Estimating impacts of offshore windfarm construction on marine mammals requires data on displacement in relation to different noise levels and sources. Using echolocation detectors and noise recorders, we investigated harbour porpoise behavioural responses to piling noise during the 10-month foundation installation of a North Sea windfarm. Current UK guidance assumes total displacement within 26 km of pile driving. By contrast, we recorded a 50% probability of response within 7.4 km (95% CI = 5.7–9.4) at the first location piled, decreasing to 1.3 km (95% CI = 0.2–2.8) by the final location; representing 28% (95% CI = 21–35) and 18% (95% CI = 13–23) displacement of individuals within 26 km. Distance proved as good a predictor of responses as audiogram-weighted received levels, presenting a more practicable variable for environmental assessments. Critically, acoustic deterrent device (ADD) use and vessel activity increased response levels. Policy and management to minimize impacts of renewables on cetaceans have concentrated on pile-driving noise. Our results highlight the need to consider trade-offs between efforts to reduce far-field behavioural disturbance and near-field injury through ADD use.

Click on the article title to read more.

Management interventions to reduce human–wildlife conflict can have unintended consequences for non‐target species. Acoustic deterrent devices (ADDs) are used globally by the aquaculture sector. However, the potential for these sound emissions to impact non‐target species, such as cetaceans, has not yet been quantified at population relevant spatial scales. To better understand the extent of potential impacts on cetaceans, such as harbour porpoises, we used acoustic modelling to investigate levels of ADD noise throughout the west coast of Scotland and across a Special Area of Conservation (SAC) for this species. Using an energy‐flux acoustic propagation model and data on aquaculture sites known to be using ADDs, we predicted the spatial extent of ADD noise on the Scottish west coast from 1 February 2017 to 31 January 2018. Noise maps were produced to determine the risk of auditory impairment for harbour porpoises under a range of scenarios which assumed single or multiple ADDs and simultaneous use across all sites. The acoustic propagation model performed well when tested against field measurements up to 5 km, with 98% of sound exposure level (SEL) predictions within ±10% of the measurements. Predictions of SELs over a 24‐hr period suggested extensive temporary hearing loss zones (median radius: ~28 km) for harbour porpoises around aquaculture sites. Assuming a single device at each site, 23% of the harbour porpoise SAC was predicted to be exposed to ADD noise sufficient to induce a temporary threshold shift, and under the worst‐case scenario (multiple, continuously running devices per site with an aggregate duty cycle of 100%), levels exceeding permanent threshold shift could reach 0.9% of the SAC. Policy implications. This study highlights the potential for ‘collateral damage’ from interventions such as acoustic deterrent devices (ADDs) which are intended to reduce human–wildlife conflicts with pinnipeds but may affect the long‐term health and habitat use of non‐target species. This is especially true for harbour porpoises which are protected under the EU and UK Habitats Regulations. The aquaculture industry, policymakers and regulators in countries where ADDs are used should consider these findings when attempting to mitigate pinniped depredation.

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. 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. 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. 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.