New Brunswick bird deterrent study - arlis.org · .New Brunswick Bird Deterrent Study There are several dozen bird deterrent devices advertised and marketed by ... (Mytilus edilus)

71J Lf;').7------------------------------------p4 . yq3

Contributors:

New Brunswick Bird Deterrent Study

R. G. Hounsell Hounsell Consulting

Timothy J. Reilly Marine Spill Response Corporation

MSRC6 Marine Spill Response Corporotion

TeXas General Land Office

Technical Report Series 95m021

~.qS--21

- ----- - -·---- ----- ------ -- ------·--- ------- -- ------ ·-------- ------------------- .

~ I I'-- I IT"" ,m ' T"""

T"""

0 0

:L!) ; L!) .

!I

DISCLAIMER

This report was prepared under a contract between the Marine Spill Response Corporation and Hounsell Consulting. Publication of this report does not necessarily imply that the contents reflect the views and policies of MSRC, nor are there any implied MSRC endorsements

REPORT AVAILABILITY

Copies of this report can be obtained from the Marine Spill Response Corporation at the following address:

Suggested Citation:

Marine Spill Response Corporation Research & Development

1350 I Street N.W., Suite 300 Washington, o~c. 2005

CITATION

Hounsell, R.G., and T.J. Reilly: 1995. New Brunswick Bird Deterrent Study. Marine Spill Response Corporation, Washington, D.C. MSRC Technical Report Series 95-021, 13 p. + App.

ARLIS Alaska Resources Library & Information Services

Library Building, Suite 111 3211 Providence Drive

Anchorage,AK 995()84614 . .

ii

. .. ~, ..

• I ~ ~• o •" ~ '••"• '•" ~ •,, 0 - •• ' • • ~ •

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

1.0 Introduction .......•...•...................... ~ ..... ~ ......... 3

2.0 Methods .......................... · .......................... 5

' 3.0 Results ....................... · ............................. 7

4.0 Discussion ................................................... 9

.5.0 ·Conclusions ................................................. 11

6.0 References .................................................. 13

Appendices

A Maps B Plot A Layout C Plqt B Layout D Tables

iii

D D· []

D 0 J

~ ~ [~ [) .I [J

0

~

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS, SYMBOLS, AND ACRONYMS

Term Abbreviation, Symbol, or Acronym

Common Scoter . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . cs

Birds were flying at the time of observation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . fl. kilometer ....................................................... km meter .......................... , ................................ m

Marine Phoenix Waller ............................................ MPW Surf Scoter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ss

v

!A 0 0 c 0 0

~ .: l

·~ ·~ ll IJ

~ I) !l lJ ~~~ ~J r 1 I I

l,~

[J

~ ~' J :

r I ' I

r ~ ' L~~ ['l I I

(I . I '

_J I .··~ .. ,._ -·'· ··-······ ·-.

[J· :t [J

0 ~,

[]

0 :1

[ l~ ~ 0 0 0 0 0 '

0 b

~ D 0 []

I

~

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors would like to thank Reajean Macintyre and his staff at Labranche Seafoods for their tireless efforts in establishing the study plots and in conducting most of the related field work.

Appreciation is also expressed to W. R. Barrow of the Canadian Wildlife Service for allowing access to aerial waterfowl inventories conducted in the Miramichi Bay area.

Also, the authors wish to thank the Marine Spill Response Corporation and the Texas General Land Office for sponsoring this project.

vii

Abstract

.New Brunswick Bird Deterrent Study

There are several dozen bird deterrent devices advertised and marketed by manufacturers. One such device, known as the Phoenix Wailer, has been found to be effective in a number of nuisance bird situations such as at aitports and in certain agricultural operations. In October- November, 1995, a Marine Phoenix Wailer (MPW) was tested in ·Miramichi Bay, New Brunswick, Canada, for effectiveness in keeping scoter ducks away from juvenile mussel collector lines. Test results indicate.that the Wailer was effective in excluding birds from a circular open-water area with a radius of 500 metres. The scenario tested provided a worst case situation for bird deterrent operations: if birds can be repelled from a strong attractant (i.e. food), it is believed that they may be repelled from less attractive areas such as oil-contaminated sites.

1

. . .. ',·· .. ····· ·.-~ ... ··~·.'· . - . .:. . . . .

Bird Deterrent Study

2

t L

~ l~' . '

'i I,. u ; i

ri lr\: ' f , ·' ) :'

[] J []

[

Bird FJete"ent Study

1.0 Introduction

Birds which frequent water bodies (known in this context as ~·waterbirds") are at an elevated risk of experiencing oil contamination from petroleum spills due to their proximity to tanker routes, offshore platforms, and coastal bulk oil storage facilities. Manifestations of oil contamination on waterbirds include loss of buoyancy and hypothermia (from fouling of pluniage); a number of systemic disorders including hemolytic anemia and pneumonia (from oil · ingestion); and, in terms of reproductive disorders, cessation or reduced number of eggs produced, egg mortality, and nest abandonment (RPI 1988). The vulnerability of a given species of waterbird to spilled oil relates to differences in behavioral patterns, distribution, and reproduction. For example, waterbirds which form large flocks and tend to spend extensive periods of time roosting or feeding on the water are considered to be highly vulnerable to spilled oil. Waterbirds which produce small clutch sizes, also are considered to be vulnerable since their population will require longer periods of time to recover from mass mortalities.

When an oil spill threatens local waterbird stocks, two major options are available to response personnel:

1) rehabilitation of oiled waterbirds; and

2) deterrence of unoiled waterbirds from the zone of contamination.

Often these techniques are used in tandem at oil spills. A number of traditional bird deterrent techniques (e.g. propane cannons) are deployed in the areas of concern. Birds which persist in an area, despite the presence of deterrent devices, and become contaminated are then subject to rehabilitation efforts (i.e. retrieval, cleaning, recovery, and release). Unfortunately, current deterrent techniques have had only limited effectiveness. Furthermore, bird rehabilitation efforts tend to be highly stressful to the captured animal and have had highly variable degrees of success. Consequently, a review of deterrent and cleaning operations at past oil spills has yielded two observations:

1) effective waterbird deterrence capabilities are limited; and

2) rehabilitation efforts are inherently stressful on birds since these operations are predicated on the fact that a bird is contaminated (hence, experiencing varying degrees of adverse impacts as described above) and requires direct human intervention.

Conversely, bird deterrent devices, if effective, offer a means of keeping birds from contaminated zones without the additional stresses of direct human handling and rehabilitation.

Under normal circumstances it is difficult to test bird deterrent equipment unless the birds are causing some problem or difficulty to human activity. Accordingly, depredation of juvenile mussels on spat collector lines at a nearshore mussel mariculture operation in New Brunswick, Canada, by sea ducks presented an excellent opportunity to test the effectiveness of an on-water bird deterrent device. All three species of scoters common to Atlantic Canada: BlackScoter (Melanitta nigra), Surf Scoter (Melanittaperspicillata), and White-Winged Scoter (Melanittafusca) are attracted to blue mussel (Mytilus edilus) aquaculture operations and, even in moderate numbers, will very quickly destroy most of the juvenile stock. This provides a

3 I

Bird Deterrent Study

worst case situation for bird deterrent testing: if birds can be repelled from a strong attractant (i.e. food), it is believed that they may be effectively repelled from less attractive, oil­contaminated areas.

The present study is a field test of the effectiveness and operational feasibility of the Marine Phoenix Wailer (MPW). The MPW is a commercially-available, floating, bird-deterrent device which is designed to limit waterbird habituation through the emission of differentiating sound patterns. Functionally, the MPW is a computer which generates and emitts randomized sounds. The computer and accompanying speakers are affixed to a floatation system.

· Effectiveness testing of the MPW was the number one research priority at a workshop on marine oil spill bird deterrent technologies held in Denver, Colorado, in 1994 (Thomas 1994).

4

Bird Deterrent StUdy

2.0 Methods

A study site was selected along the north-west side of Bay du Vin Island in Miramichi Bay, New Brunswick, Canada and two study plots were established at that site (Appendix A, Map 1). Six mussel spat collector lines were installed at each plot in late June, 1995. Each line was one hundred metres in length and lines were spaced thirty metres apart. Two-metre long spat collector lines were attached to each line at two-metre intervals. Each study plot was approximately 0.30 hectares in size. Distance between the two plots was 2.5 kilometres (Appendix A, Map 2).

To facilitate observation, each plot was marked in the following manner: a two-metre long buoy was anchored at the centre of each of the two plots. The westernmost plot was marked as plot "A" and the easternmost as plot "B". Correspondingly, each letter was painted on the two-metre buoy at the centre of the respective plot. In order to accurately locate birds within a plot, each plot was delineated with four 1000 m long ropes which extended radially from the center marker buoy. Attached to each rope were seven 0.50 metre-long coloured · buoys (Appendices Band C). Colours were used to indicate various distances from the centre marker buoy as follows:

Blue--------- 100 metres Red -------- 200 metres Orange -------- 300 metres Multicolour ---- 400 metres Yellow ------- 500 metres Green ---------- 700 metres White ---------- 1,000 metres

Observation blinds were constructed on land at each of the two plots (Appendix A, Map 2). Bliruls were constructed of metal scaffolding covered with mill canvas and plywood~ and were approximately 1.5 km. from the centre of each plot. Each blind was 1.3 metres deep, 2 metres wide and 2.5 metres high. All observations were made from a height of approximately 4.5 metres above mean sea level. Two observers were used; one at each plot. Observations were made during traditionally intensive bird feeding periods (i.e. twice daily during two one­hour periods at 7:30 a.m. - 8:30a.m. and at 4:30p.m. - 5:30p.m). Observers used binoculars and spotting scopes; and locations of all birds observed were recorded on acetate overlays of plot-specific layouts (Appendices B and C).

Prior to the initiation of the study, the site was monitored by real-time Canadian Wildlife Service aerial survey data and on-water observations by local fishermen to determine the local status of the fall migration of the species of scoters under study (Common Scoters, Surf Scoters, and White-Winged Scoters). The pre-study monitoring effort began in mid­September and terminated on October 1 0; when the weather conditions (i.e. wind and temperature) favored the fall arrival of the scoters. Formal bird distribution observations by trained local observers began on October 10. The magnitude of popuation increases of migratory Scoters did not occur as expected. However, mild increases in the Scoter population (i.e. 400-500 in Miramichi Bay) resulted in the initiation of MPW deterrent operations on . October 16 at Site A. The MPW was operated continuously during the daylight hours only. The study was terminated (i.e. cessation of MPW deterrent operations and bird distribution observations) on November 7, 1995 due to increasingly inclement weather conditions.

- 5

---- -· _______ _.:,_~---'-------'-·_;_· -'-. ..:;_·· =···,·..:..;···=····...:c.···::....o· -.,_ •. ~ ··~:o:;-.··"""'-··-=-----=-'------'--~·

Bird Dete"ent Study

3.0 Results

Bird numbers and locations were monitored and recorded both mornings and evenings between October 10, 1995, and November 7, 1995. A daily summation of bird population numbers by location (relative to the center of Plots A and B) and species type may be found in Appendix D, Tables 1 and 2. Almost all birds observed in the present study were observed during morning (rather than evening) feeding periods.

Only a few hundred birds entered Miramichi Bay, in spite of the fact that there were several thousand off Portage Island (approximately 8 km to the NNE of the study area) at that time. Almost all seaters that entered the study site in Miramichi Bay were Common Scoters. Very few Surf Seaters and no White-Winged Seaters were present at the study site, even though there appeared to be equal numbers of all three species off Portage Island.

Throughout most of the monitoring period small flocks (6-40 birds per flock) of Common Seaters frequented and fed within 100 metres of the centre buoy at control Plot B (Appendix D, Table 2). At Plot A, the site where the Wailer was located, no seaters were seen to approach closer than 500 metres of the centre of that plot (Appendix D, Table 1). The only exception to the 500 metre exclusion zone observed in Plot A was October 24-26 when the Wailer was inoperative due to an electrical problem.

High winds prevented observers from getting to the blinds on 10 days of the 28-day study period (Appendix D, Tables 1 and 2). When strong northwest and northeast winds ! blew, visibility was so poor that it was impossible to separate the birds from the waves.

When the spat lines were recovered at the end of the study more than half the number of mussels were still on the lines from Plot A (the site with the MPW), whereas all mussels had been stripped from the lines of Plot B.

7

Bird Dete"ent Study

4.0 Discussion

The results obtained in this study present. initial evidence that the Marine Phoenix Wailer excludes birds in a range of approximately 500 meters. This suggests that the effective aerial coverage of a single Wailer-could be approximately 78 hectares. It should be noted, however, that fewer than average numbers of sea ducks were observed in Maramichi Bay than in previous years. In addition, stormy weather precluded bird observations during 10 days of the 28-day study period.

Also, local flocks of scoters were being fired upon from power boats by local hunters, keeping the birds from settling in any one location. This is, possibly, the reason why scoters were not coming in to feed at the study site in the evenings. It appears that the birds flew in sometime before daylight and possibly'fed heavily before and during daybreak as well as during the early hours of daylight

Marine Phoenix Wailers have previously been used to deter seaters from mussel mariculture sites inside Bay du Vin Island during 1993 and 1994 (Macintyre 1995). One practice at a Bay du Vin mussel mariculture site was to sacrifice a few scoters from a boat anchored at the MPW. Past observations indicated that the birds associated the shooting/killing with the noise emitted by the Wailer. Apparently, this kept the scoters away from mussels for up to four-to-five days. If legal and approved by the appropriate authorities, firearm reinforcement may significantly increase the zone of bird exclusion (i.e. effectiveness) of the MPW. Correspondingly, shooting alone (without the Wailer operating) kept birds away for only a few hours.

The MPW is relatively easy to maintain and when disassembled is easily transported since the various components are quite bulky, but not heavy. The MPW's structural support and floatation system requires considerable space as does the control unit which houses the battery, speakers and other control unit instrumentation. Two complete MPWs will fit into the back of a full-size pick-up truck. When assembled, the MPW is easily deployed to its operations site by towing behind a boat. An unassembled MPW can be assembled by two people in less than thirty minutes.

The battery storage area of the MPW will accommodate two heavy:-duty, 12-volt marine batteries which may adequately function for up to two weeks without changing batteries. Assuming daytime operations only, it was found in the present study that batteries should be changed after no more than five days of operation. At least four batteries should be available for each W ailer: two in the W ailer and two on full charge at all times.

Frequent (e.g. daily) monitoring of the MPW is recommended to insure the unit is properly operating.· Electrical difficulties in the present study resulted in the MPW being inoperative for three days.

On a calm morning (i.e. quiescent atmospheric and oceanic conditions) the MPW may be heard clearly from a distance of at least four kilometres. Throughout our entire study, however, approximately one hundred scallop fishermen worked daily within one to two kilometres of the W ailer without complaint. It is believed that the sounds emitted by the MPW are not a major irritant to humans beyond a distance of 500 metres. It is suggested that local residents be advised before deploying the Wailer.

9

--'-------'-----· ..... : __ . ,,.:._.::..c::.C:.."l.:',C_~· '-'-'·-··:; --'· .•.. ~-- . --·--'-----~----- ~ ' . -. ' -- .... --- .. ·- .. ~- -··--.......

Bird Deterrent Study

5.0 Conclusions-

Under the environmental conditions in the present study, the Marine Phoenix Wailer appeared to be an effective open-water bird deterrent device within an effective range of 500 metres. Unlike other deterrent devices used in past oil spill deterrent operations, the MPW &Ustained its deterrent capabilities over the entire period of the study (i.e. 28 days) when the device was operating. This sustained deterrent capability lias potential application-to on-water bird deterrent operations during oil spills since oil-contaminated areas often require an extended period of time for site cleanup operations to be completed.

This study did not address deterrent operations at night. As evidenced by partial depredation of mussels in the plot with the Marine Phoenix Wailer, it may be advisable to allow to MPW to operate during dark hours of the day. In such a case, battery changes of the MPW would be expected to be more frequent than observed in the present study. Further, frequent (e.g. daily) inspections of the Marine Phoenix Wailer is recommended in order to insure that the unit is properly functioning.

11

Bird Detemnt Study

6.0 References

Macintyre, R. 1995. PersonalCommunication.

RPI International, Inc. 1988. Natural Resource Response Guide. Ocean Assessments Division, Office of Oceanography and Marine Sciences, National Ocean Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Columbia, S.C. RPI International, Inc. 32p.

Thomas, A.M., technical editor. 1994 MSRC Workshop Report: Research on Waterbird Deterrents for· Marine Oil Spills, November 1-2, 1994, Denver, CO. Marine Spill Response Corporation, Washington, D.C. MSRC Technical Report Series 94-006, 32p.

13

Appendix A

Maps

-~·-· -~-

Map 1 - Location of study site.

Quebec r- -~ r-- --~ I

New Brunswick

Study_ site .., ...

·-

Map 2 - Relative posltlon of study plots. . ..

B ~ Egg Island

Forbes Point

Point Gardiner

Legend A, B - Study Plots OB - Observation Blind .

--------------- -- --

Bird Dete"ent Study

Appendix 8

Plot A Layout

Mlmmlchl Bay +

+

Date Time Observer .Weather

Temp.: ., Cloud COver: Wind Direction: .

• • Wind Speed (kmlltr): Preclpn.tlon: rein drizzle no rain

Colrole onl)

Legend

• 100m • 200m

e aoom • 400m

0 ISOOm • 100m

01ooom

8 8 8llf 8c:ol•

C8 Canmon8c:ol• E Elder .

CM ConlnanM ......

RM ~eel Mll'giiiHI'

l [T ;J

: (] l

;1] l]

I [~ [~

r; , •··•·· [l ... I

.J. .· . :

~.] : : : .

.. . :_ .. : .. . ' . . . . . .

. .

[J . ' ' . . ..... 1] ... · ... I ' Ll

IJ ~I [] 1 [J J [] I [] 1 [J .J IJ l r]

~ [J ~II Iii

Bird Dete"enJ Study

Appendix C

Plot B Layout

~~ I I L______j- - . ..,..._t \ ~ . J 1 ~ • -'-----'-- --'------' • • . . . •. ...;;...;., ,-. •· .. --1 1Jl ~

---- • ___ ._____. • ---•r•- •

Mlramlchl Bay +

+

Date Time Observer Weather

Tomp.: ., Cloud Cover: Wind Direction:

• • Wind Speed (kmlhl): Precipitation: rain drizzle no rain

ColrDie onl)

Legend

• toom 88 8Uif8coler • am CB Canwnon Scoler • 300m E Elder • 400m CM Canmln MMgii1RI' 0 &oom AM ~eel M~rS~~Mer • 100m

Otooom

Bird Dete"ent Study

Appendix D

Tables

. .J.

Bird Dete"ent Study

Table 1. Summed morning and evening bird observations at Plot A (i.e. plot with the Marine , Phoenix Wailer)

DAm .lOO..m mm JOO...m ~ 500.m 1QQ.m lOOOm

10/10/95 500 cs 200 cs

10/11/95 325 cs (fl) 400 .cs (fl)

10112/95 7cs

10/13/95. 4cs

10114/95 lOcs 35 cs

10/16/95 5 cs

10/18/95 18 cs

10119/95 36 cs 12 cs

10/21/95 7 cs 90cs

10/23/95 7 cs

10/24/95 3 cs 20cs · 40cs 50cs

10/25/95 . 50cs

10/26/95 500 cs

10/27/95 450cs

11102/95

11103/95

11/04/95

11/07/95 500 cs 200 cs

Notes: Dates skipped in this table indicate days in which observations were not possible due to inclement weather.

Distances are relative to the center of the plot.

Alpha-numeric data points represent the quantity and type of bird observed (cs = common scoter; ss = surf scoter ). For example, the 500 cs data point on. 10110/95 above translates into the observation that· 500 Common Seaters were observed to be 700 metres away from the center of Plot A on October lOth. )

(fl) after an alpha-numeric indicates that the birds were flying at the time of observation .

Bird Deterrent Study

Table 2. Summed morning and evening bird observations at Plot B (i.e. plot without the Marine Phoenix Wailer)

DAlE .l.OO..m, 200..m 300..m ~ m.m mm lQQQm

10/10/95 200cs

10/ll/95 100cs 150 cs 350cs

10/12/95 1 cs 10 cs

10/13/95 35cs 20cs

10/14/95 2cs 45 cs

10116/95 17 cs

10/18/95 2cs 12 cs 6 cs

10119/95 6 cs 7 cs 6 cs 1 ss, 15 cs'

10/21/95 6 cs 12 cs

10/23/95 10 cs 20cs 60cs

10/24/95 12 cs 2cs

10/25/95 6cs

10/27/95 60cs.

10/28/95 20cs

11/02/95 40cs

11/03/95 40cs 15 cs

11104/95 50cs 10 cs

11106/95 40cs 6cs

11/07/95 20cs 10cs

Notes:Dates skipped in this table indicate days in which observations were not possible due to inclement weather.

Distances are relative to the center of the plot

Alpha-numeric data points represent the quantity and type of bird observed (cs =common scoter; ss =surf scoter). For example, the 200 cs data point on 10/10/95 above translates into the observation that 200 Common Scoters were observed to be 1000 m away from the center of Plot B on October lOth.

~~:):-l~i:L:J()2~);;J .8Jl:~E:1( ~

?.•Y+r,r:>!? .. ":l:-)jB£i:n:d!~.cj! §' y:.;':'l<T .. ~; J.;~:J?,.r:;i/\ e;~~.:~·I··- ::;~~fi/~ ..