mcbem-2014-01-submission-wwf-en

Address masking, a significant threat to marine life, by limiting introduced noise to levels that do
not reduce whale communication space below a certain threshold 9 .
In the absence of sufficient scientific information to determine the biological impacts of one or
more projects, compensatory mitigation frameworks to ensure no net increase in noise levels in
the soundscape should be considered. Net reductions in noise levels are preferable for busy
areas.
Strategies to manage underwater noise should be area based, rather than species based, and
such strategies should focus on overall noise reduction targets, recognizing that many species of
marine animals are vulnerable to the impacts of noise. Within critical habitat for SARA-listed
species, threshold targets should be set even lower within the sound frequencies of interest
(i.e., where frequencies of underwater noise overlap with those of listed species).
There appear to be regional differences in the way Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat (CSAS)
processes are used, demonstrated by the two CSAS studies presented at this workshop. The
mechanisms by which findings from CSAS studies are incorporated into projects approvals in
EAs, or in other management decisions or regulatory revision, should be transparent, and
nationally consistent.
Impact Assessments
Recommendation 2: A new DFO policy on underwater noise, addressing projects’ full acoustical
footprints and incorporating cumulative impacts of multiple developments, should be developed to
guide project proponents and regulatory decision makers.
Individual environmental impact assessments are insufficient to address underwater noise due to a
lack of consistent requirements for monitoring and mitigation. A lack of standards means that
proponents of industrial projects have inadequate guidelines when considering mitigation of project
activities, and impacts of multiple projects are not considered cumulatively.
The policy should move beyond safety zones and ramp-up restrictions to outline tools such as
spatial or temporal closures, protected areas (e.g., MPAs, acoustic reserves (defined in the
summary of Breakout Group A’s discussion), NMCAs), use of noise-reducing methods (reduced
ship speed and maintenance schedules and approaches that take noise reduction into account)
and technologies (e.g., quiet ship designs, Vibroseis as an alternative to seismic, vibratory pile
driving rather than impact hammers).
Cumulative risk assessment frameworks should consider combined and interacting impacts from
multiple projects, and for multiple ecosystem components, when evaluating noise-generating
projects.
Proponents of coastal development projects should be required to:
o
o
Use best available technologies for quieting wherever possible.
Undertake acoustic baseline monitoring across seasons and for more than one year in
advance of their project.
9
Note that specific reductions in whale communication thresholds were not discussed in any detail during the
workshop. See Hatch et al. 2012 Conservation Biology 26: 983-994 for an analysis of the loss of right whale communication
space in the Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary.
62