Creating a quiet sanctuary by UCLA Luskin School of Public Affairs

CREATING A QUIET SANCTUARY: Reducing Noise Pollution from Commercial Shipping in the Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary

Photo courtesy of the Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary

Angela Haren Applied Policy Project UCLA School of Public Affairs Submitted April 20, 2005 This report was prepared in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Master in Public Policy degree in the Department of Public Policy at the University of California, Los Angeles. It was prepared at the direction of the Department and of the Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary as a policy client. The views expressed herein are those of the author and not necessarily those of the Department, the UCLA School of Public Affairs, UCLA as a whole, or the client.

TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS.................................................................................................................... i EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................................... ii I.

INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................... 1

II.

PURPOSE & NEED.................................................................................................................. 1 Description of the Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary............................................ 1 International Mandates........................................................................................................... 2 Commercial Shipping: a Source of Noise Pollution .............................................................. 3

II.

RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................................................. 7 Decision 1: Should CINMS Take any action at all? .............................................................. 8 Decision 2: What is the appropriate agency level to take the lead on addressing noise pollution in the Channel Islands?......................................................................................... 10 Decision 3: What policy avenue should be pursued to address the issue? ......................... 12

IV. FURTHER RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................................................... 18 1. Begin an Acoustic Monitoring Program .......................................................................... 18 2. Permitting Process ........................................................................................................... 19 V. CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................................... 20 APPENDIX A: SANCTUARY REGULATIONS .................................................................................... 21 APPENDIX B: UNDERWATER SOUND ............................................................................................. 24 APPENDIX C: AGENCY STRUCTURE .............................................................................................. 28 APPENDIX D: MAP OF INENDED RESEARCH SITES ........................................................................ 29 APPENDIX E: DESCRIPTION OF UNDERWATER ACOUSTIC RECORDING PACKAGES ....................... 30

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to thank Mike Murray and Sarah MacWilliams of the Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary, without whom this project would have never started, and most likely would have never been completed. Thanks as well to my advisor, Professor Andy Sabl for his guidance; Cara Horowitz and Michael Jasny, Attorneys, Natural Resources Defense Council, for their invaluable input and expertise; Lindy Johnson, Attorney, Office of General Counsel National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration, for taking the time to explain the intricacies of international marine policy making and for sharing her vast knowledge with me; John Hildebrand and Sean Wiggins, Professors at the Scripps Institute of Oceanography for introducing me to the wonders of underwater acoustic recording; and Shiva Polekfa, Research Fellow, Environmental Defense Center, for his time and efforts. I would also like to thank my family and friends for their unending encouragement and support. I owe a very special thank you to my classmate Stephanie Toby for being my honorary â&#x20AC;&#x153;group memberâ&#x20AC;? and giving me the encouragement to get through this process; and to Collin Kelley for always having faith in me and convincing me to have faith in myself.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY BACKGROUND There is mounting scientific evidence that anthropogenic (man-made) noise can harm and even kill marine mammals (including many endangered species). This evidence calls for a decision on what could and should be done to mitigate the effects of noise pollution. One important step is to safeguard marine protected areas from anthropogenic noise because these areas are ecologically important and are often critical habitat for marine mammals. The Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary (CINMS or Sanctuary) is one such marine protected area facing this important decision. Anthropogenic noise in the ocean can be characterized as high intensity and acute, such as military sonar, or low level and chronic, such as commercial shipping. The Sanctuary has been identified as particularly vulnerable to noise pollution from commercial shipping. This report seeks to answer the following policy questions: Given its limited scope of authority, what are the alternatives for the CINMS to reduce noise pollution from commercial shipping vessels within Sanctuary boundaries? Considering current constraints (monetary, political, limited authority) which of these alternatives is the best at this time, and which can CINMS strive to implement in the future? RECOMMENDATIONS First and foremost the Sanctuary must act now to institute an acoustic monitoring program. Further understanding of acoustic threats in the Sanctuary will aid in future policy development. Through the course of my research I made contact with a researcher at the Scripps Institute of Oceanography who already has a three-year study planned for the Channel Islands area. The Sanctuary should coordinate with this research project to gain knowledge of the acoustic environment of the Sanctuary. This would involve existing research therefore few costs to the Sanctuary. The Sanctuary should also work towards a permanent acoustic monitoring program. CINMS should work to determine the appropriate protective measures to reduce noise pollution from commercial shipping and seek designation as a Particularly Sensitive Sea Area, or PSSA, under the International Maritime Organization (IMO) to institute these measures. This international designation offers a geographically larger area of protection for the marine species than would Sanctuary-level protection alone. However, it should use its own authority to regulate sources of noise pollution other than commercial shipping vessels. Further, CINMS should coordinate its efforts with other sanctuaries concerned about noise pollution to share research and policy ideas. Ship-quieting technology is a viable option to reduce the impact of noise on marine species in the Channel Islands and elsewhere. This option has tremendous potential to protect marine species around the world. This policy would have to be pursued at the international level, but, CINMS, and its Sanctuary Advisory Council, should advocate that the U.S. take ship quieting technology standards to the IMO.

I. INTRODUCTION International concern about the impact of noise pollution in our world’s oceans is growing due to the mounting scientific evidence that anthropogenic (man-made) noise can harm and even kill marine mammals (including many endangered species). This evidence calls for a decision on what could and should be done to mitigate the effects of noise pollution. One important step is to safeguard marine protected areas from anthropogenic noise because these areas are ecologically important and are often critical habitat for marine mammals. The Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary (CINMS or Sanctuary) is one such marine protected area. In September, 2004 the Sanctuary Advisory Council (an advisory body to the Sanctuary Manager) voted unanimously to pass on a report to the Sanctuary Manager outlining acoustic threats in the Sanctuary and requesting that he identify and consider policy options available to mitigate those threats, and then to present his findings back to the Council. To assist the manager in this task, this report seeks to answer the following policy questions: Given its limited scope of authority, what are the alternatives for the Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary to mitigate noise pollution from commercial shipping within Sanctuary boundaries? Considering current constraints (monetary, political, limited authority) which of these alternatives is the best at this time, and which can CINMS strive to implement in the future?

II. PURPOSE & NEED DESCRIPTION OF THE CHANNEL ISLANDS NATIONAL MARINE SANCTUARY The National Marine Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (NMSA) acknowledges the need to improve the conservation, understanding, management, and wise and sustainable use of marine resources.1 To this end, it authorizes the Secretary of Commerce to designate areas of the marine environment as national marine sanctuaries based on conservational, recreational, ecological, historical, scientific, educational, cultural, archeological, or esthetic qualities; communities of living marine resources it harbors; or its resource or human-use value.2 National Marine Sanctuaries are multiple-use areas that are intended to promote not only ecological protection, but also economic and scientific interests. However, the NMSA emphasizes that one of the express purposes of a sanctuary is to “maintain the natural biological communities” and to “protect and, where appropriate, restore and enhance natural habitats, populations, and ecological processes.”3 The Channels Islands National Marine Sanctuary, off the coast of Santa Barbara, California, was designated as a marine protected area in 1980. The Sanctuary covers 1252 square nautical miles, encompassing the waters six nautical miles offshore of the Santa Barbara, Anacapa, Santa Cruz, Santa Rosa, and San Miguel Islands (see map 1). The islands’ location at the confluence of two major ocean currents – the cool, nutrient-rich waters from the north and warm currents from the 1

National Marine Sanctuaries Act 16 USC §1431et seq., hereinafter NMSA. NMSA §303 (a) (2). 3 NMSA §301 (b) (3) 2

south – form a dynamic transition zone that supports remarkable biodiversity.4 The Sanctuary is home to an array of marine life, including twenty-seven species of cetaceans (whales and dolphins), five species of pinnipeds (seals and sea lions), twenty-three species of sharks, and more than sixty species of sea birds.5 The Sanctuary is an important feeding and breeding ground for these marine species, several of which are endangered including the blue, humpback, and sei whales, the southern sea otter, and the California brown pelican. The Sanctuary currently has regulations designed to protect its marine resources. These prohibit the exploration, development, or production of hydrocarbons; the discharge of substances; alteration of or construction on the sea bed; operation of a commercial cargo vessel within one nautical mile of an island; removing or damaging cultural and historical resources (such as shipwrecks); and disturbing marine mammals or sea birds by operating an aircraft below 1000 feet within one nautical mile of any island.6 Although there is no current regulation to address underwater noise, the Sanctuary has effectively acknowledged that noise can be a disturbance to marine species through its regulation pertaining to aircraft. The Sanctuary could seek to promulgate a new regulation to address underwater noise. As a matter of statutory obligation, CINMS is required to update its management plan every five years.7 This obligation requires a prioritization of management objectives and illustrates that the NMSA was intended to allow sanctuaries to respond to emerging threats and changing sanctuary priorities. INTERNATIONAL MANDATES In response to the ever-increasing evidence that anthropogenic sound can harm and even kill marine life, many international bodies have called for the adoption of measures to protect marine species from noise pollution. In July of 2004, a report by the Scientific Committee of the International Whaling Commission (IWC) (a leading international body on conservation and management of global whale stocks) declared that there is “compelling evidence” that noise pollution is a serious threat to marine mammals and is cause for “serious concern.”8 Further, the IWC called for “the inclusion of anthropogenic noise assessments and noise exposure standards within the framework of national and international ocean conservation plans (e.g. consideration during designation of critical habitats, marine protected areas and ocean zoning.)”9 In November of 2004 the World Conservation Union (IUCN) met in Thailand and passed a resolution calling for member countries to limit, until their noise impacts are better understood, the use of loud ocean noise sources including military sonar, oil and gas exploration, and commercial shipping. This resolution calls for members to “consider noise restrictions in Marine 4

Designation of the Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary 65200 Federal Register Vol. 45 No. 193, hereinafter Designation Document. 5 Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary Information http://channelislands.noaa.gov/drop_down/mission.html accessed 2.2.05. 6 For a complete description of the regulations, including exemptions, see 15 CFR 922.71, provided in Appendix A. 7 NMSA § 304 (e) 8 International Whaling Committee Report of the Scientific Committee August 20, 2004 12.2.5.1 available at http://www.iwcoffice.org/commission/sci_com/screport.htm accessed 12.20.04. 9 ibid at 12.2.5.2

Protected Areas” and “to the maximum extent possible avoid the use of such sources in habitat of vulnerable species and in areas where marine mammals or endangered species may be concentrated.”10 The Channel Islands clearly represents such an area. Although the United States is a party to the IUCN, it abstained from voting on the resolution, mostly due to the administration’s reluctance to restrict any type of military sonar activity at this time. However, the U.S. entered a statement into the text of the resolution declaring that the U.S. “recognize[s] some anthropogenic ocean sound may have adverse effects, ranging from chronic to acute, on marine life.”11 COMMERCIAL SHIPPING: A SOURCE OF NOISE POLLUTION There are many sources of noise pollution in the ocean including military sonar, airguns and other seismic surveying devices, oil and gas development, large commercial ships, small ships, boats, and personal watercraft. Man-made noise in the ocean can be categorized as highintensity and acute, such as military sonar, or lower-level and chronic, such as commercial shipping. Recently a lot of media attention has been focused on high-intensity acute noise (especially from military sonar) because of its potential to cause marine mammal strandings and death.12 However, lower-level and chronic noise pollution also poses a threat. Increases in background ambient noise levels may interfere with a marine mammal’s ability to detect important sounds, such as communications from members of its own species, prey sounds, or natural sounds that aid navigation or foraging. Elevated ambient noise could affect developmental, reproductive, and immune functions and could cause more generalized stress.13 Scientists, environmentalists, NGOs, and international policy making bodies have all expressed concern over the long-term cumulative effects of noise on marine mammals. As a matter of scope I chose to focus on one source of noise pollution, commercial shipping, because it has been identified as the most significant acoustic threat to the Sanctuary at this time.14 This conclusion has been primarily based on the Sanctuary’s proximity to major commercial shipping lanes (see map 1), its location between the busy ports of San Francisco Bay and Los Angeles/Long Beach, the properties of sound emitted by cargo vessels, and the expected growth of international maritime trade. CINMS has conducted little research to determine the acoustic impacts of all potential noise sources in the Sanctuary; furthermore CINMS has done little to coordinate relevant data collected by other researchers that may be important for this 10

World Conservation Union, Undersea Noise Pollution RESWCC3.068, Congress Reference: CGR3.RES053.Rev1 available at: www.iucn.org/congress/members/adopted_res_and_rec/ RES/RESWCC3068%20-%20RES053.pdf accessed 3.1.05. hereinafter IUCN Resolution. 11 ibid. 12 See Donald Evans and Gordon England, Joint interim report: Bahamas marine mammal stranding event of 15-16 March 2000, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the United States Navy 2000. Recent research indicates noise pollution can also disturb fish, for more information see Arthur Popper, et al. Anthropogenic Sound: Effects on the Behavior and Physiology of Fishes, Marine Technology Society Journal 37 (4), Winter 2003-2004. 13 John Hildebrand, Impacts of Anthropogenic Sound on Marine Mammals. (Johns Hopkins Press: forthcoming) unpaginated, on file with author. 14 Shiva Polefka, Anthropogenic Noise and the Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary, Environmental Defense Center 2004; and Conservation and Development Problem Solving Team, University of Maryland College Park, Anthropogenic Noise in the Marine Environment Potential Impacts on the Marine Resources of Stellwagen Bank and Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuaries, prepared for NOAA and the Marine Conservation Biology Institute, December 2000.

issue. Scientific acoustic monitoring of the Sanctuary is needed to determine which sources of noise pose the greatest potential threat. Currently there is no known military sonar testing in close proximity to the Sanctuary, but known military exercises to the south of the Sanctuary could pose a threat. And although seismic exploration is not currently happening in the area, the sub-sea geology of the Santa Barbara Channel has been subject to seismic exploration in the past and may be again in the future.15 In exploring the policy alternatives to mitigate sound from commercial shipping, the Sanctuary should also consider all of the potential acoustic threats in the future. To that end, CINMS should institute an acoustic monitoring program to stay informed as threats emerge (see recommendation #1 under Further Recommendations below). MAP 1: CINMS AND THE SANTA BARBARA CHANNEL VESSEL TRAFFIC SEPARATION SCHEME

Map courtesy of CINMS.

Regardless of its rank order of threat, it is widely believed that commercial shipping noise poses potential to harm marine species in the Sanctuary. In general, supertankers and container ships emit low frequency tones (which travel long distances) and source levels in the range of 180-190 dB re 1 microPA @ 1m.16 (For an explanation of the underwater sound measurements and physics see Appendix B). Especially at low frequencies between 5 and 500 Hz, shipping is the

Polefka, 2004. Robert Gisiner, et al. Proceedings of a Workshop on the Effects of Anthropogenic Noise in the Marine Environment Office of Naval Research, Arlington, Virginia February 10-12, 1998.

major source of background noise in the world’s oceans.17 Generally speaking, the sound generated from large commercial vessels is in the same frequency range produced by large whales (such as blue, fin, and sei whales), predominately low sonic (<1000Hz) and infrasonic (<20 Hz).18 Many scientists are concerned that the increase in the ambient noise level causes “masking,” or in other words, increases the background noise level to the point that it obscures natural ocean communications.19 This is particularly concerning for the endangered blue, fin, and sei whales that inhabit the Sanctuary because they rely on communication in the same frequency range as noises produced by large commercial ships for reproduction and foraging.20 Because hearing is the primary sense for marine life, this type of “acoustic smog” could essentially blind marine species and limit the range over which they can navigate and find food or mates.21 Further, according to data from a number of researchers, the background noise level in the world’s oceans is doubling every decade. 22 The increase in background noise is attributable to the increase in number and size of commercial ships. As 95% of the world’s trade tonnage is carried by ships, commercial shipping is a very important economic industry.23 Ocean shipping is an efficient means of transporting large quantities of goods over long distances, and in the near term, has no viable substitute. Thus, there is a strong economic incentive for companies to use commercial shipping. Vessel operation statistics indicate steady growth in vessel traffic over the past few decades.24 Worldwide, commercial shipping tends to be concentrated in certain locations, rather than distributed evenly. The United States’ ports reflect this global pattern; a handful of ports are responsible for most of the waterborne trade and this trade is increasing (see Table 1). These data are calculated both on the number of ship calls to a port, and the amount of cargo passing through a port. The majority of ship calls are also concentrated among a handful of U.S. ports. In 2003, the top twenty U.S. ports received 79% of calls made to the U.S.25 The Sanctuary’s close proximity to commercial shipping lanes between the busy ports of LA/Long Beach and San Francisco Bay makes it especially vulnerable to noise pollution from 17

National Research Council, Ocean Noise and Marine Mammals (Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 2003). 18 Lori Mazzuca, “Potential Effects of Low Frequency Sound (LFS) from Commercial Vessels on Large Whales” (Master of Marine Affairs Thesis, University of Washington, 2001). 19 Michael Jasny and Joel Reynolds, Sounding the Depths Supertankers, Sonar and the Rise of Undersea Noise (New York, NY: NRDC 1999). 20 Donald Croll, et al., “Bioacoustics: Only male fin whales sing loud songs,” Nature 417: 809, 2002. 21 Christopher Clark, Across the Void, Voices From the Deep, presentation at the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Washington DC 2.20.05, abstract available at http://php.aaas.org/meetings/abstracts.php?xabs=690. See also Bentley, Molly “Unweaving the Song of Whales”, BBC News February 28, 2005 available at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/sci/tech/4297531.stm accessed 3.5.2005. 22 National Research Council, 2003 p. 77, see also Mazzuca 2001 p. 21. 23 John Westwood, et al. Global Ocean Markets (Canterbury, UK: Douglas-Westwood Associates, 2002). 24 See U.S. Department of Transportation Maritime Administration publications on U.S. Waterborne Trade Statistics available at: http://www.marad.dot.gov/Marad_Statistics/index.html accessed 2.28.05. 25 US Department of Transportation Maritime Administration, Vessel Calls at US Ports 2003, p. 4 available at: http://www.marad.dot.gov/MARAD_statistics/ accessed 2.25.05.

commercial shipping (see Map 1).26 These ports are “busy” in terms of both number of calls and amount of cargo passing through. In the U.S. Maritime Administration’s most recent report on U.S. Port Statistics (for the year 2003), the LA/Long Beach port was ranked the number one largest U.S. port in terms of both number of calls and cargo capacity.27 The LA/Long Beach port has held this ranking in previous years and is expected to remain the busiest port in the U.S. The San Francisco Bay port was ranked number five for ports of call and number three for cargo capacity in 2003.28 These statistics were based on information from all types of vessels that call to the ports. When one examines the statistics on container ships only (i.e. commercial shipping vessels) the magnitude of these ports is even more obvious. For container ship calls in 2003, The LA/Long Beach and San Francisco Bay Ports were ranked number one and number two, reflecting 17% and 11% of the total calls to US ports by containerships respectively.29 In the same year, the LA/Long Beach port carried 37% of the total amount of trade to the U.S. measured by twenty-foot equivalent containers.30 Both the number of vessels and the amount of goods shipped are expected to continue to increase. To add to this increase of global shipping, on January 1, 2005 the World Trade Organization lifted quotas that were regarded as tight restrictions on textile and apparel imports to the U.S.31 This change is expected to result in even more ships calling to the LA/Long Beach ports. TABLE 1: U.S. FOREIGN WATERBORNE TRADE CONTAINERIZED CARGO IN 1998 AND 2003 Units are in thousands of Twenty-Foot-Equivalent (TEU) containers. Rank U.S. Port Total Total Percent Import/Export Import/Export Change 1998 2003 1 Los Angeles, CA 2,293 4,664 103.4% 2 Long Beach, CA 2,852 3,091 8.4% 3 New York, NY 1,884 2,803 48.8% 4 Charleston, SC 1,035 1,250 20.8% 5 Savannah, GA 558 1,124 101.4% 6 Norfolk, VA 793 1,093 37.8% 7 Oakland, CA 902 1,064 15.2% 8 Houston, TX 657 933 42.0% 9 Seattle, WA 496 931 87.7% 10 Tacoma, WA 976 815 -16.5% Source: adapted from U.S. Maritime Administration (2003) data on Top 25 U.S. ports CY 1998200332

At its closest point to the Sanctuary, the vessel lanes are only 2 km off the coast of Anacapa Island. ibid. at table H-10 p. 3 28 ibid at table S-6 and S-7, p.14 and 16 respectively. 29 Ibid at table S-6 p. 12 30 U.S. Department of Transportation Maritime Administration Total Top 25 US Ports CY’s 1998-2003 available at: http://www.marad.dot.gov/MARAD_statistics/ accessed 2.21.05 hereinafter U.S. Maritime Admin Top 25 31 Ronald White, “Bracing for a Tighter Fit”, Los Angeles Times, November 29, 2004. 32 U.S. Maritime Top 25 27

II.

RECOMMENDATIONS

In the following section I analyze the management and policy options involved in addressing noise pollution from commercial ships and offer recommendations on which regulatory process to pursue. For a decision-tree graphic representation of these recommendations see Figure 1 below. Due to lack of data, I could not analyze specific protective measures at this time and therefore do not make specific recommendations about them. However, one key recommendation is that focused analysis of scientific data collected from an acoustic monitoring program should be undertaken immediately in order to determine the appropriate protective measures. Further, my research uncovered a potential partnership with researchers at the Scripps Institute of Oceanography that offers the Sanctuary a way to start monitoring this summer at minimal cost. In considering the options the following criteria were considered: expected impact on marine resources, feasibility of the alternatives based on regulatory and political constraints, and economic impact. FIGURE 1: DECISION TREE DECISION #1: Should commercial shipping noise be addressed in the Sanctuary?

YES

DECISION #2: Which Agency should take the Lead?

National Marine Sanctuary Program

Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary

DECISION #3: What avenue for affecting change should be pursued?

Sanctuary Level Regulation

International Designation as a PSSA with Associated Protective Measures

Work with shipping industry and federal government to push ship quieting technology on new ships through the IMO

DECISION 1: SHOULD CINMS TAKE ANY ACTION AT ALL? DISCUSSION OF STATUS QUO Although the Advisory Council has requested that CINMS consider what could be done, CINMS has not yet decided to act to mitigate noise pollution at this time. For that reason it is important to discuss the status quo. CINMS has begun to consider noise pollution as an emerging threat to the Sanctuary. However, to date there has not been a coordinated effort to gather data to characterize the acoustic environment of the Sanctuary or to determine its potential harm to marine life. If the true status quo were to persist, the Sanctuary would not gain any additional knowledge about the problem. The problem could grow and force CINMS’ future policies to be reactive management efforts rather than more effective proactive measures. Since the very concept of marine sanctuaries embodies the precautionary principle, the Sanctuary’s resource protection policies should be precautionary in nature, and thus something should be done to begin to address noise pollution. The only current mechanisms for protecting marine mammals from noise pollution in the Sanctuary are the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) and the Endangered Species Act (ESA), which apply to all U.S. waters, not just national marine sanctuaries.33 The National Environmental Policy Act through its provisions for environmental impact statements and assessments also sometimes requires examination of noise effects on marine mammals.34 However these laws do not currently provide adequate protection to assure that marine life is not harmed by anthropogenic noise. Under the MMPA and ESA, it is illegal to “take” a marine mammal. 35 However, parties can request an incidental take permit allowing them to engage in an activity that might accidentally “take” a marine mammal that would otherwise be unlawful. Under the MMPA part of the definition of take includes harassment, and harassment is further broken down into Level A and Level B. Level A is defined as “any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance which has the potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild.”36 Level B is defined as “any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance which has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering.”37 The agency responsible for issuing these permits is NOAA Fisheries (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Fisheries), formally known as the National Marine Fisheries Service, or NMFS (for the agency structure see Appendix C). NMFS has guidelines on acoustic threshold levels that qualify as a “take” under the MMPA. In January of 2005, NMFS announced its intent to consider new guidelines to determine what constitutes a “take” of a 33

Marine Mammal Protection Act 16 U.S.C. §1361 to 1421; Endangered Species Act 16 U.S.C. §§1531 to 1544 John Richardson, et al. Marine Mammals and Noise (San Diego: Academic Press, 1995). 35 The definition of take under the ESA 16 USCA §1532 (19). includes harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct.35 Under the MMPA §1362 sec. 3 (13) “take” means to harass, hunt, capture, or kill, or attempt to harass, hunt, capture, or kill any marine mammal. 36 MMPA 16 U.S.C. §1362 (18)(A)(i) 37 MMPA 16 U.S.C. §1362 (18)(A)(ii) 34

marine mammal under the MMPA and ESA as a result of exposure to man-made noise in the ocean.38 These new guidelines could result in changing the decibel levels that would constitute harassment, a critical component of the definition of “take.” However, these guidelines focus primarily on peak sounds, such as military sonar, and not ongoing sounds such as commercial shipping noise.39 Furthermore, commercial shipping vessels are not required to carry an incidental take permit for normal operation through the Santa Barbara Channel; it is unlikely that they would be required to even under new guidelines.40 Regardless of current or future standards for the definition of take regarding noise pollution, this is not sufficient protection. The standard of not “taking” an animal is not high enough for the Sanctuary. By its very definition, the Sanctuary should be a place that provides exceptional ecological protection for marine species, not just simply a place that forbids the “taking” of an animal. The Sanctuary should offer added protections beyond what is called for outside its boundaries in order to provide a true “sanctuary” for marine life to flourish. Congress created the National Marine Sanctuaries Act precisely to offer added protections to designated marine protected areas. CINMS should, therefore, set higher standards for ecological protection than standards applied to general U.S. waters. RECOMMENDATION: Anthropogenic noise pollution needs to be addressed in the Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary. The status quo is obviously a poor choice. The waters surrounding the Channel Islands are nationally significant and an ecologically important, and were designated as a sanctuary precisely because of this importance. Because of the high concentration of marine species and the high concentration of commercial ships in the area, the potential for negative impact from noise pollution on the marine species is very likely. The National Marine Sanctuaries Act mandates that sanctuaries protect the marine species from environmental threats. As the federal agency most broadly tasked with management of the area, CINMS has the statutory right and responsibility to protect the marine resources from noise pollution. Furthermore, the Advisory Council has identified noise pollution from commercial shipping as an emerging threat and has asked the Sanctuary to consider mitigation alternatives. For all of these reasons I recommend that CINMS act now to begin to assess the threat of noise pollution in the Sanctuary and to mitigate that threat. At the very least the Sanctuary should begin an acoustical monitoring and data collection program to understand acoustic threats to Sanctuary resources (See recommendation number 1 under Further Recommendations for a more comprehensive discussion of acoustical monitoring).

Federal Register Vol. 70 No. 7 Monica DeAngelis, Marine Biologist NOAA Fisheries, Southwest Region, telephone communication 3.10.05. 40 ibid. 39

DECISION 2: WHAT IS THE APPROPRIATE AGENCY LEVEL TO TAKE THE LEAD ON ADDRESSING NOISE POLLUTION IN THE CHANNEL ISLANDS? CINMS can either take the lead on addressing noise pollution from commercial shipping, or it can defer to the National Marine Sanctuary Program (NMSP or National Program) headquarters, which oversees CINMS and other sanctuaries. Therefore, CINMS has two options: A. Ask the NMSP headquarters to take the lead on dealing with acoustics at a national level, and work with some of the other thirteen sanctuaries to get acoustics on the national policy list. B. Take the lead, addressing the needs of its specific sanctuary (as would other sanctuaries), but involve the NMSP headquarters by asking for national recognition of and support for addressing noise pollution (including funding, participation by scientists, and coordination between sanctuaries). DISCUSSION OF OPTION (A): NMSP headquarters takes the lead â&#x20AC;&#x201C; a top-down approach NOAAâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s National Marine Sanctuary Program is the supervising program directly overseeing all thirteen of the U.S. National Marine Sanctuaries, including CINMS (For agency structure see appendix C). CINMS could choose to defer to the National Program to address noise pollution from commercial shipping. Some may argue that the National Program should take the lead in addressing noise pollution, because it is really a global issue and should not be addressed at the sanctuary site level. Additionally, other sanctuaries such as the Stellwagen Bank, Olympic Coast, and Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale National Marine Sanctuaries have expressed concern about noise pollution; it could be argued that the National Program should take the lead in creating noise policy so as make policy consistent amongst the sanctuaries. However, each sanctuary is in a different geographic region, and faces different sources of noise and specific challenges. If the NMSP headquarters were to develop national policy on the issue of acoustics, the policy might have to be very general in order to fit all the needs of the different sanctuaries. This could have the potential of being too general to effectively address specific noise pollution problems. The history of the NMSP and its structure do not favor the top-down directive approach to management. Because each sanctuary was designated for a different purpose, sanctuaries have designed regulations on an individual basis in order to address specific activities and protect sitespecific resources. While similar sets of regulations and management approaches can be found between sanctuaries, no two sets of sanctuary regulations are exactly the same. Furthermore, the NMSP has not, to date, issued national policy directives for any threat to the sanctuaries, precisely because the Marine Sanctuary program is designed to allow each sanctuary to address its specific needs. One benefit of the NMSP taking the lead is that CINMS would not have to carry the full economic burden of providing staff time, expertise and funding necessary to address noise pollution. However, there is no indication that the NMSP would be interested in taking the lead on this issue at this time, and the NMSP might do nothing of substance to address noise in the foreseeable future. Further, if national guidelines from NSMP headquarters were created, it 10

could be difficult for CINMS to promulgate rules more specific and stringent than a national policy. Thus, this option does not offer a reliable approach to provide timely and CINMSspecific marine resource protection from noise pollution. DISCUSSION OF OPTION (B): CINMS takes the lead – a bottom-up approach Each sanctuary needs the flexibility to address the sources of noise in its area. Due to the agency structure and rules regarding Sanctuary management, any policy initiative created by CINMS to address noise pollution would require National Program office approval. That is, even if CINMS takes the lead the National Program will be informed and involved. It is logical for the Sanctuary to take the lead on mitigating noise pollution, as it has done for other policy matters, because it is closest to the issue and understands the nuances relevant to its particular site. Many sanctuaries (Stellwagen Bank, Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale, and Olympic Coast) are also concerned about noise and are interested in doing something about it. At the most recent meeting of Sanctuary Advisory Council Chairs in February of 2005 there was a discussion about noise pollution as an emerging threat to Sanctuary resources. Many sanctuaries were eager to start a coordinated effort among sanctuaries to begin to investigate and address the issue. They also discussed the importance of involving the National Program and stressed that calling attention to this issue at the National Program level could aid this coordinated effort.41 The sanctuaries should work together to share knowledge and strategies on how to address the issue. Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary is already conducting an acoustic monitoring project in collaboration with the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute.42 Additionally, in February of this year a report examining the noise levels in the Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary was published in the NOAA Marine Sanctuaries Conservation Series.43 CINMS could benefit from examining Stellwagen’s research methods and data. RECOMMENDATION: Option B is the preferred alternative. CINMS should take the lead and should involve the NMSP and other sanctuaries to pool resources and coordinate efforts. While the NMSP will necessarily be involved, it should not be involved in such a way that would preclude the individual sanctuaries from addressing their particular needs. The NMSP can use its position as the umbrella agency to coordinate efforts between the sanctuaries. Although it might result in more of a site level burden for the Sanctuary to take the lead, this alternative is preferred given its potential to prevent the harmful impacts of noise pollution on the marine resources. Furthermore, if CINMS works collaboratively with the other sanctuaries involved with this issue, potential research costs could be decreased.

Michael Murray, Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary, personal communication 2.28.05 See Mapping Anthropogenic Noise in the Sea – An Aid to Policy Development available at: http://www.whoi.edu/science/MPC/dept/research/ocean_noise/ accessed 1.26.05. 43 Peter Scheifle and Michael Darre, Noise Levels and Sources in the Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary and the St. Lawrence River Estuary. US Department of Commerce. Marine Sanctuaries Conservation Series MSD05-01 February 2005. 42

DECISION 3: WHAT POLICY AVENUE SHOULD BE PURSUED TO ADDRESS THE ISSUE? It is evident that the decision of which policy avenue to take will be determined in part by the desired protective measures. Although it is beyond the scope of this project to recommend a particular protective measure, in this section I analyze various policy options and discuss the preferred alternatives given the possibilities of different protective measures. CINMS could take the following actions: A. Choose to use its own regulatory authority B. Seek Particularly Sensitive Sea Area (PSSA) designation under the International Maritime Organization (IMO) C. Coordinate with the IMO without officially seeking PSSA designation DISCUSSION OF OPTION (A): Sanctuary authority approach The Sanctuary has already established a precedent for addressing sound disturbance through its over-flight regulation. This regulation prohibits disturbing marine mammals or sea birds by operating an aircraft below 1000 feet within one nautical mile of any island in the Sanctuary.44 It was designed to protect sea birds and pinniped rookeries from sound and aircraft approach disturbances. Although the Sanctuary has not yet addressed underwater sound, it has clearly acknowledged noise pollution to be a serious threat to marine resources through the over-flight regulation. Therefore, it would logically follow that CINMS could potentially promulgate a regulation aimed at protecting Sanctuary species from underwater noise. However, there is a problem of statutory authority. The Sanctuary has the authority to regulate the navigation of ships within its waters, except for vessels within the vessel traffic separation scheme (or shipping lanes).45 The vessel traffic separation scheme predates the Sanctuary, and only a small portion of the Sanctuary overlaps the shipping lanes (see Map 1). However, the entire Sanctuary, with the exception of the areas where the shipping lanes travel through the Sanctuary, is declared an Area to Be Avoided (ATBA) under the framework of the International Maritime Organization. This is a mechanism to keep tankers and barges carrying oil as cargo a safe distance from the islands. Although the ATBA only pertains to tankers and barges, it reflects the recognition of the fragility of the Sanctuary environment and the ecological threat caused by shipping. If CINMS decides to address noise pollution from commercial ships through Sanctuary regulations, it must seek to amend its authority to include the navigation of vessels within the traffic lanes. This process is arduous and would involve consultation with agencies such as the Department of Defense and the Coast Guard that would likely have concerns over the Sanctuary regulating international vessel traffic. The majority of commercial ships passing through the Sanctuary are foreign-flagged. One potential concern might be whether the U.S. would have the jurisdiction to apply its own rules or 44 45

15 CFR 922.71 (5) Designation Document, Article 4 (d)

regulations on these vessels. However, because the Sanctuary waters (and especially the current traffic separation scheme) are within U.S. territorial waters,46 and because the shipping vessels are going to and from U.S. ports,47 the U.S. does have the ability to enforce regulations on foreign-flagged vessels that travel through the Sanctuary. If the Sanctuary’s regulatory authority over vessels were expanded in the manner discussed above, it would then be possible for CINMS to promulgate regulations addressing noise from commercial shipping. For example CINMS could pursue designating regulations that would: (1) set speed limits for large vessels that pass through the Sanctuary48 or (2) set sound thresholds for the Sanctuary (regardless of source or where originally emitted from). Setting such sound would be analogous to a regulation that currently exists in other sanctuaries referred to as the “enter and injure” regulation. This regulation outlaws the discharging of a pollutant outside the Sanctuary boundary that subsequently enters the Sanctuary and injures any Sanctuary resources.49 CINMS could promulgate a similar regulation and include noise levels in its definition of a pollutant. The major limitation to CINMS regulating commercial shipping noise with its own authority (if that authority were granted) is that the commercial shipping vessels are only physically within the Sanctuary boundary during a small portion of their time passing through the Santa Barbara Channel (see map 1). And as the Sanctuary is only currently allowed to regulate activities within its boundaries, this would limit the geographical reach of the Sanctuary’s authority. Sound travels great distances underwater; although scientific monitoring would be necessary to confirm, it is highly likely that sound disturbances in the Sanctuary are caused from the ships as they pass through the entire Santa Barbara Channel, not just when they are within the Sanctuary boundaries. Indeed, many sources of noise pollution outside the Sanctuary boundaries could pose significant harm to marine species in the Sanctuary. The “enter and injure” approach to regulating sound within CINMS is important given the great distances sound travels underwater. However, it is unlikely this approach would allow CINMS the authority to regulate the activities of the commercial ships within the shipping lanes. Due to the current language of the Designation Documents, CINMS is expressly denied this authority. Therefore, even if the “enter and injure” approach were to be pursued, in order to mitigate noise pollution from the commercial ships, CINMS must seek to amend its authority. There has been discussion as to whether or not the Sanctuary should expand its boundary to reach all the way to the main land coast; however, no action has been taken to do so.50 If the Sanctuary were to expand its boundaries in the future to encompass all or most of the Santa

Under 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea Articles 2 & 3, “Territorial Sea” of a State is defined as 12 nautical miles beyond its land. 47 Lindy Johnson, Coastal State Regulation of International Shipping (Dobbs Ferry, NY: Oceana Publications, Inc, 2004). 48 At high speeds commercial shipping vessels emit more noise due to cavitation therefore slowing them down would conceivably quiet them. See p. 16 for a description of cavitation. 49 Cordell Bank, Flower Garden Banks, Monterey Bay, Stellwagen Bank, Olympic Coast, and Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuaries all have “enter and injure” regulations. See 15 CFR 922 under prohibited activities for respective sanctuaries. 50 Michael Murray, Channels Islands National Marine Sanctuary, personal communication 2.28.05.

Barbara Channel, and if the Sanctuary were granted authority to regulate vessels when they were within the shipping lanes, then the geographical reach limitation would be moot. In its draft management plan, expected to be released later this year, the Sanctuary will discuss how it will address emerging issues, including anthropogenic noise. Therefore a Sanctuary-level mitigation effort would be in line with the CINMS management plan.

DISCUSSION OF OPTION (B) THE INTERNATIONAL APPROACH: designation as a Particularly Sensitive Sea Area (PSSA) under the International Maritime Organization (IMO) The IMO is a specialized agency of the United Nations (UN) that provides a global forum for the adoption of uniform rules and standards for the shipping industry.51 The IMO designates a special type of marine protected area known as a Particularly Sensitive Sea Area or PSSA. A PSSA is an area that “needs special protection through action by IMO because of its significance for recognized ecological, socio-economic, or scientific reasons, and because it may be vulnerable to damage by international shipping activities.”52 In order to qualify for PSSA designation an area must: (1) meet at least one of the IMO’s ecological, socio-economic or scientific criteria (2) be at risk to the impact of international shipping (3) face problems whose solution is within the scope of the IMO’s ability, that is, IMO needs to be able to do something about it.53 The Sanctuary clearly meets all three of these criteria for the following reasons: (1) It meets many ecological criteria outlined by the IMO, including high natural productivity due to the confluence of the cool and warm ocean currents in the Sanctuary.54 (2) It is at risk from international shipping: Shipping lanes through the Sanctuary pose a clear risk of noise and other kinds of pollution. (3) The potential solutions are within the purview of the IMO, e.g. they have the ability to reroute the ships or conceivably to slow the traffic down. There are currently seven PSSAs throughout the world, including one in the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary. Although to date none of the protected measures associated with PSSA designation has addressed noise pollution, the IMO clearly acknowledges noise as a potential hazard to the marine environment. Specifically, Resolution A.927 (22) states that “In the course of routine operations and accidents, ships may release a wide variety of substances either directly into the marine environment or indirectly through the atmosphere. Such pollutants

Convention on the International Maritime Organization hereinafter IMO; see also http://www.imo.org accessed 3/9/05. 52 IMO resolution A.720 Annex II paragraph 1.2 53 ibid at paragraph 1.5 54 ibid at paragraph 4.4.6

include oil and oily mixture, noxious liquid substances, sewage, garbage, noxious solid substances, anti-fouling paints, foreign organisms and even noise (emphasis added).”55 The designation of a PSSA does not by itself provide ecological protection – the associated protective measures outlined as part of each unique PSSA designation provide actual protection. The applying party needs to decide what the protective measures will be before drafting the PSSA. These measures could include “routing schemes, discharge restrictions; operational criteria; and prohibited activities.”56 It is conceivable that an associated protective measure could be directed towards controlling acoustic emissions into the Sanctuary. Some of the possible protective measures under PSSA designation are the same as those under the Sanctuary’s own regulatory authority (if it were to be expanded as detailed above). For example, both frameworks could potentially enact protective measures to slow the ships down. However, because the IMO has the authority to route ships, PSSA designation could potentially move the shipping lanes further away from the Channel Islands. One major benefit of PSSA designation is that it could potentially apply to the whole Santa Barbara Channel and would not necessarily be limited to the boundaries of the Sanctuary. Additionally, international designation would bring much more public attention and would promote greater awareness within the shipping industry. This would benefit CINMS because it would be easier to educate the foreign ship owners about new rules or requirements. This type of PSSA designation could also set an important precedent for addressing noise pollution worldwide. CINMS cannot directly submit an application to the IMO for designation. In order to get a PSSA proposal on the table at IMO, CINMS would first need to go through the U.S. interagency approval process. The interagency committee includes NOAA, the Coast Guard, and the Department of Defense. Given the current political climate, the Defense Department might raise objections to seeking a PSSA designation for the purpose of acoustics. The Bush Administration recently declared that it will strongly oppose international efforts to limit Navy sonar, and failed to sign the resolution passed in November 2004 by the World Conservation Union (IUCN) in Thailand which called for member countries to limit the use of loud noise sources in the world’s oceans, including military sonar, oil and gas exploration and commercial shipping, until the effects are better understood.57 Although the Administration abstained from voting on the resolution mainly due to its opposition of limiting military sonar, the IUCN resolution addressed noise more generally, calling for members “to consider noise restrictions in Marine Protected areas” and “to the maximum extent possible avoid the use of such sources in habitat of vulnerable species and in 55

Ibid at paragraph 2.2 Ibid at paragraph 7.4.2. (b) For more discussion on PSSA designation to protect against noise pollution, see also Elena McCarthy, International Regulation of Underwater Sound: Establishing Rules and Standards to Address Ocean Noise Pollution (Boston: Kluwer Academic Press, 2004). 57 See “Response to Ambassador Burns' Request” (Feb. 2005) (setting forth coordinated U.S. government position on international regulation of military active sonar, for use in discussions within NATO) (on file with author); see also Kaufman, Marc “U.S. Set to Oppose Efforts to Restrict Use of Sonar,” Washington Post February 28, 2005 Page A05. 56

areas where marine mammals or endangered species may be concentrated.”58 The Administration’s decision not to vote on this resolution is a signal that it might not be willing to work with the IMO to declare CINMS a PSSA for the purposes of noise pollution protection. Another obstacle might be the IMO itself. Many of the representatives who sit on the IMO from other countries are representatives of the shipping industry. The IMO is sometimes accused of being too biased towards shipping industry interests. If the proposed protective measures for a PSSA designation represented something that the shipping industry might have strong objections to (for example, speed reductions), it is unlikely that the designation would be approved. If PSSA designation were to be pursued, it would be wise to include protective measures against other potential threats from shipping in addition to the acoustic threats. For example the shipping lanes currently pass very close to Anacapa Island and pose a potential for collision, and the biological importance of the area makes it particularly vulnerable to waste discharges. DISCUSSION OF OPTION (C): Working with the IMO without PSSA designation There are two options to address noise pollution within the international framework of the IMO without officially seeking PSSA designation. The first is rerouting the shipping lanes further away from CINMS, and the second is instituting mandatory ship-quieting technology standards for all large commercial shipping vessels. If CINMS decides that the protective measure it would like to pursue is rerouting the shipping lanes, then it could choose to work with the IMO, through its NOAA representation, to do so. This would not necessarily require the designation of a PSSA. There are examples of successful coordination with the IMO to re-route shipping lanes without PSSA designation. In 2002, the IMO approved a proposal to move the shipping lanes near Canada’s Bay of Fundy away from an area known to be an important feeding ground for whales. The proposal was an international collaboration of Canadian and U.S. agencies, oil shippers, and research scientists59 Additionally, in 2000, the IMO approved a U.S. proposal to reroute the shipping lanes further away from the Monterey Bay, Gulf of the Farallones, and Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuaries in an effort to protect them from vessel collisions, groundings, and hazardous spills. The proposal was a result of a collaborative effort lead by the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary and the U.S. Coast Guard. William Daley, the U.S. Secretary of Commerce at the time, hailed this collaborative effort as an example of how national marine sanctuaries can be a “catalyst to bring agencies, industry, and environmental groups together to protect resources and ensure the viability of the region’s critical shipping industry” and said it was a “model” for resolving future resource management issues.60 Ship-quieting technology has significant potential to address the issue of noise pollution from commercial shipping not only in the Sanctuary, but world-wide. Ship quieting also represents a 58

IUCN Resolution. See “Whales Win Right of Way in Atlantic Shipping Lanes” National Geographic Today, March 3, 2003 available at http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/03/0305_030305_tvrightwhales.html accessed 4.16.2005. 60 See “Ships Rerouted to Protect Marine Sanctuaries” CNN, June 5, 2000 available at http://archives.cnn.com/2000/NATURE/06/05/shipsafe.enn/ accessed 4.16.2005. 59

potential economic gain for the shipping industry. Propeller cavitation, the creation of collapsing air bubbles adjacent to ship propellers at high speeds, is the largest source of noise from large vessels.61 Cavitation reduces fuel efficiency: the higher the cavitation, the higher fuel costs. Thus, ship quieting could reduce the fuel costs for operating large commercial shipping vessels. The shipping industry is interested in noise pollution remedies. The industry is represented by trade organizations such as the Chamber of Shipping of America. These organizations are most active at the international level through the IMO. The technology to quiet ships is available and much could be learned from the U.S. Navy. The level of technology in which the shipping industry is interested is WWII-era and is no longer classified. Economically speaking, the shipping industry would not want to retrofit old ships to meet new standards, but would advocate that design standards be mandatory for new ships. If ship-quieting technology were to be used on an international level it could have a significant impact on the ambient noise level of the worldâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s oceans. Therefore the option of working with the shipping industry to advocate for ship quieting standards on the international level has large potential gain. The IMO could choose to implement guidelines for new ship building that would quiet the ships. In order to do this, a member country, such as the U.S. would need to take the lead to propose this to the IMO. If CINMS works with the other sanctuaries to encourage NOAA to take this to the IMO, new ship quieting technology standards could be put in place. If NOAA were to do this, it should work with the industry groups such as Chamber of Shipping of America, because their involvement and support would be crucial. From their involvement in recent symposium on shipping noise in Washington DC, sponsored by the Marine Mammal Commission, it appears that these industry groups are aware of the problem and are willing to be involved in finding the solution62 RECOMMENDATION: Options B, designation as a PSSA, and C, working with IMO to implement ship quieting technology, are recommended at this time. Working towards option A, Sanctuary Regulation for the future, is also recommended. PSSA designation could encompass the entire Santa Barbara Channel and would have the potential benefit of affecting a greater area (see Map 1 above). Additionally, PSSA designation with protective measures regarding noise could further the international awareness and the movement towards addressing sound on a global level. Given the current political climate, it might be difficult to seek PSSA designation for sound only, therefore I recommend seeking associated protective measures aimed at protecting against many different types of pollution. This option would also protect against other potential threats such as ship strike and discharge of pollutants in addition to noise. Currently this option represents a relatively low level of political feasibility and a high level of potential to protect marine species from commercial shipping noise. Since the process of seeking PSSA designation involves drafting the associated protective measures, this process

Donald Ross, Mechanics of Underwater Noise (New York: Pergamon, 1976). The symposium was a forum for science, management, and technology on the issue of shipping noise and marine mammals. To learn more and to retrieve presentations from the symposium, see: http://www.shippingnoiseandmarinemammals.com/ accessed 2.4.05

could take time (because CINMS needs to do more research on what the best protective measure would be). In time, the political feasibility might improve. Ship quieting technology is a viable option to reduce the impact of noise on marine species in the Channel Islands and elsewhere. This option has tremendous potential to protect marine species around the world. Because it offers a potential economic gain to the shipping industry this option also has a relatively high level of political feasibility. This policy would have to be pursued at the international level, but, CINMS, and its Sanctuary Advisory Council, should advocate that the U.S. take ship quieting technology standards to the IMO. Using the Sanctuary authority could offer a way to address sounds from other sources, not just commercial shipping (for example if CINMS chose to set sound limits within the Sanctuary). In order to address the noise specifically from the commercial ships, however, CINMS would need to seek to expand Sanctuary regulatory authority to include jurisdiction over the ships in the traffic lanes in addition to promulgating a new regulation for whichever protective measure is preferred. Amending its regulatory authority could pose political obstacles under the current Administration. Also, if Sanctuary authority were to be used it would only affect the ships when they are in the vessel traffic lanes. Because the traffic lanes only pass through the Sanctuary for a short time that they are in the Santa Barbara Channel (see map 1), this would not provide very much protection. Therefore this option currently represents moderate level of political feasibility and a relatively low level of ability to protect marine species from commercial shipping noise. Given the international nature of commercial shipping, and given the Sanctuaryâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s current authority does not extend to the commercial ships when they are in the traffic lanes, it makes sense to involve an international framework such as the IMO to address noise pollution. If in the future CINMS chose to address sources of noise other than commercial shipping (which I strongly recommend), then choosing to use its own regulatory authority would be recommended.

IV. FURTHER RECOMMENDATIONS The following recommendations are management policies CINMS should pursue regardless of which protective measure it chooses. These recommendations will help further the understanding of acoustic threats in the Sanctuary and will establish a baseline against which protective measures can be evaluated in the future. 1. BEGIN AN ACOUSTIC MONITORING PROGRAM It is essential that CINMS begin and maintain an acoustic monitoring program. The information gained from this type of research is an integral part of creating policies that will protect the marine life from acoustic threats. CINMS needs a baseline with which to measure policy interventions in the future, in order to assess if they are having the desired effect. CINMS already conducts aerial vessel monitoring, and it should begin acoustic monitoring to gain more understanding of the ecology of the Sanctuary. Acoustic monitoring will not only help to better define the acoustic threats in the Sanctuary, but will also help determine the type and number of marine mammals in the area as well as their behavior in response to anthropogenic noise.

Through my research I discovered an excellent opportunity for the Sanctuary to coordinate its research efforts with Dr. John Hildebrand from the Scripps Institute of Oceanography at the University of California San Diego. This coordination will not only save the Sanctuary money, but will also bring much needed expertise to the research. Dr. Hildebrand already has an acoustic monitoring project funded and approved for 3 years through the U.S. Navy and is willing to work with CINMS to provide useful data. The project will start in the summer of 2005 and will deploy many recording devices in the area of the Sanctuary (see Appendix D for a map). CINMS should take advantage of the serendipitous timing of the research project and Dr. Hildebrand’s willingness to help the Sanctuary. Dr. Hildebrand’s project as planned could yield data of possible interest to the Sanctuary of the acoustics within the Santa Barbara Channel. However in order to compare the sound levels on the east side of the Channel Islands (closest to the vessel traffic lanes) with the sound levels on the west side of the Channel Islands, a recording package would need to be placed there (see Appendix D for a map). Because Dr. Hildebrand’s current project is not funded for a device in that location, CINMS should also consider purchasing its own Autonomous Acoustic Recording Package from Scripps and place it strategically in the Sanctuary so as to add another location to the research project that Dr. Hildebrand is already planning (for a description of the type recording package see Appendix E). The approximate cost for this type of equipment is $25,000. However, once the device is built and deployed it can continue recording data indefinitely with only minimal maintenance costs. CINMS should also consider the possibility of extending Dr. Hildebrand’s research beyond the 3 years he is already funded for in order to institute an ongoing monitoring program. Dr. Hildebrand currently has data on the acoustics of the Sanctuary from past years’ research projects that could provide useful information. CINMS’s aerial monitoring data and any relevant data that is collected on the R/V Shearwater (the Sanctuary’s research vessel) could be shared with Dr. Hildebrand to calibrate this information with the sound information he has collected, and will be collecting. An effort should be coordinated to analyze the data in such a way that would aid policy decisions. In addition, there is a lot of data from CalCofi (California Cooperative Oceanic Fisheries Investigations), which has been collecting hydrographic and biological data in the Southern Californian region (including CINMS area) since 1949. Combining these data with acoustical data would provide for a more complete analysis of the Sanctuary conditions. Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute’s acoustic mapping project in the Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary could also be used as a model for future monitoring projects. 2. PERMITTING PROCESS The current permitting process for scientific research in the Sanctuary should be viewed as an opportunity to gain more knowledge. Any time a scientist seeks a permit to conduct research in Sanctuary waters (for acoustics or anything else) effort should be made to coordinate with the researchers and to learn from their data. Although CINMS permit guidelines already indicate that this information sharing is supposed to take place, more effort should to be made to insure 19

this happens. For the Sanctuary to maximize the potential benefit of its knowledge base, I recommend increased communication between permit and program staff as to what sort of data are being collected. Also, permit staff should focus on post permitting follow-up to insure data sharing happens.

V. CONCLUSION Noise pollution from commercial shipping poses a significant threat to marine species in the Sanctuary. CINMS has the statutory right and obligation to address this threat. The Sanctuary should act now to implement an acoustic monitoring program and to pursue policy interventions in order to fulfill its duty to protect the marine species that live in the Sanctuary. CINMSâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; own authority to regulate commercial shipping vessels is currently limited (in terms of both geographic reach and jurisdiction). Thus, the Sanctuary should look to international frameworks, such as PSSA designation, to achieve the best protection against noise pollution from commercial ships. However, it should use its own authority to regulate sources of noise pollution other than commercial shipping vessels. Further, CINMS can reduce its costs by coordinating efforts with other sanctuaries concerned about noise pollution and by partnering with the Scripps Institute of Oceanography to conduct acoustic monitoring. Additionally, CINMS, and its Advisory Council, should play an advocacy role to establish ship-quieting technology standards through the IMO.

APPENDIX A: SANCTUARY REGULATIONS

[Code of Federal Regulations] [Title 15, Volume 3] [Revised as of January 1, 2003] From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access [CITE: 15CFR922.71] [Page 125-126] TITLE 15--COMMERCE AND FOREIGN TRADE CHAPTER IX--NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE PART 922--NATIONAL MARINE SANCTUARY PROGRAM REGULATIONS--Table of Contents Subpart G--Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary Sec. 922.71 Prohibited or otherwise regulated activities. (a) Except as may be necessary for the national defense (subject to the terms and conditions of Article 5, Section 2 of the Designation Document) or to respond to an emergency threatening life, property, or the environment, or except as may be permitted by the Director in accordance with Secs. 922.48 and 922.72, the following activities are prohibited and thus are unlawful for any person to conduct or to cause to be conducted within the Sanctuary: (1) Exploring for, developing, and producing hydrocarbons except pursuant to leases executed prior to March 30, 1981, and except the laying of pipeline, if the following oil spill contingency equipment is available at the site of such operations: (i) 1500 feet of open ocean containment boom and a boat capable of deploying the boom; (ii) One oil skimming device capable of open ocean use; and (iii) Fifteen bales of oil sorbent material, and subject to all prohibitions, restrictions and conditions imposed by applicable regulations, permits, licenses or other authorizations and consistency reviews including those issued by the Department of the Interior, the Coast Guard, the Corps of Engineers, the Environmental Protection Agency and under the California Coastal Management Program and its implementing regulations. (2) Discharging or depositing any material or other matter except: (i) Fish or fish parts and chumming materials (bait); (ii) Water (including cooling water) and other biodegradable effluents incidental to vessel use of the Sanctuary generated by: (A) Marine sanitation devices; (B) Routine vessel maintenance, e.g., deck wash down; (C) Engine exhaust; or (D) Meals on board vessels; (iii) Effluents incidental to hydrocarbon exploration and exploitation activities allowed by paragraph (a)(1) of this section. (3) Except in connection with the laying of any pipeline as allowed by paragraph (a)(1) of this section, within 2 NM of any Island: (i) Constructing any structure other than a navigation aid, (ii) Drilling through the seabed, or

APPENDIX A: SANCTUARY REGULATIONS (iii) Dredging or otherwise altering the seabed in any way, other than (A) To anchor vessels, or (B) To bottom trawl from a commercial fishing vessel. (4) Except to transport persons or supplies to or from an Island, operating within one NM of an Island any vessel engaged in the trade of carrying cargo, including, but not limited to, tankers and other bulk carriers and barges, or any vessel engaged in the trade of servicing offshore installations. In no event shall this section be construed to limit access for fishing (including kelp harvesting), recreational, or research vessels. (5) Disturbing seabirds or marine mammals by flying motorized aircraft at less than 1000 feet over the waters within one NM of any Island except: (i) For enforcement purposes; (ii) To engage in kelp bed surveys; or (iii) To transport persons or supplies to or from an Island. (6) Removing or damaging any historical or cultural resource. (b) All activities currently carried out by the Department of Defense within the Sanctuary are essential for the national defense and, therefore, not subject to the prohibitions in this section. The exemption of additional activities having significant impact shall be determined in consultation between the Director and the Department of Defense.

Understanding Underwater Sound Measurements: Sound volume is expressed in decibels (dB), which provide a measure of the intensity of sound. Decibels do not form a linear progression, meaning that 200 dB would be twice as loud as 100 dB. Instead, they are based on a logarithmic scale something like the Richter scale for earthquakes. A doubling in sound intensity is indicated by a 3 dB increase, regardless of the level of the original sound. For example, a dB level of 63 is twice as loud as 60 dB and a dB level of 180 is twice as loud as 177 dB. Every 10 dB increase represents a tenfold increase in intensity, thus 180 dB is ten times as loud as 170 dB. For decibels to have relevance, they must be referenced to pressure. Sound waves generate a momentary overpressure, followed by underpressure, then a return to ambient pressure. Substantial changes in pressure can cause damage. The amount of pressure (and the length of time an animal is exposed to it) determines whether the animal might be harassed, injured or killed by an underwater sound. This is why pressure is so important in assessing potential impacts of underwater sounds. Equating an underwater sound to the sound of a rock band or jet engine (both of which are scarce underwater) has no relevance without a reference to pressure. As an analogy, a loud sound in outer space has few molecules to push against, hence it exerts little pressure. By contrast, a loud sound at sea level has many more molecules to push against, so it generates more pressure. A similar contrast can be drawn between loud airborne sounds and underwater sounds. A micropascal (µPa) is a measurement of pressure commonly applied to underwater sound. (One pascal is equal to the pressure exerted by one newton over one square meter. One micropascal equals one-millionth of this.) Underwater sounds are usually referenced to 1µPa, whereas airborne sounds are usually referenced to 20 µPa. Thus, underwater sound measurements are expressed as X dB re 1µPa, which represents the peak pressure of an underwater sound. Peak pressure can also be expressed in pounds per square inch (psi) above ambient pressure. Underwater sound pressure measurements can also be expressed as X dB re 1 µPa-m, which represents the theoretical sound pressure level within one meter of the source. This is often referred to as the source level. The reference distance of one meter is included so that a measured or modeled level at a given distance can be compared to the level at the source itself. Sound Frequencies: Understanding the frequencies of sounds produced from human activities is helpful in assessing potential impacts to marine wildlife. Various species of marine mammals hear sounds in given ranges of frequencies. When sounds produced by humans fall within their range of hearing, a potential for harassment exists. If a sound is loud enough, even though it is outside the hearing frequency range, it sometimes can still be detected by a marine mammal and can even cause injury if it is extremely loud.

APPENDIX B: UNDERWATER SOUND Excerpts From Underwater Sound Measurements by Peter Howorth copyright 2003 Sound frequency can be measured in hertz (Hz) and kilohertz (kHz). Hertz is a measure of sound frequency in cycles per second (one hertz equals one cycle per second). The lower the number, the lower the sound. One kilohertz equals 1000 hertz. To relate these frequencies with hearing, consider that humans with very good hearing generally can hear sounds as low as 20 Hz and as high as 20,000 Hz (20 kilohertz). Understanding the frequency spectrum of human-generated underwater sounds is also very important is assessing potential impacts to marine mammals. High frequency sounds rapidly attenuate with distance. Very low frequency sounds can travel great distances, however. Thus, high frequency sonar, such as fish finders, have comparatively limited ranges and relatively little intensity, so they will not harm marine mammals. Low frequency sonars are designed to send signals over a wide swath of ocean. To accomplish this, a high-decibel, low frequency signal is employed. Low frequency sonar can injure or kill marine mammals. Sound Speeds through Different Media: Sound travels about five times faster underwater than it does in air (about 1500 meters a second compared to 300 meters a second). Sound travels even faster through rock (some 5000 meters a second). Hearing Thresholds of Marine Mammals, Sea Turtles and Seabirds: The collective knowledge of marine mammal hearing and sound detection capabilities is very limited. Much of our knowledge of the hearing frequencies of marine mammals is based on the frequency range at which they vocalize rather than the range at which they actually hear. But animals, like humans, can hear sounds that are higher and lower than the frequencies at which they vocalize. For example, how many of us can reach all the notes in â&#x20AC;&#x153;the Star-Spangled Banner?â&#x20AC;? Yet all of us can hear the notes. Also, many recordings made of marine mammal vocalizations do not cover the full range of frequencies for their vocalizations because most recording equipment is designed to accommodate the human range of hearing. A presumption is sometimes made that an animal cannot be harassed by a sound of a given frequency if it cannot hear in that frequency. Animals can sometimes detect sounds or even be injured by sounds that are beyond their hearing thresholds, however. Hearing frequency ranges for some species of marine mammals and sea turtles found in this region are presented on the table on the next page.

Taxa Odontocetes

Mysticetes

Pinnipeds

Mustelids Testudines

Frequency Ranges for Selected Species Common Name Genus/Species Short-beaked common dolphin Delphinus delphis Short-finned pilot whale Globicephala macrorhynchus Risso’s dolphin Grampus griseus Pacific white-sided dolphin Lagenoryhnchus obliquidens Northern right whale dolphin Lissodelphis borealis Killer whale Orcinus orca False killer whale Pseudorca crassidens Spotted dolphin Stenella attenuata Striped dolphin Stenella coeruleoalba Spinner dolphin Stenella longirostris Bottlenose dolphin Tursiops truncatus Hubbs’ beaked whale Mesoplodon carlhubbsi Blainville’s beaked whale Mesoplodon densirostris Pygmy sperm whale Kogia breviceps Sperm Whale Physeter macrocephalus Harbor porpoise Phocoena phocoena Dall’s porpoise Phocoenoides dalli Gray whale Eschrichtius robustus Minke whale Balaenoptera acutorostrata Sei whale Balaenoptera borealis Bryde’s whale Balaenoptera edeni Blue whale Balaenoptera musculus Fin whale Balaenoptera physalus Humpback whale Megaptera novaeangliae Northern fur seal Callorhinus ursinus California sea lion Zalophus californianus c. Northern elephant seal Mirounga angustirostris Harbor seal Phoca vitulina richardsi Sea otter Enhydra lutris nereis Cheloniid sea turtles N/A Loggerhead sea turtle Caretta caretta

Frequency Range 500 Hz to 67 kHz 500 Hz to 20 kHz 80 Hz to 100 kHz 2 kHz to 80 kHz 1 kHz to 40 kHz 500 Hz to 120 kHz 1.1 kHz to130 kHz 3.1 kHz to21.4kHz 6 kHz to 24 kHz 1 kHz to 65 kHz 40 Hz to 150 kHz 300 Hz to 80 kHz 1 kHz to 6 kHz 60 kHz to 200 kHz 100 Hz to 30 kHz 1 kHz to 150 kHz 40 Hz to 149 kHz 20 Hz to 2 kHz 60 Hz to 20 kHz 1.5 kHz to 3.5 kHz 70 Hz to 950 Hz 12 Hz to 31 kHz 14 Hz to 28 kHz 20 Hz to 10 kHz 4 kHz to 28 kHz 100 Hz to 60 kHz 200 Hz to 2.5 kHz 100 Hz to 180 kHz 3 kHz to 5 kHz 60 Hz to 800 Hz 250 Hz to 1000 Hz

Note: Most of the frequency ranges listed above represent the range of frequencies in which these species vocalize. In a few cases, frequency response ranges are known and are presented. In all cases, the most extreme ranges known at low and high frequencies are noted. Sources: Au et al. 2000; Lenhardt 1994; Moein et al. 1994; Richardson et al. 1995; Ridgway et al. 1997.

APPENDIX C AGENCY STRUCTURE President of the United States

Department of Commerce

National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)

National Ocean Services

NOAA Fisheries (NMFS)

National Marine Sanctuary Program

Office of Protected Resources

Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary

APPENDIX D MAP OF INTENDED SITES FOR THE HILDEBRAND RESEARCH PROJECT (SHOWN IN RED)

APPENDIX E DESCRIPTION OF UNDERWATER ACOUSTIC RECORDING PACKAGES Reprinted here with permission, no further reproduction is allowed without consent of author.

76444_Wiggins.qxd

8/14/2003

9:24 AM

Page 13

PAPER

Autonomous Acoustic Recording Packages (ARPs) for Long-Term Monitoring of Whale Sounds ABSTRACT Advancements in low-power and high-data capacity computer technology during the past decade have been adapted to autonomously record acoustic data from vocalizing whales over long time periods. Acoustic monitoring of whales has advantages over traditional visual surveys including greater detection ranges, continuous long-term monitoring in remote locations and in various weather conditions, and lower cost. An autonomous acoustic recording package (ARP) is described that uses a tethered hydrophone above a seafloor-mounted instrument frame. ARPs have been deployed to record baleen whale sounds in the Bering Sea, off the coast of southern California, near the West Antarctic Peninsula, and near Hawaii. ARP data have provided new information on the seasonal presence, abundance, call character, and patterns of vocalizing whales. Current development is underway for a broader-band, higherdata capacity system capable of recording odontocete whales, dolphins, and porpoises for long time periods.

INTRODUCTION onitoring worldwide whale migrations and regional populations is important for better conservation and management of these animals (National Marine Fisheries Service, 1998). The advancement of computer technology has made acoustic monitoring a cost-effective approach for studying acoustically active whale species. Low-power data acquisition systems and large-capacity data storage disks have allowed for continuous, long-term, acoustic recordings of whale vocalizations to be made by autonomous instruments. Furthermore, acoustic whale monitoring has an advantage over visual surveys because acoustic detection ranges are generally greater, whales may spend more time at depth calling than at the surface breathing, and autonomous acoustic monitoring can be conducted in all weather conditions, day and night, and in remote locations. However, visual surveys are still needed for detailed behavioral studies and species confirmation for lesser known or sparsely calling whales. Combining visual and acoustic surveys provides a powerful tool for studying whale abundance and ecology. In March 2000, design and development of an autonomous acoustic recording package (ARP) to record baleen whale calls

was initiated. An autonomous recording package approach has the advantage over real-time monitored systems because of its lower installation and personnel costs. Autonomous instruments can be deployed for long time periods (up to one year) in remote locations. Computer software can be used to detect calls automatically by scanning the acoustic data after instrument recovery. An ARP consists of a frame that rests on the seafloor and a hydrophone tethered above the frame (Figures 1 and 2). The frame contains the buoyancy needed for recovery, ballast weights for deployment, and pressure cases for batteries and ballast release and data logger electronics. ARPs have been configured to record up to 1 kHz sample rate continuously for more than one year. At these sample rates, calling baleen whales are recorded, but not higher-frequency-calling odontocetes (toothed whales). By June 2000, four months after project initiation, an ARP had been deployed and recorded its first baleen whale call. Since then, 25 ARPs have been fabricated and deployed in both shallow and deep water at a variety of locations including: the Bering Sea off the coast of Alaska, near San Clemente Island off the southern California coast, off the West Antarctic Peninsula in the Southern Ocean, and south of the Big Island, Hawaii (Table 1). Many baleen whale calls are loud, lowfrequency tones or narrow band sweeps that can be recorded with ARPs for seasonal distribution pattern studies (e.g., Richardson et al., 1995). For example, the fundamental frequency in northeastern Pacific blue whale B calls is around 18 Hz, lasts for about 20 s, and can have source power levels above 185 dB re 1 microPascal (µPa) at 1 m (McDonald et al., 1995; Thompson et al., 1996; McDonald et al., 2001). Whale call acoustic time-series data are often transformed into frequency-based data using Fourier transforms so that the data may be viewed as spectrograms. Detecting calls in spectrograms is typically easier than with timeseries representation, since the spectrogram helps to separate the narrow-band call from the broad-band noise. Analysis software programs were developed based on the high-level language development package, MATLAB®, because of its ease of use, rapid development time, portability, built-in toolbox functions (e.g., Signal Processing Toolbox), and graphical user interface capabilities. Also, development of automatic call detection and whale call tracking

Sean Wiggins Marine Physical Laboratory Scripps Institution of Oceanography University of California, San Diego La Jolla, California

MTS Journal • Vol. 37, No. 2 • 13

76444_Wiggins.qxd

8/14/2003

9:24 AM

Page 14

Figure 1. Schematic of an autonomous acoustic recording package (ARP). The instrument package is deployed on the seafloor with a hydrophone suspended above it.

revealing new information on the presence and abundance of calling whales. Some sites show seasonal occurrences of calling whales, while other sites have calling whales year-round. Diurnal calling patterns have been observed, and call/counter-call patterns detected.

METHODS he key functional constraints of an autonomous acoustic recording system are low power and low acoustic and electronic selfnoise. In addition, the functionality needed for baleen whale seasonality and abundance estimations is long-term deployments (up to one year) and moderate sample rates (up to 1 kHz). Additional constraints for this project were short development time and low cost. Rapid development required use of off-the-shelf components, tried-and-true methods and designs, and keeping the design and manufacturing processes simple.

Electronic Design

Figure 2. Photograph of an ARP ready for deployment. The hydrophone electrical cable and hydrophone are attached along a polypropylene line between the instrument package and the two hardhat glass spheres.

software is being conducted in collaboration with colleagues to aid in analysis of more than 60 GB of data per instrument per year (Mellinger, 2002; Tiemann et al., 2002). Analysis of the first year of continuous data from Alaska, California, and Antarctica is

14 • MTS Journal • Vol. 37, No. 2

The first component considered in the ARP design was the data acquisition system because it is the primary power consumer. The electronic system’s power consumption and deployment duration drive the mechanical design because accommodations for batteries must be provided. Ocean Sensors OS500 data logger (http://www.oceansensors.com/) developed by Dave Jacobs was used as an off-theshelf solution (Figure 3). The OS500 is capable of sampling up to 1 kHz on one channel. At that sample rate, the power consumption of the data logger and hydrophone is around 600 mW. More than one-year deployments (~400 days) are obtained from lithium battery packs with approximately 580 Ahr at 10 V for the data logger and 135 Ahr at 17 V for the disk drives. Separate battery packs were used to prevent noise ‘’spikes’’ from being recorded in the data caused by disk drive start-ups. Shorter deployments (up to 150 days) are possible with lowercost alkaline battery packs. Data are 16-bit samples and are recorded on two 36 GB SCSI (small computer system interface) hard disk drives for a maximum storage capacity of 72 GB. The electronics boards are 10 cm x 18 cm and fit within the footprint of the disk drives, which provide compact packaging of the complete data acquisition system. Hydrophones were produced using Benthos (http://www.benthos.com/) AQ-1 PZT (lead-zircon-titanate) ceramic cartridges and custom designed signal conditioning preamp and anti-aliasing electronics. The hydrophones were arranged as three sets of ceramic elements in series with each set made up of two ceramic elements in parallel (Figure 3). This

76444_Wiggins.qxd

8/14/2003

9:24 AM

Page 15

Table 1. ARP deployment, data quantity recorded, and calls detected. The first ARP deployment was in June, 2000. Currently, ARPs are deployed near southern California, in the Bering Sea, in the Beaufort Sea, in the Gulf of Alaska, and various locations around the Antarctica continent. Site

# ARP Deployments

Begin Recording

End Recording

# Gbytes Recorded

Species/Call Type

# Calls per Instrument-year

Southern California

6/2000

4/2003

552

Blue B Blue D Fin

109,972 27,939 465,929

Bering Sea

10/2000

5/2001

N. Pac. Right

3,569

Antarctica

3/2001

3/2003

420

Blue

21,559

Hawaii

12/2000

7/2001

Blue, Fin, Humpback

N/A

Total

1072

Figure 3. Block diagram of ARP hydrophone and data logging electronics.

MTS Journal â&#x20AC;˘ Vol. 37, No. 2 â&#x20AC;˘ 15

76444_Wiggins.qxd

8/14/2003

9:24 AM

Page 16

configuration provides a sensitivity of –193 dB re Volts root-mean-squared (VRMS)/µPa and a –3 dB low-end rolloff around 5 Hz. The string of six ceramic elements was placed in a 5 cm diameter oil-filled, 50 cm long flexible polyurethane tube. The length of the hydrophone allows for good coupling to low frequency sounds and helps minimize acoustic noise generated by fluid flow past the hydrophone. The signal conditioning preamp and anti-aliasing electronics were placed in the flexible tube near the ceramic elements to provide amplification and filtering near the sensors and to minimize electronic noise pickup. The preamp was a 3-stage, low-power field-effect transistor design with 40 dB of preamplifier gain, followed by a 6-pole low-pass filter (-6 dB point at 250 Hz or 500 Hz, depending on sample rate) on the same printed circuit board.

Mechanical Design A seafloor instrument package design was pursued because water column moorings can be costly in deep water and difficult to deploy and recover in shallow or deep water. Also, the large volume of batteries needed for long-term deployments can be more easily packaged in seafloor instruments. With a bottom-mounted mooring, the bulk of the instrument package rests on the seafloor and the sensor (hydrophone) is tethered above the instrument package (Figure 1) away from acoustic noise generated by the instrument (disk drive spin-up and fluid flow). Floating the hydrophone above the instrument also puts the sensor closer to the sound source and at a place that is less likely to be acoustically shadowed by seafloor topography. The hydrophone is tethered 10 m above the seafloor and is connected to its support line via two flexible polyethylene rings to provide additional acoustic noise suppression. The rings de-couple the hydrophone from the support line, which may vibrate due to ocean currents. Rapid design of the ARP instrument frame, pressure cases, and internal hardware was done with the 3D modeling software, SolidWorks (http://www.solidworks.com/). This allowed for exploring various design scenarios, and clearance/fit checking. Also, weight and buoyancy calculations were obtained easily. The primary material chosen for the frame was non-corrosive, high-density polyethylene (HDPE). HDPE is a good frame material choice because it is buoyant in seawater, durable, low cost, comes in various shapes, and can be easily machined. The lifting bail and fasteners material was originally stainless steel 316. This choice works well in the deep ocean, however, stainless steel corrosion can become a problem in shallow water (<200 meters below sea level 16 • MTS Journal • Vol. 37, No. 2

(mbsl)). The bails and fasteners were converted to titanium because many whale monitoring sites are in shallow water. The pressure cases are either 7075-T6 or 6061-T6 aluminum extruded tubes, anodized and painted, and rated to ~7000 mbsl and ~4000 mbsl, respectively. The ARP recovery system is based on glass sphere flotation and expendable ballast drop weights. Flotation is provided by four, 30 cm diameter McLane Research Labs (http://www.mclanelabs.com/) glass spheres in a single molded hardhat. The four-ball hardhat is attached to the frame beneath the lifting bail. Additional flotation is provided by two separate glass spheres attached to the top of the hydrophone support line. The ballast is two, cylindrical 26 kg steel drop weights held in place by stainless steel burnwires. The burnwires are activated by an EdgeTech (http://www.edgetech.com/) acoustic transponder release system. An acoustic command is sent from the support ship, which causes the release system to apply a voltage between the burnwires and a saltwater ground. About 10-20 minutes are required for the wires to corrode sufficiently to drop the ballast weights. The instrument then floats to the sea surface, and the support ship’s crew retrieves the instrument from the water. Often, disk drives and batteries are replaced and the ARP is re-deployed to collect another long-duration (2 months – 1 year) data set.

Software ARP data are recorded with 16-bits (96 dB) of dynamic range in 64-KB size blocks with a timing header at the beginning of each block. These blocks are buffered and then streamed to a non-file system SCSI disk. Data must be uploaded into structured files for analysis. To analyze the data, MATLAB® (http://www.mathworks.com/) is used for displaying and processing the data in various ways. Sounds from the data can be displayed, played, saved as wav files or printed to standard graphic file formats. MATLAB® was chosen because of its familiarity in the scientific community, its portability between different operating systems, and its relatively easy use/programming. The MATLAB® code developed for displaying ARP data as time series, spectra, or spectrograms, called Triton, is configured with graphical user interface (GUI) buttons, sliders, and fill-in boxes to allow easy viewing and data manipulation. Triton is designed to be ‘expandable’ so that new functions can be easily implemented. The amount of data produced by the ARPs is a major challenge for those analyzing it. For example, at 1000 Hz sampling, 16-bit data are recorded at a rate of around 173 MB

76444_Wiggins.qxd

8/14/2003

9:24 AM

Page 17

per day or 63 GB per year. For population estimation, counting each call manually is a timeconsuming process. For example, it took an analyst two months to count approximately 20,000 blue B calls in two weeks of ARP data from the southern California site. Automatic detection algorithm software is an alternative approach. After calls have been detected, statistics can be applied to investigate the significance of the call detections and correlate these calls with visual observations. After preliminary analysis of data quality with Triton, recorded call counts are estimated using an automated detection algorithm. To detect calls, the software program, Ishmael (Mellinger, 2002), is used to cross-correlate a reference call with the spectrogram data. The detection threshold is adjusted to optimize the automatic detector results. The tradeoff provided by varying the detection threshold is between the number of false (non-call) detections and the number of missed calls. Depending upon call type and analysis requirements, false detections or missed call rates may be kept as low as 1-2 percent. After the Ishmael call detection algorithm has been trained for a certain call type and data set, it is applied to the large- scale data set to provide estimates of detected calls. Another method for estimating calling whale abundance from ARP data is long-term spectral averaging. Spectral averaging involves averaging long periods of spectral data and then searching for call energy in specific frequency bands (e.g., Thompson, 1965; Curtis et al., 1999). The amount of energy in the whale call frequency bands may be used as a proxy for estimating the number of calls produced during the averaged time period. Depending upon season and location, whale call energy may be more than 10-15 dB above ambient noise when averaged over time periods of days to weeks.

RESULTS he large quantity of whale call data recorded by ARPs have provided information on seasonal calling trends as well as daily variation in calling activity for various whale species and locations. ARP deployment, data quantity recorded, and preliminary automated detected call estimates from four sites are shown in Table 1. The detected call estimate results are topics of other papers in progress, but are presented here to show the significance of ARP recordings to date.

Southern California Starting in July 2000, an array of up to 5 ARPs has been deployed near San Clemente

Island off southern California in approximately 200 m water on the Cortez and Tanner Banks (Table 1). At this site, the ARPs are typically configured to sample at 1 kHz, and to be retrieved and serviced every two months. Visual surveys are conducted during these visits to provide a correlation between whale sightings and recorded acoustic data. During the winter months, when whale populations are low, alkaline battery packs are exchanged for lithium packs so that longer (6-month) recording periods are possible. The objective of this study is to obtain long-term (multiple year) recordings of baleen whales, primarily blue (Balaenoptera musculus) and fin (Balaenoptera physalus) whales, and to develop population and abundance estimates of the calling whales. Northeastern Pacific blue whale calls off California’s coast are some of the best studied of baleen whales. Their call characteristics have remained consistent over the past 40 years (Thompson, 1965; McDonald et al., 2001), and have 3 main call designations: A, B, and D type calls (McDonald et al., 1995; Thompson et al., 1996; Stafford et al., 1999; McDonald et al., 2001). Blue whale A and B calls recorded near San Clemente Island using an ARP are shown in Figure 4. The A call has energy near 17 Hz and 88 Hz and is pulsed at about once per second, lasting around 20 s. The B call sweeps from around 18 Hz down to 16 Hz in about 2–3 s, and then is tonal for around 15 s. Notice the multiple harmonic overtones of the B call.

Bering Sea Beginning in October 2000, four ARPs were deployed in the shallow (80 m) Bering Sea near Alaska (Table 1). The objective of this study is to record endangered northern Pacific right whale (Eubalaena japonica) vocalizations to provide a means of acoustically surveying the presence of this population which has been seen in the eastern Bering Sea each July since 1996 (Goddard and Rugh, 1998; Moore et al., 2000; LeDuc et al., 2001; Tynan et al., 2001). These instruments were configured to record at 500 Hz for about 8 months using lithium battery packs. In the fall of 2001, two of the ARPs were recovered during a scheduled field operation. Local fishermen located the other two at distant locations from the drop sites. Forensic analysis of the ‘wayward’ instruments suggests they were dragged off the bottom presumably by fishing operations that take place in this highly productive region. Both northern Pacific right whale and fin whale calls from the Bering Sea recorded in October 2000 are shown in Figure 5. The right whale calls are upswept calls starting around 100 Hz and ending about 1 s later around 170 Hz. These calls are identical to those reported MTS Journal • Vol. 37, No. 2 • 17

76444_Wiggins.qxd

8/14/2003

9:24 AM

Page 18

Figure 4. ARP data recorded at 1000 Hz in southern California waters illustrating call types from a blue whale. The pulsed signal is an A call, and the mostly tonal signal is a B call. The spectrogram was generated using a Hanning window, 90% overlap and 1000-point fast Fourier transform (FFT).

in the only documented case of northern Pacific right whale concurrent visual and acoustic recordings (McDonald and Moore, 2002). The fin whale calls are down sweeps from near 30 Hz to about 15 Hz, and lasting about 0.5 s. These calls are similar to fin whale calls recorded by ARPs in southern California, and are similar to those well documented in the Northern Hemisphere (Watkins, 1981; Edds, 1988; McDonald et al., 1995; Stafford et al., 1999). Note the greater abundance of fin whale calls compared to the right whale calls.

ARP in the Antarctic is shown in Figure 6. The call starts out tonal near 27 Hz, lasts for about 11 s, sweeps down to 19 Hz in less than 1 s, then is tonal for about 6 s. This call is similar to those reported around Antarctica (Ljungblad et al., 1998; Matsuoka et al., 2000). Note the distinct differences between the blue whale calls recorded in the northeastern Pacific and the Antarctic blue whale call (Figures 4 and 6), suggesting separate stocks of animals (McDonald et al., 2003).

Antarctica

Starting in December of 2000, one ARP was deployed south of Hawaii in ~2500 m deep water and configured to sample at 500 Hz for about 8 months (Table 1). The instrument was recovered with full data disks. This study is part of a seafloor geodetic experiment to record earthquakes, but humpback, fin, and some blue whale vocalizations have been recorded and are currently being analyzed.

Beginning in March 2001, seven ARPs were deployed in the Southern Ocean west of the Antarctic Peninsula to determine minimum population estimates, distribution, and seasonality of baleen whales, primarily blue, fin, minke (Balaenoptera bonaerenis), and humpback (Megaptera novaeangliae) whales (Table 1). These ARPs were configured to record at 500 Hz for more than one year. In February 2002, the ARPs were recovered from both shallow (~300 m) and deep water (~3500 m) locations. Full data disks and used batteries were exchanged for new ones, and the instruments were re-deployed for another one year recording session. A blue whale call recorded with an

18 â&#x20AC;˘ MTS Journal â&#x20AC;˘ Vol. 37, No. 2

Hawaii

Current Sites Deployments and recordings using ARPs are continuing off the coast of southern California, the Bering Sea, and in the Drake Passage off the West Antarctic Peninsula. New deployments have been conducted in the Gulf

76444_Wiggins.qxd

8/14/2003

9:24 AM

Page 19

Figure 5. ARP data recorded at 500 Hz in the Bering Sea illustrating two types of whale calls are shown. Fin whale calls are the lower frequency downswept signal, and northern Pacific right whales calls are the upswept mid-frequency signals. The spectrogram was generated using a Hanning window, 90% overlap and 500-point FFT.

of Alaska, in the Beaufort Sea and around the Antarctica continent off Elephant Island and near Mawson.

DISCUSSION s computer technology continues to advance, further improvements in lowpower, long-term, autonomous acoustic data acquisition systems will take place. Figure 7 shows the history of recording capacity for seafloor autonomous recording instruments based on ocean-bottom seismometer (OBS) and ARP technology over the past 25 years. Note that the rate of increase in storage capacity for autonomous instruments is around a factor of 10 every 5 years (factor of 2 per year). This is greater than Moore’s law of doubling data storage capacity every 18 months, although ultimately the rate of increase must be limited with this technology. It became possible in the early 1990’s to acoustically monitor baleen whales using autonomous instruments, for example, OBSs with 9 GB storage capacity (McDonald et al., 1995). The ARP is at year 2000 and 72 GB capacity and trends predict TB capacity will soon be available. Continuing this increasing trend is a wider bandwidth acoustic recording package called a HARP (high-frequency acoustic record-

ing package). The HARP is currently being developed to record odontocete vocalizations. Estimations for HARP power consumption at sample rates up to 50 kHz are similar to an ARP sampling at 1 kHz, therefore, about the same amount of battery space will be needed. This will allow for many of the same components to be used such as pressure cases, end caps, flotation, and frame. Sample rates up to 100-200 kHz may be possible with data recorded on lowpower, laptop-type disk drives. The HARPs will be configured with 16 small form-factor 60 or 80 GB disk drives for a capacity of around 960 GB or 1.2 TB, respectively. At 50 kHz sampling, the 16-bit data will require about 8.6 GB per day, allowing for over two months of continuous recordings. Alternatively, at 15 kHz sampling, one full year of data can be recorded. An alternative to continuous recordings would be to implement triggering algorithms in the data logger so that only predetermined call types would be recorded, resulting in much smaller quantities of recorded data. While this approach seems reasonable, many unpredicted calls would go unrecorded. For example, in the Antarctic data set there are many pinniped recordings, but these sounds would not have been recorded by a triggering algorithm set to study whales. Furthermore, investigating the structure and variability of MTS Journal • Vol. 37, No. 2 • 19

76444_Wiggins.qxd

8/14/2003

9:24 AM

Page 20

Figure 6. ARP data recorded at 500 Hz near the West Antarctic Peninsula. This call is from a blue whale and contains two tonals connected by a short duration sweep. The spectrogram was generated using a Hanning window, 90% overlap and 1000-point FFT.

Figure 7. Storage capacity versus time for seafloor autonomous recording instruments. The ARP is at year 2000 and 72 GB capacity. The upward trend in capacity will continue with the development of a HARP (high-frequency acoustic recording package). The other instruments are ocean bottom seismometers (OBS) (Prothero, 1976; (SIO – Scripps Institution of Oceanography) Moore et al., 1981; (ONR – Office of Naval Research) Sauter et al., 1990; (MPL – Marine Physical Laboratory) Sohn et al., 1999). The rate of increase in storage capacity is approximately a factor of 10 every 5 years.

20 • MTS Journal • Vol. 37, No. 2

76444_Wiggins.qxd

8/14/2003

9:24 AM

Page 21

ocean acoustic noise over various time periods would be difficult with event triggered acoustic data.

CONCLUSIONS iscovering new information about whale population dynamics and whale calls was the intent behind the development of the ARPs. The capabilities of current computer technology have allowed for the development of this system to acoustically monitor calling whales at various sites and conditions over long periods of time. Scientific results include species presence at locations and times previously unknown and newly recorded call pattern types. Current development of a broader-band, higher data capacity system is underway so that recordings can be made of high frequency sounds from odontocetes.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I thank Frank Stone and Ernie Young of the Office of the Chief of Naval Operations, Jeff Simmen and Ellen Livingston of the Office of Naval Research, Robert Holst of the Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program, the National Science Foundation, and Sue Moore of the National Marine Mammal Laboratory/ National Marine Fisheries Service for support of this work. I thank Erin Oleson, Ana Sirovic, and Lisa Munger for providing detection count data. I thank Crispin Hollinshead and Jacques Lemire for help with ARP design issues. Also, thanks goes to Mark McDonald, John Hildebrand, and two anonymous reviewers who improved the quality of this paper by their constructive comments. Work supported by ONR/SERDP N00014-00-1-0572, NSF OPP 99-10007, and NOAA NA17RJ1231.

REFERENCES Curtis, K. R., Howe, B. M. and Mercer, J. A. 1999. Low-frequency ambient sound in the North Pacific: long time series observations. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 106- (6): 3189–3200. Edds. P. L. 1988. Characteristics of finback Balaenoptera physalus vocalizations in the St. Lawerance River. Journal of Mammalogy 63- (2): 345–347. Goddard, P. D. and Rugh, D. J. 1998. A group of right whales seen in the Bering Sea in July 1996. Mar. Mammal Sci. 14- (2): 344–349. LeDuc, R. G., Perryman, W. L., Gilpatrick, J. W. J., Hyde, J., Stinchcomb, C., Carretta, J. V. and Brownell, R. L. J. 2001. A note on recent surveys for right whales in the southeastern Bering Sea. J. Cetacean Res. Manage. (special issue) 2: 287–289. Ljungblad, D., Clark, C. W. and Shimada, H. 1998. A comparison of sounds attributed to pygmy blue whales (Balaenoptera musculus brevicauda)

recorded south of the Madagascar Plateau and those attributed to ‘true’ blue whales (Balaenoptera musculus) recorded off Antarctica. Report of the International Whaling Commission 49: 439–442. Matsuoka, K., Murase, H., Nishiwaki, S., Fukuchi, T. and Shimada, H. 2000. Development of a retrievable sonobuoy system for whale sounds recording in polar region. In: Proceedings of International Whaling Commission Scientific Committee (unpublished), 7pp. McDonald, M. A., Webb, S. C. and Hildebrand, J. A. 1995. Blue and fin whales observed on a seafloor array in the Northeast Pacific. J. Acous. Soc. Am. 98- (2), Pt. 1: 712–721. McDonald, M. A., Calambokidis, J. C., Terinishi, A. and Hildebrand, J. A. 2001. The acoustic calls of blue whales off California with gender data. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 109: 1728–1735. McDonald, M. A. and Moore, S. E. 2002. Calls recorded from North Pacific right whales (Eubalaena japonica) in the eastern Bering Sea, J. Cetacean Res. Manage. 4- (3): 261–266. McDonald, M. A., Hildebrand, J. A., and Mesnick, S. 2003. Biogeographic characterization of blue whale song worldwide. In: Proceedings of International Whaling Commission meeting 2003, SC/55/SH 7, Berlin, Germany. Mellinger, D. K. 2002. Ishmael 1.0 User’s Guide, NOAA Technical Memorandum OAR PMEL-120, available from NOAA/PMEL, 7600 Sand Point Way NE, Seattle, WA 98115-6349. Moore, R. D., Dorman, L. M., Huang, C. Y. and Berliner, D. L. 1981. An ocean bottom microprocessor-based seismometer. Mar. Geophys. Res. 4: 451–477. Moore, S. E., Waite, J. M., Mazzuca, L. L. and Hobbs, R. C. 2000. Mysticete whale abundance and observations on prey association on the central Bering Sea shelf. J. Cetacean Res. Manage. 2- (3): 227–234. National Marine Fisheries Service. 1998. Recovery plan for the blue whale (Balaenoptera musculus). Prepared by Reeves, R. R., P. J. Clapham, R. L. Brownell, Jr., and G. K. Silber for the National Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, MD. 44 pp. Prothero, W. A. 1976. A digital Event-recording ocean bottom seismometer capsule. Mar. Geophys. Res. 3: 119–141. Richardson, W. J., Greene, C. R., Malme, C. I. and Thomson, D. H., 1995. Marine mammals and noise. San Diego: Academic Press., xvi+576 pp. Sauter, A. W., Hallinan, J., Currier, R., Barash, T., Wooding, B., Schlutz, A. and Dorman, L. M. 1990. A new ocean bottom seismometer. In: Proceedings of Conference : Marine Instrumentation ’90, pp. 99–104., Washington, D.C.: Mar. Technol. Soc. Sohn, R. A., Hildebrand, J. A. and Webb, S. C. 1999. A microearthquake survey of the high-temperature vent fields on the volcanically active East Pacific Rise (9° 50’ N). J. Geophys. Res. 104- (B11): 25,367-25,377. Stafford, K. M., Niewkrik, S. L. and Fox, C. G. 1999. Low-frequency whale sounds recorded on hydrophones moored in the eastern tropical Pacific. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 106- (6): 3687–3698. Tiemann, C. O., Porter, M. B. and Hildebrand, J. A. 2002. Automated model-based localization of marine mammals near California. In: Proceedings Oceans 2002, pp. 1360-1364., Biloxi, Mississippi: MTS/IEEE.

MTS Journal • Vol. 37, No. 2 • 21

76444_Wiggins.qxd

8/14/2003

9:24 AM

Page 22

Thompson, P. O., 1965. Marine biological sound west of San Clemente Island: Diurnal distributions and effects of ambient noise level during July 1963. Research report U.S. Navy Electronics Laboratory, San Diego, CA. Thompson, P. O., Findley, L. T., Vidal, O. and Cummings, W. C. 1996. Underwater sounds of blue whales, Balaenoptera musculus, in the Gulf of

22 • MTS Journal • Vol. 37, No. 2

California, Mexico, Marine Mammal Sci. 12-(2): 288–293. Tynan, C. T., De Master, D. P. and Peterson, W. P. 2001. Endangered right whales on the southeastern Bering Sea shelf. Science 294: 1,894. Watkins, W. A., 1981. Activities and underwater sounds of fin whales. Scientific reports of the Whale Research Institute 33: 83–117.