A critique of the UK's JNCC seismic survey guidelines for minimising acoustic disturbance to marine mammals: best practise?

The United Kingdom's statutory conservation agency, the Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC), developed guidelines in 1995 to minimise acoustic disturbance of marine mammals by oil and gas industry seismic surveys. These were the first national guidelines to be developed and have subsequently become the standard, or basis, of international mitigation measures for noise pollution during seismic surveys. However, relatively few aspects of these measures have a firm scientific basis or proven efficacy. Existing guidelines do not offer adequate protection to marine mammals, given the complex propagation of airgun pulses; the difficulty of monitoring in particular the smaller, cryptic, and/or deep-diving species, such as beaked whales and porpoises; limitations in monitoring requirements; lack of baseline data; and other biological and acoustical complications or unknowns. Current guidelines offer a 'common sense' approach to noise mitigation, but in light of recent research and ongoing concerns, they should be updated, with broader measures needed to ensure adequate species protection and to address data gaps.

Navy sonar and cetaceans: just how much does the gun need to smoke before we act?

Cetacean mass stranding events associated with naval mid-frequency sonar use have raised considerable conservation concerns. These strandings have mostly involved beaked whales, with common pathologies, including "bubble lesions" similar to decompression sickness symptoms and acoustic traumas. However, other cetacean species have also stranded coincident with naval exercises. Possible mechanisms for the strandings include a behavioral response that causes deep divers to alter their diving behavior, which then results in decompression sickness-like impacts. Current mitigation measures during military exercises are focused on preventing auditory damage (hearing loss), but there are significant flaws with this approach. Behavioral responses, which occur at lower sound levels than those that cause hearing loss, may be more critical. Thus, mitigation measures should be revised. A growing number of international bodies recognize this issue and have urged increasing scrutiny of sound-producing activities, but many national jurisdictions have resisted calls for increased protection.