n care

Creating ‘quiet zones’: Protecting Cuvier's beaked whale and Mediterranean monk seal critical habitat from anthropogenic noise in the Mediterranean Sea

Sigrid Lüber, Silvia Frey, Margi Prideaux and Geoff Prideaux September 2015 0 n care

Creating ‘quiet zones’: Protecting Cuvier's beaked whale and Mediterranean monk seal critical habitat from anthropogenic noise in the Mediterranean Sea

Sigrid Lüber, Silvia Frey, Margi Prideaux and Geoff Prideaux September 2015

OceanCare Gerbestrasse 6 P.O. Box 372 CH- 8820 Wädenswil Switzerland Tel: +41 (0) 44 780 66 88 Fax: +41 (0) 44 780 68 08 Email: [email protected] Web: www.oceancare.org

Suggested citation: Lüber, S., Frey, S., Prideaux, M., and Prideaux, G. 2015. Creating ‘quiet zones’: Protecting Cuvier's beaked whale and Mediterranean monk seal critical habitat from anthropogenic noise in the Mediterranean Sea, OceanCare, Switzerland

Photography: Cover: Cuvier’s beak whale, Massimiliano Rosso - CIMA Foundation Back cover: Mediterranean monk seal, M. Cedenilla - CBD Habitat 1 Creating ‘quiet zones’: Protecting Cuvier's beaked whale and Mediterranean monk seal critical habitat from anthropogenic noise in the Mediterranean Sea

Sigrid Lüber, Silvia Frey, Margi Prideaux and Geoff Prideaux OceanCare September 2015

The Mediterranean Sea is home to two endangered species: the critically endangered Mediterranean monk seal (Monachus monachus)–the most endangered pinniped species in the world–and a distinct population of Cuvier’s beaked whales (Ziphius cavirostris). Both species are listed on CMS Appendix I, which obliges CMS Party Range States to: 1. conserve and restore critical habitats of the species 2. prevent, remove, compensate for or minimize activities or obstacles that impede or prevent the migration of the species; and 3. prevent, reduce or control factors that are endangering the species. As a contribution to further the objective of ACCOBAMS Resolution 5.13: Conservation of Cuvier’s Beaked Whales in the Mediterranean, this OceanCare statement makes the case that critical habitats for Mediterranean monk seals and Cuvier’s beaked whales are compromised by anthropogenic noise in the Mediterranean Sea. Protected areas should be established in key regions of the Mediterranean Sea, as ‘quiet zones’, to prevent anthropogenic noise from further endangering these species and their prey. OceanCare’s summary recommendations are that: 1. Specially Protected Areas of Mediterranean Importance (SPAMIs) should be declared to protect Mediterranean monk seal and Cuvier’s beaked whale critical habitats as ‘quiet zones’ in: a. Alboran Sea to Gulf of Lion, to protect Mediterranean monk seals and Cuvier’s beaked whales; b. Sicilian Channel, to protect Cuvier’s beaked whales; c. Southern Adriatic and Ionian Strait, to protect Mediterranean monk seals and Cuvier’s beaked whales; and d. and Hellenic Trench, to protect Mediterranean monk seals and Cuvier’s beaked whales, incorporating the higher level of protection provided for in several existing habitat protection areas into SPAMI management plans. 2. Environment Impact Assessments must thorough, comprehensive and mandatory for all noise producing activities in the Mediterranean Sea that might propagate into any recognised Mediterranean monk seal and Cuvier’s beaked whale critical habitats or declared MPAs for these species.

OceanCare and anthropogenic marine noise For more than a decade OceanCare has raised concern about marine noise pollution through intergovernmental meetings, urging governments and the United Nations to take action to reduce marine noise. OceanCare has been active through the United Nations General Assembly, the Convention on Migratory Species of Wild Animals (CMS), the Food and Agriculture Organization Committee on Fisheries (FAO/COFI), the International Whaling Commission (IWC) and the European Union. We have also focused our advocacy voice with technical information in the two regional Agreements on the Conservation of Cetaceans in the Black Sea Mediterranean Sea and Contiguous Atlantic Area

2 (ACCOBAMS) and the Conservation of Small Cetaceans in the Baltic, North East Atlantic, Irish and North Seas (ASCOBANS). This paper is an OceanCare contribution to further the objective of ACCOBAMS Resolution 5.13: Conservation of Cuvier’s Beaked Whales in the Mediterranean where ACCOBAMS Parties were: Convinced that events in which the underwater transmission of naval sonar has been linked to atypical mass strandings and deaths of Cuvier’s beaked whales have occurred in the Mediterranean and that the production of intense underwater noise in areas identified as Cuvier’s beaked whale habitat carries environmental implications and responsibilities,[1] while recognising: … effective mitigation measures should be applied to human activities identified as representing important risk factors for Cuvier’s beaked whales, such as the use of intense sound sources[1] they agreed: a) Cuvier’s beaked whales need special consideration, and b) the concept of areas of special concern in which noise would be mitigated should be enhanced.[1]

Marine wildlife and anthropogenic noise Levels of anthropogenic marine noise have doubled in at least some areas of the world, every decade, for the past 60 years.[2, 3] This is a life-threatening trend for marine species. The key noise producing marine activities are commercial shipping, defence-related activities, hydrocarbon exploration and development, research activities and recreational activities. Marine wildlife rely on sound for their vital life functions, including communication, prey and predator detection, orientation and for sensing surroundings.[4-6] While the ocean is certainly a sound-filled environment and many natural (or biological) sounds are very loud, wildlife are not adapted to anthropogenic noise. Animals exposed to elevated or prolonged anthropogenic noise levels can suffer permanent or temporary hearing threshold shifts, compromising their communication and their ability to detect threats.[3, 7] Noise can mask important natural sounds, such as the call of a mate, the sound made by prey or the noise made by a predator. These mechanisms, as well as factors such as stress, distraction, confusion, and panic, can affect reproduction, death, and growth rates, in turn influencing the long-term welfare of the population.[3, 6, 8, 9] The most commonly measured wildlife responses to noise fall into three main categories: behavioural, acoustic and physiological. 1. Behavioural responses that include changes in surfacing, diving and heading patterns and changes in feeding behaviour. 2. Acoustic responses that include changes in type or timing of vocalisation and communication relative to the noise source. 3. Physiological responses or impacts that include physical damage, hearing threshold shifts and ‘stress’ in some species. Noise can also mask natural sounds the animal relies on. These impacts are experienced by a wide range of species including fish, crustaceans and cephalopods,[10-17] pinnipeds (seals, sea lions and walrus),[7, 8, 18-21] sirenians (dugong and manatee),[22] sea turtles[23-25] and cetaceans (whales, dolphins and porpoises)–the most studied group of marine species when considering the impact of marine noise. [3, 26-32] Protecting Cuvier's beaked whale and Mediterranean monk seal critical habitat in the Mediterranean Sea Spatio-temporal restrictions, such as marine protected areas (MPAs), offer an effective means to protect marine wildlife and their habitats from the impact of noise.[33-35] MPAs either need to be sufficiently large to provide sanctuary, or their existence needs to trigger a prescribed limit of activities outside the MPA to prevent noise spreading into the MPA.[34, 36, 37]

3 The estimated total population of Mediterranean monk seals is only 350-450 animals, with 250-300 of these in the eastern Mediterranean. (See map1) The closed and genetically isolated population in the Cabo Blanco area (Western Sahara-Mauritania) may have slightly increased.[38, 39] Monk seal critical habitats are well known. The species is listed by the IUCN as ‘Critically Endangered’ and is included on CMS Appendix I. Mediterranean monk seals are known to remain close to their haul out and pupping grounds, but like all pinnipeds, regularly travel 100km or more from shore to feed.[40] The Mediterranean population of the Cuvier’s beaked whales is genetically distinct, containing fewer than 10,000 mature individuals. Cuvier’s beaked whales are regular inhabitants of the Hellenic Trench, the southern Adriatic Sea based on frequency of strandings, the northern Thyrrenian Sea and the eastern section of the Alboran Sea. (See map 2) A recent regional assessment by the IUCN has provisionally classified the Mediterranean population as Vulnerable.[41] This population is also included on CMS Appendix I as an endangered species. Map 1: Mediterranean monk seal critical habitat

Map 2: Cuvier’s beaked whale critical habitat

4

In 2008, the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) adopted a list of seven scientific criteria for to identify Ecologically or Biologically Significant Marine Areas (EBSAs) in need of protection in open-ocean waters and deep-sea habitats. These criteria were completed, in 2010 and are: uniqueness or rarity; special importance for life history of species; importance for threatened, endangered or declining species and/or habitats; vulnerability, fragility, sensitivity, slow recovery; biological productivity, biological diversity and naturalness.[42] In paragraph 3 of ‘Decision XII/22: Marine and coastal biodiversity: ecologically or biologically significant marine areas (EBSAs)’, CBD Parties commit that EBSAs may require strengthened conservation and management measures, and that this can be achieved through marine protected areas and impact assessments. In paragraph 9 they are encouraged to: “… make use, as appropriate, of the scientific information regarding the description of areas meeting EBSA criteria … when carrying out marine spatial planning, development of representative networks of marine protected areas … and application of other area-based management measures in marine and coastal areas, with a view to contributing to national efforts to achieve the Aichi Biodiversity Targets;” CBD Parties have declared fifteen EBSAs for the Mediterranean region.[43] (See map 3) These are: 1. Northern Adriatic 9. East Levantine Canyons (ELCA) 2. Jabuka/Pomo Pit 10. North-East Levantine Sea 3. South Adriatic Ionian Straight 11. Akamas and Chrysochou Bay 4. North-western Mediterranean Pelagic Ecosystems 12. Hellenic Trench 5. North-western Mediterranean Benthic Ecosystems 13. Central Aegean Sea 6. Le Golfe de Gabès 14. North Aegean 7. Gulf of Sirte 15. Sicilian Channel 8. Nile Delta Fan Map 3: Mediterranean EBSAs (benthic and pelagic combined)

When the broader knowledge about Mediterranean monk seal and Cuvier’s beaked whale critical habitat with Mediterranean EBSAs is considered together, it becomes clearly clear which regions should be considered for immediate protection. (See map 4)

5 Map 4: Overlay of Mediterranean monk seal and Cuvier’s beaked whale critical habitat with Mediterranean EBSAs

The Barcelona Convention and Specially Protected Areas of Mediterranean Importance

The Barcelona Convention has enshrined the SPA/BD Protocol is the Mediterranean’s main tool for implementing CBD for the conservation of coastal and marine biodiversity. One of the eleven objectives the Barcelona Convention implementation of the ‘Ecosystems Approach’ in the Mediterranean will aim to achieve is for noise from human activities causes no significant impact on marine and coastal ecosystems.[44]

The SPA/BD Protocol recommends concrete protection measures to safeguard elements of biological diversity through Action Plans and technical tools for inventory and setting up Specially Protected Areas of Mediterranean Importance (SPAMIs), including trans-boundary areas, in areas where several states have sovereignty and in international waters.[45] SPAMIs must have: 1. Conservation and management objectives clearly defined 2. Appropriate protection, planning and management measures and a programme for the collection of the unavailable data and information. 3. Administration and implementation of conservation measures responsibilities clearly defined 4. Protection measures that include: a. the strengthening of the regulation of the release or dumping of wastes and other substances likely directly or indirectly to impair the integrity of the area; b. the strengthening of the regulation of the introduction or reintroduction of any species into the area; c. the regulation of any activity or act likely to harm or disturb the species, or that might endanger the conservation status of the ecosystems or species or might impair the natural, cultural or aesthetic characteristics of the area. d. the regulation applicable to the zones surrounding the area in question. 5. An appropriate management body 6. A management plan. 7. A monitoring programme.[45] Regional Activity Centre for Specially Protected Areas (RAC/SPA) has Actions Plans for Mediterranean

6 monk seals and for cetaceans.[46, 47] The Mediterranean Monk Seal Action Plan highlights the need for All countries that still have breeding monk seal populations to provide for the strict protection of the remaining seal breeding sites, by isolating seals from incompatible human activities.[47]

Proposal for quiet zones to be declared as protected areas in the Mediterranean Sea Five of the declared EBSAs, specifically reference their importance for Mediterranean monk seal and Cuvier’s beaked whales: South Adriatic Ionian Straight; North-East Levantine Sea; Akamas and Chrysochou Bay; Central Aegean Sea; and North Aegean. A key decision for protected area design is identifying the management intention. When the EBSAs are overlaid with Cuvier’s beaked whale and Mediterranean monk seal critical habitats there is a strong ecological defence to declare at least four large areas as ‘quiet zones’. OceanCare proposes four areas for consideration as Specially Protected Areas of Mediterranean Importance (SPAMIs): Alboran Sea to Gulf of Lion This is an adaptation of the EBSA for the North-western Mediterranean Pelagic Ecosystems and North-western Mediterranean Benthic Ecosystems and covered from the Alboran Sea to the Gulf of Lion. The area is characterised by a set of geomorphological and oceanographic characteristics that enable it to host comparatively exceptional levels of species diversity and abundance. With its wide variety of features on the seafloor, shelf and slope, the area hosts a unique diversity of habitats and significant biodiversity. Most of these species and habitat are vulnerable and characterised by low resilience. (See Annex: Agreed CBD description of areas meeting the EBSA criteria in the Mediterranean, area 6, 7) Sicilian Channel: Cuvier’s beaked whale The Sicilian Channel is located between the island of Sicily and Tunisia, where Pantelleria (Italy), Pelagie and Lampedusa (Italy), and Malta, Gozo and Comino Islands (Malta). In this area, there is exchange of water masses and organisms between the west and east Mediterranean basins. Significant ecological and biological components coexist spatially in a relatively limited area, which is considered a biodiversity hotspot within the Mediterranean. Seamounts and deep-sea corals are found close to Sicily and provide valuable habitat for a number of other species. (See Annex: Agreed CBD description of areas meeting the EBSA criteria in the Mediterranean, area 8) Southern Adriatic and Ionian Strait: Mediterranean monk seal and Cuvier’s beaked whale The area is located in the centre of the southern part of the Southern Adriatic basin and in the northern part of the Ionian Sea. It is characterised by steep slopes and a maximum depth ranging between 200m to 1500m. The area contains important habitats for Cuvier’s beaked whales and Mediterranean monk seals as well as other significant species. (See Annex: Agreed CBD description of areas meeting the EBSA criteria in the Mediterranean, area 3) Aegean Sea and Hellenic Trench: Mediterranean monk seal and Cuvier’s beaked whale The Central Aegean Sea is characterised by an extensive archipelago of hundreds of small islands and bays that form various habitats hosting a rich biodiversity and important reproduction areas for Mediterranean monk seals. The North Aegean Sea highly productive because of the input of trans-frontal river waters, upwellings and the input of nutrient-rich water from the Black Sea. Rare species of cetaceans and corals are found in the area, as well as one of the largest marine parks of the Mediterranean, which supports an important Mediterranean monk seal population. The Hellenic Trench is the area contained in part in the Central Mediterranean subregion (Eastern Ionian Sea), and in part in the Eastern Mediterranean subregion (Levantine Sea). The area is a major feature of the seafloor connecting the Central to the Eastern Mediterranean.

7 Because of its geomorphologic conditions, it is important for the survival of threatened, deep- diving marine mammals in the Eastern Mediterranean Sea, including as Cuvier’s beaked whales and sperm whales. (See Annex: Agreed CBD description of areas meeting the EBSA criteria in the Mediterranean, area 15, 16, 17) OceanCare proposes that these four protected areas are declared as SPAMIs with the intention of having these regions as areas where anthropogenic noise levels will not increase above the existing ambient levels (from smaller vessels and existing small-scale boat traffic). This will provide certainly for noise generating industries to plan for their activities to prevent noise propagation into these regions. (See map 5). Map 5: Proposed ‘quiet zones’

There are existing habitat protection areas already declared within some of these broad areas. These habitat protection mechanisms seek to reduce other anthropogenic threats, in particular for Mediterranean monk seals. Their intent and management plans should be transparently incorporated into the larger scale protected area management plans. Protecting these key areas as MPAs is one part of what must done. The other part is ensuring the protection is effective.

The complexities of sound in water Sound in the marine environment behaves differently to sound in air. The extent and way that sound travels (propagation) is affected by the frequency of the sound, water depth and density differences within the water column. These vary with temperature, salinity and pressure. Moreover, the ocean bottom substrate affects propagation as well.[48-51] Consequently, assessing noise propagation is complex.[50, 52-54] The temperature of seawater at different depths is important to modelling [55-57] and the way sound propagates is also important. Seawater is roughly 800–1500 times denser than air and sound travels around five times faster in this medium.[50] Sound waves moving through water, at 22° C, travel at around 1484ms-1.[55-57] Transmission loss– the decrease in the sound intensity levels– happens uniformly in all directions during spherical spreading. In cylindrical spreading the sound waves are

8 effectively contained between the sea surface and the sea floor, while the radius still expands uniformly. As the height is now fixed, the sound intensity level decreases more slowly.[50, 58] Horizontal layers of water in the ocean at which depth, the speed of sound is at its minimum– Sound Fixing and Ranging Channels (SOFAR) or deep sound channels (DSC)– are created through the interactive effect of temperature and water pressure (and, to a smaller extent, salinity). The speed gradient above and below the sound channel axis– the depth where the sound speed is at a minimum–acts like a lens, bending sound towards the depth of minimum speeds. Sound within the channel meets no acoustic loss from reflection of the sea surface and sea floor and travels very long distances with little transmission loss.[50, 58] The seabed is rarely, if ever, flat and parallel to the sea surface, modelling propagation in the marine environment is complex. Modelling must accommodate the water depth as well as the rise and fall of the seabed.[50] All of these complexities require professional modelling to fully understand noise propagation characteristics. It is not acceptable for any noise producing industry to provide generalised assurances. Environmental Impact Assessments providing defensible information There is considerable debate about the appropriate buffer zone distance surrounding MPAs, to ensure that anthropogenic noise does not propagate into the area, impacting the species being protected. While such buffer zone distances continue to be debated, regulations should use an established tool that is legislatively available in almost all jurisdictions of the world: Environment Impact Assessments (EIAs). It is broadly accepted the basic intent of EIAs is to anticipate the significant environmental impacts of development proposals before any commitment to a particular course of action. The purpose of EIAs for anthropogenic noise industries should determine the level of impact on populations of marine wildlife and the wider ecosystem,[5] yet many EIAs are insufficiently researched, drawing heavily from previous assessments. In a significant number of cases, approvals are given without careful consideration of the detail presented in the assessments. Instances of repeated information or missing species are not uncommon. Topics are dealt with by dismissal, often ignoring recent scientific literature, perpetuating misconceptions and containing analytical flaws. Discussions about wildlife often focused on lethal impact, with little or no consideration of sublethal impacts. Objective assessment of impact on neighbouring MPAs is rarely performed.[59, 60] While professional noise modelling is common for land-based anthropogenic noise producing activities, it is less common for proposals in the marine environment. This lack of rigorous noise modelling contained in EIAs in the marine setting needs to be urgently addressed.[60] Exposure criteria for single individuals and short-term (not chronic) exposure events are inadequate to describe the cumulative and ecosystem-level effects likely to result from repeated and/or sustained noise exposure.[7] EIAs should provide a clear indication of the sound propagation features across the full area the noise will impact. Proponents should be required to contract professional modelling of the noise propagation of their proposed activity; in the region and under the conditions they plan to operate. They should be required to verify this modelling in the field. Their documentation should demonstrate a clear understanding of the species present, necessary species exclusion zones and how the transmission into MPAs can be managed. Given the strong commitment of governments to reducing anthropogenic marine noise, this information, if transparently supplied, will provide regulators and decision makers with robust, defensible and impartial information on which to base their decisions. Only with this level of information can the risks of the proposed activity be weighed against alternatives. The existing EIA commitment of European Member States These suggestions are not without precedent and governmental commitment. A series of important intergovernmental decisions have already determined the direction for regulating anthropogenic marine noise. The most recent of these are the following:

European Union Directive The 2014/52/EU Directive introduction now directs European Union Member States:

9 “[w]ith a view to ensuring a high level of protection of the marine environment, especially species and habitats, environmental impact assessment and screening procedures for projects in the marine environment should take into account the characteristics of those projects with particular regard to the technologies used (for example seismic surveys using active sonars).”[61]

ACCOBAMS The Agreement on the Conservation of Cetaceans in the Black Sea Mediterranean Sea and Contiguous Atlantic Area (ACCOBAMS) ‘Resolution 5.13: Conservation of Cuvier's beaked whales in the Mediterranean’[1] and ‘Resolution 5.15: Addressing the impact of anthropogenic noise’[62] reinforces the commitments made in ‘Resolution 4.17: Guidelines to Address the Impact of Anthropogenic Noise on Cetaceans in the ACCOBAMS Area (ACCOBAMS Noise Guidelines)’ that urges ACCOBAMS Parties to: “[r]ecogniz[e] that anthropogenic ocean noise is a form of pollution, caused by the introduction of energy into the marine environment, that can have adverse effects on marine life, ranging from disturbance to injury and death”.[63] This Resolution also encourages ACCOBAMS Parties to: “ ... address fully the issue of anthropogenic noise in the marine environment, including cumulative effects, in the light of the best scientific information available and taking into consideration the applicable legislation of the Parties, particularly as regards the need for thorough environmental impact assessments being undertaken before granting approval to proposed noise-producing activities”.[63] The ACCOBAMS Noise Guidelines provide further comprehensive detail relating to each of the marine noise producing activities.

Espoo (EIA) Convention Principle 17 of the Convention on Environmental Impact Assessment in a Transboundary Context (Espoo (EIA) Convention) states that: “Environmental impact assessment[s], as a national instrument, shall be undertaken for proposed activities that are likely to have a significant adverse impact on the environment and are subject to a decision of a competent national authority.”[64]

CBD The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) ‘Decision XII/23: Marine and coastal biodiversity: Impacts on marine and coastal biodiversity of anthropogenic underwater noise’ encourages CBD Parties: “… to take appropriate measures… to avoid, minimize and mitigate the potential significant adverse impacts of anthropogenic underwater noise on marine and coastal biodiversity”.[65] In Decision XII/23, CBD Parties have agreed to a significant list of technical commitments, including gathering additional data about noise intensity and noise types; and building capacity in developing regions where scientific ability can be strengthened. Decision XII/23 urges the transfer to quieter technologies and applying the best available practice in all relevant activities. The CBD Parties advocate for mapping spatial and temporal distribution of sound through EIAs and combining this acoustic mapping with habitat mapping of sound-sensitive species with regard to spatial risk assessments to identify areas where species may be exposed to noise impacts. They also advocate the use of spatio-temporal management of activities.

CMS The Convention on Migratory Species (CMS) ‘Resolution 10.24: Further Steps to Abate Underwater Noise Pollution for the Protection of Cetaceans and Other Migratory Species’ encourages CMS Parties to: “... prevent adverse effects on cetaceans and on other migratory marine species by restricting the emission of underwater noise, understood as keeping it to the lowest necessary level with particular priority given to situations where the impacts on cetaceans are known to be heavy” and “[u]rges Parties to ensure that Environmental Impact Assessments take full account of the effects of activities on cetaceans and to consider potential impacts on marine biota and their migration routes ...”[66]

10 Resolution 10.24 further articulates that CMS Parties should ensure that EIAs take full account of the impact of anthropogenic marine noise on marine species; apply Best Available Techniques (BAT) and Best Environmental Practice (BEP); and to integrate the issue of anthropogenic noise into the management plans of marine protected areas.

A moral imperative Research by the Potsdam Institute calculates that to reduce the chance of exceeding 2°C warming to 20 percent, the global carbon budget to 2050 is 565 GtCO2. Governments and global markets are treating as assets, reserves equivalent to nearly 5 times this carbon budget. Only 20 percent of the total reserves can be used to stay below 2°C.[67] Yet, the hydrocarbon industry ambition is to increase fossil fuel use into the future. Government facilitation of the petroleum industry exploration for new reserves in offshore areas is profoundly irresponsible. It also stands in violation of CMS Party Range Statement commitments to the Appendix I listing of Mediterranean monk seals and Cuvier’s beaked whales and the commitments of all European Member States to fully assess impacts to marine wildlife.

OceanCare Recommendations OceanCare recommends that: 1) Specially Protected Areas of Mediterranean Importance (SPAMIs) should be declared to protect Mediterranean monk seal and Cuvier’s beaked whale critical habitats as ‘quiet zones’ in the: a) Alboran Sea to Gulf of Lion, to protect Mediterranean monk seals and Cuvier’s beaked whales; b) Sicilian Channel, to protect Cuvier’s beaked whales; c) Southern Adriatic and Ionian Strait, to protect Mediterranean monk seals and Cuvier’s beaked whales; and d) Aegean Sea and Hellenic Trench, to protect Mediterranean monk seals and Cuvier’s beaked whales, incorporating the higher level of protection provided for in several existing habitat protection areas into SPAMI management plans. 2) Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs) for any noise producing activities in the Mediterranean Sea must be thorough, comprehensive and mandatory. At a minimum, EIAs should: a) collect baseline biological and environmental information to describe the area being impacted;[60, 68-70] b) fully characterise operations, including describing the sound source in some detail, professionally modelling the sound propagation features and spatial area that will experience anthropogenic noise above natural ambient sound levels, including transmission into any declared MPAs, and verifying this modelling in the field;[60] c) assess the impact to species within this area and consider the potential cumulative effects from other sound sources as well as other human activities that add to the pressures on wildlife;[60, 68-70] d) describe how the impacts will be monitored before, during and after the operation;[60, 68-70] and e) provide an objective consideration of the risk posed by the proposed activity against alternatives.

11 Annex: Agreed CBD description of areas meeting the EBSA criteria in the Mediterranean[71]

Location and brief description of areas C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7

For key to criteria, see below

3. South Adriatic Ionian Straight Location: The area is located in the centre of the southern part of the Southern Adriatic basin and in the northern part of the Ionian Sea. It includes the deepest part of the Adriatic Sea on the western side and it encompasses a coastal area in Albania (Sazani Island and Karaburuni peninsula). It also covers the slopes in near Santa Maria di Leuca. The area is located in the centre of the southern part of the Southern Adriatic basin and the northern Ionian Sea. It is characterized by steep slopes, high salinity and a maximum depth ranging between 200 m to 1500 m. Water exchange with the Mediterranean Sea takes place through the Otranto Channel, which has a sill that is 800 m deep. This area contains important habitats H H H H M H M for Cuvier’s beaked whales (Ziphius cavirostris), an Annex II species of the Protocol concerning Specially Protected Areas and Biological Diversity in the Mediterranean (SPA/BD Protocol) in the framework of Barcelona Convention, and significant densities of other megafauna such as the giant devil ray (Mobula mobular), striped dolphin (Stenella coeruleoalba), Mediterranean monk seal (Monachus monachus) and loggerhead turtle (Caretta caretta), all of which are listed in Annex II of SPA/BD Protocol. Benthos includes deep-sea cold-water coral communities and deep-sea sponge aggregations, representing important biodiversity reservoirs and contributing to the trophic recycling of organic matter. Tuna, swordfish and sharks are also common in this area. 6. North-western Mediterranean Pelagic Ecosystems Location: The area is located from the southern Balearic Islands to the Ligurian Sea, including the Gulf of Lion and some part of the Tyrrhenian Sea. The area is characterized by a set of geomorphological and oceanographic characteristics that enable it to host comparatively exceptional levels of species diversity and abundance. The oceanography of the water masses in the area is at the base of its productivity and extraordinary biological and ecological significance. For some groups of large pelagics, H H H H H H M including tuna and tuna-like species, the western Mediterranean represents an important area for reproduction and feeding. Marine turtles (Caretta caretta and Dermochelys coriacea) from the Atlantic as well as C. caretta from the eastern and central Mediterranean are distributed in the northern part of the island and the Catalan sea. The Balearic Islands represent an area of contact between the two turtle populations. The area also includes ca. 63 Important Bird Areas, with important populations of the endemic Balearic Shearwater and Audouin’s Gull. 7. North-western Mediterranean Benthic Ecosystems Location: The area is located off the coasts of Italy, Monaco, France and Spain. The depth range of the area is around 2500 m and cover a surface of 196 000 km2. The area is both representative of the peculiarities of the western basin in terms of oceanographic conditions, geomorphology and ecosystems that harbour singular trophic H M H H M H M webs. With its wide variety of features on the seafloor, shelf and slope, the area hosts a unique diversity of habitats of relevant conservation interest starting from the mediolittoral until the bathyal zone, and a significant biodiversity, characterized by engineer species (species that modify their environment). Most of these species and habitat are vulnerable and characterized by low resilience. 8. Sicilian Channel Location: The Sicilian Channel is located between the island of Sicily and Tunisia, where Pantelleria (Italy), Pelagie Islands and Lampedusa (Italy), and Malta, Gozo and Comino Islands (Malta) are located. In this area, there is exchange of water masses and organisms between the west and east Mediterranean basins. In the wider area of the channel, significant ecological and biological components coexist spatially in a relatively limited area, which is considered a biodiversity hotspot within the Mediterranean. Seamounts and deep-sea corals are found M H H H M H L close to Sicily, including mounds of white corals, which are vulnerable species and provide valuable habitat for a number of other species. The complex oceanographic conditions in this area lead to a high degree of productivity and provide good conditions for fish spawning, making the Sicilian Channel an important spawning ground for a number of commercially important fish species, including bluefin tuna, swordfish and anchovy, as well as a number of demersal fish species. The area is also believed to be an important nursery area for the endangered white shark. The Sicilian Channel is thought to be the last important habitat for the critically endangered Maltese skate. 15. Hellenic Trench H H H H H - - Location: The area is contained in part in the Central Mediterranean sub-region (Eastern

12 Location and brief description of areas C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7

For key to criteria, see below

Ionian Sea), and in part in the Eastern Mediterranean sub-region (Levantine Sea). The area extends from the Greek Ionian islands to the south of Crete and further to the north-east towards the south-west coast of Anatolia The area is a major feature of the seafloor connecting the Central to the Eastern Mediterranean. Due to its geomorphological conditions, it is important for the survival of threatened, deep-diving marine mammals in the Eastern Mediterranean Sea. Additionally, due to the specific oceanographic conditions of the eastern part of the area (Rhodos Gyre) it contributes to the biological productivity of the north-east Levantine Sea, which has an extremely oligotrophic background. 16. Central Aegean Sea Location: The area extends from Babakale (on the Turkish mainland, north of the Greek island of Lesbos) across the Aegean Sea to the west, including the island of Skiros. The western limit extends southward along the shoreline to the uninhabited island of Falkonera, then follows the southern islands of the Kyklades archipelago, along the Hellenic Volcanic arc until Rhodes. It follows the northern shoreline of Rhodes until the Turkish coastline. The Turkish coastline forms the eastern limit of the area. The Central Aegean Sea is characterized by an extensive archipelago of hundreds of small M H H M L H M islands and bays that form a variety of habitats hosting a rich biodiversity. Important biological and ecological characteristics include the presence of vulnerable habitats such as seagrass beds and coralligenous grounds, which provide habitats and highly important reproduction areas for a number of rare or vulnerable species (e.g. the monk seal, various bird species, cetaceans, and sharks). Unique geomorphological features in the area include hydrothermal vents, brine seeps, and submarine volcanoes. Owing to the area’s high biodiversity and the presence of many vulnerable species, many sites are legally protected. 17. North Aegean Location: The area described is in the North Aegean Sea within the national jurisdictions of and Turkey as well as in waters beyond national jurisdiction. The area is highly productive due to the input of trans-frontal river waters, upwellings and H H M L H H L the input of nutrient-rich water from the Black Sea. The area includes some of the most important fishery grounds of the Aegean Sea. Rare species of cetaceans and corals are found in the area, as well as one of the largest marine parks of the Mediterranean, which supports an important Mediterranean monk seal population.

Ranking of EBSA criteria Criteria H High C1: Uniqueness or rarity M Medium C2: Special importance for life-history stages of species L Low C3: Importance for threatened, endangered or declining species and/or habitats - No information C4: Vulnerability, fragility, sensitivity, or slow recovery C5: Biological productivity C6: Biological diversity C7: Naturalness

13 References

19. 1. ACCOBAMS. 2013. Resolution 5.13: Conservation of Cuvier's Harris, RE., Miller, GW. and Richardson, WJ. 2001. Seal beaked whales in the Mediterranean Tangier, Morocco, Fifth Responses to Airgun Sounds During Summer Seismic Surveys Meeting of the Parties to the Agreement on the Conservation in the Alaskan Beaufort Sea. Marine Mammal Science. 17: 795– of Cetaceans in the Black Sea Mediterranean Sea and 812. 20. Contiguous Atlantic Area Kastak, D., Southall, BL., Schusterman, RJ. and Kastak, CR. 2005. 2. McDonald, Mark A., Hildebrand, John A. and Wiggins, Sean M. Underwater temporary threshold shift in pinnipeds: Effects of 2006. Increases in deep ocean ambient noise in the Northeast noise level and duration. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of Pacific west of San Nicolas Island, California. The Journal of the America. 118, 3154. 21. Acoustical Society of America. 120, 2: 711-18. Mathews, EA. 1994. The effects of seismic reflection surveys 3. Weilgart, Lindy. 2007. The impacts of anthropogenic ocean and vessel traffic on harbor seals in Johns Hopkins Inlet, noise on cetaceans and implications for management. Glacier Bay National Park: A preliminary assessment. US Natl. Canadian Journal of Zoology 85, 11: 1091-116. Park. Serv, Glacier Bay Natl. Park. Gustavus 22. 4. Simmonds, Mark P., Dolman, Sarah J., Jasny, Michael., Parsons, Hodgson, AJ. and Marsh, H. 2007. Response of dugongs to ECM., Weilgart, Lindy., Wright, Andrew J. and Leaper, Russell. boat traffic: The risk of disturbance and displacement. Journal 2014. Marine Noise Pollution-Increasing Recognition But of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology. 305: 50–61. 23. Need for More Practical Action. Journal of Ocean Technology. 9, Moein Bartol, S. and Musick, JA., eds. 2003.Sensory biology of 1: 71-90. sea turtles. edited by Lutz, PL. and Musick, JA., The biology of 5. Hawkins, Anthony D. and Popper, AN. 2014. Assessing the sea turtles, Vol 2. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press. 24. impacts of underwater sounds on fishes and other forms of O’Hara, J. and Wilcox, JR. 1990. Avoidance responses of marine life. Acoust Today. 10, 2: 30-41. loggerhead turtles, Caretta caretta, to low frequency sounds. 6. Williams, Rob., Erbe, Christine., Ashe, Erin. and Clark, Copeia 564–67. 25. Christopher W. 2015. Quiet (er) marine protected areas. Southwood, A., Fritsches, K., Brill, R. and Swimmer, Y. 2008. Marine Pollution Bulletin. Sound, chemical & light detection in sea turtles and pelagic 7. Southall, BL., Bowles, AE., Ellison, WT., et al. 2007. Marine fishes: sensory-based approaches to bycatch reduction in mammal noise-exposure criteria: initial scientific longline fisheries. Endang Species Res. 5: 225-38. 26. recommendations. Bioacoustics. 17, 1-3: 273-75. Gedamke, J., Gales, N. and Frydman, S. 2011. Assessing risk of 8. Southall, BL., Schusterman, RJ. and Kastak, D. 2000. Masking in baleen whale hearing loss from seismic surveys: The effect of three pinnipeds: Underwater, low-frequency critical ratios. The uncertainty and individual variation. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 129, 1: Journal of the Acoustical Society of America. 108, 3: 1322-26. 496–506. 27. 9. Clark, CW., Ellison, WT., Southall, BL., Hatch, L., Van Parijs, S., Gordon, J., Gillespie, D., Potter, J., Frantzis, A., Simmonds, MP., Frankel, A. and Ponirakis, D. 2009. Acoustic Masking in Marine Swift, R. and Thompson, D. 2003. A Review of the Effects of Ecosystems as a Function of Anthropogenic Sound Sources. Seismic Surveys on Marine Mammals Marine Technology Paper submitted to the 61st IWC Scientific Committee. (SC-61 Society Journal. 37, 4: 16-34. 28. E10). Nowacek, DP., Thorne, LH., Johnston, DW. and Tyack, PL. 2007. 10. Hassel, A., Knutsen, T., Dalen, J., Skaar, K., Løkkeborg, S., Responses of cetaceans to anthropogenic noise. Mammal Misund, OA., Østensen, Ø., Fonn, M. and Haugland, EK. 2004. Review. 37: 81-115. 29. Influence of seismic shooting on the lesser sandeel Gray, H. and Van Waerebeek, K. 2011. Postural instability and (Ammodytes marinus). ICES Journal of Marine Science. 61: akinesia in a pantropical spotted dolphin, Stenella attenuata, 1165-73 in proximity to operating airguns of a geophysical seismic 11. McCauley, RD. and Fewtrell, J. 2008. Marine Invertebrates, vessel. Journal for Nature Conservation. 19, 6: 363-67. 30. Intense Anthropogenic Noise & Squid Response to Seismic Madsen, PT., Møhl, B., Nielsen, BK. and Wahlberg, M. 2002. Survey Pulses. Bioacoustics 17, 1–3: 315–18. Male sperm whale behavior during exposures to distant 12. de Soto, NA., Delorme, N., Atkins, J., Howard, S., Williams, J. seismic survey pulses. Aquatic Mammals. 28, 3: 231-40. 31. and Johnson, M. 2013. Anthropogenic noise causes body Miller, LJ., Solangi, M. and Kuczaj, SA. 2008. Immediate malformations and delays development in marine larvae. response of Atlantic bottlenose dolphins to high-speed Scientific Reports. 3, 2831. personal watercraft in the Mississippi Sound. Journal of the 13. Parry, GD. and Gason, A. 2006. The effect of seismic surveys on Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom. 88, Special catch rates of rock lobsters in western Victoria, Australia. Issue 06: 1139-43. 32. Fisheries Research. 79, 3: 272-84. Stone, CJ. and Tasker, ML. 2006. The Effect of Seismic Air Guns 14. Payne, JF., Andrews, C., Fancey, L., White, D. and Christian, J. on Cetaceans in UK Waters. Journal of Cetacean Research and 2008. Potential Effects of Seismic Energy on Fish and Shellfish: Management. 8: 255–63. 33. An Update Since 2003. Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat. Weilgart, LS. 2006. Managing noise through Marine Protected Research Document 2008/060. Areas around global hot spots. Paper presented at the 58th 15. Wale, Matthew A., Simpson, Stephen D. and Radford, Andrew Annual Meeting of the International Whaling Commission N. 2013. Noise negatively affects foraging and antipredator Scientific Committee. 34. behaviour in shore crabs. Animal Behaviour. 86, 1: 111-18. Hatch, Leila T. and Fristrup, Kurt M. 2009. No barrier at the 16. Morley, Erica L., Jones, Gareth. and Radford, Andrew N. 2014. boundaries: implementing regional frameworks for noise The importance of invertebrates when considering the management in protected natural areas. Marine Ecology impacts of anthropogenic noise. Proceedings of the Royal Progress Series. 395: 223-44. 35. Society of London B: Biological Sciences. 281, 1776: 20132683. Dolman, S. 2007. Spatio-Temporal Restrictions as Best Practice 17. Simpson, Stephen D., Purser, Julia. and Radford, Andrew N. Precautionary Response to Ocean Noise. Journal of 2015. Anthropogenic noise compromises antipredator International Wildlife Law and Policy. 10: 219–24. 36. behaviour in European eels. Global change biology. 21, 2: 586- Nowacek, Douglas P., Clark, Christopher W., Mann, David, 93. Miller, Patrick J. O., Rosenbaum, Howard C., Golden, Jay S., 18. Bohne, BA., Thomas, JA., Yohe, E. and Stone, S. 1985. Jasny, Michael, Kraska, James and Southall, Brandon L. 2015. Examination of potential hearing damage in Weddell seals Marine seismic surveys and ocean noise: time for coordinated (Leptonychotes weddellii) in McMurdo Sound, Antarctica. and prudent planning. Frontiers in Ecology and the Antarctica Journal of the United States. 19, 5: 174–76. Environment. 13, 7: 378-86.

14 37. Erbe, Christine., Williams, Rob., Sandilands, Doug. and Ashe, 58. Urick, RJ. 1983. Principles of Underwater Sound. New York: Erin. 2014. Identifying modeled ship noise hotspots for marine McGraw-Hill Co. mammals of Canada’s Pacific Region. PLoS ONE. 9, 3: e89820. 59. Wright, AJ., Dolman, SJ., Jasny, M., Parsons, ECM., Schiedek, D. 38. Aguilar, A. and Lowry, L. 2013. Monachus monachus. In The and Young, SB. 2013. Myth and Momentum: A Critique of IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2013: e.T13653A43702988. Environmental Impact Assessments. Journal of Environmental IUCN SSC Pinniped Specialist Group Protection. 4: 72. 39. Fundación CBD-Habitat. 2015. The Mediterranean monk seal 60. Prideaux, G. and Prideaux, M. 2015. Environmental impact colony of Cabo Blanco could be considered, at last, “closed”. assessment guidelines for offshore petroleum exploration Mediterranean Monk Seal Conservation Program, seismic surveys. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal. in http://mediterraneanmonkseal.org/?p=1301&lang=en. press. 40. Adamantopoulou, Stella., Androukaki, Evgenia., Dendrinos, 61. European Parliament and of the Council. 2014. Directive Panagiotis., Kotomatas, Spyros., Paravas, Vangelis., Psaradellis, 2014/52/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of Marianna., Tounta, Eleni. and Karamanlidis, Alexandros A. 16 April 2014 amending Directive 2011/92/EU on the 2011. Movements of Mediterranean monk seals (Monachus assessment of the effects of certain public and private monachus) in the eastern Mediterranean Sea. Aquatic projects on the environment. In OJ L 124/1. mammals. 37, 3: 256. 62. ACCOBAMS. 2013. Resolution 5.15: Addressing the impact of 41. Convention on Migratory Species of Wild Animals. 2014. Doc anthropogenic noise Tangier, Morocco, Fifth Meeting of the 24.1.1: Cuvier's Beaked Whale (Ziphius cavirostris) Parties to the Agreement on the Conservation of Cetaceans in Mediterranean subpopulation Appendix I. Quito, Ecuador, the Black Sea Mediterranean Sea and Contiguous Atlantic 11th Confernce of the Parties to the Convention on Migratory Area Specieis of Wild Animals. 63. ———. 2010. Resolution 4.17: Guidelines to address the 42. Druel, Elisabeth. 2012. Ecologically or Biologically Significant impact of anthropogenic noise on cetaceans in the Marine Areas (EBSAs): the identification process under the ACCOBAMS area. Monaco, Fourth Meeting of the Parties to Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and possible ways the Agreement on the Conservation of Cetaceans in the Black forward. IDDRI Working Paper Sea Mediterranean Sea and Contigous Atlantic Area. 43. Convention on Biological Diversity. 2014. Mediterranean 64. Convention on Environmental Impact Assessment in a Regional Workshop to Facilitate the Description of Transboundary Context. 1997. Convention on Environmental Ecologically or Biologically Significant Marine Areas (EBSAs) Impact Assessment in a Transboundary Context Espoo, Málaga, Spain, Convention on Biological Diversity. Finland, United Nations Treaty Series 44. UNEP-MAP. 2012. Support to the Barcelona Convention for 65. Convention on Biological Diversity. 2014. Decision XII/23: the Implementation of the Ecosystem Approach, including Marine and coastal biodiversity: Impacts on marine and the establishment of MPAs in open sea areas, including deep coastal biodiversity of anthropogenic underwater noise and sea. United Nations Environment Programme Coordinating ocean acidification, priority actions to achieve Aichi Unit for the Mediterranean Action Plan Biodiversity Target 10 for coral reefs and closely associated 45. Regional Activity Centre for Specially Protected Areas ecosystems, and marine spatial planning and training (RAC/SPA). 2015. SPAMIs. Barcelona Convention, initiatives. Pyeongchang, Republic of Korea, 12th Conference http://www.rac-spa.org/spami. of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity. 46. ———. 1991. Action Plan for the Conservation of Cetaceans 66. Convention on Migratory Species of Wild Animals. 2011. in the MEditerranean Sea. Barcelona Convention, http://rac- Resolution 10.24: Further Steps to Abate Underwater Noise spa.org/node/780. Pollution for the Protection of Cetaceans and Other Biota 47. ———. Action Plan for the Management of the Bergen, Norway, 10th Conference of the Parties to the Mediterranean monk seal. Barcelona Convention, http://rac- Convention on Migratory Species of Wild Animals. spa.org/monk_seal. 67. Leaton, James. 2012. Unburnable Carbon–Are the World's 48. Clay, CS. and Medwin, H. 1997. Acoustical Oceanography. Financial Markets Carrying a Carbon Bubble. Carbon Tracker New York, Wiley Interscience Initiative. 49. Etter, PC. 2013. Underwater acoustic modeling and simulation: 68. Moore, Sue E., Reeves, Randall R., Southall, Brandon L., Ragen, CRC Press. Timothy J., Suydam, Robert S. and Clark, Christopher W. 2012. 50. Lurton, X. 2010. An Introduction to Underwater Acoustics: A new framework for assessing the effects of anthropogenic Principles and Applications: Springer. sound on marine mammals in a rapidly changing Arctic. 51. Wagstaff, RA. 1981. Low‐frequency ambient noise in the deep BioScience. 62, 3: 289-95. sound channel—The missing component. The Journal of the 69. Nowacek, DP., Bröker, K., Donovan, G., Gailey, G., Racca, R., Acoustical Society of America. 69, 4: 1009-14. Reeves, RR., Vedenev, I., Weller, DW. and Southall, BL. 2013. 52. Calambokidis, J., Chandler, T. and Douglas, A. 2002. Marine Responsible Practices for Minimizing and Monitoring mammal observations and mitigation associated with USGS Environmental Impacts of Marine Seismic Surveys with an seismic-reflection surveys in the Santa Barbara Channel 2002. Emphasis on Marine Mammals. Aquatic mammals. 39, 4. Final report prepared for US Geological Survey, Menlo Park, 70. Evans, Peter GH. 2015. Document AC22/Inf.4.2.a: Proceedings CA&National Marine Fisheries Service. In Office of Protected of the ECS/ASCOBANS/ACCOBAMS Joint Workshop On Resources. Silver Spring MD, Prepared by Cascadia Research, Introducing Noise Into The Marine Environment - What Are Olympia, WA The Requirements For An Impact Assessment For Marine 53. Hildebrand, JA. 2009. Anthropogenic and natural sources of Mammals? Paper presented at the European Cetacean ambient noise in the ocean. Marine Ecology Progress Series. Society’s 28th Annual Conference, The Hague, Netherlands. 395, 5. 71. Convention on Biological Diversity. 2014. Decision 54. McCauley, RD., Fewtrell, J., Duncan, AJ., et al. 2000. Marine XII/22.Marine and coastal biodiversity: ecologically or seismic surveys–a study of environmental implications. APEA biologically significant marine areas (EBSAS). Pyeongchang, Journal: 692-708. Republic of Korea, 12th Conference of the Parties to the 55. Gottlieb, G. 2007. Shaping Sound in the Studio and Beyond: Convention on Biological Diversity. Audio Aesthetics and Technology: Cengage Learning. 56. Giordano, N. 2012. College physics: reasoning and relationships: Cengage Learning. 57. Goel, VK. 2007. Fundamentals Of Physics. New Delhi: Tata McGraw-Hill Education.

15

“The three great elemental sounds in nature are the sound of rain, the sound of wind in a primeval wood, and the sound of outer ocean on a beach.”

Henry Beston (1888 – 1968) 16

ocean care 17