mcbem-2014-01-submission-wwf-en

WORKSHOP RECOMMENDATIONS
The primary conclusion of the workshop is that consideration of the underwater soundscape, and its
importance to marine life, is critically important in marine management and planning processes in
Canada’s Pacific, and elsewhere.
The quality of the acoustic environment has real consequences for marine animals, because most of
them use sound in the way that terrestrial animals use vision. In general parlance, ‘pollution’ is defined
as the discharge of deleterious substances and energy into the natural environment, which includes
both chemical contaminants and noise. Underwater noise must be managed accordingly. There are
multiple pathways to manage underwater noise, although the properties of sound underwater that
make it so conducive to communication also make it a challenging stressor to manage effectively. The
topic of underwater noise is slowly beginning to receive more public and management-related
attention, and while it has not been comprehensively addressed in many marine species recovery
strategies or action plans to date (i.e., under the Canadian Species at Risk Act [SARA]), the situation is
changing. It is precautionary to implement operational and technological quietening measures using
what we know now, instead of waiting for more comprehensive guidance based on scientific research.
Over the course of the workshop’s two days, presenters and participants made multiple
recommendations concerning management solutions to minimize and mitigate underwater noise. This
concluding section is WWF’s distillation and summary of those recommendations.
Translating Science into Policy
Recommendation 1: More work must be done to translate the science of underwater noise into policy
and regulations to guide management decisions.
As reported in the first underwater noise workshop, the federal government is working to translate
scientific advice on underwater noise into policy. Currently, some scientific guidance on noise is
incorporated into species recovery plans, marine mammal regulations, federal guidelines for mitigating
noise impacts produced by underwater seismic surveys and sonar, project environmental assessments,
management plans for marine protected areas, and shipping and recreational boating requirements.
Further recommendations include:
Analyze existing DFO acoustic data (originally collected to provide information on cetacean
presence) for the purpose of quantifying ambient noise levels along Canada’s Pacific coast. This
will provide an acoustic baseline (albeit already industrialized) that can be used as a reference to
describe the quality of the marine environment, which can then be used to inform marine
planning processes
Establish national consistency in the protection of acoustic habitat. DFO uses a “Table of
Activities Likely to Result in the Destruction of Critical Habitat” in assessing the potential impact
of development and other activities. The attribute of ‘sound exposure’ in the Table requires
threshold numbers based on the scientific literature, cross-jurisdictional comparisons and
international best practices, such the EU’s Marine Strategy Framework Directive.
These exposure thresholds should be precautionary, and based on most recent scientific
understanding, rather than just lifted from existing (and potentially outdated) documents from
other countries. For example, US National Marine Fisheries Service thresholds for behavioural
impacts on marine mammals do not consider masking effects and are ‘overly simplified,
scientifically outdated and artificially rigid’. Canadian marine managers and regulators should
develop updated versions of these behavioural thresholds.
61