Suchergebnisse

Summary As part of global efforts to reduce dependence on carbon‐based energy sources there has been a rapid increase in the installation of renewable energy devices. The installation and operation of these devices can result in conflicts with wildlife. In the marine environment, mammals may avoid wind farms that are under construction or operating. Such avoidance may lead to more time spent travelling or displacement from key habitats. A paucity of data on at‐sea movements of marine mammals around wind farms limits our understanding of the nature of their potential impacts.Here, we present the results of a telemetry study on harbour seals Phoca vitulina in The Wash, south‐east England, an area where wind farms are being constructed using impact pile driving. We investigated whether seals avoid wind farms during operation, construction in its entirety, or during piling activity. The study was carried out using historical telemetry data collected prior to any wind farm development and telemetry data collected in 2012 during the construction of one wind farm and the operation of another.Within an operational wind farm, there was a close‐to‐significant increase in seal usage compared to prior to wind farm development. However, the wind farm was at the edge of a large area of increased usage, so the presence of the wind farm was unlikely to be the cause.There was no significant displacement during construction as a whole. However, during piling, seal usage (abundance) was significantly reduced up to 25 km from the piling activity; within 25 km of the centre of the wind farm, there was a 19 to 83% (95% confidence intervals) decrease in usage compared to during breaks in piling, equating to a mean estimated displacement of 440 individuals. This amounts to significant displacement starting from predicted received levels of between 166 and 178 dB re 1 μPa(p‐p). Displacement was limited to piling activity; within 2 h of cessation of pile driving, seals were distributed as per the non‐piling scenario. Synthesis and ...

This work was funded by the European Social Fund and Scottish Funding Council as part of Developing Scotland's Workforce in the Scotland 2014–2020 European Structural and Investment Fund Programme. NDM and AF were funded by the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science (Cefas). Funding for the seal tagging was provided by the Scottish Government to the Sea Mammal Research Unit (SMRU) as part of the Marine Mammal Scientific Support Program MMSS/002/15, with additional resources from the Natural Environment Research Council (grant numbers NE/J004251/1 and SMRU1001). ; 1. Pinniped depredation at aquaculture sites is a globally recognized problem. To mitigate depredation, the aquaculture sector uses acoustic deterrent devices (ADDs) as a non-lethal alternative to shooting pinnipeds interacting with caged finfish. However, it is unclear whether sound emissions from ADDs have the potential to also impact non-target pinnipeds at spatial scales relevant to populations. 2. Global Positioning System (GPS) tracking data from seven harbour seals tagged in a non-aquaculture context, on the west coast of Scotland, in 2017 were combined with modelled maps of ADD noise to quantify sound exposure and estimate the potential for auditory impairment. The acoustic model applied an energy flux approach across the main frequency range of ADDs (2–40 kHz). Predictions of temporary and permanent auditory threshold shifts were made using seal location data and published noise exposure criteria. The acoustic exposure of waters (10-km buffers) surrounding protected habitats (i.e. designated haul outs and Special Areas of Conservation (SACs)) on the west coast of Scotland was also assessed. 3. All tagged seals and waters surrounding 51 of 56 protected sites were predicted to be exposed to ADD noise exceeding median ambient sound levels. Temporary auditory impairment was predicted to occur in one of the seven tagged harbour seals and across 1.7% of waters surrounding protected habitats over a 24-hour period, when assuming a 100% ADD duty cycle. 4. Although the predicted risk of auditory impairment appears to be relatively low, these findings suggest that harbour seals inhabiting inshore waters off western Scotland are routinely exposed to ADD noise that exceeds median ambient sound levels. This chronic exposure risks negative consequences for individual harbour seals among the wider population in this region. The use of ADDs to mitigate pinniped depredation should be carefully considered to reduce unintended habitat-wide impacts on non-target species, including pinnipeds that are not specifically interacting with aquaculture. ; Publisher PDF ; Peer reviewed

This project was funded through the DECC Offshore Energy Strategic Environmental Assessment Programme using equipment previously purchased by DECC, Scottish Government, Oil and Gas UK, COWRIE and Moray Offshore Renewables Ltd. Scottish Natural Heritage, Beatrice Offshore Windfarm Ltd., MORL, Marine Scotland, The Crown Estate and Highlands and Islands Enterprise all provided funding for photo-identification surveys. Data have been made available in the Dryad repository at https://doi.org/10.5061/dryad.g3603. ; The development of risk assessments for the exposure of protected populations to noise from coastal construction is constrained by uncertainty over the nature and extent of marine mammal responses to man-made noise. Stakeholder concern often focuses on the potential for local displacement caused by impact piling, where piles are hammered into the seabed. To mitigate this threat, use of vibration piling, where piles are shaken into place with a vibratory hammer, is often encouraged due to presumed impact reduction. However, data on comparative responses of cetaceans to these different noise sources are lacking. We studied the responses of bottlenose dolphins and harbor porpoises to both impact and vibration pile driving noise during harbor construction works in northeast Scotland, using passive acoustic monitoring devices to record cetacean activity and noise recorders to measure and predict received noise levels. Local abundance and patterns of occurrence of bottlenose dolphins were also compared with a five-year baseline. The median peak-to-peak source level estimated for impact piling was 240 dB re 1 μPa (single-pulse sound exposure level [SEL] 198 dB re 1 μPa2 s), and the r.m.s. source level for vibration piling was 192 dB re 1 μPa. Predicted received broadband SEL values 812 m from the piling site were markedly lower due to high propagation loss: 133.4 dB re 1 μPa2 s (impact) and 128.9 dB re 1 μPa2 s (vibration). Bottlenose dolphins and harbor porpoises were not excluded from sites in the vicinity of impact piling or vibration piling; nevertheless, some small effects were detected. Bottlenose dolphins spent a reduced period of time in the vicinity of construction works during both impact and vibration piling. The probability of occurrence of both cetacean species was also slightly less during periods of vibration piling. This work provides developers and managers with the first evidence of the comparative effects of vibration and impact piling on small cetaceans, enabling more informed risk assessments, policy frameworks, and mitigation plans. In particular, our results emphasize the need for better understanding of noise levels and behavioral responses to vibration piling before recommending its use to mitigate impact piling. ; Publisher PDF ; Peer reviewed

The work was funded under Scottish Government grant MMSS/001/11 and contract CR/2014/04, and supported by National Capability funding from NERC to SMRU (grant no. SMRU1001). Seal at-sea usage maps, location data for individual seals, locations and source levels for vessels, and SPLs from monitoring data used for acoustic validations are available from the Pure repository, https://doi.org/10.17630/89ac9345-240a-41bb-8f53-b3f14bb114c0. ; 1. Vessels can have acute and chronic impacts on marine species. The rate of increase in commercial shipping is accelerating, and there is a need to quantify and potentially manage the risk of these impacts. 2. Usage maps characterising densities of grey and harbour seals and ships around the British Isles were used to produce risk maps of seal co-occurrence with shipping traffic. Acoustic exposure to individual harbour seals was modelled in a study area using contemporaneous movement data from 28 animals fitted with UHF global positioning satellite telemetry tags and automatic identification system data from all ships during 2014 and 2015. Data from four acoustic recorders were used to validate sound exposure predictions. 3. Across the British Isles, rates of co-occurrence were highest within 50 km of the coast, close to seal haul-outs. Areas identified with high risk of exposure included 11 Special Areas of Conservation (SAC; from a possible 25). Risk to harbour seal populations was highest, affecting half of all SACs associated with the species. 4. Predicted cumulative sound exposure level, cSELs(Mpw), over all seals was 176·8 dB re 1 μPa2 s (95% CI 163·3–190·4), ranging from 170·2 dB re 1μPa2 s (95% CI 168·4–171·9) to 189·3 dB re 1 μPa2 s (95% CI 172·6–206·0) for individuals. This represented an increase in 28·3 dB re 1 μPa2 s over measured ambient noise. For 20 of 28 animals in the study, 95% CI for cSELs(Mpw) had upper bounds above levels known to induce temporary threshold shift. Predictions of broadband received sound pressure levels were underestimated on average by 0·7 dB re 1 μPa (±3·3). 5. Synthesis and applications. We present a framework to allow shipping noise, an important marine anthropogenic stressor, to be explicitly incorporated into spatial planning. Potentially sensitive areas are identified through quantifying risk to marine species of exposure to shipping traffic, and individual noise exposure is predicted with associated uncertainty in an area with varying rates of co-occurrence. The detailed approach taken here facilitates spatial planning with regard to underwater noise within areas protected through the Habitats Directive, and could be used to provide evidence for further designations. This framework may have utility in assessing whether underwater noise levels are at Good Environmental Status under the Marine Strategy Framework Directive. ; Publisher PDF ; Peer reviewed

Funding: Scottish Government (GrantNumber(s): MMSS/002/15), Natural Environment Research Council (GrantNumber(s): NE/R015007/1). ; 1. Uptake of tidal turbine technology to generate renewable energy has been partly limited by poor understanding of ecological impacts, including the potential for collisions between cetaceans and rotating turbine blades. To address this concern, it is necessary to identify whether cetaceans behaviourally respond to operating turbines. 2. A turbine in Scotland was instrumented with hydrophones to detect cetacean vocalizations. A generalized additive model was used to investigate temporal variability in harbour porpoise presence close to the turbine. As there were incidentally periods when the turbine was not operating, it was possible to determine the effect of blade rotation, whilst accounting for the potentially confounding effect of tidal flow. 3. Harbour porpoise presence varied intra-annually, diurnally and with tidal state. Peak presence occurred during winter (September–February), at night and at high flow speeds on the flood tide. 4. Porpoises exhibited significant avoidance of the tidal turbine when it was operating; avoidance increased with flow speed, whereby mean porpoise presence was reduced by up to 78% (95% CIs, 51%, 91%) on the flood tide and up to 64% (95% CI, 3%, 91%) on the ebb tide. 5. The temporal variability in encounter rate in the present study highlights that collision risk assessments assuming static densities probably fail to capture the temporal variability of collision risk. Future studies should conduct long-term baseline monitoring to derive encounter rates at larger spatio-temporal scales and as a reference from which to measure change in habitat use. It is also critical that the generality of the avoidance rates presented here is assessed for other sites, turbine types, array sizes and cetacean species. As the tidal industry expands, it will be important to reconcile the benefits of avoidance responses from a collision risk perspective with potential ...

Acknowledgements This work was supported by Moray Offshore Renewables Ltd. and Beatrice Offshore Wind Ltd. as part of their consent application. We thank all the colleagues from academic, regulatory and industrial organisations who contributed to the discussion and workshops that shaped this framework. ; Peer reviewed ; Publisher PDF

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This project was funded through the DECC Offshore Energy Strategic Environmental Assessment Programme using equipment previously purchased by DECC, Scottish Government, Oil and Gas UK, COW-RIE and Moray Offshore Renewables Ltd. Scottish Natural Heritage, Beatrice Offshore Windfarm Ltd., MORL, Marine Scotland, The Crown Estate and Highlands and Islands Enterprise all provided funding for photo-identification surveys. We thank Bill Ruck and col-leagues from University of Aberdeen and Moray First Marine for fieldwork support, and Global Energy, Cromarty Firth Port Authority, and other local stakeholders for information on the construction program. John Hartley, Francesca Marubini, and two anonymous reviewers kindly provided comments on the manuscript. ; Peer reviewed ; Publisher PDF

DJFR, GH, VMJ and BM were funded by the UK Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) as part of their Offshore Energy Strategic Environmental Assessment programme. DT and GH were also funded by NERC/Defra EBAO NE/J004243/1. ELJ was funded under Scottish Government grant MMSS001/01. This work was also supported by National Capability funding from the Natural Environment Research Council to SMRU (grant no. SMRU1001). Tags and their deployment in the Thames in 2006 and The Wash were funded by DECC. Tags and their deployment in the Thames in 2012 were commissioned by Zoological Society London, with funding from BBC Wildlife Fund and Sita Trust. ; 1. As part of global efforts to reduce dependence on carbon-based energy sources there has been a rapid increase in the installation of renewable energy devices. The installation and operation of these devices can result in conflicts with wildlife. In the marine environment, mammals may avoid wind farms that are under construction or operating. Such avoidance may lead to more time spent travelling or displacement from key habitats. A paucity of data on at-sea movements of marine mammals around wind farms limits our understanding of the nature of their potential impacts. 2. Here, we present the results of a telemetry study on harbour seals Phoca vitulina in The Wash, south-east England, an area where wind farms are being constructed using impact pile driving. We investigated whether seals avoid wind farms during operation, construction in its entirety, or during piling activity. The study was carried out using historical telemetry data collected prior to any wind farm development and telemetry data collected in 2012 during the construction of one wind farm and the operation of another. 3. Within an operational wind farm, there was a close-to-significant increase in seal usage compared to prior to wind farm development. However, the wind farm was at the edge of a large area of increased usage, so the presence of the wind farm was unlikely to be the cause. 4. There was no significant displacement during construction as a whole. However, during piling, seal usage (abundance) was significantly reduced up to 25 km from the piling activity; within 25 km of the centre of the wind farm, there was a 19 to 83% (95% confidence intervals) decrease in usage compared to during breaks in piling, equating to a mean estimated displacement of 440 individuals. This amounts to significant displacement starting from predicted received levels of between 166 and 178 dB re 1 μPa(p·p). Displacement was limited to piling activity; within 2 h of cessation of pile driving, seals were distributed as per the non-piling scenario. 5. Synthesis and applications. Our spatial and temporal quantification of avoidance of wind farms by harbour seals is critical to reduce uncertainty and increase robustness in environmental impact assessments of future developments. Specifically, the results will allow policymakers to produce industry guidance on the likelihood of displacement of seals in response to pile driving; the relationship between sound levels and avoidance rates; and the duration of any avoidance, thus allowing far more accurate environmental assessments to be carried out during the consenting process. Further, our results can be used to inform mitigation strategies in terms of both the sound levels likely to cause displacement and what temporal patterns of piling would minimize the magnitude of the energetic impacts of displacement. ; Publisher PDF ; Peer reviewed

FUNDING Analysis was funded by the UK Government Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS; OESEA-16-76/OESEA-17-78) with support from the Natural Environment Research Council (NERC; INSITE Phase II NE/T010614/1 EcoSTAR), EU INTERREG (MarPAMM), and the Scottish Government (MMSS/002/15). DJFR's contribution was funded by NERC National Capability Funding (NE/R015007/1). WJG was supported by INSITE Phase I (MAPS). Telemetry tags and their deployment were funded in the UK by BEIS (and previous incarnations), NERC, Marine Scotland, Scottish Government, NatureScot, SMRU, SMRU Instrumentation Group, Marine Current Turbines, Ørsted, the Met Office, the Zoological Society of London (ZSL), the Crown Estate, Highlands & Islands Enterprise, Moray Firth Renewables Limited (MORL), Beatrice Offshore Windfarm Limited (BOWL), SITA Trust, BBC Wildlife Fund and the Hampshire & Isle of Wight Wildlife Trust. Tags and their deployment in Ireland were funded by Inland Fisheries Ireland, the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources, the Higher Education Authority of Ireland, the National Geographic Society, the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine, and the National Parks and Wildlife Service. UK aerial surveys conducted by SMRU were funded by NERC (NE/R015007/1), NatureScot, the Department for Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs (Northern Ireland), Marine Current Turbines, Marine Scotland, Natural England, and Scottish Power. Aerial surveys in Ireland were funded by the Department for Tourism, Culture, Arts, Gaeltacht, Sport and Media. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS We thank Matt Bivins (SMRU), Phil Lovell (SMRU Instrumentation Group), and the many people who were involved in or facilitated fieldwork, including landowners and reserve managers. We are grateful to Dr Carol Sparling (SMRU), Dr Sophie Smout (SMRU) and Prof. Philip Hammond (SMRU) for useful discussions. We thank Hartley Anderson Ltd. for their support and guidance. This study is dedicated to the memory of Dr Bernie McConnell; ...

Analysis was funded by the UK Government Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS; OESEA-16-76/OESEA-17-78) with support from the Natural Environment Research Council (NERC; INSITE Phase II NE/T010614/1 EcoSTAR), EU INTERREG (MarPAMM), and the Scottish Government (MMSS/002/15). DJFR's contribution was funded by NERC National Capability Funding (NE/R015007/1). WJG was supported by INSITE Phase I (MAPS). Telemetry tags and their deployment were funded in the UK by BEIS (and previous incarnations), NERC, Marine Scotland, Scottish Government, NatureScot, SMRU, SMRU Instrumentation Group, Marine Current Turbines, Ørsted, the Met Office, the Zoological Society of London (ZSL), the Crown Estate, Highlands & Islands Enterprise, Moray Firth Renewables Limited (MORL), Beatrice Offshore Windfarm Limited (BOWL), SITA Trust, BBC Wildlife Fund and the Hampshire & Isle of Wight Wildlife Trust. Tags and their deployment in Ireland were funded by Inland Fisheries Ireland, the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources, the Higher Education Authority of Ireland, the National Geographic Society, the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine, and the National Parks and Wildlife Service. UK aerial surveys conducted by SMRU were funded by NERC (NE/R015007/1), NatureScot, the Department for Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs (Northern Ireland), Marine Current Turbines, Marine Scotland, Natural England, and Scottish Power. Aerial surveys in Ireland were funded by the Department for Tourism, Culture, Arts, Gaeltacht, Sport and Media. ; Marine predator populations are crucial to the structure and functioning of ecosystems. Like many predator taxa, pinnipeds face an increasingly complex array of natural and anthropogenic threats. Understanding the relationship between at-sea processes and trends in abundance at land-based monitoring sites requires robust estimates of at-sea distribution, often on multi-region scales. Such an understanding is critical for effective conservation ...