risks and impacts of marine seismic activities and improve
the effectiveness of intervention strategies.
Regulators must explicitly assess and manage the risks of At the national level, regulatory engagement can play a
additive and synergistic acoustic exposures, which have critical role in driving innovation. For example, in 2011,
demonstrated detrimental effects on humans and other the German government issued an action-forcing stan-
mammals (Warner and Heimstra 1971; Evans 2003; dard for noise caused by pile-driving activity, requiring
Otten et al. 2004; Wright et al. 2007). Recently developed operators to reduce pressure levels below a given thresh-
tools that map human noise and cetacean densities can old within a defined radius of the source (Umwelt-
be used for assessing acoustic impact, cumulative and oth- bundesamt 2011). After allowing the industry time to
erwise (NOAA 2012). develop technology and methods of compliance, the gov-
In the absence of an international convention, existing ernment now includes the standard in licenses for off-
regional authorities may be amenable to incorporating shore windfarm construction. Regulators should use anal-
regulation of underwater noise in their regimes. In ogous mechanisms and other prescriptive and
Europe, ocean noise has occupied the work plans of sev- incentive-based tools to promote noise reduction in the
eral regional accords (eg the Agreement on the seismic exploration industry, which – despite a long-rec-
Conservation of Cetaceans in the Black Sea, ognized need – has been slow to develop noise-control
Mediterranean Sea and Contiguous Atlantic Area and technologies and alternative technologies and bring
the Agreement on the Conservation of Small Cetaceans them into commercial use. Marine sustainability should
of the Baltic and North Seas, sub-agreements of the be considered as a race to the top, not as a scramble to
Convention on Migratory Species that address cetacean keep from being the worst.
conservation in the Mediterranean, Black, Baltic, and Ultimately, if we are to understand, control, and reverse
North Seas) for more than a decade, resulting in the first the chronic deterioration of marine acoustic environ-
regional noise guidelines (ACCOBAMS 2010), which ments and its expected impacts on marine ecosystems
include seismic exploration. Multinational instruments over the coming decades, regulators should begin estab-
in other parts of the world that regulate regional seas, lishing cumulative-exposure limits for anthropogenic
such as the Abidjan Convention (UNEP 1984) and the noise. These limits should be appropriately matched to
Lima Convention (UNEP 1986), include ocean noise the spatiotemporal scale and exposure rate of the risks to
within their “competence” (a term with precise legal individuals and populations. The lack of baseline data
implications). Actions taken by these authorities gener- should not be construed as free rein to proceed
ally constitute “soft laws”, however, which are useful for unchecked until negative effects are demonstrated. Both
facilitating regional cooperation and coordination but are public and private institutions have the opportunity to
not strictly binding for member states and therefore can- correct our current path and to ensure the resilience and
not substitute for an international convention. Creating health of marine ecosystems.
a pan-Arctic plan, given the pace of development and
rapid environmental change occurring in the region, is an n Acknowledgements
urgent matter. The intergovernmental Arctic Council
(www.arctic-council.org) would be a natural partner in We thank RR Reeves and AJ Read for comments on pre-
this regard, and could serve as a vehicle for a binding vious versions of this manuscript, and LM Campbell and
regional treaty. X Basurto for comments on the way forward we have pro-
Elected officials, business leaders, and members of the posed.
public, by pressuring governments and industries, possess
the influence necessary to encourage sectors engaged in n References
ocean-based commerce to address marine noise. The ACCOBAMS (Agreement on the Conservation of Cetaceans of
actions of socially responsible investors and progressive the Black Sea, Mediterranean Sea and contiguous Atlantic
policies put forth by the regulatory community can play a area). 2010. Guidelines to address the impact of anthropogenic
large role in this process. In the near term, indicators of noise on cetaceans in the ACCOBAMS area. ACCOBAMS
resolution 4.17. Monaco, Principality of Monaco:
stewardship – such as certification of “ocean friendly” ACCOBAMS.
technologies and organizational strategies to limit Basurto X and Nenadovic M. 2012. A systematic approach to
anthropogenic noise and rates of exposure – should be studying fisheries governance. Global Policy 3: 222–30.
incorporated by firms engaged in marine resource explo- Bejder L, Samuels A, Whitehead H, et al. 2009. Impact assessment

www.frontiersinecology.org © The Ecological Society of America

DP Nowacek et al. Coordinated management of ocean noise

research: use and misuse of habituation, sensitisation and toler- Quantifying seismic survey reverberation off the Alaskan
ance in describing wildlife responses to anthropogenic stimuli. North Slope. J Acoust Soc Am 130: 3046–58.
385
Mar Ecol-Prog Ser 395: 177–85. Guinee JB. 2002. Handbook on life cycle assessment: operational
Bennett E, Carpenter S, Peterson G, et al. 2003. Why global sce- guide to the ISO standards. Dordrecht, the Netherlands:
narios need ecology. Front Ecol Environ 1: 322–29. Springer.
Blackwell SB, Nations CS, McDonald TL, et al. 2013. Effects of air- Harwood J, Costa DP, Tyack PL, and Weise M. 2011. A conceptual
gun sounds on bowhead whale calling rates in the Alaskan framework for evaluating the effects of sound on marine mam-
Beaufort Sea. Mar Mammal Sci 29: E342–E365. mals. 96th Meeting of the Ecological Society of America; 7–12
BOEM (Bureau of Ocean Energy Management). 2014a. Quieting Aug 2011; Austin, TX.
technologies for reducing noise during seismic surveying and Hatch LT, Clark CW, Van Parijs SM, et al. 2012. Quantifying loss
pile driving workshop: summary report. OCS Report BOEM of acoustic communication space for right whales in and
2014-061. Herndon, VA: BOEM. around a US national marine sanctuary. Conserv Biol 26:
BOEM (Bureau of Ocean Energy Management). 2014b. Atlantic 983–94.
OCS proposed geological and geophysical activities, Mid- HESS (High Energy Seismic Survey) Team. 1999. High energy
Atlantic and South Atlantic planning areas, final program- seismic survey review process and interim operational guide-
matic environmental impact statement. OCS EIS/EA BOEM lines for marine surveys offshore southern California.
2014-001. Herndon, VA: BOEM. Camarillo, CA: California State Lands Commission and US
Castellote M, Clark CW, and Lammers MO. 2012. Acoustic and Minerals Management Service.
behavioural changes by fin whales (Balaenoptera physalus) in Hildebrand JA. 2009. Anthropogenic and natural sources of ambi-
response to shipping and airgun noise. Biol Conserv 147: ent noise in the ocean. Mar Ecol-Prog Ser 395: 5–20.
115–22. IMO (International Maritime Organization). 2014. Noise from
Cato DH, Noad MJ, Dunlop RA, et al. 2011. Behavioral response commercial shipping and its adverse impacts on marine life.
of Australian humpback whales to seismic surveys. J Acoust Soc London, UK: IMO. MEPC 66/17.
Am 129: 2936. ISO (International Organization for Standardization). 2012.
CBD (Convention on Biological Diversity). 1992. 5 Jun 1992, Acoustics – quantities and procedures for description and mea-
1760 UNTS 79; 31 ILM 818. Entered into force 29 Dec 1992. surement of underwater sound from ships design considera-
New York, NY: UN. tions. Geneva, Switzerland: ISO. ISO/PAS 17208-1.
Cerchio S, Strindberg S, Collins T, et al. 2014. Seismic surveys neg- ISO (International Organization for Standardization). 2014. Ship
atively affect humpback whale singing activity off northern and marine technology – measurement and reporting of under-
Angola. PLoS ONE 9: e86464. water sound radiated from merchant ships – deep-water mea-
Clark CW and Ellison WT. 2004. Potential use of low-frequency surement. Geneva, Switzerland: ISO. ISO/DIS 16554.
sounds by baleen whales for probing the environment: evi- Jochens A, Biggs D, Benoit-Bird K, et al. 2008. Sperm whale seis-
dence from models and empirical measurements. In: Thomas J, mic study in the Gulf of Mexico: synthesis report. New
Moss C, and Vater M (Eds). Echolocation in bats and dolphins. Orleans, LA: US Department of the Interior, Minerals
Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press. Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region.
Clark CW, Ellison WT, Southall BL, et al. 2009. Acoustic masking MARPOL (International Convention for the Prevention of
in marine ecosystems: intuitions, analysis, and implication. Pollution from Ships). 1973/1978. 2 Nov 1973, 1340 UNTS
Mar Ecol-Prog Ser 395: 201–22. 184; 12 ILM 1319. Entered into force 2 Oct 1983. London,
CLRTAP (Convention on Long-range Transboundary Air UK: IMO.
Pollution). 1979. 1302 UNTS 217; 18 ILM 1442. Entered into McCauley RD, Fewtrell J, and Popper AN. 2003. High intensity
force 16 Mar 1983. Geneva, Switzerland: UN Economic anthropogenic sound damages fish ears. J Acoust Soc Am 113:
Commission for Europe. 638–42.
Costanza R, Andrade F, Antunes P, et al. 1998. Principles for sus- McGinnis MD. 2011. An introduction to IAD and the language of
tainable governance of the oceans. Science 281: 198–99. the Ostrom Workshop: a simple guide to a complex framework.
CPD (Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety). 2000. 2226 UNTS 208; Policy Stud J 39: 169–83.
39 ILM 1027; UN Doc. UNEP/CBD/ExCOP/1/3, at 42. Miller GW. 2005. Monitoring seismic effects on marine mammals –
Entered into force 11 Sep 2003. Montreal, Canada: Secretariat southeastern Beaufort Sea, 2001–2002. In: Armsworthy SL,
of the Convention on Biological Diversity. Cranford PJ, and Lee K (Eds). Offshore oil and gas environ-
Echtler HP, Stiller M, Steinhoff F, et al. 1996. Preserved collisional mental effects: monitoring, approaches and technologies.
crustal structure of the southern Urals revealed by vibroseis Columbus, OH: Battelle Press.
profiling. Science 274: 224–26. Miller PJO, Johnson MP, Madsen PT, et al. 2009. Using at-sea
EU (European Union). 2008. Marine strategy framework directive. experiments to study the effects of airguns on the foraging
Directive 2008/56/EC, 17 Jun 2008, Official Journal of the behavior of sperm whales in the Gulf of Mexico. Deep-Sea Res
European Union, L 164/19, 25 Jun 2008, part 3(8). Brussels, Pt I 56: 1168–81.
Belgium: EU. National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2013. Effects of oil
EU (European Union). 2014. Directive of the European and gas activities in the Arctic Ocean: supplemental draft
Parliament and of the Council amending Directive Environmental Impact Statement. Prepared by NMFS, Office
2011/92/EU on the assessment of the effects of certain public of Protected Resources. www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/eis/arc-
and private projects on the environment, 2012/0297 (COD), tic_sdeis.pdf. Viewed 4 Aug 2015.
PE-CONS 15/14, 19 Mar 2014. Brussels, Belgium: EU. Nieukirk SL, Stafford KM, Mellinger DK, et al. 2004. Low-fre-
Evans GW. 2003. A multimethodological analysis of cumulative quency whale and seismic airgun sounds recorded in the mid-
risk and allostatic load among rural children. Dev Psychol 39: Atlantic Ocean. J Acoust Soc Am 115: 1832–43.
924–33. Nieukirk SL, Mellinger DK, Moore SE, et al. 2012. Sounds from
Foley MM, Armsby MH, Prahler EE, et al. 2013. Improving ocean airguns and fin whales recorded in the mid-Atlantic Ocean,
management through the use of ecological principles and inte- 1999–2009. J Acoust Soc Am 131: 1102–12.
grated ecosystem assessments. BioScience 63: 619–31. NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration).
Grebmeier JM, Overland JE, Moore SE, et al. 2006. A major ecosys- 2012. Mapping cetaceans and sound: modern tools for ocean
tem shift in the northern Bering Sea. Science 311: 1461–64. management. Bethesda, MD: NOAA.
Guerra M, Thode AM, Blackwell SB, and Macrander AM. 2011. Nowacek D, Bröker K, Donovan GP, et al. 2013. Responsible prac-

© The Ecological Society of America www.frontiersinecology.org

 Coordinated management of ocean noise DP Nowacek et al.

tices for minimizing and monitoring environmental impacts of Thompson PM, Brookes KL, Graham IM, et al. 2013. Short-term
386 marine seismic surveys with an emphasis on marine mammals. disturbance by a commercial two-dimensional seismic survey
Aquatic Mammals 39: 356–77. does not lead to long-term displacement of harbour porpoises.
Ostrom E. 2009. A general framework for analyzing sustainability P R Soc B 280: 20132001.
of social–ecological systems. Science 325: 419–22. Umweltbundesamt. 2011. Empfehlung von Lärmschutzwerten bei
Otten W, Kanitz E, Puppe B, et al. 2004. Acute and long term der Errichtung von Offshore-Windenergieanlagen (OWEA).
effects of chronic intermittent noise stress on Dessau, Germany: Umweltbundesamt.
hypothalamic–pituitary–adrenocortical and sympathoad- UNCLOS (United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea).
renomedullary axis in pigs. Anim Sci 78: 271–83. 1982. 10 Dec 1982, 1833 UNTS 397; 21 ILM 1261. Entered
Peterson G, Beard Jr T, Beisner B, et al. 2003a. Assessing future into force 16 Nov 1994. New York, NY: UN.
ecosystem services: a case study of the Northern Highlands UNEP (United Nations Environment Programme). Convention
Lake District, Wisconsin. Conserv Ecol 7: 1. for Co-operation in the Protection and Development of the
Peterson G, Cumming G, and Carpenter S. 2003b. Scenario plan- Marine and Coastal Environment of the West and Central
ning: a tool for conservation in an uncertain world. Conserv African Region and Protocol. Entry into force 5 Aug 1984.
Biol 17: 358–66. Nairobi, Kenya: UNEP.
Pirotta E, Brookes KL, Graham IM, and Thompson PM. 2014. UNEP (United Nations Environment Programme). 1986.
Variation in harbour porpoise activity in response to seismic Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment and
survey noise. Biol Lett 10: 20131090. Coastal Areas of the South-East Pacific. Entry into force 1986
Richardson W, Miller G, and Greene CJ. 1999. Displacement of (day and month unknown). Nairobi, Kenya: UNEP.
migrating bowhead whales by sounds from seismic surveys in UNSCBD (United Nations Secretariat of the Convention on
shallow waters of the Beaufort Sea. J Acoust Soc Am 106: 2281. Biological Diversity). 2000. Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety to
Rio Declaration. 1992. Rio Declaration on Environment and the Convention on Biological Diversity: text and annexes.
Development, 13 Jun 1992, UN Doc A/CONF.151/26 (v I); 31 Montreal, Canada: Secretariat of the Convention on
ILM 874 (1992) (Principle 15). New York, NY: UN. Biological Diversity.
Robertson FC, Koski WR, Thomas TA, et al. 2013. Seismic opera- Urick RJ. 1983. Principles of underwater sound. Los Altos, CA:
tions have variable effects on dive-cycle behavior of bowhead Peninsula Publishing.
whales in the Beaufort Sea. Endangered Species Research 21: Wardle CS, Carter TJ, Urquhart GG, et al. 2001. Effects of seismic
143–60. air guns on marine fish. Cont Shelf Res 21: 1005–27.
Rosenbaum HC, Maxwell SM, Kershaw F, and Mate B. 2014. Warner HD and Heimstra NW. 1971. Effects of intermittent noise
Long-range movement of humpback whales and their overlap on visual search tasks of varying complexity. Percept Motor Skill
with anthropogenic activity in the South Atlantic Ocean. 32: 219–26.
Conserv Biol 28: 604–15. Weilgart LS (Ed). 2010. Report of the workshop on Alternative
Schoemaker P. 1995. Scenario planning: a tool for strategic think- Technologies to Seismic Airgun Surveys for Oil and Gas
ing. Sloan Manage Rev 36: 25–40. Exploration and their Potential for Reducing Impacts on
Slotte A, Hansen K, Dalen J, and Ona E. 2004. Acoustic mapping of Marine Mammals. Darmstadt, Germany: Okeanos –
pelagic fish distribution and abundance in relation to a seismic Foundation for the Sea. www.okeanos-foundation.org/assets/
shooting area off the Norwegian west coast. Fish Res 67: 143–50. Uploads/Airgun.pdf. Viewed 1 Jun 2015.
Southall BL, Dushaw B, Moore SE, et al. 2012. Ocean acoustic Wright AJ, Soto NA, Baldwin AL, et al. 2007. Anthropogenic
monitoring in IOOS: tools for measuring natural systems and noise as a stressor in animals: a multidisciplinary perspective.
human impacts. IOOS Summit 2012: a new decade for an inte- Int J Comp Psychol 20: 250–73.
grated and sustained ocean observing system; 13–16 Nov 2012;
Herndon, VA. Washington, DC: IOOC. 5
Southall BL, Rowles T, Gulland F, et al. 2013. Final report of the School of Biology, University of St Andrews, St Andrews, UK;
6
Independent Scientific Review Panel investigating potential Ocean Giants Program, Wildlife Conservation Society, New York,
contributing factors to a 2008 mass stranding of melon-headed NY; 7Nicholas School of the Environment, Division of Earth &
whales (Peponocephala electra) in Antsohihy, Madagascar. Ocean Sciences, Duke Center for Sustainability & Commerce,
Cambridge, UK: International Whaling Commission.
Duke University, Durham, NC; 8Natural Resources Defense
Taylor BL, Martinez M, Gerrodette T, and Barlow J. 2007. Lessons
from monitoring trends in abundance of marine mammals. Mar Council, Santa Monica, CA; 9Southall Environmental Associates
Mammal Sci 23: 157–75. and University of California, Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz, CA

www.frontiersinecology.org © The Ecological Society of America