Science for Environment Policy FUTURE BRIEF: Underwater Noise

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

Science for Environment Policy FUTURE BRIEF: Underwater Noise Science for Environment Policy FUTURE BRIEF: Underwater Noise June 2013 Issue 7 Revised version* Environment *This version of the report, published on 30 October 2013, replaces the earlier versions published on 28 June 2013 and 2 September 2013. Science for Environment Policy This Future Brief is written and edited by the Science Underwater Noise Communication Unit, University of the West of England (UWE), Bristol Email: [email protected] Contents To cite this publication: Science Communication Unit, University of the West of England, Bristol (2012). Science for Environment Policy Future Introduction 3 Brief: Underwater Noise. Report produced for the European Types and sources of underwater noise 4 Commission DG Environment, June 2013. Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/science-environment-policy Impacts of underwater noise on marine life 4 The ultimate effects of underwater noise on people and society 6 Acknowledgements We wish to thank Rene Dekeling of the Ministry of Monitoring underwater noise 6 Infrastructure and the Environment, Netherlands, and Mark Reducing the impact of underwater noise 7 Tasker of the Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC), Knowledge gaps 7 UK, for their input to this report. Final responsibility for the content and accuracy of the report, however, lies solely with Summary 7 the author. Images Page 3: ©istockphoto.com/ultramarinfoto. Page 4: Corrigenda ©istockphoto.com/Brad Martin. Page 4: ©istockphoto.com/ crisod. This version of the report, published on 30 October 2013, replaces the earlier versions published on 2nd September 2013 and 28th June 2013. Following consideration of comments received on the Underwater Noise Future Brief, elements of the text have been modified as follows: Amendments made on 30 October 2013: Section 1, Types and sources of underwater noise, page 4. This has been amended to acknowledge that "mid frequency naval sonar may be harmful to marine mammals". About Science for Environment Policy Section 2.1. Physical damage, page 4. To better reflect the scientific consensus, the second paragraph has been revised. It draws attention to research (Frantzis, 1998) that indicates that Science for Environment Policy is a free news noise produced by military sonar can cause stranding in beaked whales and provides information and information service published by the European taken from a report by the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (2005) on the possible mechanisms that may lead to stranding. Commission’s Directorate-General Environment, which provides the latest environmental policy- Amendments made on 2nd September 2013: relevant research findings. Introduction, page 3. To acknowledge existing uncertainty surrounding the evidence, the statement ‘Currently these requirements pose a challenge, particularly considering the limited Future Briefs are a feature of the service, evidence on sounds impacts” has been changed to: ‘Currently these requirements pose a challenge, introduced in 2011, which provide expert forecasts particularly considering the difficulties of generalising based on existing evidence from a range of of environmental policy issues on the horizon. In different species and noise sources.” addition to Future Briefs, Science for Environment Section 2.4. The balance of effects, page 6. To acknowledge existing uncertainty surrounding Policy also publishes a weekly News Alert which the evidence, the statement "As current evidence suggests that noise only rarely kills marine animals, is delivered by email to subscribers and provides those pressures that do very often kill marine species, such as fishing and pollution, could be considered accessible summaries of key scientific studies. more important”, has been changed to “As it remains an open question how many marine animals are killed by noise, those pressures that are known to kill marine species, such as fishing and pollution, could be considered more important.” http://ec.europa.eu/science-environment-policy Summary, page 7. To account for the broad range of noise sources, the statement the summary “Underwater noise from shipping, energy production, fishing and tourism”, has been modified to “Underwater noise from sources including shipping, energy production, fishing and tourism”. Keep up-to-date The following references have been added to support information provided in the report: Subscribe to Science for Environment Policy’s Frantzis (1998); International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (2005); Løkkeborg et al. (2010). weekly News Alert by emailing: [email protected] The contents and views included in Science for Environment Or sign up online at: Policy are based on independent research and do not necessarily reflect the position of the European Commission. http://ec.europa.eu/science-environment-policy 3 Introduction Underwater Noise The oceans are increasingly exposed to sounds from human activities, such as shipping and the building of foundations for offshore construction projects. What impact do these sounds have on species that inhabit the marine environment? This Future Brief from Science for Environment Policy explores existing research on the ecological effects of underwater sound. Key gaps in our knowledge are also highlighted, and potential strategies for reducing negative impacts on marine species are outlined. Underwater noise is an important aspect of the Marine addition, under the Habitats Directive, noise is regarded Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD), which aims as a disturbance that may have detrimental effects on to achieve good environmental status (GES) of the wildlife, including marine life. In particular, it prohibits European marine environment by 2020. Noise is deliberate disturbances that affect populations of defined here as sound that causes negative effects. protected species and their ability to survive, breed and rear their young (European Commission, 2007). GES is defined according to a set of 11 broad indicators or ‘descriptors’1, including those focusing on biological However, as part of the MSFD roadmap, EU Member diversity, fish populations and marine litter. Descriptor States will need to address sound more directly and 11 focuses on energy inputs, including underwater work together in shared waters to achieve GES as noise. In February 2012, the MSFD Technical Subgroup defined under descriptor 11. This will involve defining on Underwater Noise delivered a report to the European potentially harmful levels of underwater sound, and Commission, providing guidance on implementing putting in place monitoring systems (by 2014) and aspects of the MSFD under descriptor 11 (Van Der measures (by 2015) that will be needed if underwater Graaf et al, 2012). sound needs to be reduced. Currently these requirements pose a challenge, particularly considering the difficulties Some existing measures indirectly control sound in of generalising based on existing evidence from a range European waters. For example, permits for pile-driving of different species and noise sources. – the sinking of pole-like foundations – are granted based on Environmental Impact Assessments. In 1. http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/marine/ges.htm UNDERWATER NOISE 4 1. Types and sources of underwater noise Sound travels rapidly through water – four times faster than through air. As in open air, sounds are transmitted in water as a pressure wave. They can be loud or soft, high- or low-pitched, constant or intermittent, and volume decreases with increasing distance from source. Sound pressure is most commonly measured in decibels (dB). Underwater noise (as viewed by the MSFD) has been divided into two main types: • Impulsive: loud, intermittent or infrequent noises, such as those generated by piling, and seismic surveys • Continuous: lower-level constant noises, such as those generated by shipping and wind turbines These two types of MSFD-related noise have different impacts on marine life. In addition, mid-frequency naval sonar may be harmful to marine mammals. The frequency, or pitch, of the noise is also important, as animals are sensitive to different frequencies. For instance, most of the noise produced by leisure boats is low frequency, below 1.5 kilohertz (kHz). Although most sensitive to sounds above 15 kHz, bottlenose dolphins could be disturbed by these boat noises because Studies suggest that the loud noises used by seismic survey ships to map the geology of the oceans and seas can they hear in the wider range 0.075 - 150 kHz and some affect the hearing and behaviour of some marine species. calls, thought to be food-related, are below 2 kHz (Rako et al, 2013). The underwater environment is becoming noisier in some areas as it is increasingly exploited (Subsidiary ‘The underwater environment is becoming noisier in some Body on Scientific, Technical and Technological Advice, 2012). Diminishing resources mean that we are turning areas as it is increasingly exploited.’ to the oceans to generate our energy, by building offshore installations, and to mine precious minerals, and fishermen use sonar to tell them where to fish. 2. Impacts of underwater noise on marine life Most of the research on the impacts of underwater noise has until 2.1 Physical damage recently focused on marine mammals, such as harbour porpoises. There has been less work to understand its effects on fish and other species. Studies on underwater noise have established that noise can cause permanent injury in some marine animals (Popper et al, 2005). In the In theory, the behaviour of any species with the ability
Recommended publications
  • Undersea Park America's First
    KEY LARGO CORAL REEF America's First i~jl Undersea Park By CHARLES M. BROOKFIELD Photographs by JERRY GREENBERG ,I, ,.;;!' MO ST within sight of the oceanside ~Ii palaces of Miami Beach, a pencil-thin il- Achain of islands begins its 221-mile sweep southwest to the Dry Tortugas. Just offshore, paralleling the scimitar plor%E 6 II curve of these Florida Keys, lies an under­ qy-q sea rampart of exquisite beauty-a living coral reef, the only one of its kind in United States continental waters. Brilliant tropical ~". fish dart about its multicolored coral gardens. Part of the magnificent reef, a segment rough­ ly 21 nautical miles long by 4 wide, off Key Largo, has been .dedicated as America's first undersea park. I know this reef intimately. For more than 30 years I have sailed its warm, clear waters and probed its shifting sands and bizarre for­ mations in quest of sunken ships and their treasure of artifacts. ',." Snorkel diver (opposite, right) glides above brain coral into a fantastic underseascape of elkhorn and staghom in the new preserve off Key Largo, Florida 1~¥~-4 - ce il\ln ·ii Here is a graveyard of countless brave sail­ uncover this interesting fact until two 'years 'ti: ing ships, Spanish galleons, English men-ot­ ago, when I learned that the Willche~lel"s ~j~ war, pirate vessels, and privateers foundered log had been saved. Writing to the Public h~l on the reefs hidden fangs. In the 19th century Record Office in London, I obtained photo­ alone, several hundred vessels met death static-copies of the last few pages.
    [Show full text]
  • Accuracy Assessment of Underwater Photogrammetric Three Dimensional Modelling for Coral Reefs
    The International Archives of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences, Volume XLI-B5, 2016 XXIII ISPRS Congress, 12–19 July 2016, Prague, Czech Republic ACCURACY ASSESSMENT OF UNDERWATER PHOTOGRAMMETRIC THREE DIMENSIONAL MODELLING FOR CORAL REEFS T. Guo a, *, A. Capra b, M. Troyer a, A. Gruen a, A. J. Brooks c, J. L. Hench d, R. J. Schmittc, S. J. Holbrook c, M. Dubbini e a Theoretical Physics, ETH Zurich, 8093 Zurich, Switzerland - (taguo, troyer)@phys.ethz.ch, [email protected] b Dept. of Engineering “Enzo Ferrari”, University of Modena and Reggio Emilia, via Pietro Vivarelli 10/1, 41125 Modena, Italy – [email protected] c Marine Science Institute, University of California, Santa Barbara. Santa Barbara, California 93106-6150, USA – [email protected], (schmitt, holbrook)@lifesci.ucsb.edu d Nicholas School of the Environment, Duke University, Beaufort, NC, USA - [email protected] e Dept. of History Culture Civilization – Headquarters of Geography, University of Bologna, via Guerrazzi 20, 40125 Bologna, Italy [email protected] Commission V, WG V/5 KEY WORDS: Photogrammetry, Underwater 3D Modelling, Accuracy Assessment, Calibration, Point Clouds, Coral Reefs, Coral Growth, Moorea ABSTRACT: Recent advances in automation of photogrammetric 3D modelling software packages have stimulated interest in reconstructing highly accurate 3D object geometry in unconventional environments such as underwater utilizing simple and low-cost camera systems. The accuracy of underwater 3D modelling is affected by more parameters than in single media cases. This study is part of a larger project on 3D measurements of temporal change of coral cover in tropical waters.
    [Show full text]
  • Ecological and Socio-Economic Impacts of Dive
    ECOLOGICAL AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF DIVE AND SNORKEL TOURISM IN ST. LUCIA, WEST INDIES Nola H. L. Barker Thesis submittedfor the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Environmental Science Environment Department University of York August 2003 Abstract Coral reefsprovide many servicesand are a valuableresource, particularly for tourism, yet they are suffering significant degradationand pollution worldwide. To managereef tourism effectively a greaterunderstanding is neededof reef ecological processesand the impactsthat tourist activities haveon them. This study explores the impact of divers and snorkelerson the reefs of St. Lucia, West Indies, and how the reef environmentaffects tourists' perceptionsand experiencesof them. Observationsof divers and snorkelersrevealed that their impact on the reefs followed certainpatterns and could be predictedfrom individuals', site and dive characteristics.Camera use, night diving and shorediving were correlatedwith higher levels of diver damage.Briefings by dive leadersalone did not reducetourist contactswith the reef but interventiondid. Interviewswith tourists revealedthat many choseto visit St. Lucia becauseof its marineprotected area. Certain site attributes,especially marine life, affectedtourists' experiencesand overall enjoyment of reefs.Tourists were not alwaysable to correctly ascertainabundance of marine life or sedimentpollution but they were sensitiveto, and disliked seeingdamaged coral, poor underwatervisibility, garbageand other tourists damagingthe reef. Some tourists found sitesto be
    [Show full text]
  • Overview of the Impacts of Anthropogenic Underwater Sound in the Marine Environment
    Overview of the impacts of anthropogenic underwater sound in the marine environment Biodiversity Series 2009 Overview of the impacts of anthropogenic underwater sound in the marine environment OSPAR Convention Convention OSPAR The Convention for the Protection of the La Convention pour la protection du milieu Marine Environment of the North-East Atlantic marin de l'Atlantique du Nord-Est, dite (the “OSPAR Convention”) was opened for Convention OSPAR, a été ouverte à la signature at the Ministerial Meeting of the signature à la réunion ministérielle des former Oslo and Paris Commissions in Paris anciennes Commissions d'Oslo et de Paris, on 22 September 1992. The Convention à Paris le 22 septembre 1992. La Convention entered into force on 25 March 1998. It has est entrée en vigueur le 25 mars 1998. been ratified by Belgium, Denmark, Finland, La Convention a été ratifiée par l'Allemagne, France, Germany, Iceland, Ireland, la Belgique, le Danemark, la Finlande, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, la France, l’Irlande, l’Islande, le Luxembourg, Sweden, Switzerland and the United Kingdom la Norvège, les Pays-Bas, le Portugal, and approved by the European Community le Royaume-Uni de Grande Bretagne and Spain. et d’Irlande du Nord, la Suède et la Suisse et approuvée par la Communauté européenne et l’Espagne. 2 OSPAR Commission, 2009 Acknowledgements Author list (in alphabetical order) Thomas Götz Scottish Oceans Institute, East Sands University of St Andrews St Andrews, Fife KY16 8LB [email protected] Module 2, 8 Gordon Hastie SMRU Limited New Technology Centre North Haugh St Andrews, Fife KY16 9SR [email protected] Module 2, 8 Leila T.
    [Show full text]
  • Full Document (Pdf 2154
    White Paper Research Project T1803, Task 35 Overwater Whitepaper OVERWATER STRUCTURES: MARINE ISSUES by Barbara Nightingale Charles A. Simenstad Research Assistant Senior Fisheries Biologist School of Marine Affairs School of Aquatic and Fishery Sciences University of Washington Seattle, Washington 98195 Washington State Transportation Center (TRAC) University of Washington, Box 354802 University District Building 1107 NE 45th Street, Suite 535 Seattle, Washington 98105-4631 Washington State Department of Transportation Technical Monitor Patricia Lynch Regulatory and Compliance Program Manager, Environmental Affairs Prepared for Washington State Transportation Commission Department of Transportation and in cooperation with U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration May 2001 WHITE PAPER Overwater Structures: Marine Issues Submitted to Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Washington Department of Ecology Washington Department of Transportation Prepared by Barbara Nightingale and Charles Simenstad University of Washington Wetland Ecosystem Team School of Aquatic and Fishery Sciences May 9, 2001 Note: Some pages in this document have been purposefully skipped or blank pages inserted so that this document will copy correctly when duplexed. TECHNICAL REPORT STANDARD TITLE PAGE 1. REPORT NO. 2. GOVERNMENT ACCESSION NO. 3. RECIPIENT'S CATALOG NO. WA-RD 508.1 4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 5. REPORT DATE Overwater Structures: Marine Issues May 2001 6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE 7. AUTHOR(S) 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO. Barbara Nightingale, Charles Simenstad 9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS 10. WORK UNIT NO. Washington State Transportation Center (TRAC) University of Washington, Box 354802 11. CONTRACT OR GRANT NO. University District Building; 1107 NE 45th Street, Suite 535 Agreement T1803, Task 35 Seattle, Washington 98105-4631 12.
    [Show full text]
  • Review of Human Physiology in the Underwater Environment
    Available online at www.ijmrhs.com cal R edi ese M ar of c l h a & n r H u e o a J l l t h International Journal of Medical Research & a S n ISSN No: 2319-5886 o c i t i Health Sciences, 2019, 8(8): 117-121 e a n n c r e e t s n I • • IJ M R H S Review of Human Physiology in the Underwater Environment Oktiyas Muzaky Luthfi1,2* 1 Marine Science University of Brawijaya, Malang, Indonesia 2 Fisheries Diving School, University of Brawijaya, Malang, Indonesia *Corresponding e-mail: [email protected] ABSTRACT Since before centuries, human tries hard to explore underwater and in 1940’s human-introduced an important and revolutionary gear i.e. scuba that allowed human-made long interaction in the underwater world. Since diving using pressure gas under pressure environment, it should be considered to remember gas law (Boyle’s law). The gas law gives a clear understanding of physiological consequences related to diving diseases such as barotrauma or condition in which tissue or organ is damage due to gas pressure. The organ which has direct effect related to compression and expansion of gas were lungs, ear, and sinus. These organs were common and potentially fatigue injury for a diver. In this article we shall review the history of scuba diving, physical stress caused underwater environment, physiology adaptation of lung, ear, and sinus, and diving disease. Keywords: Barotrauma, Boyle’s law, Scuba, Barine, Physical stress INTRODUCTION The underwater world is a place where many people dream to explore it.
    [Show full text]
  • 10 Ways Divers Can Help
    iver n Ways a D Can Protect Te the Underwater Environment 1. Dive carefully to protect fragile aquatic ecosystems 6. Be an ecotourist Many aquatic organisms are delicate and can be harmed by Make informed decisions when selecting a destination and the bump of a camera, the swipe of a fin or even the gentle choose Project AWARE Environmental Operators or other touch of a hand. Some aquatic organisms like corals grow facilities dedicated to sustainable business practices. Obey very slowly and breaking even a small piece can destroy all local laws and regulations and understand your effect on decades of growth. By being careful you can prevent long- the environment. Don’t collect souvenirs like corals or shells. term damage to magnificent dive sites. Instead, take underwater photos and follow Project AWARE’s 10 Tips for Underwater Photographers. 2. Be aware of your body and equipment placement when diving 7. Respect underwater cultural heritage Keep your gauges and alternate air source secured so they Divers are privileged to access dive sites that are part of our don’t drag over the reef or other vital habitat. Control your cultural heritage and maritime history. Wrecks can also serve buoyancy, taking care not to touch fragile organisms with as important habitats for fish and other aquatic life. Help your body or equipment. You can do your part and prevent preserve these sites for future generations by obeying local injury to aquatic life every time you dive. laws, diving responsibly and treating wrecks with respect. 3. Keep your dive skills sharp 8.
    [Show full text]
  • Researching the Great Barrier Reef Supporting Virtual Reef Diver, Supports Monitoring Our Reefs! Virtual Reef Diver
    SUPPORTING VIRTUAL REEF DIVER, SUPPORTS MONITORING OUR REEFS! The more images we have of the reef and the more people who classify each of these images, the more information can be extracted from the data during the modelling process. RESEARCHING THE GREAT BARRIER REEF The Great Barrier Reef was designated a World Heritage Area in 1981 and is the largest coral reef ecosystem on earth, with over 2,900 coral reefs spread over approximately 348,000 km2. This biologically diverse underwater environment supports over 1,500 fish and 600 coral species, alongside thousands of molluscs, marine ma mals, sea turtles and birds. An enormous amount of effort is invested in monitoring the Great Barrier Reef, with dozens of publicly and privately funded monitoring programs in place, run by research institutions, government agencies, reef-based industries, citizen-science groups, and traditional owners. However, no single organisation can monitor the entire Great Barrier Reef on its own. The motivation for the Virtual Reef Diver project was to find a way to make use of all the existing monitoring data VIRTUAL REEF DIVER collected by these organisations, and to look for other innovative ways to obtain new data in a cost-effective manner. Institute for Future Environments QUT Gardens Point Campus 2 George Street, Brisbane QLD 4000 Australia +61 412 160 067 [email protected] www.virtualreef.org.au WWW.VIRTUALREEF.ORG.AU Monitorning the Great Barrier Reef © 2018. Produced by Virtual Reef Diver. Queensland University of Technology Photos: Trevor Smith, Terry through education, outreach, and Cummins and Virtual Reef Diver. monitoring.
    [Show full text]
  • Survey of Temperature Variation Effect on Underwater Acoustic Wireless Transmission Ghada ZAÏBI*, Nejah NASRI*, Abdennaceur KACHOURI* and Mounir SAMET *
    SETIT 2009 5th International Conference: Sciences of Electronic, Technologies of Information and Telecommunications March 22-26, 2009 – TUNISIA Survey Of Temperature Variation Effect On Underwater Acoustic Wireless Transmission Ghada ZAÏBI*, Nejah NASRI*, Abdennaceur KACHOURI* and Mounir SAMET * * Laboratory of Electronics and Technologies of Information (LETI) National School of Engineers of Sfax B.P.W, 3038 Sfax, Tunisia [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Abstract: In acoustic channel it is known that low available bandwidth, highly varying multipath, large propagation delays, noise and physical channel properties variation, in addition to the power consumption restrict the efficiency of underwater wireless acoustic systems. The physical characteristics of Mediterranean channel such as depth, salinity and especially temperature influence the acoustic signal attenuation, the SNR level, error ratio and the signal bandwidth. It seems to be crucial to introduce these parameters in the underwater channel model of the underwater wireless communication network. The goal of this paper is to highlight the impact of the temperature variation at shallow sea on the acoustic signal attenuation and error ratio and explain the relationship between temperature and SNR as well as the optimal frequency of the transmitted signal. Key words: optimal frequency, SNR, temperature, underwater acoustic channel. as temperature, salinity and depth variation [SOZ 00], [WON 05], [COP 82]. INTRODUCTION This article characterizes the underwater channel In spite of the use of electromagnetic wave, especially and presents its physical characteristics survey as well radio wave in the mobile radio communications, its as its parameters variation effect on the acoustic signal propagation in underwater environment is limited in attenuation.
    [Show full text]
  • An Upwelling Radiance Distribution Camera System, NURADS
    An Upwelling Radiance Distribution Camera System, NURADS Kenneth J. Voss and Albert L. Chapin Physics Department, University of Miami, Coral Gables, Fl. 33124 [email protected] Abstract: We have built a new instrument to measure the in-water spectral upwelling radiance distribution. This instrument measures the radiance distribution at six wavelengths and obtains a complete suite of measurements (6 spectral data images with associated dark images) in approximately 2 minutes (in clear water). This instrument is much smaller than previous instruments (0.3 m in diameter and 0.3 m long), decreasing the instrument self-shading. It also has improved performance resulting from enhanced sensor sensitivity and a more subtle lens rolloff effect. We describe the instrument, its characterization, and show data examples from both clear and turbid water. ©2004 Optical Society of America OCIS codes: References and Links 1. Tyler, J.E. 1960. Radiance distribution as a function of depth in an underwater environment. Bull. Scripps Inst. Oceanogr. 7: 363-41. 2. Aas, E., and N. K. Hojerslev. 1999. Analysis of underwater radiance distribution observations: apparent optical properties and analytical functions describing the angular radiance distributions. J. Geophys. Res. 104: 8015 - 8024. 3. Smith, R. C., R. W. Austin and J. E. Tyler. 1970. An oceanographic radiance distribution camera system. Appl. Opt. 9: 2015-2022. 4. Voss, K. J. 1989. Electro-optic camera system for measurement of the underwater radiance distribution. Optical Engineering. 28: 241-247. 5. Voss, K. J. and A. L. Chapin. 1992. Next generation in-water radiance distribution camera system. Proc. Soc. Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers, 1759: 384 - 387.
    [Show full text]
  • Assessment of the Effects of Noise and Vibration from Offshore Wind Farms on Marine Wildlife
    ASSESSMENT OF THE EFFECTS OF NOISE AND VIBRATION FROM OFFSHORE WIND FARMS ON MARINE WILDLIFE ETSU W/13/00566/REP DTI/Pub URN 01/1341 Contractor University of Liverpool, Centre for Marine and Coastal Studies Environmental Research and Consultancy Prepared by G Vella, I Rushforth, E Mason, A Hough, R England, P Styles, T Holt, P Thorne The work described in this report was carried out under contract as part of the DTI Sustainable Energy Programmes. The views and judgements expressed in this report are those of the contractor and do not necessarily reflect those of the DTI. First published 2001 i © Crown copyright 2001 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Main objectives of the report Energy Technology Support Unit (ETSU), on behalf of the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) commissioned the Centre for Marine and Coastal Studies (CMACS) in October 2000, to assess the effect of noise and vibration from offshore wind farms on marine wildlife. The key aims being to review relevant studies, reports and other available information, identify any gaps and uncertainties in the current data and make recommendations, with outline methodologies, to address these gaps. Introduction The UK has 40% of Europe ’s total potential wind resource, with mean annual offshore wind speeds, at a reference of 50m above sea level, of between 7m/s and 9m/s. Research undertaken by the British Wind Energy Association suggests that a ‘very good ’ site for development would have a mean annual wind speed of 8.5m/s. The total practicable long-term energy yield for the UK, taking limiting factors into account, would be approximately 100 TWh/year (DTI, 1999).
    [Show full text]
  • The Drone Revolution of Shark Science: a Review
    drones Review The Drone Revolution of Shark Science: A Review Paul A. Butcher 1,2,* , Andrew P. Colefax 3, Robert A. Gorkin III 4 , Stephen M. Kajiura 5 , Naima A. López 6 , Johann Mourier 7 , Cormac R. Purcell 8,9 , Gregory B. Skomal 10, James P. Tucker 2, Andrew J. Walsh 3,8, Jane E. Williamson 11 and Vincent Raoult 12 1 NSW Department of Primary Industries, National Marine Science Centre, P.O. Box 4321, Coffs Harbour, NSW 2450, Australia 2 School of Environment, Science and Engineering, Southern Cross University, National Marine Science Centre, Coffs Harbour, NSW 2450, Australia; [email protected] 3 Sci-eye, P.O. Box 4202, Goonellabah, NSW 2480, Australia; [email protected] (A.P.C.); [email protected] (A.J.W.) 4 SMART Infrastructure Facility, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, NSW 2522, Australia; [email protected] 5 Department of Biological Sciences, Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton, FL 33431, USA; [email protected] 6 Marine Futures Lab, School of Biological Sciences, University of Western Australia, Crawley, WA 6009, Australia; [email protected] 7 UMS 3514 Plateforme Marine Stella Mare, Université de Corse Pasquale Paoli, 20620 Biguglia, France; [email protected] 8 Department of Physics and Astronomy, Faculty of Science and Engineering, Macquarie University, Sydney, NSW 2109, Australia; [email protected] 9 Sydney Institute for Astronomy (SIfA), School of Physics, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia 10 Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries, 836 South Rodney
    [Show full text]