University of St Andrews

2010 Ocean Science Meeting Marine Mammals in a Renewable Age - Review of

Monitoring, Mitigation and Data Needs. Marine Mammal Society Conference Workshop,

Ottawa 2009.

University of St Andrews

D. J. Tollit; N. Quick; S. Du Fresne; G. Hastie

Introduction• The main focus of the workshop was the potential

conflicts between marine mammals and wave and tidal developments and aimed to bring together scientists and regulators working on these issues to discuss experiences, methodologies, data and data needs.

• Organised by SMRU Ltd, Scottish Oceans Institute, University of St Andrews, the commercial non-profit arm of the NERC Sea Mammal Research Unit.

• Attended by ~50 people - representing a good mix of international scientists, regulators (including NOAA, NMFS, MMS and DFO), consultants and NGOs.

Why SMRU Ltd

Active Sonar

Seal TelemetryPassive Acoustics

Aerial Surveys6 year multi-scale BACI study of MCT SeaGen turbine

MMOs

Key Workshop Conclusions

Anticlockwise from left

• Clean Current• MCT, Oyster, Pelamis

1) Huge variety of devices – stressors and potential risks will vary considerably – requires individual studies of different design concepts within device families

Key Workshop Conclusions2) Location, Location, Location

a) Wide-scale - Variation in species presence and abundanceb) Fine-scale - Variation in species habitat use (area/depth)c) Device impact may vary by device location (e.g., noise

propagation, deployment depth, current/far field effects)d) Variation in regulatory legislation across countries e) Interaction with ecosystem and other user groups

Appropriate combination of device and location of deployment site considered vital as build-outs occur – this will require good spatial planning, cumulative impact assessments, sufficient monitoring to assess key risks and...........

www.smru.co.ukwww.smru.co.uk

An Adaptive Management Approach with Trigger Levels

Problem identificationProblem identification

Exposure assessmentExposure assessment•• numbers involvednumbers involved

•• locationlocation

ExposureExposure--response response assessmentassessment

•• toxicitytoxicity

•• secondary effectssecondary effects

Risk CharacterisationRisk Characterisation

•• risk quotientrisk quotient

Exceed trigger levelsExceed trigger levels

EPA processRisk acceptableRisk acceptable

YesYes

MitigationMitigation

NoNo

LegislationLegislationValue judgementsValue judgementsBiological sig.Biological sig.

www.smru.ac.uk

Monitoringperformance standards

Key Workshop Conclusions3) Attendees asked what they perceived as the most

important stressors to gather more information during pilot studies

41 responses across attendees• 32% cited collision risk with tidal turbines• 22% cited behavioural disturbance • 10% cited specific impact of anthropogenic noise• 10% cited encounter risks of large whales with wave

devices• 7% cited displacement/exclusion

Response summary:Collision, behavioural disruption and exclusion

Key Workshop Conclusions4) Empirical evidence of stressors and risks

• Few devices in water – very early days• Noisy construction events will result in disturbance to

cetaceans (but may not occur for certain device families)• No substantiated evidence of turbine strikes/collisions• Increasing evidence of (noise) disturbance and exclusion

during operation, but cause not yet fully established, and ruling out barrier effects considered a priority

• Unknowns: Far-field effects, prey attraction, EMF, water quality, marine debris capture, habitat loss or alteration, device maintenance and cable laying

• Habitat alteration may/could provide benefit (e.g. reefs)

Key Workshop Conclusions5) Anthropogenic noise likely marine mammal

stressor, but also will increase device detection and consequent avoidance

• Some turbines have source levels equivalent to mid-sized boats and produce broadband continuous noise source levels that exceed NOAA disturbance thresholds for marine mammals at ranges of ~100-400m.

• Standardised protocols needed to assess ambient noise levels and device source levels (vital for assessing animal detection ability) – wave form considered most useful metric to assess impact

• NOAA noise injury thresholds will change in 2010-2011

Key Workshop Conclusions6) Small scale changes in behaviour hard to detect over short periods even with good (~2 year) baseline

Post-installation monitoring period (months)

1 2 3 4 5 6

Effect size

0% 5% 6% 3% 3% 8% 6%10% 2% 8% 10% 6% 8% 7%20% 1% 6% 6% 9% 19%19%30% 0% 7% 16%26%30%29%40% 1% 15%24%29%52%53%50% 1% 22%28%58%77%75%

Power analysis to estimate monitoring required to detect change in abundance

Key Workshop Conclusions6) Near-field monitoring challenging and efficacy of potential techniques still being tested and developed.(Presently, high reliance on passive and active acoustics)

Range = 80 m

Key Workshop Conclusions7) Active high frequency sonar can detect and track

marine mammals, but presently not 100% reliable, affected by turbulence and hard to assess fine scale behaviour

-60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60

-60

-40

-20

0

20

40

60

X-Y Tracks

Inactive

Operational

Key Workshop Conclusions8) High-frequency active sonar has off-frequency noise

‘side-lobes’ that appears detectable (complicating behavioural studies)

Within 1m Hole 1 Hole 2 Hole 3 Hole 40

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

Sonar offSonar on

Surfacing location

Dive

dur

ation

(sec

)

Near Mid Far02468

101214161820

Sonar offSonar on

Surf

acin

g ra

te (#

/min

)

Key Workshop Conclusions9) Mitigation Discussion

• Ensure baseline information to ensure appropriate siting• Device removal if set threshold (representing ecologically

significant impact) is reached (e.g., FERC guidelines)• Automated detection may be required for turbine shut-

downs – requires development of new tools/software• Ensure devices conspicuous – paints, reflectors, etc.• Use of acoustic pingers for warning and guidance raised

disturbance and habituation issues• HO creation unlikely to be mitigated other than by good

design (eg., conical caps on buoys, steep slippery surfaces)

Key Workshop Conclusions10) General Discussion

• Important to deploy and MONITOR all pilot projects, but with clear and consistent aims

• Regulators and researchers together need to set realistic standards and appropriate thresholds

• Important to fully assess how marine mammals perceive, avoid and evade devices

• Researchers must continue to improve methods to assess the consequences of death, injury or habitat exclusion at the population level (e.g., ONRs ongoing development of PCAD models)

www.smru.co.uk

New Tools Example 1: NNMREC-UW Sea Spider

• Sea Spider used to deploy a range of data acquisition packages in high tidal state areas e.g., current meters, hydrophones, etc

www.smru.co.uk

New Tools Example 2: SMRU Ltd PAMbuoy

• Acoustic activity monitoring technology of the future:• 2 self-sustaining

broadband hydrophones• low maintenance/cost• real-time web based

data streaming• optional text based

alerts (mitigation)

Beta version of PAMbuoy

www.smru.co.uk

New Tools Example 3: Possible integrated imaging

Impact monitor

Key Workshop Conclusions11) Clear need for improved information transfer and

communication (far easier if work govt. funded)

• SMRU Ltd setting up open access website to provide site for upload of new papers/reports and provide forum for questions and discussions

• Plan to set up marine mammal renewable energy working group

• Ensure scientific links with offshore wind industry maintained and developed

• Workshop report universally available March 2010• Second workshop planned for 2010 in Cork, Ireland

www.smru.co.uk

Thank You

www.smru.co.uk

Questions

Questions?

Contact: [email protected]

Website: www.smru.co.uk