University of St Andrews

1. 2010 Ocean Science Meeting Marine Mammals in a Renewable Age - Review of Monitoring, Mitigation and Data Needs. Marine Mammal Society Conference Workshop, Ottawa 2009. D. J. Tollit; N. Quick; S. Du Fresne; G. Hastie University of St Andrews

2. 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.

3. Why SMRU Ltd 6 year multi-scale BACI study of MCT SeaGen turbine Aerial Surveys Active Sonar MMOs Seal Telemetry Passive Acoustics

4. Key Workshop Conclusions Huge variety of devices – stressors and potential risks will vary considerably – requires individual studies of different design concepts within device families • Anticlockwise from left • Clean Current • MCT, Oyster, Pelamis

5. Key Workshop Conclusions 2) Location, Location, Location Wide-scale - Variation in species presence and abundance Fine-scale - Variation in species habitat use (area/depth) Device impact may vary by device location (e.g., noise propagation, deployment depth, current/far field effects) Variation in regulatory legislation across countries 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...........

6. An Adaptive Management Approach with Trigger Levels Monitoring performance standards www.smru.ac.uk

7. Key Workshop Conclusions • 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

8. Key Workshop Conclusions • 4) 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)

9. Key Workshop Conclusions • 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

10. Key Workshop Conclusions 6) Small scale changes in behaviour hard to detect over short periods even with good (~2 year) baseline Power analysis to estimate monitoring required to detect change in abundance

11. Key Workshop Conclusions 6) 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

12. Key Workshop Conclusions 7) 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 X-Y Tracks Inactive Operational

13. Key Workshop Conclusions 8) High-frequency active sonar has off-frequency noise ‘side-lobes’ that appears detectable (complicating behavioural studies)

14. Key Workshop Conclusions • 9) 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)

15. Key Workshop Conclusions • 10) 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)

16. 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

17. 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

18. New Tools Example 3: Possible integrated imaging Impact monitor

19. Key Workshop Conclusions • 11) 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

20. Thank You

21. Questions Questions? Contact: DJT@smru.co.uk Website: www.smru.co.uk