Regulating ocean noise: Entering uncharted waters

Journal of International Wildlife Law and Policy

Volumn 10, Issue 2, 2007, Pages 101-107

  Cummings, Jim ^a  

^a Acoustic Ecology Institute   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 34249788429     PISSN: 13880292     EISSN: 15481476     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/13880290701347374     Document Type: Editorial

References (14)

1. Acoustic Ecology Institute, 45 Cougar Canyon, Santa Fe, NM 87508, USA. E-mail: Cummingsacousticecology.org. The guest editor would like to thank Wil Burns for his guidance and boundless patience, and each of the contributors (and the several potential contributors whose papers were not able to be included) for their thoughtful engagement with the issue of ocean noise. Special thanks to the participants in the Ocean Noise panel at the 8th IWLC, who each deepened my appreciation for the complexities of the issue.
2. This is a recent revelation, announced at the American Academy for the Advancement of Science meeting in February 2005. Cancer rates in sea lions along the California coast are over 17%.
3. As will be elaborated on in some of the articles here, we have reliable audiograms (measures of the hearing range) of only a few marine mammals, primarily smaller species that can be tested in captivity. The use of captive animals for determining both physiological impacts (temporary or permanent hearing loss) and behavioral responses to noise (primarily avoidance) has some limitations as indicators of the responses of wild populations; these limitations work both ways, as wild creatures would presumably move away from damaging sound (and thus be less apt to experience physical impacts than suggested by captive studies), while captive individuals may well be acclimated to higher levels of noise, or even be slightly less sensitive to sound due to age or long-term exposure to noise (so that wild creatures may show behavioral responses at lower sound levels than suggested by captive studies). We rely on these captive studies because it is exceedingly difficult or impossible to observe responses in the wild.Fish and other smaller marine species have been studied only minimally in relation to sound exposures. In addition, it is nearly impossible to assess the long-term, population-level effects of short-term behavioral disruptions, possible masking of biologically important sounds by high noise levels, or even of hearing loss. Thus, researchers and regulators must rely on estimates (often based on other animals), models (mathematical estimates of sound propagation or likelihood of responses), and extrapolations of various kinds. This is, for now, our "best available science."
4. See Pewreport on ocean health, America's LivingOceans: Charting a Course for Sea Change.
5. Arlington, VA: Pew Oceans Commission (2003), and the US Commission on Ocean Policy report, U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy, An Ocean Blueprint for the 21st Century, Fin. Rep. 311-2 (2004).
6. See http://www.acousticecology.org/oceanreports.html for links to many of these reports (last visited April 16, 2007).
7. Existing studies (involving amphibians) have focused on the smell of a predator, even when no predator is present; the smell, which presumably increased stress, seemed to trigger a dramatic increase mortality caused by exposure to the common pesticide carbaryl (10% mortality increased to 80% when the smell was introduced). The suggestion that ocean noise could similarly cause widespread increases in stress (and thus susceptibility to toxins, infections, etc.), especially in populations that are repeatedly exposed to chronic noise that triggers avoidance behaviors, is compelling, but as yet unstudied.
8. See http://www.mmc.gov/sound/ for an overview of the process and access to many of the documents generated for and by the Advisory Committee and working groups. A final Advisory Committee report, consisting of separate statements from several "caucus" groups that participated in the process is now available at http://www.mmc.gov/sound/committee/pdf/soundFACAreport.pdf
9. Elena McCarthy, International Regulation of Underwater Sound: Establishing Rules and Standards to Address Ocean Noise Pollution. Boston: Kluwer Academic Press (2004).
10. That is, as one who actually groks the intricacies and (for most of us) relative incomprehensibilities of the physics of sound waves and the ways animals may respond, perceptually and physically, to such parameters as "rise time" and "wave forms," given the widely varied and remarkable structures of their diverse auditory and nervous systems. See his report, Fish, Mollusks and other Sea Animals' Use of Sound, and the Impact of Anthropogenic Noise in the Marine Acoustic Environment http://www.msadesign.com/FishEars.html (last visited April 16, 2007).
11. The point was made that resistance to lifting the enduring moratorium on commercial whaling is now based not on analysis of the science of assessing current populations and setting acceptable catch limits, but rather is founded in a shift in social attitudes, in which many (non-traditional whale-eating) human societies have decided that, given what we now know about whale consciousness and social complexity, we simply should not kill such creatures; whales have crossed some invisible boundary by which we now respond to them more emotionally or spiritually than most animals, making their hunting an ethical issue rather than a biological one. This new attitude is rarely voiced directly; rather, maintenance of the status quo is argued based on uncertainties about stock stability and regeneration.
12. For example, arguments persist about whether a safe level of sound is, say, 190dB, the point at which temporary hearing loss is triggered, or 120dB, the level at which some species are shown to avoid noise. Likewise, there are several different ways of measuring sound, each of which is best at representing particular kinds of physiological and neurological impacts; depending on which is used, the numerical value in dBs can vary by ten or more decibels.
13. Of course, as evidenced by the wealth of initiatives mentioned in the papers included here, the past ten years has seen a "sea change" in our attention to ocean noise. Whereas prior to the early 1990s very little consideration was given to the effects of military, industrial, or shipping noise, we now see changes in operational procedures, monitoring, and research all aimed at reducing noise output of, for example, ships, and ameliorating the acoustic impacts of human activities. Still, there has been no significant reduction in human noise output in the sea; indeed, each of these types of human noise continues to increase.
14. Emphasis in the original. From the European Commision's Communication on the use of the precautionary principle, February 2000. See the announcement at www.jiwlp.com/contents/PPCommission.htm (last visited April 16, 2007).