EFFECTIVENESS OF THE NATIONAL MARINE SANCTUARY PROGRAM IN ADDRESSING OCEAN NOISE EFFECTS ON MARINE MAMMALS

Ocean noise has become a persistent global threat to marine mammal habitats. U.S. National Marine Sanctuaries have been regarded as possible ocean noise mitigation tools because of their special focus on conservation of marine resources and their location within key marine mammal habitats; yet previous evaluations of National Marine Sanctuaries have not focused specifically on their effectiveness in addressing ocean noise and its impacts on marine mammals. Using management plan and survey data of 11 U.S. National Marine Sanctuaries, this study investigates 1) the actions that Sanctuaries are taking to address ocean noise impacts from human activities on marine mammals and 2) the effectiveness of the U.S. National Marine Sanctuary Program at managing noise impacts on marine mammals. Findings indicate that the Program overall is moving toward effectiveness by conducting research, management, and education or outreach related to ocean noise and marine mammals. However, some individual Sanctuaries could take more action to mitigate ocean noise and the National Marine Sanctuary Program could increase its ocean noise education and outreach. Evaluation of Sanctuary ocean noise mitigation actions is crucial to ensure that Sanctuaries are fulfilling their purpose of protection and conservation by responding to emerging threats such as ocean noise pollution.


Introduction
Anthropogenic noise in the ocean has increased and become more pervasive over the last 50 years due to technological advancements and intensification of efforts in activities such as sonar, oil and gas exploration, and commercial shipping (Rolland et al 2012).
One of the most problematic aspects of the noise pollution problem is that the sources of anthropogenic noise vary: oil and gas exploration, pile-driving for wind turbines, military sonar, and especially recreational and commercial shipping are all significant contributors. Increased amplitude of noise, from these sources, has a deleterious effect on marine mammals that depend on auditory cues for foraging, migrating, and finding mates. Underwater noise pollution mitigation efforts must cover wide spatial scales.
Marine Protected Areas, specifically National Marine Sanctuaries, cover a wide range of marine mammal habitat in the U.S., and have been cited as potentially useful areas for studying and protecting marine mammals from cumulative effects of underwater noise (Weilgart 2006). Therefore, this study explores ocean noise management within the National Marine Sanctuary System.

Major Sources of Anthropogenic Ocean Noise
In many ocean areas, the dominant source of human-generated low-frequency noise  is from the propellers and engines of commercial shipping vessels (Rolland et al 2012). Cavitation of propeller blades happens when the propellers rotate underwater and water accelerates around them forming areas of low pressure. The pressure drop causes the formation of vapor-filled air bubbles on the back of propeller. When pressure rises again, those bubbles burst and release a spectrum of sound (ranging from a few Hertz to 100 kilohertz) and shock waves (Abrahamsen 2012). Not only does this cause physical propeller damage, but the vibration from cavitation is a significant noise source. It causes soundacross all frequenciesto propagate; though, the higher frequencies do not propagate far (Hildebrand 2009). It is the low-frequency noise that tends to stretch to further ocean areas, and persist for longer periods of time. Low-frequency shipping noise also comes from on-board machinery, such as diesel engines, generators, pumps, fans, and other ancillaries. Vessel machinery can produce low tones and sharp pulses of noise, at a constant repetition rate (Hildebrand 2009).
Another major source of underwater noise is produced by seismic oil and gas exploration-which uses vessel-towed air-gun arrays, that release high pressure (2000 psi), compressed air as sound waves (Hildebrand 2009). Seismic air guns are used to locate oil and gas reserves, underneath the ocean floor. This is done by sending acoustic waves into the various buried rock layers beneath the sea floor, and then using the reflected acoustic waves to locate oil and gas reserves (IAGC, n.d.). When in use, multiple air guns (up to 48) are usually fired all at the same time, which produces a coherent pulse of high sound.
Another major source of ocean noise is low-frequency active (LFA) and mid-frequency active (MFA) sonar used by the military for surveillance purposes. Specialized military vessels deploy an array of LFA sonars, vertically below the ship. This provides a sound source that is used to detect submarines. LFA sonar (100-500 Hz) releases sound over scales of hundreds of kilometers and is used for long-range detection (Hildebrand 2009).
MFA sonar (2-10 kHz) is used to track objects from a shorter range on a scale of tens of kilometers. They are incorporated into the hulls of naval surface vessels such as destroyers, cruisers, and frigates. There are about 300 mid-frequency sonars in active service in the world's navies. The use of MFA sonar is controversial as it is believed to be associated with marine mammal stranding, particularly those of beaked whales (Filadelfo et al 2009).
Finally, pile driving produces one of the most intense forms of ocean noise (Bailey et al 2010). The driving of piles into marine sediment is used for construction of bridges, shoreline support structures, offshore oil and gas structures, and offshore wind turbines.
In regard to offshore wind, pile driving is used to secure the base upon which the turbine will sit. A hydraulic hammer repeatedly strikes the top of a pile, for several hours, to drive it into the seafloor. Over the last decade national and international interest in expanding offshore wind construction has grown, so there is increasing concern about the environmental impact of high sound levels from pile driving on marine mammals (Bailey et a. 2010).

Noise Effects on Marine Mammals
Anthropogenic ocean noise impacts a variety of whales and other marine mammals.
Baleen whales (Mysticeti) communicate underwater using long-wavelength, lowfrequency acoustic signals (Rolland et al 2012). These signals (often called "Songs") are used to communicate, find prey, find mates, and forage. Chronic, low-level noise from sources like shipping overlaps with acoustic signals used by baleen whales, and this lowfrequency background noise has actually gotten "louder" over time. For example, in the Northeast Pacific, "since the 1960s, low-frequency ambient noise (less than 80 Hz) has increased [in amplitude] by 10-12 decibels (dB), coinciding with a doubling of the global shipping fleet (Rolland et al 2012(Rolland et al , p. 2363." In baleen whale species, such as the North Atlantic right whale, this overlap is causing "acoustic masking" of biologically important signals and has been shown to have behavioral effects, in the form of changing certain characteristics of whale calls. This includes changing the amplitude (to compensate for "louder" ambient noise levels), duration, frequency, or stopping calls altogether until noise is reduced (Rolland et al 2012).
Toothed whales (Odontocetes) are also impacted by ocean noise. Mass stranding of beaked whales (Hyperoodontidae) has been associated with the U.S. Navy's use of midfrequency active (MFA) sonar in the past (Holt et al 2008). Like baleen whales, toothed whales also use specialized calls to find conspecifics and mates as well as echolocation to find food and to orient themselves while diving (Talpalar and Grossman 2005). Southern

Resident killer whales forage in coastal waters near Washington state and British
Columbia in summer and fall. The Port of Seattle directs high ship traffic into these areas. Holt et al (2008) looked at the effects of increased ambient noise from shipping on the endangered Southern Resident killer whale near the San Juan Islands, Washington from August -September 2007. They were able to positively correlate vessel traffic with the increased background noise in the area. Furthermore, they found a "significant positive correlation between call source level and background noise level across all call types (Holt et al 2008)." Whales increased their call amplitude by 1 dB for every 1 dB increase in ambient shipping noise. This compensation may come at an energetic cost and lead to increased stress on echolocation, communication, and reproduction. Anthropogenic ocean noise also leads to spatial avoidance by these species (Stone and Tasker 2006).

Marine Protected Areas
Marine protected areas (MPAs) have been proposed as a potential policy for addressing ocean noise impacts on marine mammals. MPAs in the U.S. are areas of the marine environment that implement federal, state, territorial, tribal, or local laws and regulations that protect all or part of the natural or cultural resources within these areas (65 FR 34909). Because they cover large areas and are designed to limit human use based on their individual conservation goals, MPAs have been proposed as a tool to address the issue of ocean noise (NOAA CetSound). According to Weilgart (2006, p. 1 Abstract), MPAs are "one of the most effective means to protect cetaceans and their habitat from such [noise] impacts." Because sound travels more efficiently in water than air, noise pollution effects are seen across large spatial scales of over hundreds of kilometersthis requires mitigation efforts to cover similar scales. Because MPAs span large distances and often have jurisdiction over multiple uses, they can potentially serve as a tool for addressing noise impacts. This study examines how MPAs, specifically US National Marine Sanctuaries, address the impacts of ocean noise on marine mammals. US National Marine Sanctuaries are a type of MPA, authorized by the National Marine Sanctuaries Act (NMSA) of 1972, with a special focus on conservation of ocean resources; these can be cultural or living resources, such as marine mammals (National Marine Sanctuaries, NOAA). The U.S. Marine Sanctuary Program is made up of the Office of Marine Sanctuaries, which has authority over the regulation of a system of 14 U.S. Sanctuaries and 2 U.S. Marine National Monuments. Pursuant to the Act, authority over sanctuary resources is delegated, in trust, to the Office of National Marine Sanctuaries (Sanctuary Program, n.d.).
In the U.S., ocean noise, and its impacts on marine mammals, is a serious concern for the Sanctuary System because Sanctuaries are generally located in highly productive areas of the country's surrounding waters, many of which are off of each coast of the United States (Wiley et al. 2013). These areas host large seasonal aggregations of marine mammals, such as endangered large whales, while constantly facing pressures from industrial activities such as commercial shipping, commercial fishing, and military activities (McGowan et al. 2013). Large commercial ships pass through the Sanctuaries, and some Sanctuaries are located near or within commercial shipping lanes. Smaller fishing and whale watching vessels also influence the acoustic habitat within Sanctuaries (Cholewiak et al. 2018). Because National Marine Sanctuaries are multiple-use MPAs that are situated within ecologically and economically valuable waters, Sanctuaries are experiencing increased ocean noise (Hatch et al. 2008, Studds andWright 2007).
The potential threat that ocean noise poses to marine mammals is so alarming that some Sanctuaries' researchers are working to increase their understanding of ocean noise so that actions can be taken to reduce it. For example, the Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary (SBNMS) has been collaborating with the Northeast Fisheries Science Center and Cornell University to conduct passive acoustic monitoring to monitor underwater sound levels within the sanctuary (Stellwagen, NOAA). Furthermore, NOAA considers National Marine Sanctuaries to be place-based tools that can be utilized to reach acoustic habitat science and management goals through long-term planning, projects, and management (Gedamke et al. 2016). For these reasons, evaluating management effectiveness is crucial to ensure that Sanctuaries are fulfilling their purpose of protection and conservation by responding to emerging threats such as ocean noise pollution.
However, previous evaluations have been more general in scope and do not focus on ocean noise and marine mammals exclusively; these include evaluations by the Office of National Marine Sanctuaries Progress Report of 2009 and the Department of Commerce's Office of Inspections and Program Evaluations' Final Inspection Report of 2008. Sanctuary program evaluation has historically taken a general approach. To fill this research gap, I conducted a study that evaluates the management effectiveness of the Sanctuary Program, strictly in terms of addressing ocean noise effects on marine mammals. This study contributes to the advancement of knowledge on use of Sanctuaries for marine mammal conservation; in particular, it addresses the following research questions: How are the Sanctuaries addressing ocean noise impacts, from shipping, oil and gas, sonar, and other activities, on marine mammals? How effective is the Sanctuary program at managing noise impacts on marine mammals?

Study Region
My study included 11 out of the 14 currently designated U.S. National Marine These Sanctuaries are located off of the Pacific, Atlantic, and Gulf Coasts of the U.S. as well as the Hawaiian and American Samoan islands. where marine mammals are likely to be found. Marine mammals, such as various whale species, migrate seasonally along each coast of the country's mainland and islands toward feeding, reproduction, and calving grounds. All of the Sanctuaries in this study have geographical boundaries that overlap with the location of these migration corridors; in these same areas, ocean noise is coming from various anthropogenic sources (Haver et al. 2019).
A few sanctuaries were not included in the study. Monitor National Marine Sanctuary was not included in the study because the Sanctuary is comprised entirely of the area housing the historical shipwreck USS Monitor (Office of National Marine Sanctuaries, n.d.). The purpose of the Sanctuary is only to conserve and recover Monitor artifacts, not marine organisms. Therefore, it is unlikely that this Sanctuary will be taking any ocean noise mitigation or marine mammal protection actions. Thunder Bay National Marine Sanctuary was not included in the study because it is located in a freshwater body, Lake Huron (Office of National Marine Sanctuaries, n.d.). The newest U.S. Sanctuary to be designated, the Mallows Bay-Potomac River National Marine Sanctuary, was not included in the study because it was formally designated in 2019 and had not formally  Sanctuary actions to mitigate ocean noise were recorded in an Excel spreadsheet which included a description of the action taken and other descriptive information for the Sanctuary that the action was associated with such as Sanctuary name and location, total area within Sanctuary boundaries (sq mi), year of Sanctuary designation, and the year that the action was taken or completed. The year of action was labeled as "ongoing" if the action did not have a recorded start or end date within the management plan and had not been marked as completed, at the time of publication of the most recent management plan. The year of action was labeled as "completed" if the action had already been completed before publication of the most recent management plan, but the year of completion was not recorded in the management plan.

Assessing National Marine Sanctuary Program Effectiveness Using Online Surveys
I also conducted electronic surveys with closed-and open-ended questions to identify additional ocean noise mitigation actions that were not captured in the management plans. The survey responses were beneficial because they provided more detailed and current information on Sanctuary noise mitigation than what may have been present in some of the written Sanctuary management plans, since a few of the plans need to be revised by the Office of National Marine Sanctuaries (National Ocean Service, n.d.).
Surveys were also a straightforward approach to studying respondent attitudes toward the U.S. National Marine Sanctuary Program's actions to reduce ocean noise (Robson 2011 and open-ended questions. Some of the survey questions asked respondents to describe their relationship to the Sanctuary that they are associated with and to describe their professional background and expertise. For example, multiple choice questions allowed respondents to choose their associated Sanctuary, disclose whether they were a Sanctuary employee or member of the SAC, and provide information on interests they represent.
Other survey questions asked respondents to describe Sanctuary actions that are being used to manage ocean noise and their opinions on whether they feel ocean noise mitigation is a priority for their individual Sanctuary. Likert scale questions asked respondents to rate the effectiveness of their associated Sanctuaries and the U.S. National Marine Sanctuary Program (on a scale of 1=very ineffective to 10=very effective) at addressing ocean noise impacts on marine mammals through research, management or policy, and education or outreach. Likert scale questions were followed by short response sections where respondents could expound their reasoning for giving a certain score.

Data Analysis
My methods for data analysis are based on a similar study by Dalton et al. (2015), in-text to provide more detail about actions that Sanctuaries are taking to protect marine mammals from ocean noise.

Management Plan Scoring
I used content analysis to code data from the management plans into categories of research, management, and education or outreach. Content analysis involves examining written documents and categorizing, or coding, the data within them (Elo and Kyngas 2007). Content analysis is a useful tool for researchers to analyze themes or concepts in a way that is replicable and allows for valid inferences to be drawn from qualitative data (Bernard 2002;Robson 2011 (Gedamke et al. 2016) chronic, and cumulative effects of noise on marine mammals and habitat. Education or outreach actions inform the public or stakeholders on marine mammals and ocean noise ( Fig. 2). NOAA's Ocean Noise Strategy does introduce a fourth category, decision support tools, which "should be developed, and publicly-available, to assess, plan, and mitigate noise activities (Gedamke et al. 2016, p. 2)." In this study, I do not consider decision support tools as its own category because these tools could be incorporated into research, management, or education efforts. Each Sanctuary was assigned an "effectiveness score" of 0 to 3, with 0 = not effective and 3 = very effective, for each category of ocean noise mitigation: research, management, and education or outreach (Table 2).
For the purpose of this study, a Sanctuary scored "not effective" for a mitigation category if there were no direct or indirect actions documented in its management plan that corresponded with the definition of that category (see  Table 2). For example, a Sanctuary would receive an effectiveness score of 0 = "not effective" for research if there were no actions documented in its management plan that were taken to increase knowledge on ocean noise or marine mammals. A Sanctuary scored 1 = "somewhat effective" for a category if there were only indirect actions documented in its management plan that corresponded with the definition of that category. For example, a Sanctuary would receive an effectiveness score of 1 or "somewhat effective" for research if there were only indirect actions documented in its management plan that were taken to increase knowledge on marine mammals in general. In other words, a score of "1" means that actions were present, but none of them specifically targeted ocean noise.
A Sanctuary scored a 2 = "effective" for an action category if there was at least 1 but less than 3 direct actions in its management plan. Finally, a Sanctuary scored a 3 = "very effective" for an action category if there were actions documented in its management plan that corresponded with the definition of that category, and at least 3 of those actions were direct actions related to ocean noise. This scoring process was repeated for all three action categories: research, management and education and for each Sanctuary studied.
There are a few reasons why effectiveness was based on number and type of recorded actions. First, this measure reveals the consistency of Sanctuary ocean noise mitigation Direct = actions that are expressed in the management plan as targeting underwater noise mitigation or noise effects on marine mammals Indirect = actions relating to marine mammal protection, in general, not specifically protection from ocean noise.

Fig. 3. Definitions of direct and indirect action sub-categories
efforts. A high quantity of actions shows that Sanctuaries are putting more effort into building a program that is constantly monitoring noise budgets, managing noise, and educating about noise. Constant research, management, and education is crucial because ocean noise pollution has only relatively recently gained international attention and noise effects on marine mammals are not entirely understood (Nabi et al. 2018). This measure also provides baseline information for measures of trends in effort.
National Marine Sanctuaries are limited in their regulatory authority. Sanctuaries can prohibit certain activities such as discharging or dumping of materials, seabed construction or alteration (e.g., wind turbine construction), disturbance of cultural resources, and oil and gas development within Sanctuary boundaries (Office of National Marine Sanctuaries, n.d.). However, Sanctuaries cannot prevent the passing of commercial ships through their boundaries. Furthermore, none of the Sanctuaries prohibit the outright production of underwater noise within their boundaries. Therefore, it would be unreasonable to evaluate Sanctuary effectiveness based on protective outcomes for marine mammals; however, it is feasible to compare mitigation efforts between Sanctuaries.
Finally, many Sanctuaries are lacking in baseline data of noise made by marine mammals and by anthropogenic sources within their boundaries (Colbert 2020). Therefore, it is not yet feasible to consistently evaluate effectiveness based on noise levels or whale outcomes within the Sanctuaries. However, as Sanctuary soundscape monitoring continues, this may become an option for future studies.

Online Survey Scoring
Survey respondents were given Likert scale questions and asked to rate ocean noise as a priority to their associated Sanctuaries and to rate the effectiveness of their associated Sanctuary in addressing ocean noise impacts on marine mammals through research, management, or education. Finally, respondents were asked to rate the effectiveness of the entire U.S. National Marine Sanctuary Program in addressing ocean noise impacts on marine mammals through research, management, or education. Each rating was on a scale of 1 to 10 with 1 being "lowest priority" or "not effective at all" and 10 being "highest priority" or "very effective". To investigate varying efficacy of ocean noise mitigation actions between each Sanctuary within the National Marine Sanctuary Program, statistical averages of management plan effectiveness scores as well as the survey respondent ratings of ocean noise as a priority and effectiveness of the U.S.

Section 1. How the U.S. National Marine Sanctuaries are Addressing Ocean Noise and its Effects on Marine Mammals
The total number of research, management, and education actions, related to marine mammals, that were found in the management plans of the 11 U.S. National Marine Sanctuaries (NMS) considered in this study was 189. In total, 81% (nindirect=152) of these actions were indirect, general marine-mammal related conservation actions and 19%     impacts from sources such as large vessels and investigation into possible partnerships.
As a survey respondent said "They [CINMS] have a very robust outreach program that I believe is second to none." CINMS' education staff have also been promoting, more general, marine mammal education by hiring volunteer whale-watching naturalists, having Sanctuary staff hold hands-on marine mammal identification classes for varying local audiences, and using their website as an outreach tool by providing a publiclyavailable marine mammal sighting database.

Cordell Bank NMS (CBNMS)
CBNMS includes 1 direct and 4 indirect research actions in its management plan. The Sanctuary created a strategy (Strategy RP-4) to assess acoustics impacts from anthropogenic sources on sanctuary resources, which includes marine mammals that frequent the Sanctuary. A survey respondent also noted that "We [CBNMS] have been working with NOAA Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory (PMEL) in Seattle and Oregon State University to measure sound in the sanctuary for about 6 years." An example of an indirect action included in the management plan is the Sanctuary's collaboration with the Greater Farallones NMS (GFNMS), which is also off the coast of California. This is a research collaboration to quantitatively assess the distribution and abundance of marine birds, mammals, and sea turtles and to provide long term data on production, populations, and trophic structure.
CBNMS has 0 direct and 0 indirect management actions (Table 3). As one of the survey respondents said: "The Cordell Banks is a pretty safe haven for our marine life. The topic has been brought up a few times, but in general, I personally do not see there being a severe issue. There's a large amount of ship traffic and fishing activity, and I suppose those might be problematic, but there is no evidence that has been presented to the council that has needed addressing." However, another survey respondent did provide information on a collaborationbetween CBNMS and GFNMS -on a vessel speed reduction program that may provide some benefit, in terms of managing noise, in the Cordell Bank National Marine Sanctuary. According to that respondent, "CBNMS has been working with GFNMS and other west coast sanctuaries on a vessel speed reduction program asking commercial shipping companies to slow to 10 knots in the traffic lanes when whales are feeding in the sanctuary from May to November. " CBNMS also has 0 direct and 0 indirect education actions in its management plan (Table   3). However, a survey respondent did mention that the Sanctuary is developing a web page to educate and promote whale conservation, with reference to ocean noise, in the sanctuary.

Florida Keys NMS (FKNMS)
FKNMS has 0 direct and 0 indirect noise and marine mammal-related research actions ( Finally, in terms of education or outreach, there are 0 direct and 3 indirect actions, in the management plan (Table 3). The plan includes indirect education actions that the Sanctuary takes to protect marine mammals, such as putting together a volunteer outreach and monitoring program to monitor whales that are at risk of ship strikes. None of the survey respondents commented on the Sanctuary's education program in regard to ocean noise.

Flower Garden Banks NMS (FGBNMS)
FGBNMS has 0 direct and 0 indirect noise and marine mammal-related research actions in the management plan (Table 3). Survey respondents for FGBNMS did not comment on the Sanctuary's research program.
The Sanctuary management plan included 0 direct noise-management actions and 1 indirect action (Table 3). When asked about the Sanctuary's management actions, related to ocean noise and marine mammals, a respondent said "As far as I  (Table 3). Survey respondents for FGBNMS also did not comment on the Sanctuary's education program.

Gray's Reef NMS (GRNMS)
The Gray's Reef NMS has 0 direct and 0 indirect research actions in its management plan. However, survey data show that the Sanctuary does, in fact, dedicate some research effort to ocean noise and marine mammal conservation. At least part of this effort is in the form of a collaboration between the Sanctuary, NOAA, and the U.S. Navy. A survey respondent explained "We do two types of research: we couple hydrophones with acoustic receivers that 'hear' tagged animals in GRNMS, to help us learn where animals travel and how they use the reef. We also are part of a larger "soundscape" project with NOAA and the Navy. Standardized measurements will assess sounds produced by marine animals, physical processes (e.g., wind and waves), and human activities.
Collectively, this information will help NOAA and the Navy measure sound

Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale NMS (HIHWNMS)
The Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale NMS has 1 direct and 8 indirect research actions in its management plan. This Sanctuary has a higher number of indirect research actions related to promoting general marine mammal conservation than most of the other sanctuaries. As far as ocean noise is concerned, one thing that was mentioned in the management plan was ongoing monitoring of existing and potential threats to humpback whales and their habitat; this includes noise impacts from vessels or aircrafts. Although the plan did not include many direct actions associated with ocean noise, a few survey respondents noted that the Sanctuary is actively participating in monitoring. One notable response to the survey said "HIHWNMS is involved in soundscape monitoring to identify sources of anthropogenic noise and tagging efforts to understand behavioral responses of humpback whales to noise." However, another respondent said that, as far as they are aware, the Sanctuary is relying primarily on research done "elsewhere" to determine how noise is affecting marine mammals in the Sanctuary. Indirectly, the Sanctuary is conducting actions, such as monitoring marine mammal colonies to protect them from other issues, such as pollution from physical debris.
The Sanctuary has 0 direct and 8 indirect management actions in the plan document. The survey data shows that direct management actions seem to come from the SAC. Multiple survey respondents mentioned that the SAC regularly discusses and considers issues related to ocean noisesuch as U.S. Navy sonar in Sanctuary waters. Furthermore, a respondent said that "The Humpback Whale SAC reviews reports of Navy sonar findings and reporting and strives to make recommendations to reduce these ill effects on the whales. There remains much more to do with regards to cause and effect of these and other noise impacts." Indirectly, the Sanctuary has been working on collaborating with other organizations to promote human use, within the Sanctuary, that aligns with the mandate of resource protection. For this Sanctuary, particularly, the primary resource in need of protection would be humpback whales.
There were 0 direct and 10 indirect education or outreach actions in the plan document.

Monterey Bay NMS (MBNMS)
The Monterey Bay NMS has 1 direct and 6 indirect research actions. MBNMS is working with partners, to conduct more passive acoustic monitoring to gather more information on the source and effects of sound in the marine environment. There were no survey respondents associated with the MBNMS. On a broader scale, the Sanctuary is conducting other actions that do not focus specifically on noise. For instance, the MBNMS small boat program completes ongoing sea bird and marine mammal observations and monitoring of whale watch operations.
The management plan listed 2 direct and 7 indirect management actions. In terms of direct actions, tthe Sanctuary has prohibited flying motorized aircrafts at less than 1,000 feet above the Sanctuary, to protect marine mammals from noise impacts. MBNMS is also evaluating project proposals, on a case-by-case basis, through permitting and consultation, to determine the acoustic impacts of projects and make management recommendations. According to the plan, there is a need for working with NOAA Fisheries, and other partners, to determine acceptable sound levels in the different frequency ranges that may be affecting sanctuary wildlife. The management plan also mentions indirect actions, which are not aimed at reducing ocean noise, but may serve some type of noise benefit. For example, the National Marine Sanctuary Program (NMSP) created a motorized personal watercraft (MPWC) zone and access route that avoids sensitive animals such as marine mammals during time periods when they are most vulnerable to disturbance or are in peak concentrations. As part of this effort, MBNMS will track the number of reports of wildlife disturbance that result from MPWC use in the Sanctuary. The Sanctuary is also coordinating with NOAA fisheries to reduce bycatch of marine mammals, sea turtles, and birds.
The MBNMS management plan contained 0 direct and 5 indirect education or outreach actions. Indirectly, MBNMS is taking actions, such as assessing the best way to educate private boat-owners on wildlife observation guidelines and vessel operation etiquette. It is also strengthening the Team OCEAN Kayak Program, which educates kayak-users in order to prevent harassment to marine mammals.

Olympic Coast NMS (OCNMS)
The Olympic Coast NMS management plan has 3 direct and 6 indirect research actions.
This Sanctuary has one of the highest numbers of direct, noise-related actions in its management plan, second only to Stellwagen Bank NMS. According to the plan, the Sanctuary is monitoring the underwater acoustic environment and the response of marine mammals to acoustic disturbance. Furthermore, it is supporting long-term acoustic monitoring, to establish background sound levels and changes over time. The plan also emphasizes collaborating with researchers to identify emerging issues relating to sources of underwater sound that could impact the Sanctuary environment. The Sanctuary is also conducting research on other marine mammal threats, separate from noise. For example, it is working to include marine mammal ship strikes in the OCNMS incident database to record times, locations, and other information for reported wildlife disturbances.
OCNMS has 2 direct and 1 indirect management actions in its management plan.
Management actions include assessing acoustic impact mitigation strategies, used by other Sanctuaries and across NOAA agencies. Sanctuary managers are also considering how proposed activities in and around the Sanctuary might generate underwater noise that could impact marine mammals. A survey respondent mentioned that the Sanctuary uses management to protect marine mammals from noise by "providing permits and supporting the experts researching the 'soundscape' of OCNMS." On a broader scale, the Sanctuary is working with fishing organizations and fishery co-managers to identify existing conflicts between marine mammals and other activities in the Sanctuary, such as entanglement in fishing gear or conflicts between long-line fishing operations and depredating sperm whales.
Finally, the Sanctuary management plan has 0 direct and 1 indirect education or outreach actions. In terms of its indirect action, the Sanctuary collaborates with other Northwest Marine Mammal Stranding Network participants to share information and resources.

Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary (SBNMS)
Stellwagen Bank NMS leads all the sanctuaries in this study in the number of direct, noise-related, research actions. The Sanctuary has 8 direct and 11 indirect research actions included in its management plan. The Sanctuary has an ocean observing system, focused on characterizing the marine acoustic environment, noise impacts, and conducting underwater sound propagation modeling. A study conducted within the Sanctuary concluded that noise from large commercial ships was at levels that may inhibit endangered whales from making acoustic contact in Sanctuary waters (Hatch et al. 2008). It has also developed a marine acoustics research program to establish baseline noise levels and long-term noise budgets. Additionally, it has implemented a tagging program to evaluate the potential for acoustic exposure and animal responses to acoustic stimuli. These are only a few of the noise-related actions mentioned. A survey respondent mentioned that the Sanctuary is studying the soundscape (combination of biotic, abiotic, and anthropogenic sounds within an ocean area) within Sanctuary boundaries.
SBNMS leads other sanctuaries in this study in terms of indirect management actions included in its management plan. The Sanctuary has 3 direct and 13 indirect management actions. One of the direct actions relates to evaluating the need for Sanctuary regulations to govern the operation of airplanes, helicopters, airships, and other aircraft in the presence of marine mammals, to prevent disturbance from noise. In terms of indirect actions, the Sanctuary is conducting many marine mammal management actions, such as establishing criteria for vessel speed restrictions and controls, and criteria for close approach of vessels to whales. A survey respondent mentioned that the Sanctuary was also involved in moving shipping lanes that run through its boundaries.
Finally, SBNMS has 2 direct and 5 indirect education or outreach actions in its management plan (Table 3) Program.

Section 2. The Effectiveness of U.S. National Marine Sanctuaries in Addressing Ocean
Noise Impacts on Marine Mammals.

American Samoa/ Fagatele Bay NMS
According to the established method for scoring Sanctuary noise mitigation effectiveness, which is based in part on what was found in the management plan data alone, the American Samoa NMS scored "somewhat effective," for both research and management, and "not effective" for education/outreach. The Sanctuary's management plan contained research and management actions that could increase knowledge or minimize impacts from human activities on marine mammals (indirect actions), but none of these actions were directly related to mitigating anthropogenic ocean noise (Table 3, Table 4). The Sanctuary's management plan did not include any educational actions used to inform the public or stakeholders about marine mammals.

Channel Islands NMS (CINMS)
The CINMS received a noise mitigation effectiveness score of "effective" for research.
Actions that could increase knowledge on marine mammals (indirect actions) were present in the management plan, as well as at least one action that is directly related to mitigating ocean noise effects on marine mammals (Table 3 and Table 4). The Sanctuary received the highest score of "very effective" for management effectiveness. The management plan contained at least 3 actions that could work toward minimizing acute, chronic, and cumulative effects of noise on marine mammals and habitat. Finally, the Sanctuary received an education effectiveness score of "effective". The management plan contained at least 1 direct action carried out by Sanctuary employees to inform the public or stakeholders on marine mammals.

Cordell Bank NMS (CBNMS)
The CBNMS received an effectiveness score of "effective" for research. The Sanctuary management plan contained at least 1 direct research action related to ocean noise and marine mammals (Table 3 and Table 4).. The Sanctuary received the lowest possible effectiveness score of "not effective" for management. The management plan did not contain any actions, direct or indirect, that could work toward minimizing acute, chronic, and cumulative effects of noise on marine mammals and habitat. However, surveys with Sanctuary stakeholders highlighted possible management actions the Sanctuary is taking.
These actions are highlighted above. Finally, the Sanctuary received the lowest effectiveness score of "not effective" for education or outreach. There were no direct or indirect ocean noise education actions in the management plan. The survey data, described in Section 2, highlights educational actions the Sanctuary is taking, which are not yet contained in the management plan.

Florida Keys NMS (FKNMS)
The FKNMS received an effectiveness score of "not effective" for research. The management plan contained no direct or indirect research actions that were related to ocean noise and marine mammals (Table 3 and Table 4). The Sanctuary received an effectiveness score of "effective" for management. The management plan included a couple of indirect actions relating to marine mammal management in general, as well as at least 1 direct action specifically relating to management of anthropogenic noise and effects on marine mammals. Finally, the Sanctuary scored "somewhat effective" for education. The management plan did contain Sanctuary actions taken to inform the public or stakeholders about marine mammals, but none of these actions were directly related to noise.

Flower Garden Banks NMS (FGBNMS)
The FGBNMS received an effectiveness score of "not effective" for research. There were no direct or indirect research actions, relating to marine mammals or noise, present in the management plan (Table 3 and Table 4). The Sanctuary received a score of "somewhat effective" for management. Indirect management actions were present, but direct noise-related management actions were missing from the management plans.
Finally, the Sanctuary scored a "not effective" for education or outreach effectiveness.
There were no direct or indirect education or outreach actions present in the management plan.

Gray's Reef NMS (GRNMS)
The GRNMS received an effectiveness score of "not effective" for research. There were no direct or indirect research actions, relating to ocean noise or marine mammal research, presented in the management plan (Table 3 and Table 4). The Sanctuary received a score of "somewhat effective" for management. Indirect management acts were covered in the management plan, but there were no recorded direct actions made to manage noise or its effects on marine mammals. The Sanctuary scored a "not effective" for education or outreach. There were no direct or indirect ocean noise or marine mammal-related educational actions recorded in the management plan.

Greater Farallones NMS (GFNMS)
The GFNMS received an effectiveness score of "effective" for research. Of the numerous actions that the Sanctuary is taking to protect marine mammals, at least one of those actions was specifically related to researching ocean noise (Table 3 and Table 4).
The Sanctuary received the highest score of "very effective" for management because the management plan presents at least three noise-related management actions. This means that the Sanctuary is actively working toward thoroughly addressing ocean noise impacts through management. Finally, the Sanctuary received an effectiveness score of "somewhat effective" for education or outreach. There were quite a few indirect education actions related to marine mammals, but none directly related to informing stakeholders about ocean noise effects on marine mammals.

Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale NMS (HIHWNMS)
The HIHWNMS received an effectiveness score of "effective" for research. The Sanctuary management plan contained a high number of marine mammal research actions. This is not surprising because the Sanctuary was created to protect migrating populations of North Pacific humpback whales, which spend the winter breeding, giving birth, and raising calves in the shallow waters of the Hawaiian Islands (HIHWNMS Management Plan 2002, Norris et al. 1999. However, only one of these research activities was anthropogenic noise-related (Table 3 and Table 4). The Sanctuary received a score of "somewhat effective" for management. There were no direct management actions present in the management plan. Finally, the Sanctuary received a score of "somewhat effective" for education. Similar to management, all of the education or outreach activities presented in the management plan were more generally related to marine mammals and not specifically referencing ocean noise.

Monterey Bay NMS (MBNMS)
The MBNMS received an effectiveness score of "effective" for research. The management plan contained at least one direct noise action relating to marine mammals (Table 3 and Table 4). The Sanctuary received a score of "effective" for management.
Finally, the Sanctuary received a score of "somewhat effective" for education or outreach effectiveness. There were marine mammal education actions, but none related to ocean noise. Similar to HIHWNMS, this Sanctuary's management plan showed several (more than 5) research, management, and education or outreach actions that the Sanctuary is taking to protect marine mammals. However, there are very few actions being taken that address ocean noise effects on these mammals.

Olympic Coast NMS (OCNMS)
The OCNMS received a high effectiveness score of "very effective" for research. To receive this score, the management plan needed to include at least 3 direct ocean noise research actions (Table 3 and Table 4). The Sanctuary received a score of "effective" for management. The management plan contained at least one direct noise management action. Finally, the Sanctuary received an effectiveness score of "somewhat effective" for education. The management plan contains an indirect education action, sharing information about marine mammals to the Northwest Marine Mammal Stranding Network. However, there were no direct noise-related actions mentioned in the OCNMS management plan.

Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary (SBNMS)
The SBNMS received an effectiveness score of "very effective" for research. The Sanctuary's management plan contains the highest number of direct research actions than the ten other Sanctuaries studied (Table 3 and Table 4). The Sanctuary received a high score of "very effective" for management as well. The management plan contained at least three actions that could work toward minimizing acute, chronic, and cumulative effects of noise on marine mammals and habitat. Finally, the Sanctuary received a score of "effective" for education. The management includes at least one, but less than three, direct noise actions relating to marine mammals.
Section 3. The effectiveness of the U.S. National Marine Sanctuary Program in addressing ocean noise impacts on marine mammals.
Overall, management plan analysis revealed that the U.S. National Marine Sanctuary Program seems to be heavily focused on conducting research and taking management action as it relates to marine mammals. The Program is not taking as many actions toward marine mammal education or outreach. These trends were observed for both direct and indirect actions within the Program (Table 5). When broken down by Sanctuary, none of the Sanctuaries other than CINMS, CBNMS, and SBNMS highlighted any noise-related education or outreach actions in the management plans or survey data. In fact, SBNMS had the highest number of education actions present (ndirect = 2) out of all Sanctuaries studied ( Table 3).  After averaging the management plan effectiveness scores across all 11 U.S. Sanctuary's, the U.S. National Marine Sanctuary Program scored "somewhat effective" overall in its research and management of ocean noise (Mean= 1.55 for research and management) and

Type of action Count
is moving toward effectiveness based on the management plan data alone ( Table 6). The Program received an average rating of "not effective" as it relates to ocean noise education or outreach (Mean= 0.82 for education). Sanctuary scores for research, management, and education were all slightly skewed due to presence of extremely high or extremely low values.

Research Management Education
Mean On average, survey respondents rated the overall Sanctuary Program's effectiveness in addressing ocean noise impacts on marine mammals as 5.50 out of 10 (SD=2.22). The stakeholders seem to view the entire Program as not ineffective but also not very or extremely effective.
Low scores may have been given due to the perception of some survey respondents that the Office of National Marine Sanctuaries is limited in its management and enforcement authority. For example, a respondent from HIHWNMS mentioned that the ONMS does not have as much of a capacity to address noise as the Department of Defense (DoD) or NOAA Fisheries would. Other respondents from the same Sanctuary refer to a lack of funding and need for a "stronger" partnership between individual Sanctuaries and NOAA Fisheries, the primary government entity responsible for managing marine mammals in the U.S.

Some respondents who gave neutral and high scores noted that Sanctuary
Program/ONMS is effective in addressing noise, given its limited funding and regulatory or enforcement capabilities. However, there is a need for further research on whether or not noise is having a negative impact on marine mammals within Sanctuary boundaries.
For example, a respondent from HIHWNMS stated the following: "I think the Sanctuary could work to produce research and education that shows an impact within the Sanctuary waters. But unless national regulations were implemented, or unless the Navy was directed to change its operational exercises, the results of any research or educational efforts would be relegated to a voluntary (and largely ignored) protocol." Furthermore, a respondent from GFNMS mentioned: "Sanctuaries are currently in the learning stages. We do not understand if there is a problem in sanctuaries, the severity or source of the problem, and therefore have not taken significant actions to reduce sound." That being said, one of the research efforts targeting noise within Sanctuaries that was mentioned by survey respondents is the "SanctSound" project. This is a collaborative research effort between NOAA, the U.S. Navy, and numerous scientific partners to . The purpose of the project is to provide baseline information on how much sound is produced within these Sanctuaries, sound sources, and impacts on marine wildlife. Three of the survey respondents highlighted SanctSound as one of the major ocean noise research efforts and one of the catalysts for the Office's heightened concern about noise impacts on marine mammals.
Finally, one respondent from the HIHWNMS mentioned that some Sanctuaries are taking initiative to research, manage, and educate about ocean noise and marine mammals; however, the need to balance social and economic needs of ocean users outweighs the need for noise mitigation.

Program Ocean Noise Mitigation Actions and Overall Effectiveness
Overall, the U.S. National Marine Sanctuary Program is taking action to promote marine mammal conservation, and efforts are beginning to focus on ocean noise mitigation as well. While my findings indicate that the majority of the Program's efforts listed in the management plans were not directly related to noise, many of the indirect actions may provide ancillary benefits in terms of noise reduction. For example, the Cordell Bank National Marine Sanctuary's establishment of a vessel speed reduction program may serve its primary goal of reducing marine mammal ship strikes but may also reduce source levels of noise (Williams et al. 2019). Most of the direct, noise-related-actions taking place in the U.S. National Marine Sanctuaries relate to research and management (Table 5).

Current management plans and survey responses indicate that the overall National
Marine Sanctuary Program is moderately effective at addressing anthropogenic ocean noise and its effects on marine mammals. Although there was some variance in stakeholder perceptions of ocean noise as a management priority and the effectiveness of ocean noise research, management, and education actions in the individual Sanctuaries (Appendix II Table 1 and Appendix II Table 2), the survey respondents generally viewed the Sanctuary Program as neither very ineffective nor very effective. The management plan data, mostly, reinforce the survey data as the Program overall received an average effectiveness score for research and management that was in between the highest and lowest possible score (Table 6). Findings from the management plans and surveys suggest that the U.S. National Marine Sanctuary Program, in general, is contributing to the achievement of NOAA's Ocean Noise Strategy goals for research (science), management, and education or outreach.
The system of U.S. Sanctuaries seems to be taking relevant and critical steps to understand and prevent the sources of anthropogenic noise and its detrimental effects on marine mammals. However, the Program may need to consider improving on its efforts in order to effectively reduce anthropogenic ocean noise.

Education and Outreach within the U.S. National Marine Sanctuary Program
One area where the Program may consider improvement is education and outreach relating to ocean noise and its impacts on marine mammals. Almost none of the Sanctuary management plans or survey respondents provided information on ocean noise-related education or outreach efforts. Although the Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary had only a couple of ocean noise education or outreach actions, the Sanctuary still had the highest number of direct education actions out of all Sanctuaries studied (Table 3). Of the direct education actions that were mentioned, most of them involved publicly disseminating web-based information on sources of underwater noise and effects on marine mammals.
Ocean noise pollution is a relatively recently studied phenomenon. As a result, it may not have been considered one of the most pressing issues facing Sanctuaries at the time when some of the most recent Sanctuary management plans had been drafted. Furthermore, much of the national effort to reduce ocean noise is focused on filling critical knowledge gaps through research and providing legitimate protection to marine mammals through management and policy. For example, much of the current ocean noise research involves passive acoustic monitoring to measure soundscapes (combination of biotic, abiotic, and anthropogenic sounds within an ocean area) over time and study biological effects of increasing noise on marine life (Haver et al. 2018, Rolland et al. 2012, Holt et al. 2008).
The Program may be trying to keep up with these national research and management efforts at the expense of education and outreach

Mammals
My findings suggest that there are a few Sanctuaries that are taking more actions to address ocean noise impacts on marine mammals than others. These Sanctuaries include Stellwagen Bank, Channel Islands, Olympic Coast, and Greater Farallones. According to management plan and survey data analyses, these sites are working toward developing a robust ocean noise response effort that includes actions such as developing marine acoustic research programs and forming partnerships with NOAA, state universities, and other Sanctuaries within the system to conduct research and expand regulation. The results of these Sanctuary efforts, and what they mean for marine mammal health and behavior, are uncertain at this time. This is an area that requires further research.
Nevertheless, these Sanctuaries seem more advanced in their efforts to reduce ocean noise impacts on marine mammals. They may serve as a useful resource for other U.S.
Sanctuaries in order to move the entire Program toward greater effectiveness.
Some Sanctuaries that are located within marine mammal habitat, and within areas that experience anthropogenic ocean noise, had little or no actions relating to ocean noise or marine mammals in the management plan or survey data. For some Sanctuaries, this may be because they were not designated to protect marine mammals. After review of the survey data, it became clear that, although the management plans of the latter Sanctuaries did not contain much information on these Sanctuaries' actions related to ocean noise-mitigation, survey responses did suggest that these sites are beginning to address ocean noise with actions that were not documented in the latest version of the management plans. Updates to the management plans will likely incorporate these emerging actions related to ocean noise and marine mammals.

Limitations
While the research findings provide valuable insights into Sanctuary actions that are being taken to reduce ocean noise and its impacts on marine mammals, there are limitations that should be acknowledged.

Effectiveness Based on Quantity of Actions
There are limitations to basing Sanctuary effectiveness solely on quantity of noise-related actions. Perhaps a more comprehensive way to determine whether Sanctuary actions to address noise are truly effective is to measure whether ocean noise has decreased within each Sanctuary's boundaries as a result of management action and whether that decrease is associated with improvements in marine mammal physiology and behavior. Due to time and resource limitations this methodology was not plausible. However, the quantity of actions documented within the management plan, combined with survey data on stakeholder perceptions and attitudes, suggests that the U.S. National Marine Sanctuary Program is beginning to reckon with the ocean noise problem by building a Program of research, management, and education actions related to noise and marine mammals.

Management Plan Data
The Office of National Marine Sanctuaries (ONMS) is required to periodically review

Management Implications
Evaluation of Marine Protected Areas is critical in determining management effectiveness, encouraging management accountability, and encouraging reflection on MPA goals and objectives (Dalton et al. 2015). This study of the effectiveness of the U.S. ocean noise mitigation as well as some areas of improvement that can be addressed.

National
Based on the findings, there are some recommendations that the Sanctuary program may consider and opportunities for further research.

Increasing Education and Outreach Efforts in the National Marine Sanctuary Program
The Program should consider allocating resources to create more engaging forms of ocean noise education, beyond simply referencing ocean noise on Sanctuary web pages.
Education and interpretation of the ecology, behaviors, and threats to marine life can enhance conservation outcomes (Zeppel and Muloin 2008). Therefore, if the Program is not providing education or outreach on ocean noise and its effects on marine mammals, it may be missing a critical component of ocean noise mitigation. This is important because noise pollution is a topic that much of the public is still relatively unaware of (Ferrari 2020).
Sound propagation and the biological or behavioral impacts of anthropogenic ocean noise on marine mammals are complex concepts, so efforts to educate stakeholders on these concepts should be comprehensive and robust yet tailored to a non-expert audience.

Increasing Efforts in Sanctuaries with Low Ocean Noise Mitigation Actions
Sanctuaries that were not designated to protect marine mammals, or currently do not have many ocean noise mitigation actions, can still address the global issue of ocean noise.
Ocean noise mitigation requires a coordination of efforts between local, national, and international actors (Rosenbaum and Southall 2017

Future Studies
Although some Sanctuaries are conducting acoustic monitoring, little is known about the underwater acoustic environment (soundscape) of each Sanctuary. There is an ongoing need for Sanctuaries to collect baseline data that characterizes the sounds coming from various human and non-human sources. Baseline data would inform Sanctuary staff about the current level of impact from anthropogenic ocean noise.
Other future studies, that ask stakeholders about their perceptions and attitudes about the

Conclusion
Underwater noise is a chronic, habitat-level stressor that impacts individual animals as well as ecosystem functioning (e.g., predator-prey interactions). Therefore, because marine protected areas are a type of area-based management, they can be used to address ocean noise threats more appropriately at wider, habitat-level scales rather than taking an individual animal-centric approach (Williams et al 2015).
This study highlighted the ways that U.S. National Marine Sanctuaries can be advantageous when trying to mitigate ocean noise impacts on marine mammals. Because U.S. Sanctuaries are mandated by the National Marine Sanctuaries Act (NMSA) to protect ecologically and culturally significant ocean areas from ocean noise, and these Sanctuaries are generally located in key marine mammal habitats experiencing human activities that pose an acoustic threat, I expected the U.S. National Marine Sanctuary Program to be a useful venue to address ocean noise impacts on marine mammals through research, management, and education (Haren 2007, National Marine Sanctuaries Act 2000. My study findings supported this expectation.
My findings build upon the results of previous studies on ocean noise and U.S.
Sanctuaries and contribute to NOAA's Ocean Noise Strategy goals. Sanctuaries are already conducting studies to quantify spatial and temporal ocean noise source level patterns and impacts to marine mammals within individual Sanctuaries and throughout the entire Sanctuary system (Hatch et al. 2008, Hatch et al 2012, Scheifele and Darre 2005. My study builds on these efforts to determine how the Program is working to address these patterns and impacts. This study provides a status report on research, management, and education that is on-going in order for the Program to determine what actions are still required. NOAA's Ocean Noise Strategy credits U.S. National Marine Sanctuaries as "key NOAA assets to achieve the ecological goals of acoustic habitat protection" due to their mandate to protect natural ecosystems (Gedamke et al. 2016  13) In terms of the Sanctuary that you are involved with the most, how much of a priority on a scale of 1=lowest priority to 10=highest priority has ocean noise, and its effects on marine mammals, been to that Sanctuary? If you do not wish to give your opinion on this, select the "no opinion" option.
14) In terms of the Sanctuary that you are involved with the most, how effective on a scale of 1=very ineffective to 10= very effective do you think the Sanctuary is at addressing ocean noise impacts on marine mammals through research, education, and/or management and policy? If you do not wish to give your opinion on this, select the "no opinion" option.
15) We really want to hear more about your rating response to the previous question (#14). In the space provided, please explain why you gave that "effectiveness" rating. Please be as specific and detailed as possible.
16) In terms of the overall US National Marine Sanctuary program, how effective on a scale of 1=very ineffective to 10=very effective do you think the program is at addressing ocean noise impacts on marine mammals through research, education, and/or management and policy? If you do not wish to give your opinion on this, select the "no opinion" option.