年科学状况报告全文.pdf

OES-ENVIRONMENTAL 2020 State of the Science Report ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF MARINE RENEWABLE ENERGY DEVELOPMENT AROUND THE WORLD i OES-ENVIRONMENTAL 2020 State of the Science Report ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF MARINE RENEWABLE ENERGY DEVELOPMENT AROUND THE WORLD SEPTEMBER 2020 A report prepared by Pacific Northwest National Laboratory on behalf of the U.S. Department of Energy (the OES-Environmental Operating Agent) and other participating nations under the International Energy Agency (IEA) Ocean Energy Systems initiative (OES). SUGGESTED CITATION The suggested citation for this report is: Copping, A.E. and Hemery, L.G., editors. 2020. OES-Environmental 2020 State of the Science Report: Environmental Effects of Marine Renewable Energy Development Around the World. Report for Ocean Energy Systems (OES). doi:10.2172/1632878 DISCLAIMER The OES, also known as the Implementing Agreement on Ocean Energy Systems, functions within a framework created by the International Energy Agency (IEA). Views, findings, and publications of the OES do not necessarily represent the views or policies of the IEA Secretariat or of all its individual member countries. Neither the authors nor the participating organizations nor the funding organizations make any warranty or representations, expressed or implied, with respect to use of any information contained in this report, or assume any liabilities with respect to use of or for damages resulting from the use of any information disclosed in this document. Go to https://tethys​.pnnl.gov for a comprehensive collection of papers, reports, archived presentations, and other media about environmental effects of marine renewable energy development. REPORT AND MORE INFORMATION CONTACT OES-Environmental 2020 State of the Science full report and executive summary available at: https://tethys​.pnnl.gov/publications/state-of-the​-science-2020 Andrea Copping Pacific Northwest National Laboratory andrea.copping@pnnl.gov +1 206.528.3049 ii OES-ENVIRONMENTAL 2020 STATE OF THE SCIENCE REPORT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF MARINE RENEWABLE ENERGY DEVELOPMENT AROUND THE WORLD Operating Agent Samantha Eaves, Ph.D., U.S. Department Of Energy Authors Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (United States) Andrea E. Copping, Ph.D. Lenaïg G. Hemery, Ph.D. Jonathan M. Whiting, PE Lysel Garavelli, Ph.D. Mikaela C. Freeman Robert J. Cavagnaro, Ph.D. Robert P. Mueller Alicia M. Gorton, Ph.D. Aquatera Limited and Nova Innovation Limited (United Kingdom) Kate Smith, Ph.D. Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science (United Kingdom) Andrew B. Gill, Ph.D. Marieke Desender, Ph.D. Dalhousie University (Canada) David R. Barclay, Ph.D. European Marine Energy Centre (United Kingdom) Caitlin Long Fundy Ocean Research Center for Energy (Canada) Daniel J. Hasselman, Ph.D. Independent Researcher (United States) Louise P. McGarry Integral Consulting Inc. (United States) Grace Chang, Ph.D. MaREI, University of College Cork (Ireland) Anne Marie O’Hagan, Ph.D. Célia Le Lièvre, Ph.D. SMRU Consulting (United Kingdom) Carol E. Sparling, Ph.D. University of Alaska Fairbanks (United States) Andrew C. Seitz, Ph.D. University of the Highland and Islands (United Kingdom) Elizabeth Masden, Ph.D. Benjamin J. Williamson, Ph.D. University Of St. Andrews (United Kingdom) Carol E. Sparling, Ph.D. Douglas M. Gillespie, Ph.D. Gordon D. Hastie, Ph.D. University of Washington (United States) Brian Polagye, Ph.D. Christopher Bassett, Ph.D. Emma Cotter, Ph.D. John K. Horne, Ph.D. James Joslin, Ph.D. Contributors U.S. Department of Energy Samantha Eaves, Ph.D. Pacific Northwest National Laboratory Deborah J. Rose Hayley K. Farr Dorian M. Overhus Levy G. Tugade Garrett J. Staines Susan Ennor Aquatera Limited Ian Hutchison Jennifer Fox University of the Highland and Islands Natalie Isaksson Sustainable Marine Energy, Ltd. (Canada) Craig Chandler iii ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF MARINE RENEWABLE ENERGY DEVELOPMENT AROUND THE WORLD When citing this report in its entirety, please use the following citation: Copping, A.E. and Hemery, L.G., editors. 2020. OES-Environmental 2020 State of the Science Report: Environmental Effects of Marine Renewable Energy Development Around the World. Report for Ocean Energy Systems (OES). doi:10.2172/1632878 When citing individual chapter, please use the individual chapter citations below. Chapter 4 Risk to Marine Animals from Underwater Noise Generated by Marine Renewable Energy Devices Polagye, B. and C. Bassett. 2020. Risk to Marine Animals from Underwater Noise Generated by Marine Renewable Energy Devices. In A.E. Copping and L.G. Hemery (Eds.), OES-Environmental 2020 State of the Science Report: Environmental Effects of Marine Renewable Energy Development Around the World. Report for Ocean Energy Systems (OES). (pp. 66-85). doi:10.2172/1633082 Chapter 5 Section A –Introduction Chapter 1 Marine Renewable Energy and Ocean Energy Systems Copping, A.E. 2020. Marine Renewable Energy and Ocean Energy Systems. In A.E. Copping and L.G. Hemery (Eds.), OES-Environmental 2020 State of the Science Report: Environmental Effects of Marine Renewable Energy Development Around the World. Report for Ocean Energy Systems (OES). (pp. 2-17). doi:10.2172/1632879 Chapter 2 Marine Renewable Energy: Environmental Effects and Monitoring Strategies Copping, A.E 2020. Marine Renewable Energy: Environmental Effects and Monitoring Strategies. In A.E. Copping and L.G. Hemery (Eds.), OES-Environmental 2020 State of the Science Report: Environmental Effects of Marine Renewable Energy Development Around the World. Report for Ocean Energy Systems (OES). (pp. 18-26). doi:10.2172/1632880 Section B – Current Knowledge of Key Device Interactions with the Marine Environment Chapter 3 Collision Risk for Animals Around Turbines Sparling, C.E., A.C. Seitz, E. Masden, and K. Smith. 2020. Collision Risk for Animals around Turbines. In A.E. Copping and L.G. Hemery (Eds.), OES-Environmental 2020 State of the Science Report: Environmental Effects of Marine Renewable Energy Development Around the World. Report for Ocean Energy Systems (OES). (pp. 28-65). doi:10.2172/1632881 iv Risk to Animals from Electromagnetic Fields Emitted by Electric Cables and Marine Renewable Energy Devices Gill, A.B. and M. Desender. 2020. Risk to Animals from Electromagnetic Fields Emitted by Electric Cables and Marine Renewable Energy Devices. In A.E. Copping and L.G. Hemery (Eds.), OESEnvironmental 2020 State of the Science Report: Environmental Effects of Marine Renewable Energy Development Around the World. Report for Ocean Energy Systems (OES). (pp. 86-103). doi:10.2172/1633088 Chapter 6 Changes in Benthic and Pelagic Habitats Caused by Marine Renewable Energy Devices Hemery, L.G. 2020. Changes in Benthic and Pelagic Habitats Caused by Marine Renewable Energy Devices. In A.E. Copping and L.G. Hemery (Eds.), OES-Environmental 2020 State of the Science Report: Environmental Effects of Marine Renewable Energy Development Around the World. Report for Ocean Energy Systems (OES). (pp. 104-125). doi:10.2172/1633182 Chapter 7 Changes in Oceanographic Systems Associated with Marine Renewable Energy Devices Whiting, J.M. and G. Chang. 2020. Changes in Oceanographic Systems Associated with Marine Renewable Energy Devices. In A.E. Copping and L.G. Hemery (Eds.), OES-Environmental 2020 State of the Science Report: Environmental Effects of Marine Renewable Energy Development Around the World. Report for Ocean Energy Systems (OES). (pp. 126-145). doi:10.2172/1633183 OES-ENVIRONMENTAL 2020 STATE OF THE SCIENCE REPORT Chapter 8 Encounters of Marine Animals with Marine Renewable Energy Device Mooring Systems and Subsea Cables Garavelli, L. 2020. Encounters of Marine Animals with Marine Renewable Energy Device Mooring Systems and Subsea Cables. In A.E. Copping and L.G. Hemery (Eds.), OES-Environmental 2020 State of the Science Report: Environmental Effects of Marine Renewable Energy Development Around the World. Report for Ocean Energy Systems (OES). (pp. 146-153). doi:10.2172/1633184 Chapter 9 Social and Economic Data Collection for Marine Renewable Energy Freeman, M.C. 2020. Social and Economic Data Collection for Marine Renewable Energy. In A.E. Copping and L.G. Hemery (Eds.), OES-Environmental 2020 State of the Science Report: Environmental Effects of Marine Renewable Energy Development Around the World. Report for Ocean Energy Systems (OES). (pp. 154-174). doi:10.2172/1633195 Section D– Strategies for Accelerating Permitting/ Consenting Chapter 11 Marine Spatial Planning and Marine Renewable Energy O’Hagan, A.M. 2020. Marine Spatial Planning and Marine Renewable Energy. In A.E. Copping and L.G. Hemery (Eds.), OES-Environmental 2020 State of the Science Report: Environmental Effects of Marine Renewable Energy Development Around the World. Report for Ocean Energy Systems (OES). (pp. 214-241). doi:10.2172/1633204 Chapter 12 Adaptive Management Related to Marine Renewable Energy Le Lièvre, C. 2020. Adaptive Management Related to Maritime Renewable Energy. In A.E. Copping and L.G. Hemery (Eds.), OESEnvironmental 2020 State of the Science Report: Environmental Effects of Marine Renewable Energy Development Around the World. Report for Ocean Energy Systems (OES). (pp. 242-261). doi:10.2172/1633206 Chapter 13 Section C – Environmental Monitoring Chapter 10 Environmental Monitoring Technologies and Techniques for Detecting Interactions of Marine Animals with Turbines Hasselman, D.J., D.R. Barclay, R.J. Cavagnaro, C. Chandler, E. Cotter, D.M. Gillespie, G.D. Hastie, J.K. Horne, J. Joslin, C. Long, L.P. McGarry, R.P. Mueller, C.E. Sparling, and B.J. Williamson. 2020. Environmental Monitoring Technologies and Techniques for Detecting interactions of Marine Animals with Turbines. In A.E. Copping and L.G. Hemery (Eds.), OES-Environmental 2020 State of the Science Report: Environmental Effects of Marine Renewable Energy Development Around the World. Report for Ocean Energy Systems (OES). (pp. 176-212). doi:10.2172/1633202 Risk Retirement and Data Transferability for Marine Renewable Energy Copping, A.E., M.C. Freeman, A.M Gorton, and L.G. Hemery. 2020. Risk Retirement and Data Transferability for Marine Renewable Energy. In A.E. Copping and L.G. Hemery (Eds.), OES-Environmental 2020 State of the Science Report: Environmental Effects of Marine Renewable Energy Development Around the World. Report for Ocean Energy Systems (OES). (pp. 262-278). doi:10.2172/1633208 Section E – Looking Ahead Chapter 14 Summary and Path Forward Copping, A.E. 2020. Summary and Path forward. In A.E. Copping and L.G. Hemery (Eds.), OES-Environmental 2020 State of the Science Report: Environmental Effects of Marine Renewable Energy Development Around the World. Report for Ocean Energy Systems (OES). (pp. 280-292). doi:10.2172/1633209 v AVAILABILITY OF REPORT A PDF file of this report is available at: https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/state-of-the​-science-2020 OES-ENVIRONMENTAL COUNTRY REPRESENTATIVES ◆ Australia: Mark Hemer, CSIRO ◆ Canada: Anna Redden, Acadia University, Dan Hasselman, ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The U.S. Department of Energy and Ocean Energy Systems provided financial support for this effort. Partner nations contributed in-kind resources. We want to thank and acknowledge all of the researchers and developers who have contributed information to the OES-Environmental metadata collection effort. We would also like to acknowledge support of the OES-Environmental initiative by Mary Boatman and Erin Trager, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (U.S.), and Candace Nachman, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (U.S.). We also thank Kelly Cunningham, Ryan Hull, and Matt Sturtevant at Pacific Northwest National Laboratory for their work on developing and maintaining the Tethys and OES-Environmental knowledge base, in addition to Mikaela Freeman, Hayley Farr, Dorian Overhus, Deborah Rose, Levy Tugade, Amy Woodbury, Cailene Gunn, Julia Indivero, Heidi Stewart, and Kailan Mackereth for assisting with the Tethys knowledge base content curation. Finally, we would like to thank those who provided the many helpful suggestions and review comments we used to improve this manuscript. Design and production: Robyn Ricks Illustrations: Rose Perry vi FORCE ◆ China: Qiwei Zhao, National Ocean Technology Center ◆ Denmark: Hans Chr Soerensen, Wave Dragon ◆ France: Nolwenn Quillien, Morgane Lejart, France Énergies Marines ◆ India: Purnima Jalihal, National Institute of Ocean Technology ◆ Ireland: Anne Marie O’Hagan, MaREI, University College Cork ◆ Japan: Daisuke Kitazawa, Takero Yoshida, University of tokyo ◆ Norway: Lars Golmen, Norwegian Institute for Water Research ◆ Portugal: Teresa Simas, WavEC – Offshore Renewables ◆ Spain: Juan Bald, AZTI-Tecnalia ◆ Sweden: Jan Sundberg, Uppsala University ◆ United Kingdom: Caitlin Long, European Marine Energy Centre ◆ United States: Andrea Copping, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory OES-ENVIRONMENTAL 2020 STATE OF THE SCIENCE REPORT ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS °C degrees Celsius DOE U.S. Department of Energy 2D two-dimensional DOEIMS 3D three-dimensional Development of an Ocean Energy Impact Monitoring System µPa micropascal(s) DRIP Data-Rich Information Poor µT microtesla(s) DVR digital video recorder µV microvolt(s) EERE Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy AC alternating current E-field electric field ADCP acoustic Doppler current profiler EIA environmental impact assessment ADV Acoustic Doppler Velocimeter EIS environmental impact statement AM adaptive management EMEC European Marine Energy Centre AMC Adaptive Management Committee EM electromagnetic AMP Adaptive Management Plan or Adaptable Monitoring Package EMF electromagnetic field EMP Environmental Monitoring Plan amp ampere(s) EnFAIT Enabling Future Arrays in Tidal amp hr ampere hour(s) ESA European Space Agency AMT Adaptive Management Team ETIP European Technology and Innovation Platform AZFP Acoustic Zooplankton and Fish Profiler ETI Energy Technologies Institute BACI before-after-control impact EwE Ecopath with Ecosim (modeling approach) B-field magnetic field EWTEC European Wave and Tidal Energy Conference BACI before-after-control-impact FAST Fundy Advanced Sensor Technology BMP best management practice FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission BOEM Bureau of Ocean Energy Management FLOWBEC Flow, Water Column and Benthic Ecology Ca2+ Calcium FORCE Fundy Ocean Research Centre for Energy CCTV closed-circuit television GIS geographic information system CI confidence interval GMF geomagnetic field cm centimeter(s) GPS global positioning system COTS commercial off-the-shelf GW gigawatt(s) CTD conductivity-temperature-depth GWh gigawatt-hour(s) CW continuous wave HF high frequency dB decibel(s) hr hour(s) dB re 1 µPa decibel(s) in relation to one micro pascal HV high voltage DC direct current HVAC high-voltage alternating current DCENR Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources, Northern Ireland HVDC high-voltage direct current Hz hertz DEFRA Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs I/O input/output DELWP Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning IBM individual based modeling DGRM Direção-Geral de Recursos Naturais, Segurança e Serviços Marítimos (Directorate-General for Natural Resources, Safety and Maritime Services) ICES International Council for the Exploration of the Sea ICOE International Conference on Ocean Energy IEA International Energy Agency IEC International Electrotechnical Commission DIDSON Dual-Frequency Identification Sonar vii IEC TC 114 IEC Technical Committee 114 iE-field induced electric field IMP Integrated Monitoring Pod inSTREAM in Situ Turbulence Replication Evaluation and Measurement ORJIP Ocean Energy Offshore Renewable Joint Industry Programme for Ocean Energy ORPC Ocean Renewable Power Company OSU Oregon State University OTEC Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion IR infrared OWF offshore wind farm ISO International Organization for Standardization PAM passive acoustic monitoring kHz kilohertz PBR Potential Biological Removal km kilometer(s) PEMP project environmental monitoring plan kV kilovolt(s) PNNL Pacific Northwest National Laboratory kW kilowatt(s) PPE LED light-emitting diode Programmations Pluriannuelles de l’Énergie (French Strategy for Energy and Climate MultiAnnual Energy Plan) LiDAR light detection and ranging PWP Pelamis Wave Power m meter(s) RD&D research, development, and demonstration m/s meter(s)/second ReDAPT Reliable Data Acquisition Platform for Testing mA milliampere(s) RITE Roosevelt Island Tidal Energy MaREI Marine Renewable Energy, Ireland RMEE RITE Monitoring of Environmental Effects MaRVEN Marine Renewable Energy, Vibration, Electromagnetic Fields and Noise ROV remotely operated vehicle MCT Marine Current Turbines (installation) s second(s) MHK marine hydrokinetic SAC Special Area of Conservation mm millimeter(s) SDK software development kit MMO Marine Management Organisation SEMLA Swedish Electromagnetic Low-Noise Apparatus MMO Marine Mammal Observer SIA social impact assessment MPA Marine Protected Area(s) SME Sustainable Marine Energy MRE marine renewable energy SMRU Sea Mammal Research Unit MSP marine spatial planning SNR signal-to-noise ratio mT millitesla(s) SPL sound pressure level mV/m millivolt(s) per meter Sv mean volume backscattering strength MW megawatt(s) TB terabyte(s) MWh megawatt(s)-hour(s) TGU turbine generator unit nm nanometer(s) UAV unmanned aerial vehicle NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service UK United Kingdom NMPF National Marine Planning Framework UNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration U.S. United States NRC National Research Council V volt(s) nT nanotesla(s) VDC volts direct current OCS Outer Continental Shelf V/m volt(s) per meter OES Ocean Energy Systems VC video camera OGP oil and gas platform W watt(s) OPT Ocean Power Technology WEC wave energy converter OREC Ocean Renewable Energy Conference WETS Wave Energy Test Site viii OES-ENVIRONMENTAL 2020 STATE OF THE SCIENCE REPORT CONTENTS Executive Summary.....................................................................................................................................................I Section A Introduction................................................................................................................................................. 1 1.0 Marine Renewable Energy and Ocean Energy Systems................................................................................ 2 1.1. 1.2. Benefits of Marine Renewable Energy.................................................................................................................................................... 4 Balancing Concerns with Benefits for MRE Development......................................................................................................................5 1.3. 1.5. 2020 State of the Science Report .........................................................................................................................................................................................5 1.3.1. Sources of Information...............................................................................................................................................................5 1.3.2. Uses of the Information..............................................................................................................................................................5 1.3.3 Report Purpose and Scope........................................................................................................................................................ 6 1.3.4. Report Content and Organization............................................................................................................................................. 6 Ocean Energy Systems............................................................................................................................................................................. 6 1.4.1. The OES-Environmental (formerly Annex IV) Task................................................................................................................ 12 1.4.2. OES-Environmental Phase 3.................................................................................................................................................... 12 References .............................................................................................................................................................................................. 15 2.0 Marine Renewable Energy: Environmental Effects and Monitoring Strategies.......................................... 18 2.1. Potential Effects of Marine Renewable Energy ................................................................................................................................... 20 2.2. 2.3. Stressors and Receptors........................................................................................................................................................................ 20 Definitions for Measuring Environmental Effects................................................................................................................................. 21 2.4. 2.5. Measuring the Effects of MRE Devices ................................................................................................................................................. 21 Key Monitoring Questions .................................................................................................................................................................... 22 2.5.1. Direct Effects of Stressor-receptor Interactions ................................................................................................................... 22 1.4. 2.6. 2.7. 2.5.2. Monitoring within the Context or Environment of MRE Devices.......................................................................................... 22 Monitoring Strategies ............................................................................................................................................................................23 References...............................................................................................................................................................................................23 Section B Current Knowledge of Key Device Interactions with the Marine Environment......................................27 3.0 Collision Risk for Animals around Turbines................................................................................................. 28 3.1. 3.2. 3.3. 3.4. Importance of the Issue......................................................................................................................................................................... 30 Summary of Knowledge Through 2016................................................................................................................................................. 31 Definitions...............................................................................................................................................................................................32 Collision Risk to Marine Mammals......................................................................................................................................................... 33 3.4.1. Summary of Knowledge through 2016 ................................................................................................................................... 33 3.4.2. Knowledge Generated since 2016 ........................................................................................................................................... 33 3.4.3. Research and Monitoring Needs to Retire the Issue ............................................................................................................. 40 3.5. Collision Risk to Fish ............................................................................................................................................................................. 42 3.5.1. Summary of Knowledge through 2016................................................................................................................................... 42 3.5.2. Knowledge Generated Since 2016........................................................................................................................................... 42 3.5.3. Research and Monitoring Needs to Retire the Issue...............................................................................................................47 3.6. Collision Risk to Seabirds....................................................................................................................................................................... 49 3.6.1. Summary of Knowledge through 2016................................................................................................................................... 50 3.6.2. Knowledge Generated Since 2016........................................................................................................................................... 50 3.6.3. Research and Monitoring Needs to Retire the Issue.............................................................................................................. 52 3.7. Conclusions and Recommendations .................................................................................................................................................... 54 3.7.1. Integration of Information, Technology, and Engineering Experts in Monitoring Programs............................................. 54 3.7.2. Evidence of Factors Affecting Collision Risk........................................................................................................................... 54 3.7.3. Assessing Collision Risk and its Consequences.......................................................................................................................55 3.7.4. Post-installation Monitoring of Collision Risk........................................................................................................................55 3.8. References.............................................................................................................................................................................................. 56 ix 4.0 Risk to Marine Animals from Underwater Noise Generated by Marine Renewable Energy Devices........ 66 4.1. Importance of the Issue......................................................................................................................................................................... 69 4.2. 4.3. Summary of Knowledge Through 2016.............................................................................................................................................................................. 71 Knowledge Generated Since 2016......................................................................................................................................................... 72 4.3.1. Tidal, Ocean, and River Current Turbines................................................................................................................................73 4.3.2. 4.3.3. Wave Energy Converters...........................................................................................................................................................75 Biological Consequences of Radiated Noise........................................................................................................................... 76 4.3.4. Progress on Modeling.............................................................................................................................................................. 77 4.4. 4.3.5. International Standards........................................................................................................................................................... 78 Research and Monitoring Needs to Resolve the Issue......................................................................................................................... 79 4.5. Guidance on Measuring Underwater Noise from MRE Devices........................................................................................................... 80 4.6. 4.7. Recommendations................................................................................................................................................................................. 80 References............................................................................................................................................................................................... 81 5.0 Risk to Animals from Electromagnetic Fields Emitted by Electric Cables and Marine Renewable Energy Devices.............................................................................................................. 86 5.1. Importance of the Issue......................................................................................................................................................................... 88 5.2. 5.3. Summary of Knowledge Through 2016................................................................................................................................................ 89 Knowledge Generated Since 2016......................................................................................................................................................... 90 5.3.1. Responses to EMF – Fish (Adult)............................................................................................................................................. 91 5.3.2. Response to EMF – Fish (Embryonic and Larval)................................................................................................................... 91 5.3.3. 5.3.4. Response to EMF – Invertebrates........................................................................................................................................... 92 Response to the Presence of Subsea Cables – Faunal Communities................................................................................... 93 5.4. Guidance on Measuring EMF from MRE Devices and Cables............................................................................................................... 94 5.5. 5.6. 5.7. Research and Monitoring Needs to Resolve the Issue......................................................................................................................... 95 Conclusion.............................................................................................................................................................................................. 98 References.............................................................................................................................................................................................. 98 6.0 Changes in Benthic and Pelagic Habitats Caused by Marine Renewable Energy Devices.......................104 6.1. Importance of the Issue........................................................................................................................................................................106 6.2. 6.3. Summary of Knowledge Through 2016............................................................................................................................................... 107 Knowledge Generated Since 2016................................................................................................................................................................................ 108 6.3.1. Alteration of Existing Habitats and Recovery Timeframes..................................................................................................108 6.3.2. Creation of New Habitats....................................................................................................................................................... 110 6.3.3. Additional Indirect Effects....................................................................................................................................................... 113 Research and Monitoring Needs to Resolve the Issue......................................................................................................................... 115 Guidance on Measuring Changes In Benthic and Pelagic Habitats Caused By MRE ........................................................................ 116 Recommendations................................................................................................................................................................................. 117 References..............................................................................................................................................................................................118 6.4. 6.5. 6.6. 6.7. 7.0 Changes in Oceanographic Systems Associated with Marine Renewable Energy Devices....................... 126 7.1. 7.2. 7.3. Importance of the Issue........................................................................................................................................................................ 128 Summary of Knowledge Through 2016............................................................................................................................................... 128 Knowledge Generated Since 2016.....................................................................................................................................................................................129 7.3.1. Field Studies............................................................................................................................................................................ 129 7.3.2. Laboratory Studies.................................................................................................................................................................. 130 7.3.3. Modeling Studies – Tidal Energy........................................................................................................................................... 130 7.3.4. Modeling Studies – Wave Energy.......................................................................................................................................... 132 Guidance on Measuring Changes in Oceanographic Systems Caused By MRE.................................................................................. 133 7.4.1. Acoustic Doppler Technologies.............................................................................................................................................. 133 7.4.2. Remote Sensing Techniques................................................................................................................................................... 135 Research and Monitoring Needs to Resolve the Issue........................................................................................................................ 135 7.5.1. Improving Model Validation................................................................................................................................................... 136 7.5.2. Assessing Cumulative Effects: Natural Variability and Anthropogenic Activities............................................................... 136 7.5.3. Understanding Environmental Implications.......................................................................................................................... 136 References............................................................................................................................................................................................. 137 7.4. 7.5. 7.6. x OES-ENVIRONMENTAL 2020 STATE OF THE SCIENCE REPORT 8.0 Encounters of Marine Animals with Marine Renewable Energy Device Mooring Systems and Subsea Cables......................................................................................................... 146 8.1. Summary of Knowledge........................................................................................................................................................................ 148 8.2. Research and Monitoring Needs to Resolve the Issue........................................................................................................................ 150 8.3. References.............................................................................................................................................................................................. 151 9.0 Social and Economic Data Collection for Marine Renewable Energy........................................................ 154 9.1. Importance of the Issue........................................................................................................................................................................ 156 9.2. 9.3. Definition of Social and Economic Effects .......................................................................................................................................... 157 Requirements for Collecting Social and Economic Data to Support Consenting.............................................................................. 158 9.4. 9.3.1. Country-specific Social and Economic Requirements for MRE............................................................................................ 158 9.3.2. 9.3.3. Data Collection Responsibility................................................................................................................................................160 Stakeholder Outreach and Engagement................................................................................................................................................... 161 Data Collection and Needs................................................................................................................................................................... 162 9.4.1. Data Collection Consistency and Regulatory Guidance............................................................................................................ 162 9.4.2. Scales of Data Collection............................................................................................................................................................ 164 9.5. Good Practices for Collecting Data and Following Trends.................................................................................................................. 165 9.6. 9.7. Case Studies ..........................................................................................................................................................................................166 Recommendations................................................................................................................................................................................166 9.7.1. Review or Develop Tools and Databases...............................................................................................................................166 9.8. 9.9. 9.7.2. Guide Data Collection Efforts.................................................................................................................................................166 9.7.3. 9.7.4. Conduct Meaningful Stakeholder Engagement....................................................................................................................166 Provide an Incentive to Collect and Publicize MRE Data .....................................................................................................166 9.7.5. 9.7.6. Use a Flexible Planning Approach ......................................................................................................................................... 168 Correlate Impacts, Data Collection, and Processes to Appropriate Sizes............................................................................168 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 168 References.............................................................................................................................................................................................169 Section C Environmental Monitoring...................................................................................................................... 175 10.0 Environmental Monitoring Technologies and Techniques for Detecting Interactions of Marine Animals with Turbines............................................................................................................... 176 10.1. 10.2. Background to Environmental Monitoring Technologies Around Turbines ...................................................................................... 178 Instrument Classes Used for Monitoring MRE Devices....................................................................................................................... 178 10.2.1. Passive Acoustics.................................................................................................................................................................... 178 10.2.2. Active Acoustics – Imaging Sonars....................................................................................................................................... 182 10.2.3. Active Acoustics – Echosounders..........................................................................................................................................186 10.3. 10.4. 10.5. 10.6. 10.7. 10.2.4. Video Cameras........................................................................................................................................................................ 189 Challenges of Monitoring Around MRE Devices.................................................................................................................................. 193 10.3.1. Survivability/Durability and Robust Operation..................................................................................................................... 193 10.3.2. Data Mortgages....................................................................................................................................................................... 195 10.3.3. Power Availability and Management..................................................................................................................................... 195 Integrated Monitoring Platforms Currently Used to Monitor MRE DeviCES.....................................................................................196 10.4.1. Adaptable Monitoring Package .............................................................................................................................................196 10.4.2. Fundy Advanced Sensor Technology–Environmental Monitoring System ......................................................................... 197 10.4.3. Flow, Water Column and Benthic Ecology 4D ......................................................................................................................198 10.4.4. Sea Mammal Research Unit Monitoring System...................................................................................................................198 10.4.5. Integrated Monitoring Pod.....................................................................................................................................................199 Lessons Learned from Monitoring Activities...................................................................................................................................... 200 Recommendations for Quality Data Collection, Management, and Analysis .................................................................................. 200 10.6.1. Passive Acoustics.................................................................................................................................................................... 201 10.6.2. Active Acoustics...................................................................................................................................................................... 201 10.6.3. Optical Cameras..................................................................................................................................................................... 202 References ........................................................................................................................................................................................... 202 xi Section D Strategies for Accelerating Consenting/Permitting............................................................................... 213 11.0 Marine Spatial Planning and Marine Renewable Energy........................................................................... 214 11.1. 11.2. Background on MSP.............................................................................................................................................................................. 216 Approaches to MSP in OES-Environmental Participating Countries ................................................................................................ 217 11.3. Mre Policies and Links to MSP ............................................................................................................................................................. 219 11.4. 11.5. Taking MRE into Account in MSP ............................................................................................................................................................................ 222 Dealing with Potential Conflicts Between Marine Sectors/Users..................................................................................................................222 11.6. Areas Available for MRE Development................................................................................................................................................223 11.7. 11.8. Tools That Support MSP Implementation.......................................................................................................................................... 226 The Consenting Process and MSP ...................................................................................................................................................................................229 11.9. Factors Limiting Implementation of MSP for MRE .........................................................................................................................................229 11.10. 11.11. Public Involvement in MSP.................................................................................................................................................................. 229 Key Findings and Conclusions ............................................................................................................................................................. 233 11.12. Acknowledgment.................................................................................................................................................................................. 234 11.13. References............................................................................................................................................................................................ 234 12.0 Adaptive Management Related to Marine Renewable Energy................................................................. 242 12.1. Introduction to Adaptive Management.............................................................................................................................................. 244 12.2. Implementing Adaptive Management In an MRE Context............................................................................................................................ 244 12.2.1. The Use of Impact Thresholds in Adaptive Management................................................................................................... 245 12.2.2. Mitigation of Risk................................................................................................................................................................... 246 12.3. 12.4. 12.2.3. Post-installation Monitoring ................................................................................................................................................ 247 Adaptive Management and the Precautionary Principle................................................................................................................... 248 Evaluating the Success of Adaptive Management at Selected MRE Development Sites ............................................................................... 250 12.4.1. MeyGen Tidal Project ............................................................................................................................................................ 250 12.4.2. SeaGen Tidal Turbine ............................................................................................................................................................ 250 12.4.3. DeltaStream Tidal Turbine...................................................................................................................................................... 251 12.4.4. Roosevelt Island Tidal Energy Project................................................................................................................................... 252 12.4.5. Reedsport Wave Park............................................................................................................................................................. 252 12.4.6 ORPC’s TidGen and RivGen Power Systems ..................................................................................................................................... 253 12.5. 12.6. 12.4.7 PacWave South Project ......................................................................................................................................................... 254 Conclusions and Recommendations....................................................................................................................................................255 References ........................................................................................................................................................................................... 256 xii OES-ENVIRONMENTAL 2020 STATE OF THE SCIENCE REPORT 13.0 Risk Retirement and Data Transferability for Marine Renewable Energy............................................... 262 13.1 Definition of Risk Retirement.............................................................................................................................................................. 264 13.2 The Risk Retirement Pathway............................................................................................................................................................. 265 13.3 Application of the Risk Retirement Pathway to MRE Interactions............................................................................................................... 266 13.3.1 Effects of Underwater Noise on Marine Animals................................................................................................................. 267 13.3.2. 13.4. Effects of EMFs on Marine Animals...................................................................................................................................... 268 Data Transferability Process................................................................................................................................................................ 270 13.4.1. Data Transferability Framework............................................................................................................................................. 271 13.4.2. Data Collection Consistency .................................................................................................................................................. 271 13.4.3. Monitoring Datasets Discoverability Matrix.......................................................................................................................... 271 13.4.4. Best Management Practices................................................................................................................................................... 271 13.5. Applying Data Transferability to Support Consenting........................................................................................................................273 13.5.1. Applying the Process........................................................................................................................................................................... 273 13.5.2. Data Transferability Case Studies..........................................................................................................................................273 13.6. Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................................................................274 13.7. References ............................................................................................................................................................................................... 275 Section E Looking Ahead........................................................................................................................................ 279 14.0 Summary and Path Forward...................................................................................................................... 280 14.1. Summary of Findings........................................................................................................................................................................... 282 14.1.1. Collision Risk for Animals around Turbines.......................................................................................................................... 282 14.1.2. 14.1.3. 14.1.4. Underwater Noise.................................................................................................................................................................. 283 Electromagnetic Fields........................................................................................................................................................... 284 Changes in Habitats............................................................................................................................................................... 285 14.1.5. 14.1.6. 14.1.7. Changes in Oceanographic Systems..................................................................................................................................... 286 Mooring Lines and Subsea Cables......................................................................................................................................... 287 Social and Economic Interactions......................................................................................................................................... 287 14.1.8. Environmental Monitoring Technologies and Techniques for Detecting Interactions of Marine Animals with Turbines.......................................................................................................................................... 288 Marine Spatial Planning......................................................................................................................................................... 288 14.1.9. 14.1.10. Adaptive Management........................................................................................................................................................... 288 14.1.11. Risk Retirement and Data Transferability............................................................................................................................ 289 14.2. Charting A Path Forward for MRE Consenting................................................................................................................................... 289 14.2.1. Proportionate Consenting Requirements............................................................................................................................. 289 14.2.2. Sufficiency of Evidence.......................................................................................................................................................... 290 14.2.3. Transferability of Evidence.................................................................................................................................................... 290 14.2.4. Retiring Specific Issues.......................................................................................................................................................... 290 14.3. References ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 291 Technical Glossary ...................................................................................................................................................293 xiii FIGURES, TABLES, AND BOXES Figure 8.2. Screen capture from the 3D animation on the encounter of a humpback whale with floating offshore wind mooring lines and inter-array cables.........................................................................150 Figure 9.1. Examples of social and economic activities for which data should be collected for consenting and understanding of the potential benefits and adverse effects of marine renewable energy development..............................................................157 Figure 9.2. Responsibilities of governments and developers in collecting social and economic data, as recommended by expert workshops........................ 161 Figure 9.3. A value map created from a study of social and cultural values related to climate change adaptation on Prince Edward Island, Canada. ...........................162 Figure 10.1. Schematic of the components of the “drifting ears” autonomous recording drifter specifically developed for use in tidal streams. ........................ 180 FIGURES Figure 1.1. Tidal, wave, river current, and offshore wind sites mentioned in the various chapters of the report. ..... 8 Figure 2.1. Stressor-receptor interactions potentially arising from various marine renewable energy devices......................................................................... 20 Figure 3.1. Interactions of a harbor seal, a school of pollack, and a European shag with a non-operating tidal turbine.......................................................................... 31 Figure 3.2. A MeyGen tidal turbine ready for deployment in the Inner Sound of Pentland Firth in Scotland..... 34 Figure 3.3. Nova Innovation’s three-turbine tidal array in Bluemull Sound, Shetland, Scotland. ................... 35 Figure 3.4. The SeaGen tidal turbine when installed in Strangford Lough, Northern Ireland..................... 37 Figure 3.5. Minesto’s Deep Green 0.5 MW tidal kite being deployed at Holyhead Deep, in Anglesey, Wales...... 39 Figure 3.6. Schematic of stimulus fields produced by a turbine that could affect fish behavior. ................... 48 Figure 4.1. Determining the impact of radiated noise from marine energy converters is difficult and requires physical and biological inputs...................................68 Figure 4.2. Figure 5.1. Figure 5.2 An overview of biological, natural physical, and anthropogenic noises in marine environments and the hearing ranges of marine animals............... 70 Diagrams summarizing the natural and anthropogenic electric fields (E-fields), induced electric fields (iE-fields) and magnetic fields (B-fields) encountered by an electromagneticsensitive fish moving across the seabed...................89 The key elements that need to be considered when assessing the environmental impact of electromagnetic fields (EMF) on sensitive receptors................................................................... 100 Figure 6.1. Schematic of various wave and tidal energy devices, and associated equipment, and their potential effects on the benthic and pelagic habitats. ................................................................... 108 Figure 6.2. Pictures of iron shells and concrete mattresses used to protect an unburied cable at the PaimpolBréhat tidal turbine test site in France. ................. 109 Figure 6.3. Heavily colonized tripod of a decommissioned tidal turbine in the Orkney Islands, Scotland........... 111 Figure 6.4. Functional groups used in an Ecopath with Ecosim model............................................................. 114 Figure 7.1. Schematic of the hydrodynamics of an array of tidal turbines.........................................................130 Figure 7.2. Change in spring peak tidal range............................132 Figure 7.3. An ADCP, ADV, and water-quality sensor mounted on a bottom platform and mounted in-line on a coastal mooring....................................134 Figure 7.4. Spotter (Sofar Ocean) real-time wave measurement buoy. .................................................. 135 Figure 8.1. Schematic of marine animals’ encounters with wave energy devices attached at the bottom by mooring lines and interconnected with a cable......148 xiv Figure 10.2. Examples of a “conventional” PAM instrument and a “stand-alone” PAM instrument..................... 181 Figure 10.3. Example of a vessel-based sonar configuration.....183 Figure 10.4. Example data from a vessel-based survey using Tritech Gemini. ...............................................183 Figure 10.5. Example data from the FLOWBEC-4D deployment at the European Marine Energy Centre. ...................................................................... 184 Figure 10.6. Example of electrical interference in data from a BlueView imaging sonar on the Adaptable Monitoring Package (AMP). ...................185 Figure 10.7. Echogram from a single transect during a mobile hydroacoustic survey in Minas Passage, Nova Scotia, Canada, showing the extent and variability of air entrainment during peak flow conditions..................................................................187 Figure 10.8. Example of a school of broad whitefish (Coregonus nasus) captured with a monochrome video camera. .......................................................... 190 Figure 10.9. The Adaptable Monitoring Package (AMP), before and after deployment for 18 weeks in Sequim Bay, Washington, United States. ............195 Figure 10.10. The Adaptable Monitoring Package (AMP)..............197 Figure 10.11. FORCE’s Fundy Advanced Sensor Technology Environmental Monitoring System (FAST-EMS) integrated and cabled monitoring platform positioned on the FORCE beach. .............................197 Figure 10.12. The FLOWBEC-4D platform during deployment at the European Marine Energy Center in the United Kingdom. ...................................................... 198 Figure 10.13. Photograph of the MeyGen turbine support structure during installation showing the locations of the three hydrophone clusters. .......... 198 Figure 10.14. Schematic of the marine mammal High Current Underwater Platform (HiCUP) developed by the Sea Mammal Research Unit (SMRU) at the University of St Andrews. ........................................ 199 Figure 10.15. The European Marine Energy Centre (EMEC)’s Integrated Monitoring Pod (IMP) during deployment under the Energy Technologies Institute (ETI)’s Reliable Data Acquisition Platform for Tidal (ReDAPT) project. ..................... 199 OES-ENVIRONMENTAL 2020 STATE OF THE SCIENCE REPORT Figure 11.1. Example of a decision support process for marine spatial planning, implemented in a logical sequence of steps in information synthesis........... 216 Figure 11.2. Compatible, incompatible, and synergistic marine sectors, as identified in the Portuguese Situation Plan. .......................................................................... 226 Figure 14.3. Dashboard that summarizes the broadly understood level of risk from underwater noise from marine renewable energy devices to marine animals for small numbers of devices........284 Figure 11.3. Selected demonstration sites for wind, wave, and tidal energy in Japan. .......................................226 Figure 14.4. Dashboard that summarizes the broadly understood level of risk from electromagnetic fields from marine renewable energy devices to marine animals for small numbers of devices........ 285 Figure 12.1. The adaptive management (AM) cycle. .................244 Figure 14.5. Figure 12.2. The mitigation hierarchy. ........................................246 Figure 13.1. Risk retirement pathway. ........................................ 265 Figure 13.2. Hypothetical example of a tidal turbine emitting noise in an area used by harbor porpoises, harbor seals, sea lions, and orca whales.............................268 Figure 13.3. Hypothetical example of a wave energy converter with cables emitting electromagnetic fields in an environment used by sharks, skates, bony fishes, crustaceans, and other invertebrates......................269 Figure 13.4. The data transferability process consists of a data transferability framework, data collection consistency table, monitoring datasets discoverability matrix, and best management practices. .............. 270 Figure 14.1. Dashboard that summarizes the broadly understood level of risk from changes in habitats from marine renewable energy devices to marine animals for small numbers of devices.....................286 Figure 14.6. Dashboard that summarizes the broadly understood level of risk from changes in oceanographic systems caused by marine renewable energy devices to marine animals for small numbers of devices.......................................................................286 Figure 14.7. Dashboard that summarizes the broadly understood level of risk from from mooring lines and cables related to MRE devices to marine animals for small numbers of devices........ 287 Generic version of a dashboard that demonstrates the broadly understood level of risk for specific stressors, as of 2020, with indication of a pathway forward to further understand and lower the perceived risk of the stressor................................... 282 Figure 14.2. Dashboard that summarizes the broadly understood level of risk that collisions will occur between marine animals and turbines for small numbers of devices. ................................ 283 xv TABLES BOXES Table 1.1 Description of the chapter topics in the 2020 State of the Science report.................................... 9 Box 4.1 Acoustic terminology................................................. 72 Table 1.2 Wave, tidal, river current, and offshore wind sites mentioned in the various chapters of the report...... 13 Box 9.1 Examples of stakeholder engagement and outreach from the marine renewable energy (MRE) and offshore wind industries.........................163 Table 1.3 OES-Environmental task phases, timeline, and participating countries................................................14 Box 9.2 Workplan for OES-Environmental Phase 3 (2016-2020)................................................................. 13 Case studies of social and economic data collection efforts from marine renewable energy (MRE) developments or test centers...........167 Table 1.4 Box 10.1 Table 1.5 Workshops held by OES-Environmental during Phase 3.............................................................14 Examples of marine renewable energy (MRE) monitoring using subsea video cameras....... 191 Box 13.1 Risk retirement workshops......................................266 Table 2.1 Definitions associated with investigations for consenting of MRE projects and research studies. ...21 Box 13.2 Feedback from risk retirement workshops for underwater uoise................................................ 267 Table 3.1 Key terminology of relevance to collision risk between marine animals and MRE devices............... 36 Box 13.3 Feedback from risk retirement workshops for electromagnetic fields........................................269 Table 5.1 Measurements from high-voltage alternative current (AC) and direct current (DC) subsea cables since 2016. ...................................................... 94 Table 9.1 Good practices for the collection of marine renewable energy (MRE) social and economic data............................................................................165 Table 11.1 Marine spatial planning (MSP)-specific approaches for the Ocean Energy Systems (OES)-Environmental................................................218 Table 11.2 Marine renewable energy (MRE) policies and their links to marine spatial planning (MSP) for the Ocean Energy Systems (OES)-Environmental nations......220 Table 11.3 Consideration of marine renewable energy (MRE) development within marine spatial planning (MSP) processes for the Ocean Energy Systems (OES)Environmental nations............................................. 223 Table 11.4 Information about how the Ocean Energy Systems (OES)-Environmental nations deal with conflicts that often arise during the marine spatial planning (MSP) process...................224 Table 11.5 Areas available for marine renewable energy (MRE) development for the Ocean Energy Systems (OES)-Environmental nations................... 225 Table 11.6 Tools that have been developed in the Ocean Energy Systems (OES)-Environmental nations to assist in marine spatial planning (MSP) implementation........................................................ 227 Table 11.7 Tools that support marine spatial planning implementation in Scotland..................... 228 Table 11.8 Tools for implementing marine spatial planning (MSP) in Australia..................................... 228 Table 11.9 Consenting processes that have been developed in the Ocean Energy Systems (OES)-Environmental nations to assist in marine spatial planning (MSP) implementation............................................. 230 Table 11.10 Factors that limit the implementation of marine spatial planning (MSP) as it affects marine renewable energy (MRE) development in the Ocean Energy Systems (OES)-Environmental nations....................231 Table 11.11 Public involvement in marine spatial planning (MSP) processes by the Ocean Energy Systems (OES)-Environmental nations.................................. 232 Table 13.1 Data collection consistency table. .......................... 272 xvi OES-ENVIRONMENTAL 2020 STATE OF THE SCIENCE REPORT Executive Summary Executive Summary OES-ENVIRONMENTAL 2020 STATE OF THE SCIENCE REPORT OES-ENVIRONMENTAL 2020 STATE OF THE SCIENCE REPORT Executive Summary T his report summarizes the state of the science of environmental effects of marine renewable energy and serves as an update and a complement to the 2016 Annex IV report, which can be found at http://​tethys​ .pnnl.gov/publications/state-of-the-science-2016. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY I M arine renewable energy (MRE) is harvested from ocean waves, tides, and currents, as well as ocean temperature and salinity gradients, and from the flow of large rivers (which use technologies similar to those that capture tidal energy). This report focuses on the potential environmental effects from the generation of power from waves using wave energy converters (WECs), tides using tidal turbines, and large rivers using river turbines. Lessons learned from other offshore industries, including offshore wind, oil and gas, and power and communication cables, are included, where appropriate. The 2020 State of the Science report was produced by the Ocean Energy Systems (OES)-Environmental initiative (formerly Annex IV), under the International Energy Agency’s OES-Environmental collaboration (https:// www.ocean-energy-systems.org). Under OES-Environ- II OES-ENVIRONMENTAL 2020 STATE OF THE SCIENCE REPORT A commonly used method of evaluating potential environmental effects from MRE development is the interaction of stressors and receptors. Stressors are those parts of an MRE device or system that may stress or harm the marine environment. Receptors are marine animals, habitats, oceanographic processes, or ecosystem functions that could be harmed by stressors. mental, 15 countries have collaborated to evaluate the researchers, regulators, device and project developers, “state of the science” of potential environmental effects and others. This body of knowledge can inform science- of MRE development and to understand how they may based decision-making for international regulators, and affect consenting/permitting (hereafter consenting) of support developers in project siting, engineering design, MRE devices. operational strategies, and monitoring program design. The information reviewed and synthesized for this report relates to the potential risks that MRE devices pose to marine animals, habitats, and the environment, and may be of value to MRE stakeholders including Most particularly, this report should help the research community connect with the latest thinking about MRE interactions, identify scientific collaborators, and assist with adding to the growing body of knowledge. When used in conjunction with site-specific information, this report can help streamline consenting of MRE devices. While most monitoring activity around MRE devices is limited to single devices or very small arrays, much of this research and monitoring will be useful as the industry grows. The information synthesized in the 2020 State of the Science report represents the state of knowledge derived from studies and monitoring, built on publicly available peer-reviewed scientific literature and reports published by researchers, developers, and government agencies, seen through the lens of many of the best researchers in the field. The analyses and conclusions drawn in this report are not meant to take the place of site-specific analyses or studies used to make project siting decisions or to direct consenting actions. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY III SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL INTERACTIONS ASSOCIATED WITH THE DEVELOPMENT OF MARINE RENEWABLE ENERGY DEVICES As the MRE industry advances, the body of knowledge RE is an emerging industry that has had a limited collected, we may retire or set a lower priority for cer- number of small deployments and no full-scale tain risks. The evidence base for risk retirement will be commercial deployments to date. As a result, the pau- informed by our growing knowledge about the nature city of baseline and post-installation data continues to of specific stressor-receptor interactions, helping to drive a level of uncertainty among regulators and stake- determine which interactions have sufficient evidence holders that increases the perception of risk for many to retire those risks, and where significant uncertainties potential interactions between MRE devices and marine remain. However, risk to marine animals, habitats, and animals, habitats, and the environment. This lack of the wider environment may continue to present chal- data continues to confound our ability to differenti- lenges to consenting commercial development. M surrounding potential environmental effects of MRE development will continue to grow, informing our perception of risk. It is possible that as additional data are ate between actual and perceived risks. Ultimately, the risk to marine animals, habitats, and the environment is a function of the attributes of the MRE device (static or dynamic), type of device (wave, tidal, or riverine), and the spatial scale of a particular installation (single device or array). Risk is defined as the interaction of the probability or likelihood of a deleterious outcome, with the consequences, if such an outcome occurs. IV OES-ENVIRONMENTAL 2020 STATE OF THE SCIENCE REPORT BENEFITS OF MARINE RENEWABLE ENERGY The acceleration of MRE research and development around the world contributes to locally-derived secure energy sources that have the potential to create significant benefits, including positive impacts on local communities, local infrastructure and services, local employment and businesses, and the export of products and services. In addition, MRE development has the potential to combat the effects of climate change, including ocean acidification and increasing ocean temperatures. Deleterious effects of climate change are already affecting many marine and coastal resources, and will continue to affect marine animals and habitats as well as eroding beneficial human uses from the harvest and aquaculture of seafood organisms, coastal protection from storms and erosion of shorelines. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY V Tidal and river energy devices may pose a risk of col- RISK TO MARINE ANIMALS FROM UNDERWATER NOISE GENERATED BY MARINE RENEWABLE ENERGY DEVICES lision to marine mammals, fish, and diving seabirds. Marine animals use sound in the ocean like terrestrial To date, there have been no observations of a marine animals and humans use sight on land—to communi- mammal or seabird colliding with a turbine, and the cate, navigate, find food, socialize, and evade predators. limited number of interactions of fish in close proxim- Anthropogenic noise in the marine environment has the ity to a turbine have not resulted in obvious harm to potential to interfere with these activities. the fish. It is expected that collisions, if they occur, will Progress on quantifying the direct and indirect effects COLLISION RISK FOR ANIMALS AROUND TURBINES be very rare events that will be difficult to observe in the fast-moving often murky waters. In addition, the likely consequences of a collision are not known, with outcomes ranging from injuries from which the animal may recover to the death of the animal. There is limited evidence and understanding of how marine animals behave in the presence of underwater structures; it is difficult to determine how well marine mammals, fish, and seabirds may be able to sense, react to, and avoid an operating turbine. In the absence of this behavioral information, most progress in understanding collision risk focuses on understanding the presence of marine animals of interest in the vicinity of turbines, supported by computer modeling that simulates nearfield behaviour and potential collision events. of underwater noise on marine animals has been complicated by the relatively small number of MRE devices that have been deployed. Difficulties in accurately measuring noise from MRE devices and the challenge of understanding how underwater noise affects the behavior of marine animals, confound our understanding. However, international technical specifications provide a standardized approach for measuring noise from MRE devices. The underwater noise from several MRE devices has been measured using this specification and found to fall below regulatory action levels and guidance developed in the United States for protecting marine mammals and fish from harm due to underwater noise. Evidence suggests that underwater noise emitted from operational MRE devices is unlikely to significantly alter behavior or cause physical harm to marine animals. VI OES-ENVIRONMENTAL 2020 STATE OF THE SCIENCE REPORT RISK TO ANIMALS FROM ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELDS EMITTED BY ELECTRIC CABLES AND MARINE RENEWABLE ENERGY DEVICES Electromagnetic fields (EMFs) occur naturally in the marine environment, while anthropogenic activities may alter or increase EMF, including those from MRE export cables. Cables are commonly buried, laid on the seafloor, or draped in the water column between devices. EMF emissions are evaluated by measuring the magnetic and induced electrical fields from cables and devices. Not all marine animals are able to detect EMFs; only a few species have the sensory capabilities to sense and react to these stimuli. The animals most likely to encounter and be affected by EMFs from MRE systems are those that spend time close to a power cable over extended periods of time - most commonly sedentary benthic organisms. EMFs are thought to cause changes in behavior and movement of susceptible animals, and potentially long-term changes in growth or reproductive success. The evidence base to date suggests that the ecological impacts of EMFs emitted from power cables from single MRE devices or small arrays are likely to be limited, and marine animals living in the vicinity of MRE devices and export cables are not likely to be harmed by emitted EMFs. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY VII CHANGES IN BENTHIC AND PELAGIC HABITATS CAUSED BY MARINE RENEWABLE ENERGY DEVICES The effects of MRE installations on benthic and pelagic habitats are very similar to those seen for offshore wind, oil and gas exploration and production, the presence of navigation buoys, and installation of power and communication cables. The deployment of MRE devices requires the installation of gravity foundations or anchors that may alter benthic habitats, as well as mooring lines, transmission cables, and mechanical moving parts in the water column that may affect pelagic habitats. These structures on the seafloor or in the water column may change the presence or behavior of animals, and may act as artificial reefs. Installation of export power cables can disturb and change habitats over a long thin area. Scouring of sediments around anchors and foundations may also alter benthic habitats. MRE systems may provide habitat for biofouling organisms, as well as attracting fish and other animals, creating de facto artificial reefs and marine protected areas. The attraction of fish may boost fish populations in nearby areas as well. Overall, changes in habitat caused by MRE devices and arrays are likely to pose a low risk to animals and habitats if projects are sited to avoid rare or fragile habitats. VIII OES-ENVIRONMENTAL 2020 STATE OF THE SCIENCE REPORT CHANGES IN OCEANOGRAPHIC SYSTEMS ASSOCIATED WITH MARINE RENEWABLE ENERGY DEVICES ENCOUNTERS OF MARINE ANIMALS WITH MARINE RENEWABLE ENERGY DEVICE MOORING SYSTEMS AND SUBSEA CABLES The movement of ocean water defines the physical and Most WECs and floating tidal turbines must be anchored biological systems within which marine organisms to the seafloor, using mooring lines to maintain their and habitats exist. The deployment of MRE devices has position within the water column or on the water sur- the potential to affect oceanographic systems, causing face. MRE arrays may include transmission cables changes in water circulation, wave heights, and current for device interconnection or to connect to offshore speeds, which in turn can affect sediment transport and substations. The mooring lines and cables associated water quality, within both nearfield and farfield envi- with MRE device mooring systems have the potential ronments around MRE devices. While a small number to entangle or entrap large marine animals. The spe- of MRE devices will not result in changes that are mea- cies considered to be at risk of encounters with MRE surable relative to the natural variability of the system, mooring systems and subsea cables are large migratory larger-scale array deployments may have the potential baleen whales. These concerns are raised because of the to disrupt natural processes. entanglement of marine mammals with fishing gear Evidence of potential changes to oceanographic systems comes largely from numerical models, with a small number of laboratory flume studies and field programs. Field data are needed to validate the numerical models and lines. However, MRE cables and lines do not have loose ends or sufficient slack to create an entangling loop, as does fishing gear. This risk is considered to be very low. as larger commercial arrays are deployed. For small numbers of MRE devices, this risk is very low. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY IX SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC DATA COLLECTION FOR MARINE RENEWABLE ENERGY development (including impacts on communities, ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING TECHNOLOGIES AND TECHNIQUES FOR DETECTING THE INTERACTIONS OF MARINE ANIMALS WITH TURBINES employment, infrastructure and services, and regional The interaction of marine animals with tidal and river commerce) must be considered during consenting turbines remains the least understood aspect of poten- processes and for strategic planning purposes. In addi- tial MRE effects and has been hampered by the inability tion, it would be helpful for government oversight and to observe these interactions. These challenges require for MRE project developers to follow trends in social the design of monitoring equipment that can survive in and economic data to understand whether the promise harsh marine environments, and the ability to manage of improvements to local communities and minimal power to operate instruments and onboard data acqui- effects are realized. sition systems. The responsibility for collecting social and economic The most common instruments used to observe inter- data for consenting purposes and to follow long term actions of marine animals with MRE devices are passive trends should be divided between MRE developers and active acoustic instruments and optical cameras. collecting site-specific data, and governments tak- Passive acoustic monitoring uses hydrophones mea- ing responsibility for larger regions and strategic level sure underwater sound including vocalizing marine analyses. mammals. Active acoustic systems generate sound The potential social and economic impacts of MRE and record the return signal to visualize objects and to develop high-resolution imagery of underwater environments as well as quantify fish abundance and distribution. Optical cameras are used to monitor the distribution of marine animals in the vicinity of an MRE device and to determine species, individual animal size, and abundance. Groups of sensors can be integrated into monitoring platforms, which may be deployed autonomously, relying on battery power, or cabled to the shore for power and data transfer. X OES-ENVIRONMENTAL 2020 STATE OF THE SCIENCE REPORT MARINE SPATIAL PLANNING AND MARINE RENEWABLE ENERGY The growth of MRE will result in the increasing use of marine space and the potential for conflict with existing ocean uses, which can be partially addressed through implementation of marine spatial planning (MSP). MSP seeks to manage competing marine uses while balancing environmental, social, and economic interests to support sustainable development of the oceans. MSP has the potential to increase transparency and certainty for industry, improve environmental protection, reduce sectoral conflicts, and provide opportunities for synergies. The 15 nations of the OES-Environmental initiative were surveyed about their MSP practices in relation to MRE development. Their practices varied widely from intentional inclusion of MRE in MSP processes, to application of MSP principles without a formal MSP plan, to the lack of MSP used in MRE development. ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT WITH RESPECT TO EXECUTIVE SUMMARY XI ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT AND MARINE RENEWABLE ENERGY Adaptive management (AM) has the potential to support the sustainable development of the MRE industry by enabling projects to be deployed incrementally in the face of uncertainty about potential effects, and to assist in closing knowledge gaps through rigorous monitoring and review. AM is an iterative process, also referred to as “learning by doing,” that seeks to reduce scientific uncertainty and improve management through periodic review of decisions in response to the knowledge gained from monitoring. AM has been used to guide the implementation of MRE Risk retirement is a process for facilitating the consenting of small numbers of MRE devices, whereby each potential risk need not be fully investigated for every project. Rather, MRE developers can rely on what is known from already-consented projects, from related research studies, or from findings from analogous offshore industries. monitoring programs and has successfully allowed a number of projects worldwide to progress. If information from routine monitoring shows that the level of an effect is likely to cause an unacceptable impact, corrective actions can be taken. Conversely, if monitoring information indicates that risks have been overestimated, monitoring and mitigation requirements may be reduced. XII OES-ENVIRONMENTAL 2020 STATE OF THE SCIENCE REPORT RISK RETIREMENT AND DATA TRANSFERABILITY FOR MARINE RENEWABLE ENERGY PATH FORWARD FOR MARINE ENERGY MONITORING AND RESEARCH Risk retirement does not take the place of any existing In the four years since the publication of the 2016 State regulatory processes, nor does it replace the need for of the Science report, our understanding of several all data collection before or after MRE device deploy- stressor-receptor interactions has increased as a result ment. Regulators may request additional data collection of additional MRE deployments and monitoring efforts, to verify risk retirement findings, to add to the growing research studies in the laboratory and in the field, and knowledge base, or to inform assessments of site spe- modeling studies. Substantial uncertainties still remain cific environmental effects. that require ongoing research and monitoring, particu- By appropriately applying existing learning, analyses, and monitoring, datasets from one country to another, larly for collision of animals with turbines and for effects of future large arrays. among projects, and across jurisdictional boundaries, The body of knowledge about potential effects of MRE regulators may be able to make monitoring require- development should be used to help streamline and ments less stringent, reducing costs to the MRE indus- accelerate consenting processes and support the respon- try over time. sible development of MRE through the implementation of As a means of facilitating the consenting of a small number of MRE devices, a risk retirement pathway has been developed to evaluate the potential risks of specific stressor-receptor interactions. Preliminary evidence indicate that the risk of underwater noise and EMF from strategies such as marine spatial planning, adaptive management, and risk retirement. How these management strategies may support consenting and management of MRE project needs to be considered through these lenses: ◆ must be proportionate to the size of the MRE project small numbers of MRE devices could be retired. and the likely risk to marine animals and habitats. As larger MRE arrays are developed, these stressors may need to be reassessed. Data collection, analysis, and reporting for consenting ◆ Both MSP and AM can play critical roles in assessing whether sufficient evidence has been gathered to evaluate potential risks of MRE development to the marine environment. AM also provides a framework to manage the deployment of devices while uncertainty about effects remain. ◆ Knowledge gained from consented MRE deployments, along with lessons learned from analogous offshore industries and research projects, can be evaluated to determine their applicability to inform consenting at new MRE sites. Data transferability, within the risk retirement pathway, can make the routine transfer of evidence more efficient. ◆ A fully data-supported risk retirement process can help determine which interactions have sufficient evidence and where significant uncertainties remain. By retiring specific issues for a small number of MRE devices, resources can be directed towards examining the most challenging stressor-receptor relationships and filling associated evidence gaps. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY XIII Go to https://tethys​.pnnl.gov for a comprehensive collection of papers, reports, archived presentations, and other media about environmental effects of marine renewable energy development. REPORT AND MORE INFORMATION CONTACT OES-Environmental 2020 State of the Science full report and executive summary available at: https://tethys​.pnnl.gov/publications/state-of-the​-science-2020 Andrea Copping Pacific Northwest National Laboratory andrea.copping@pnnl.gov +1 206.528.3049 XIV OES-ENVIRONMENTAL 2020 STATE OF THE SCIENCE REPORT Section A Chapter 1.0 Marine Renewable Energy and Ocean Energy Systems.........................2 Chapter 2.0 Marine Renewable Energy: Environmental Effects and Monitoring Strategies.................................................................... 18 Section A Introduction 2 OES-ENVIRONMENTAL 2020 STATE OF THE SCIENCE REPORT 1.0 Chapter author: Andrea E. Copping Marine Renewable Energy and Ocean Energy Systems Research, development, and deployment of marine renewable energy (MRE) conversion technologies that harvest all forms of ocean renewable resources are being advanced around the world. The potential benefits derived from capturing the abundant energy of tides, waves, ocean currents, as well as thermal and salinity gradients, continue to drive the development of the emerging MRE industry. Stakeholder understanding of the potential benefits of MRE as a renewable energy source is informed by increased science-based understanding of the potential effects of MRE installations worldwide. The international Ocean Energy Systems (OES)-Environmental collaboration continues to promote global technology cooperation and information exchange to accelerate environmentally acceptable development of viable ocean energy systems. SECTION A – INTRODUCTION 3 1.1. BENEFITS OF MARINE RENEWABLE ENERGY with fossil fuels, which reduces risk to waterways or T cycle will generate carbon emissions, these emissions he range of benefits that may be provided by the development and operation of MRE devices include the availability of a local secure energy source, potential economic development for local communities and regional supply chains, as well as mitigation for climate change. Additional detail on these benefits are explained further in Chapter 9 (Social and Economic Data Col- habitats from spills during transport or power generation, and does not cause air quality degradation. While the manufacture and other elements of the MRE life are expected to be similar to those of other renewable technologies, which are accounted for in life cycle carbon budgets. However, processes for studying life cycle analyses for MRE are not well developed. Power generated from waves and tides is more predictable, consistent, and continuous than either wind or solar power. lection for Marine Renewable Energy), and some of the Like other renewable energy forms, a driving motivation benefits of MRE in relation to other uses can be found behind MRE development is the mitigation of climate in Chapter 11 (Marine Spatial Planning and Marine change by reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions Renewable Energy). Other beneficial uses are sometimes through the expansion of non-carbon generating sources. considered, including improved ecological services and Marine animals and plants are subject to the deleteri- improvements to habitats. ous effects of GHG emissions-related ocean acidification Significant economic benefits can accrue from MRE development at a commercial scale, including the potential to enhance portions of coastal economies by creating high-paying skilled jobs in areas where other industries are not prevalent (Marine Energy Wales 2020; Smart and Noonan 2018). Because MRE devices must be fully marinized, they may require relatively less maintenance compared to offshore wind turbine parts in air, although MRE devices may be placed farther offshore and in less hospitable regions, including in high latitudes and remote locations, which may increase the difficulty of maintenanc (Copping et al. 2018; LiVecchi et al. 2019). Relatively small MRE devices can be placed offshore to serve many different types of ocean observation platforms on the sea surface and at depth. This placement of devices alleviates the need for a surface presence and frequent costly vessel cruises to replenish batteries. It may also provide energy for emerging offshore aquaculture farms. These offshore devices could potentially provide a stepping stone to electrification of commercial shipping and passenger vessel trips (Copping et al. 2018; LiVecchi et al. 2019). MRE has the potential to add to the renewable energy portfolios of many countries to meet low-carbon renewable energy standards (Copping et al. 2018; Thresher and Musial 2010) and to address the need for climate change mitigation (IRENA 2019; UN General Assembly 2012). Like solar and wind energy, MRE does not require that generation technologies be replenished 4 (e.g., Doney et al. 2009; Fabry et al. 2008; Harley et al. 2006) and ocean warming (e.g., Cheung et al. 2013; Stachowicz et al. 2002; Wernberg et al. 2011), and nearshore habitats that support many commercially important and endangered species are affected by rising sea levels (e.g., Bigford 2008; Yang et al. 2015). The potential benefits to marine animals and habitats of mitigating climate change through renewable power generation far outweigh the potential impacts of MRE development, if projects are sited and scaled in an environmentally responsible manner (Copping et al. 2016). However, the scale of MRE development will need to be greatly accelerated in order to have a measurable effect on climate change mitigation and other benefits to marine life. The placement of all wave and tidal devices developed to date requires contact with the seabed to hold them in place, either by gravity foundations placed on the seafloor, or some form of anchor or holdfast driven into the sea bottom. This placement will alter the immediate deployment location to some extent, but may also create new habitat types that may be in short supply in the immediate region. MRE devices (particularly wave energy converters [WECs]) can be sited offshore in ways that avoid rare rocky reef or deep-sea sponge/coral habitats, and they can be preferentially placed in soft-bottom habitats that are extensive on the continental shelves and slopes of the world’s oceans. Adding an MRE foundation or anchor may create new hard-bottom habitat, providing shelter and access to food for benthic organisms (e.g., Callaway et al. 2017), including commercially important OES-ENVIRONMENTAL 2020 STATE OF THE SCIENCE REPORT species like crab and lobster (Hooper and Austen 2014; developed and reviewed by over 60 international experts Langhamer and Wilhelmsson 2009). and scientists from around the world as part of an ongo- Typically, environmental statutes and regulations do not have mechanisms to enable consideration of beneficial uses of MRE devices—such as habitat creation (e.g., ing effort supported by the OES collaboration that operates within the International Technology Cooperation Framework of the International Energy Agency (IEA). Callaway et al. 2017)—to offset potential deleterious The term MRE is used throughout this report to describe effects. However, the creation of de facto marine reserves power generated by the movement and gradients of sea- around MRE projects is likely to benefit local communi- water and the run of the river flows of large rivers. Gen- ties of fish and other organisms, as stressors associated erating power from the ocean includes the use of other with human activities, such as fishing, and disturbance technologies, including offshore wind turbines, but this are removed (Inger et al. 2009). report is focused on devices that generate energy from seawater and from large rivers. Lessons learned from 1.2. BALANCING CONCERNS WITH BENEFITS FOR MRE DEVELOPMENT W hen considering the benefits of marine energy, one must also consider its potential negative effects. In every location where MRE development is being considered, it is important to determine potential effects on marine animals, habitats, and the oceanographic systems that support them, and to use every effort to minimize or mitigate such damage. Many of the animal populations that reside in the energy-rich areas of the ocean are already under considerable stress from other human activities including shipping, fishing, waste disposal, and shoreline development (Crain et al. 2009). To achieve sustainable development it is important that the MRE industry not cause additional environmental stress and related damage. It is the examination of these stresses, their potential risks to the marine environment, and how these risks might bottom-fixed or floating offshore wind development and discussions of similar environmental effects also are included when appropriate. 1.3.1. SOURCES OF INFORMATION Information used for the 2020 State of the Science report is publicly available, published work derived either from peer-reviewed scientific literature or reports published by researchers, developers, and government agencies—all of which represent the state of knowledge for the industry. Report topics include monitoring, baseline assessments, and investigations of environmental effects for specific MRE projects; research studies that support specific MRE projects or address environmental interactions broadly; and guidance and assessments commissioned by governments and regulatory bodies to assist with the responsible development of the industry. The chapter authors all have expertise in these fields and have considered the available information to create a coherent view of the state of evidence and knowledge, be understood, placed in context, managed, and mini- using their own expert judgment to interpret the work. mized, that are the major focuses of this report. 1.3.2. USES OF THE INFORMATION 1.3. 2020 STATE OF THE SCIENCE REPORT T his report builds on and serves as an update and a complement to the 2013 Final Report for Phase 1 of OES-Environmental (Copping et al. 2013) and the 2016 State of the Science report (Copping et al. 2016). Its content reflects the most current and pertinent published information about interactions of MRE devices and associated infrastructure with the animals and habitats that make up the marine environment. It has been SECTION A – INTRODUCTION The information gathered and analyzed for the 2020 State of the Science report was compiled to help inform regulatory and research investigations about potential risks to marine animals, habitats, and oceanographic processes from tidal and wave installations. This information can also be used to assist MRE developers when considering design engineering, siting, operational strategies, and monitoring options for projects that minimize encounters with marine animals and/or diminish the effects if such encounters occur. Used in conjunction with site-specific knowledge, the information from this report may simplify and shorten the time to consent/permit (hereafter 5 consent) deployments—from single devices through of energy capture tends to cause widespread environ- commercial arrays. The information brought together for mental damage to river mouths and estuaries (e.g., analysis represents readily available, reliable informa- Retiere 1994). Tidal lagoons resemble tidal barrages but tion about environmental interactions with MRE devices. are placed in bays away from the mouths of rivers. Little However, the analyses and the conclusions drawn are is known about the potential environmental effects of not meant to take the place of site-specific analyses and tidal lagoons (e.g., Elliott et al. 2019). To date a number studies, direct consenting actions, or influence siting of tidal lagoon projects have been proposed but there considerations in specific locations. are no active projects under development in Europe or 1.3.3 REPORT PURPOSE AND SCOPE This report summarizes the current state of knowledge, science, and understanding related to the potential environmental effects that MRE devices and systems North America. This report is limited to the in-water and nearshore aspects of MRE development and does not address the potential effects of shoreside components, including cable landings, electrical infrastructure, and connec- placed in the ocean may have on the marine animals tions to national grids. that live there and the habitats that support them. MRE development worldwide is mostly focused on the gen- 1.3.4. REPORT CONTENT AND ORGANIZATION eration of power from waves, tides, and some large riv- The 2020 State of the Science report on the environmental ers, but MRE also includes generation from ocean cur- effects of MRE development begins with a set of envi- rents and from temperature and salinity gradients. ronmental questions that define investigations (Chap- This report describes the potential interactions of MRE devices with the marine environment and the methods and approaches used to evaluate the level of risk and uncertainty associated with these potential interactions. It provides insights into management approaches that have the potential to facilitate the MRE industry’s ability to establish this new renewable energy source while also protecting the marine environment and the people who rely on it for their livelihoods. This report summarizes and facilitates access to the best available scientific evidence on the environmental effects of MRE. The value of this information will be realized as it is applied to consenting processes to enable increased and responsible deployment of ter 2) and continues with specific information about stressor/receptor interactions of importance (Chapters 3–9), delves into technologies for monitoring interactions with marine animals (chapter 10), addresses a series of management and planning measures that may assist with responsible MRE development (Chapters 11–13), and concludes with a potential path forward (Chapter 14). The chapter topics are summarized in Table 1.1. Throughout the report, numerous wave, tidal, and river current projects and test sites are discussed. Offshore wind sites are also mentioned when the environmental information from those sites informs MRE issues. The physical location of each of these projects is shown in Figure 1.1 and additional site information is provided in Table 1.2. devices. For some low risk stressors, consenting of single devices and small arrays should be possible based on the information provided in this report, including information from consented or deployed projects, from related research studies or from evidence from analogous offshore industries. For higher risk stressors, further evidence will be needed. This report does not specifically address tidal barrages or tidal lagoons, which generate power from the change in water flow from high to low tides and back. Dam-like tidal barrages generally consist of turbines installed across the mouths of tidal rivers and bays that capture power as the tide ebbs and floods. This method 6 1.4. OCEAN ENERGY SYSTEMS F ounded in 2001, OES1 is an intergovernmental collaboration between countries that operates within a framework established by the IEA2 in Paris, France. The framework features multilateral technology initiatives that encourage technology-related research, development, and demonstration (RD&D) to support energy security, economic growth, and environmental protec1 https://www.ocean-energy-systems.org/ 2 https://www.iea.org OES-ENVIRONMENTAL 2020 STATE OF THE SCIENCE REPORT Table 1.1. Description of the chapter topics in the 2020 State of the Science report. Chapter Chapter Title Topic 2 Marine Renewable Energy: Environmental Effects and Monitoring Strategies Defining stressors and receptors, potential environmental effects, and approaches to monitoring marine renewable energy (MRE) interactions. 3 Collision Risk for Animals around Turbines Research on collision risk for marine mammals, fish, and seabirds around turbines. 4 Risk to Marine Animals from Underwater Noise Generated by Marine Renewable Energy Devices Research on the effects of underwater noise produced by operation of MRE devices on marine mammals and fish. 5 Risk to Animals from Electromagnetic Fields Emitted by Electric Cables and Marine Renewable Energy Devices Research on the effects of electromagnetic fields produced by operation of MRE devices and transmission cables on sensitive marine species. 6 Changes in Benthic and Pelagic Habitats Caused by Marine Renewable Energy Devices Research on the physical and biological changes to benthic and pelagic habitats caused by MRE devices. 7 Changes in Oceanographic Systems Associated with Marine Renewable Energy Devices Research on the potential of MRE devices to change flow patterns, remove energy, and affect wave heights. 8 Encounters of Marine Animals with Marine Renewable Energy Device Mooring Systems and Subsea Cables Research on the potential of marine animals to physically encounter, get entangled, or entrapped in mooring systems or cables from MRE devices. 9 Social and Economic Data Collection for Marine Renewable Energy Data collection needs for addressing social and economic effects of MRE development for consenting. 10 Environmental Monitoring Technologies and Techniques for Detecting Interactions of Animals with Turbines Research on existing environmental monitoring technologies and lessons learned from monitoring programs for turbines. 11 Marine Spatial Planning and Marine Renewable Energy Marine spatial planning (MSP) interactions with MRE and possibilities for integrating MSP in planning and developing the MRE industry. 12 Adaptive Management Related to Marine Renewable Energy Use of adaptive management in consenting MRE devices. 13 Risk Retirement and Data Transferability for Marine Renewable Energy Potential for risk retirement and data transfer for consenting MRE devices, and a proposed pathway to streamline consenting processes. 14 Summary and Path Forward Summary of the report and concluding remarks for a path forward. tion. The Working Group for the OES Initiative advises representatives to the OES Executive Committee, which the IEA Committee on Energy Research and Technol- is responsible for the OES work program. Executive ogy, which guides initiatives to shape work programs Committee participants are specialists from govern- that address current energy issues. ment departments, national energy agencies, research Under the OES Initiative, countries, through international cooperation and information exchange, advance research, development, and deployment of conversion technologies to convert energy from all forms of ocean renewable resources, including tides, waves, currents, temperature gradients (ocean thermal energy conversion), and salinity gradients for electricity generation, as well as for other uses, such as desalination. OES comprises 24 member countries and the European Commission (as of May 2020), each of which is represented by a Contracting Party. The Contracting Party nominates SECTION A – INTRODUCTION or scientific bodies, and academia. The OES work program carried out by the Contracting Parties consists of research and development analysis, and information exchange related to ocean energy systems. Work is conducted on diverse research topics that are specified as tasks of the Implementing Agreement (the OES agreement among nations). Each task is managed by an Operating Agent, usually the member nation that proposes the initiative and undertakes a set of planned activities, engaging the other participating nations in all aspects of the work. 7 Figure 1.1. Tidal, wave, river current, and offshore wind sites mentioned in the various chapters of the report. See Table 1.2 for corresponding site information. Legend Tidal Wave River Offshore wind 17 1 11 18 19 2 3 Alaska 20 5 12 4 21 Hawaii North Western Europe Western United States 13 7 6 8 22 10 15 9 23 16 Eastern United States and Canada 24 26 Australia Western Europe Legend Tidal Wave River # Abandoned or decommissioned 10 14 25 Offshore wind United Kingdom OES-ENVIRONMENTAL 2020 STATE OF THE SCIENCE REPORT Table 1.2. Wave, tidal, river current, and offshore wind sites mentioned in the various chapters of the report. Site # Site Name Location Technology Project Name Status 1 Kvichak River/Iguigig Alaska, United States (U.S.) River ORPC RivGen Operational 2 Race Rocks Ecological Reserve British Columbia, Canada Tidal Clean Current’s Tidal Current Generator Decommissioned 3 Admiralty Inlet, Washington, U.S. Puget Sound Tidal Admiralty Inlet Pilot Tidal Project Abandoned 4 Reedsport Oregon, U.S. Wave Reedsport OPT Wave Park Abandoned 5 WETS Hawaii, U.S. Wave Fred Olsen Lifesaver at WETS Operational 6 Bay of Fundy Nova Scotia, Canada Tidal FORCE test site, Cape Sharp Tidal Venture Operational 7 Cobscook Bay Maine, U.S. Tidal ORPC TidGen Under Development 8 Grand Passage, Nova Scotia, Canada Nova Scotia Tidal PLAT-I Operational Offshore Wind Rhode Island Ocean Special Area Management Plan Operational 10 East River New York, U.S. Tidal Roosevelt Island Tidal Energy (RITE) Operational 11 Kvalsund Norway Tidal Kvalsun Tidal Turbine Prototype (Hammerfest Strøm) Decommissioned 9 Block Island Rhode Island, U.S. 12 Lysekil Sweden Wave Lysekil Wave Energy Site Operational 13 La Rance France Tidal Barrage La Rance Tidal Barrage Operational 14 Paimpol-Bréhat France Tidal OpenHydro Paimpol-Bréhat Demonstration Project Decommissioned 15 SEENOH Test Site France Tidal Site Expérimental Estuarien National pour l’Essai et l’Optimisation Hydrolienne (SEENOH) Operational Pelamis Wave Power Aguçadoura Decommissioned Nova Innovation Shetland Tidal Array Operational 16 17 Aguçadoura Portugal Wave Farm Wave Bluemull Sound, Shetland Scotland, Tidal United Kingdom (UK) 18 Fall of Warness, Orkney Scotland, UK Tidal EMEC test site Operational Fall of Warness, Orkney Scotland, UK Tidal OpenHydro at EMEC Decommissioned Fall of Warness, Orkney Scotland, UK Tidal EMEC test site: Deepgen, Alstrom Decommissioned BIllia Croo Scotland, UK Wave EMEC test sit Operational Inner Sound, Pentland Firth Scotland, UK Tidal MeyGen Operational 21 Kyle Rhea England, UK Tidal Kyle Rhea Tidal Stream Array Abandoned 22 Strangford Lough Northern Ireland, UK Tidal SeaGen Decommissioned Strangford Lough Northern Ireland, UK Tidal Minesto Powerkite Decommissioned Queen’s University Belfast Tidal Test Site Decommissioned 19 20 Schottel Northern Ireland, UK Tidal 23 Holyhead Deep Wales, UK Tidal Minesto Deep Green Operational 24 Ramsey Sound Wales, UK Tidal DeltaStream Pembrokeshire Abandoned 25 FaBTest Cornwall, UK Wave Fred Olsen Lifesaver at FaBTest Decommissioned 26 Garden Island Western Australia Wave Perth Wave Energy Project Decommissioned SECTION A – INTRODUCTION 11 1.4.1. THE OES-ENVIRONMENTAL (FORMERLY ANNEX IV) TASK 1.4.2. OES-ENVIRONMENTAL PHASE 3 The formation of the OES-Environmental3 task or initia- 2020) built on the tasks carried out during Phases 1 and tive, which is focused on the potential environmental impacts of MRE, was initiated by the United States and Canada in 2006 in response to a need for information about the environmental effects described in the summary of the IEA’s meeting on ocean energy systems held in Messina, Italy (the Messina report).4 After a meeting of experts in late 2007, the United States developed a proposal for the formalization of OES-Environmental (at that time called Annex IV), which was submitted to The workplan for OES-Environmental Phase 3 (2016– 2, and the current status of these plans is described in Table 1.4. OES-Environmental also hosted several workshops during Phase 3, bringing together experts to advance understanding of key interactions and to work toward consensus on how research and monitoring information can help inform consenting processes and help to move the MRE industry forward. The workshops are and approved by the OES Executive Committee in 2008. listed in Table 1.5 below. The proposal noted the need to compile and disseminate The culmination of Phase 3 of OES-Environmental is information about the environmental effects of MRE the preparation of this document, the 2020 State of the and to identify methods of monitoring for such effects. Science report. OES-Environmental was proposed to focus primarily on ocean wave, tidal, and current energy development. The phases of task activities and participation in OES-Environmental task since its initiation are described in Table 1.3. The task has been led by the United States with the U.S. Department of Energy acting as the Operating Agent and Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) implementing the task on behalf of the United States. Table 1.3. Ocean Energy Systems (OES)-Environmental task phases, timeline, and participating countries. Information about OES-Environmental activities during Phases 1 and 2 are detailed in the 2016 State of the Science report (Copping et al. 2016). The UUnited States (U.S.) has led all three phases of the task, with the U.S. Department of Energy acting as the Operating Agent and Pacific Northwest National Laboratory implementing the task. Phase Timeline Nations and Partners Committed Phase 1 2009 - 2012 Seven participating nations (Canada, Ireland, New Zealand, Norway, South Korea, Spain, and the United States [U.S.]) supported the Ocean Energy Systems (OES)-Environmental task by formalizing their commitments to the effort and developing a work plan and budget for the task. Cooperating U.S. federal agencies during this phase included the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM), and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) was assisted by the Wave Energy Centre in Portugal and the University of Plymouth in the United Kingdom (UK). Phase 2 2013 - 2016 Thirteen nations (Canada, China, Ireland, Japan, New Zealand, Nigeria, Norway, Portugal, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, the UK, and the U.S.) participated in Phase 2. Cooperating U.S. federal agencies during this phase included BOEM and NOAA. PNNL was assisted by Aquatera Ltd. in the UK. Phase 3 2016 - 2020 Fifteen nations (Australia, Canada, China, Denmark, France, India, Ireland, Japan, Norway, Portugal, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, the UK, and the U.S.) participated in this phase. The leadership and implementation of the task remained the same as those during Phase 2. 3. OES-Environmental was known as Annex IV until August 2019, at which time the name was changed to be more in line with other OES tasks. The organization, mission, and management of the task has not changed. 4. National Renewable Energy Laboratory (U.S.) and Natural Resources Canada (Canada). October 18, 2007. Potential Environmental Impacts of Ocean Energy Devices: Meeting Summary Report. 12 OES-ENVIRONMENTAL 2020 STATE OF THE SCIENCE REPORT Table 1.4. Workplan for Ocean Energy Systems (OES)-Environmental Phase 3 (2016-2020). Task # Task Task Description Status and Progress (as of May 2020) 1 Expand Tethys collection Populate the publicly available knowledge management system Tethys (https://​tethys​.pnnl​.gov) with scientific information about the environmental effects of marine energy. ◆ 6262 documents (of which 2996 are peer-reviewed) that address environmental effects of marine renewable energy (MRE) development on Tethys. ◆ Documents are continually added to Tethys as they become available. 2 Outreach and Outreach and engagement with the engagement MRE community, with emphasis on researchers, regulators, and device developers. Key activities pursued during this phase included the following: ◆ A biweekly electronic newsletter, Tethys Blast, has been sent to the Ocean Energy Systems (OES)-Environmental community of approximately 1800. All Tethys Blasts are archived on Tethys at http://tethys.pnnl.gov/tethys-blasts. ◆ Webinars with experts on environmental effects of MRE feature advances in research. All webinars have been archived on Tethys at: https://tethys.pnnl.gov/environmental-webinars. ◆ Expert forums are held to discuss difficult technical questions that are common to more than one jurisdiction and that are hindering consenting of MRE. Presentations and audio files are available on Tethys at: http://tethys.pnnl.gov/expert-forums. 3 Metadata forms on environmental monitoring ◆ 107 metadata forms related to marine energy deployments Compile information from environmental data collection and ◆ 106 metadata descriptions of research studies monitoring around deployed MRE devices and related research studies. 4 Partner with international conferences on MRE to raise the profile of environmental research on MRE. Supporting international conferences 5 State of Science Develop 2020 State of the Science report for environmental effects of MRE. SECTION A – INTRODUCTION ◆ Environmental Interactions of Marine Renewables (EIMR) 2016, Edinburgh, United Kingdom (UK) February 2016. ◆ European Wave and Tidal Energy Conference (EWTEC) 2017, Cork, Ireland, September 2017. ◆ EIMR 2018, Orkney UK, April 2018. ◆ EWTEC 2019, Napoli, Italy, September 2019. ◆ Research, write, and integrate extensive reviews for report. ◆ Release report as public draft, June 2020. ◆ Release final report, September 2020. 13 Table 1.5. Workshops held by Ocean Energy Systems (OES)-Environmental during Phase 3. Title Location Date Management Measures Workshop https://tethys.pnnl.gov/events/management-measures Glasgow, United Kingdom (UK) May 9, 2017 Exploring the State of Understanding and Practice used to Assess Social and Cork, Ireland Economic Risks and Benefits of Marine Renewable Energy Development https://tethys.pnnl.gov/events/exploring-state-understanding-practice-used-assess-social-economic-risks-benefits-marine Aug 31, 2017 Case Studies on Social and Economic Effects around MRE Developments Kirkwall, UK https://tethys.pnnl.gov/events/case-studies-social-economic-effects-around-mre-development Apr 23, 2018 Data Transferability and Collection Consistency Workshop (ICOE) https://tethys.pnnl.gov/events/annex-iv-data-transferability-collection-consistency-icoe Cherbourg, France Jun 12, 2018 Addressing Collision Risks from Tidal and River Turbines https://tethys.pnnl.gov/events/addressing-collision-risks-tidal-and-river-turbines Edinburgh, UK Feb 26, 2019 Retiring Risks of MRE Environmental Interactions to Support Consenting/Permitting­ Napoli, Italy https://tethys.pnnl.gov/events/retiring-risks-mre-environmental-interactions-support-consentingpermitting Sep 5, 2019 Retiring Risk for MRE Projects to Support Permitting Portland, Oregon, United States https://tethys.pnnl.gov/events/oes-environmental-workshop-retiring-risk-mre-projects-support-permitting Sep 11, 2019 Environmental Effects and Risk Retirement for MRE Sydney, Australia https://tethys.pnnl.gov/events/oes-environmentalorjip-workshop-environmental-effects-risk-retirement-mre Dec 4, 2019 14 OES-ENVIRONMENTAL 2020 STATE OF THE SCIENCE REPORT 1.5. REFERENCES Copping, A., Sather, N., Hanna, L., Whiting, J., Bigford, T. E. 1991. Sea-level rise, nearshore fisheries, and Masden, E. 2016. Annex IV 2016 State of the Sci- and the fishing industry. Coastal Management, 19(4), ence Report: Environmental Effects of Marine Renew- 417-437. doi:10.1080/08920759109362152 https://tethys​ able Energy Development Around the World. Report by .pnnl.gov/publications/sea-level-rise-nearshore-fisheries​ Pacific Northwest National Laboratory for Ocean Energy -fishing-industry Systems. https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/state-of-the​ Callaway, R., Bertelli, C., Lock, G., Carter, T., Friis- Zydlewski, G., Staines, G., Gill, A., Hutchison, I., O’Hagan, A., Simas, T., Bald, J., Sparling, C., Wood, J., -science-2016 Madsen, E., Unsworth, R., Sorense, H., and Neumann, Crain, C. M., Halpern, B. S., Beck, M. W., and Kappel, C. V. F. 2017. Wave and Tidal Range Energy Devices Offer 2009. Understanding and Managing Human Threats to Environmental Opportunities as Artificial Reefs. Paper the Coastal Marine Environment. Annals of the New York presented at the 12th European Wave and Tidal Energy Academy of Sciences, 1162(1), 39-62. doi:10.1111/j.1749​ Conference, Cork, Ireland. https://tethys.pnnl.gov​ -6632.2009.04496.x https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications​ /publications/wave-tidal-range-energy-devices-offer​ /understanding-managing-human-threats-coastal​ -environmental-opportunities-artificial-reefs -marine-environment Cheung, W. W. L., Watson, R., and Pauly, D. 2013. Signa- Doney, S. C., Fabry, V. J., Feely, R. A., and Kleypas, J. ture of ocean warming in global fisheries catch. Nature, A. 2009. Ocean Acidification: The Other CO2 Problem. 497(7449), 365-368. doi:10.1038/nature12156 https://​ Annual Review of Marine Science, 1(1), 169-192. doi:10​ tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/signature-ocean-warming​ .1146/annurev.marine.010908.163834 https://tethys.pnnl​ -global-fisheries-catch .gov/publications/ocean-acidification-other-co2-problem Copping, A., Hanna, L., Whiting, J., Geerlofs, S., Grear, Elliott, K., Smith, H. C. M., Moore, F., van der Weijde, A. M., Blake, K., Coffey, A., Massaua, M., Brown-Saracino, H., and Lazakis, I. 2019. A systematic review of transfer- J., and Battey, H. 2013. Environmental Effects of Marine able solution options for the environmental impacts of Energy Development around the World: Annex IV Final tidal lagoons. Marine Policy, 99, 190-200. doi:10.1016​ Report. Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Rich- /j.marpol.2018.10.021 https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications​ land, Washington. Report by Pacific Northwest National /systematic-review-transferable-solution-options​ Laboratory for Ocean Energy Systems. https://tethys.pnnl​ -environmental-impacts-tidal-lagoons .gov/publications/environmental-effects-marine-energy​ -development-around-world-annex-iv-final-report Fabry, V. J., Seibel, B. A., Feely, R. A., and Orr, J. C. 2008. Impacts of ocean acidification on marine fauna and Copping, A., LiVecchi, A., Spence, H., Gorton, A., ecosystem processes. ICES Journal of Marine Science, Jenne, S., Preus, R., Gill, G., Robichaud, R., and Gore, 65(3), 414-432. doi:10.1093/icesjms/fsn048 https://​ S. 2018. Maritime Renewable Energy Markets: Power tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/impacts-ocean-acidification​ From the Sea. Marine Technology Society Journal, 52(5), -marine-fauna-ecosystem-processes 99-109. doi:10.4031/MTSJ.52.5.3 https://tethys.pnnl.gov​ /publications/maritime-renewable-energy-markets​ -power-sea Harley, C. D. G., Randall Hughes, A., Hultgren, K. M., Miner, B. G., Sorte, C. J. B., Thornber, C. S., Rodriguez, L. F., Tomanek, L., and Williams, S. L. 2006. The impacts of climate change in coastal marine systems. Ecology Letters, 9(2), 228-241. doi:10.1111/j.1461-0248.2005.00871​ .x https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/impacts-climate​ -change-coastal-marine-systems SECTION A – INTRODUCTION 15 Hooper, T., and Austen, M. 2014. The co-location of off- Retiere, C. 1994. Tidal power and the aquatic environ- shore windfarms and decapod fisheries in the UK: Con- ment of La Rance. Biological Journal of the Linnean Soci- straints and opportunities. Marine Policy, 43, 295-300. ety, 51(1-2), 25-36. doi:10.1111/j.1095-8312.1994.tb00941​ doi:10.1016/j.marpol.2013.06.011 https://tethys.pnnl.gov​ .x https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/tidal-power- /publications/co-location-offshore-windfarms-decapod​ aquatic​-environment-la-rance -fisheries-uk-constraints-opportunities Smart, G., and Noonan, M. 2018. Tidal Stream and Wave Inger, R., Attrill, M. J., Bearhop, S., Broderick, A. C., Energy Cost Reduction and Industrial Benefit. Offshore James Grecian, W., Hodgson, D. J., Mills, C., Sheehan, E., Renewable Energy Catapult, Glasgow UK. https://tethys​ Votier, S. C., Witt, M. J., and Godley, B. J. 2009. Marine -engineering.pnnl.gov/publications/tidal-stream-wave​ renewable energy: potential benefits to biodiversity? -energy-cost-reduction-industrial-benefit An urgent call for research. Journal of Applied Ecology, 46(6), 1145-1153. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2664.2009.01697.x https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/marine-renewable​ -energy-potential-benefits-biodiversity-urgent-call​ -research Stachowicz, J. J., Terwin, J. R., Whitlatch, R. B., and Osman, R. W. 2002. Linking climate change and biological invasions: Ocean warming facilitates nonindigenous species invasions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 99(24), 15497. doi:10.1073/pnas.242437499 International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA). 2019. https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/linking-climate​ Renewable Energy Statistics 2019. Abu Dhabi. https://​ -change-biological-invasions-ocean-warming-facilitates​ tethys-engineering.pnnl.gov/publications/renewable​ -nonindigenous -energy-statistics-2019 Thresher, R., and Musial, W. 2015. Ocean Renewable Langhamer, O., and Wilhelmsson, D. 2009. Colonisa- Energy’s Potential Role In Supplying Future Electrical tion of fish and crabs of wave energy foundations and Energy Needs. Oceanography, 23(2), 16-21. doi:10.5670​ the effects of manufactured holes – A field experi- /oceanog.2010.39 https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications​ ment. Marine Environmental Research, 68(4), 151-157. /ocean-renewable-energys-potential-role-supplying​ doi:10.1016/j.marenvres.2009.06.003 https://tethys.pnnl​ -future-electrical-energy-needs .gov/publications/colonisation-fish-crabs-wave-energy​ -foundations-effects-manufactured-holes-field United Nations General Assembly. 2012. Report on the work of the United Nations Open-ended Informal Con- LiVecchi, A., Copping, A., Jenne, D., Gorton, A., Preus, sultative Process on Oceans and the Law of the Sea at R., Gill, G., Robichaud, R., Green, R., Geerlofs, S., Gore, its thirteenth meeting (A/67/120). https://tethys.pnnl.gov​ S., Hume, D., McShane, W., Schmaus, C., and Spence, H. /publications/thirteenth-meeting-united-nations-open​ 2019. Powering the Blue Economy: Exploring Opportu- -ended-informal-consultative-process-oceans-law nities for Marine Renewable Energy in Maritime Markets. U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Washington, D.C. https://​ tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/powering-blue-economy​ -exploring-opportunities-marine-renewable-energy​ -maritime-markets Marine Energy Wales. 2020. State of the Sector 2020: Economic Benefits for Wales. https://tethys.pnnl.gov​ /publications/state-sector-report-2020-economic​ -benefits-wales Wernberg, T., Russell, Bayden D., Thomsen, Mads S., Gurgel, C. Frederico D., Bradshaw, Corey J. A., Poloczanska, Elvira S., and Connell, Sean D. 2011. Seaweed Communities in Retreat from Ocean Warming. Current Biology, 21(21), 1828-1832. doi:10.1016/j.cub.2011.09.028 https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/seaweed-communities​ -retreat-ocean-warming Yang, Z., Wang, T., Voisin, N., and Copping, A. 2015. Estuarine response to river flow and sea-level rise under future climate change and human develop- Pelc, R., and Fujita, R. M. 2002. Renewable energy ment. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science, 156, 19-30. from the ocean. Marine Policy, 26(6), 471-479. doi:/10​ doi:10.1016/j.ecss.2014.08.015 https://tethys.pnnl.gov​ .1016/S0308-597X(02)00045-3 https://tethys.pnnl.gov​ /publications/estuarine-response-river-flow-sea-level​ /publications/renewable-energy-ocean -rise-under-future-climate-change-human 16 OES-ENVIRONMENTAL 2020 STATE OF THE SCIENCE REPORT NOTES Marine Renewable Energy and Ocean Energy Systems Copping, A.E. 2020. Marine Renewable Energy and Ocean Energy Systems. In A.E. Copping and L.G. Hemery (Eds.), OES-Environmental 2020 State of the Science Report: Environmental Effects of Marine Renewable Energy Development Around the World. Report for Ocean Energy Systems (OES). (pp. 2-17). doi:10.2172/1632879 REPORT AND MORE INFORMATION CONTACT OES-Environmental 2020 State of the Science full report and executive summary available at: https://tethys​.pnnl.gov/publications/state-of-the​-science-2020 Andrea Copping Pacific Northwest National Laboratory andrea.copping@pnnl.gov +1 206.528.3049 SECTION A – INTRODUCTION Go to https://tethys​.pnnl.gov for a comprehensive collection of papers, reports, archived presentations, and other media about environmental effects of marine renewable energy development. 17 18 OES-ENVIRONMENTAL 2020 STATE OF THE SCIENCE REPORT 2.0 Chapter author: Andrea E. Copping Contributor: Deborah J. Rose Marine Renewable Energy: Environmental Effects and Monitoring Strategies As we learn more about interactions between marine renewable energy (MRE) devices, the animals and habitats near them, and the oceanographic processes with which they interact, we need to clarify the language used to discuss those interactions. For example, if an MRE device or system negatively affected a number of animals, we could say that the device or the system of foundations, anchors, and mooring lines had an impact on the population, and take steps to avoid the impact or, in some cases, mitigate the impact. However, at this stage in MRE development, there are few, if any, cases in which a negative impact has been observed or measured. Instead, we are developing the building blocks that support investigations of interactions and potential impacts. SECTION A – INTRODUCTION 19 2.1. POTENTIAL EFFECTS OF MARINE RENEWABLE ENERGY K ey investigations to determine effects of MRE devices include determining the presence of animals close enough to devices/cables/lines that are potentially at risk, measuring device and cable outputs such as underwater noise and electromagnetic fields, measuring potential interactions of animals with these emissions or MRE devices, and modeling changes in water flow and sediment transport at large-scale MRE developments. At this early stage of MRE development, few observations or data collection efforts point to devices or systems that are causing population-level impacts. The emphasis of research and monitoring studies has been on examining changes in or effects on individual organisms, particularly populations under stress or species of special concern. In most cases, it is difficult to determine whether such effects might be sufficiently deleterious to an animal (or a habitat) to have higher level impacts on populations or the marine ecosystem. Throughout this report, we refer to the effects or potential effects of MRE development and make the connection only to the population-level impacts if established 2.2. STRESSORS AND RECEPTORS T hroughout this report, we examine interactions between MRE systems and the marine environment in terms of stressors and receptors (Boehlert and Gill 2010). Stressors are those parts of an MRE system that may cause harm or stress to a marine animal, a habitat, oceanographic processes, or ecosystem processes. These stressors include the moving blades on turbines, mooring lines, anchors or foundations, power export cables, and the emissions that can result from any of these parts. The receptors include the marine animals living in and traversing the vicinity of an MRE development; the habitats into which the devices are deployed; and oceanographic processes, such as the natural movement of waters, wave heights, sediment transport, and the concentrations of dissolved gases and nutrients that support marine life. It is the intersection of stressors and receptors that define the interactions that can be examined through observations, laboratory and field experiments, and modeling studies. Section 2 of this report (Chapters 3–8) describes the state of scientific understanding of these stressor-receptor interactions (Figure 2.1). methods or regulatory pathways require such examination. Figure 2.1. Stressor-receptor interactions potentially arising from various marine renewable energy devices. From top left to bottom right: changes in oceanographic systems, underwater noise, electromagnetic fields, mooring entanglement, collision risk, and changes in habitats. (Illustration by Rose Perry) 20 OES-ENVIRONMENTAL 2020 STATE OF THE SCIENCE REPORT 2.3. DEFINITIONS FOR MEASURING ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS waters, into which MRE devices are placed add consider- A number of common definitions are used in the mea- These challenging locations require that boat-based and surement, analysis, and reporting of environmental human observations be kept to a minimum, in favor of monitoring results around MRE devices (Table 2.1). In in situ remote instrumentation. Collecting and interpret- addition, there are specific definitions that are used for ing useful information collected at MRE deployment sites measurements that describe certain stressor-receptor poses significant difficulties, because of the challenges interactions; these definitions can be found in subse- of operating instrumentation underwater, as well as the quent chapters. challenges of processing and transmitting data for analy- able challenges to deploying and operating the oceanographic gear and sensor platforms needed to characterize the stressor-receptor interactions that may be occurring. sis. Not all instrumentation and/or data collection efforts 2.4. MEASURING THE EFFECTS OF MRE DEVICES related to conducting this type of monitoring over the last R that each subsequent effort builds on previous experience, esponsible and sustainable development of MRE as a renewable energy source requires that we under- decade have succeeded in meeting their monitoring goals. For future monitoring projects at MRE sites to be successful, lessons must be taken from previous efforts to assure thereby avoiding costly duplication and advancing the stand the environments into which turbines or other industry efficiently. devices such as kites (for harvesting power from tides, Details of the methods being used to monitor stressor- ocean currents, or river flows) and wave energy converters (WECs) will be deployed. Regulations often require that early deployments include extensive monitoring to collect sufficient data to understand the potential interactions of devices and systems with marine animals and habitats. The high-energy locations, and often turbid receptor interactions can be found in Chapters 3–8; extensive detail about the challenges of and solutions for measuring close interactions of animals and MRE devices can be found in Chapter 10 (Environmental Monitoring Technologies and Techniques for Detecting Interactions of Marine Animals with Turbines). Table 2.1. Definitions associated with investigations for consenting of marine renewable energy projects and research studies. These definitions are used in multiple chapters in this report; certain chapters, notably Chapter 3 (Collision Risk) and Chapter 4 (Underwater Noise), will define additional terms specific to that interaction. TermDefinition Baseline survey/site characterization ◆ ◆ Survey and fieldwork undertaken prior to marine renewable energy (MRE) device installation to gather data to better understand, quantify, and assess potential impacts. Generally required in support of license/consent applications. Cumulative effects ◆ Changes to the environment caused by the combined effects of multiple human activities and natural processes. Cumulative effects may be realized as the effects of repeated actions that may have an effect greater than the sum of their individual effects. Farfield ◆ The area of ocean or bay around an MRE device, generally defined as more than five device diameters from the device or array of devices. Nearfield ◆ The localized area of sea occupied by and in very close proximity to an MRE device, generally considered to be within one to five device diameters. Environmental monitoring associated with MRE projects ◆ Monitoring carried out to gather data before devices are deployed (post-consent monitoring) or monitoring of the environmental effects of deployed MRE devices (post-installation monitoring). Generally monitoring is required by regulators to validate predictions made in environmental assessments or to provide an evidence base for adaptive management of effects for which there is residual uncertainty. ◆ Project environmental monitoring plan (may go by various names including PEMPs/EMPs/others) SECTION A – INTRODUCTION ◆ A document produced as a requirement of licensing/consenting processes for MRE projects setting out the objectives and methodologies of post-installation environmental monitoring. 21 2.5. KEY MONITORING QUESTIONS T ◆ probability and effects of entrapment or entanglement of large marine animals because of the presence of mooring lines, anchors, and export cables he most significant stressor-receptor interactions (e.g., Benjamins et al. 2014; Copping et al. 2018). of concern, based on the accumulated knowledge to Studies have been designed to observe specific marine date (Copping et al. 2016; ICES 2019), and the primary factors that continue to generate interest and concern about these interactions among stakeholders with an interest in MRE development are summarized here. animal behaviors in response to the presence of MRE devices or their acoustic or electrical signatures; these potential effects occur at known or expected locations and/or at times that can be targeted for observation. Gaps in our knowledge and understanding of the potential Many of these interactions can be examined through effects of interactions between MRE stressors and marine modeling and other techniques that do not require the receptors span multiple spatial and temporal scales, such in-water study of the physical/biological setting of a that a large range of monitoring efforts would be needed specific device. For example, our understanding of the to fully understand and track these effects. The signifi- mechanisms for blade strike or collision assume an ani- cant increase in our understanding of potential effects mal is encountering a device; for electromagnetic field across multiple scales over the past decade has come (EMF) effects we assume a receptive organism is located about largely as the result of focusing on two general near the cable/component; and when investigating categories of monitoring questions: direct interactions of acoustic effects we assume the animal can detect the stressors and receptors, and the context and environment emitted sound and is within range, etc. in which MRE devices are placed. 2.5.2. MONITORING WITHIN THE CONTEXT OR ENVIRONMENT OF MRE DEVICES 2.5.1. DIRECT EFFECTS OF STRESSOR-RECEPTOR INTERACTIONS The second set of questions on which we focus deals with Scientific questions that inform our understanding of the context or vicinity of the device(s). While necessar- the direct effects of MRE devices focus on the actions ily site-specific, answers to these questions will build our and interactions of organisms as they encounter devices understanding of the biological and physical components in their natural habitat. Topics that inform those ques- of (and their linkages with) the highly energetic environ- tions include the following: ments targeted for wave or tidal power development. It ◆ rates of encounter and effects (injury/mortality rates) of collision with turbine blades (e.g., Bevelheimer et al. 2019; Copping and Grear 2018; Copping et al. 2017; Joy et al. 2018; Onoufriou et al. 2019; Schmitt et al. 2017) ◆ avoidance of moving parts or acoustic fields generated by the device (e.g., Grippo et al. 2017; Hastie et is necessary to understand the background processes at work at a site before designing a monitoring program that will reliably separate effects from the background natural variability as well as from effects of other anthropogenic activities. Topics that inform those questions include the following: ◆ area and examinations of their normal distribution in al. 2018; Robertson et al. 2018) ◆ space and time, as well as their movement patterns avoidance of or attraction to magnetic and induced (e.g., Cox et al. 2017; Holdman et al. 2019; Lagerquist et electrical fields (e.g., Gill et al. 2014; Westerberg and al. 2019; Viehman et al. 2018; Yoshida et al. 2017) Lagenfelt 2008) ◆ attraction to or aggregation around bottom- ◆ and EMF (e.g., Dhanak et al. 2015; Nedwell and Brooker 2018; Kramer et al. 2015; Williamson et al. 2019) displacement or permanent alteration of behavior patterns due to novel device presence (e.g., Long 2017; Sparling et al. 2018) examinations of the amplitude and other characteristics of the MRE stressors, including underwater noise mounted or floating structures (e.g., Fraser et al. ◆ inventories of organisms that naturally occur in the 2008; Pine et al. 2019) ◆ modeling and validation of hydrodynamic and sedimentation patterns, and their associated variability in space and time (e.g., Ashall et al. 2016; Fairley et al. 2017; Haverson et al. 2018; Khaled et al. 2019) 22 OES-ENVIRONMENTAL 2020 STATE OF THE SCIENCE REPORT ◆ modeling of potential effects of MRE systems on ecocarried out to date, agent-based models and ecosys- 2.7. REFERENCES tem models will become useful as the industry moves Ashall, L. M., Mulligan, R. P., and Law, B. A. 2016. Vari- systems; although relatively little modeling has been toward large commercial arrays. This information enables us to predict device effects, with some degree of confidence, and can be used to design effective mitigation measures, if needed. For example, ability in suspended sediment concentration in the Minas Basin, Bay of Fundy, and implications for changes due to tidal power extraction. Coastal Engineering, 107, 102-115. doi:10.1016/j.coastaleng.2015.10.003 https://​te​t​h​ys​.pn​nl​ animal distribution and movement patterns at a site will .gov​/pub​lications​/va​ri​a​bi​l​ity​-sus​pen​ded​-se​diment​-con​ce​n​t​r​a​ti​ largely determine how likely the animals are to encounter on​-minas​-ba​sin​-bay​-fun​dy​-and​-im​p​l​i​ca​t​ions a device or be affected by acoustic or electrical signatures. Benjamins, S., Harnois, V., Smith, H., Johanning, L., This contextual information can also indicate patterns of device encounter probability, thereby assisting with the siting of MRE developments to avoid or minimize the most likely adverse environmental effects. Combined with information about what occurs when an animal interacts with a device, such as rates of injury or mortality from blade strike, these results may inform regulatory needs to determine likely population-level impacts. A prime example of this approach can be seen in the outputs from several stages of the SeaGen turbine development and operation in Strangford Lough, Northern Ireland (Savidge et al. 2014) that informed adaptive management programs. These adaptive management programs helped MRE projects like TideGen in Cobscook Bay, Maine, United States (U.S.) develop effective monitoring and mitigation plans (ORPC 2013, 2014, 2017). 2.6. MONITORING STRATEGIES Answering these wide-ranging questions at the highly energetic sites targeted for power production is a significant challenge. The need to understand environmen- Greenhill, L., Carter, C., and Wilson, B. 2014. Understanding the Potential for Marine Megafauna Entanglement Risk from Marine Renewable Energy Developments. Paper presented at the 2nd International Conference on Environmental Interactions of Marine Renewable Energy Technologies, Stornoway, Scotland. https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/understanding-poten​ tial-marine-megafauna-entanglement-risk-marine-re​ newable-energy Bevelhimer, M. S., Pracheil, B. M., Fortner, A. M., Saylor, R., and Deck, K. L. 2019. Mortality and injury assessment for three species of fish exposed to simulated turbine blade strike. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 76(12), 2350-2363. doi:10.1139/cjfas-2018-0386 https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/mortality-and-injury​ -assessment-three-species-fish-exposed-simulated-turbi​ ne-blade Boehlert, G. W., and Gill, A. B. 2010. Environmental and Ecological Effects of Ocean Renewable Energy Development: A Current Synthesis. Oceanography, 23(2), 68-81. https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/environmental-and​ -ecological-effects-ocean-renewable-energy-developme​ tal consequences has driven innovation in developing nt-current environmental monitoring gear. A number of different Copping, A., and Grear, M. 2018. Applying a simple model methods and technologies have been used to describe the close interactions of marine animals with devices at wave and tidal sites around the world, some of which are discussed in Chapter 10 (Environmental Monitoring Technologies and Techniques for Detecting Interactions of Marine Animals with Turbines). As with other stressor-receptor interactions, the myriad and complex questions that need to be answered suggest that no one instrument or method can provide all the answers; rather, a suite of methods, instruments, and study designs must be employed to capture the full picture of how MRE devices interact with their environment. SECTION A – INTRODUCTION for estimating the likelihood of collision of marine mammals with tidal turbines. International Marine Energy Journal, 1(1), 27-33. doi:10.36688/imej.1.27-33. https://​te​t​h​ys​.pn​nl​. gov​/pub​lications​/ap​p​ly​ing​-sim​p​le​-mo​del​-esti​ma​t​i​ng​-li​ke​l​i​ho​ od​-col​li​si​on​-ma​ri​ne​-mam​ma​ls​-ti​dal​-tur​bi​nes Copping, A., Grear, M., Jepsen, R., Chartrand, C., and Gorton, A. 2017. Understanding the potential risk to marine mammals from collision with tidal turbines. International Journal of Marine Energy, 19, 110-123. doi:10​.1016/j.ijome.2017.07.004 https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/understanding-potential​ -risk-marine-mammals-collision-tidal-turbines 23 Copping, A., Grear, M., and Sanders, G. 2018. Risk of Fraser, S., Williamson, B. J., Nikora, V., and Scott, B. whale encounters with offshore renewable energy E. 2018. Fish distributions in a tidal channel indicate mooring lines and electrical cables. Paper presented at the behavioural impact of a marine renewable energy the Environmental Interactions of Marine Renewables installation. Energy Reports, 4, 65-69. doi:10.1016/j.egyr​ Conference, Kirkwall, Orkney, Scotland. https://tethys​ .2018.01.008 https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/fish-distr​ .pnnl.gov/publications/risk-whale-encounters-offshore​ ibutions-tidal-channel-indicate-behavioural-impact-ma​ -renewable-energy-mooring-lines-and-electrical-cab​les rine-renewable-energy Copping, A., Sather, N., Hanna, L., Whiting, J., Zydlewski, Gill, A. B., Gloyne-Philips, I., Kimber, J., and Sigray, P. G., Staines, G., Gill, A., Hutchison, I., O’Hagan, A., Simas, 2014. Marine Renewable Energy, Electromagnetic (EM) T., Bald, J., Sparling, C., Wood, J., and Masden, E. 2016. Fields and EM-Sensitive Animals. In M. A. Shields and A. Annex IV 2016 State of the Science Report: Environmen- I. L. Payne (Eds.), Marine Renewable Energy Technology tal Effects of Marine Renewable Energy Development and Environmental Interactions (pp. 61-79). Dordrecht: Around the World. Report by Pacific Northwest National Springer Netherlands. https://​te​t​h​ys​.pn​nl​.gov​/pub​lications​ Laboratory for Ocean Energy Systems. https://tethys.pnnl​ /ma​rine​-rene​w​able​-ener​gy​-ele​c​t​r​o​mag​ne​tic​-em​-fi​e​l​ds​ .gov/publications/state-of-the-science-2016 -em​-sen​sitive​-animals Cox, S. L., Witt, M. J., Embling, C. B., Godley, B. J., Hose- Grippo, M., Shen, H., Zydlewski, G., Rao, S., and good, P. J., Miller, P. I., Votier, S. C., and Ingram, S. N. Goodwin, A. 2017. Behavioral Responses of Fish to 2017. Temporal patterns in habitat use by small ceta- a Current-Based Hydrokinetic Turbine Under Mul- ceans at an oceanographically dynamic marine renew- tiple Operational Conditions: Final Report (ANL/ able energy test site in the Celtic Sea. Deep Sea Research EVS-17/6). Report by Argone National Laboratory for Part II: Topical Studies in Oceanography, 141, 178-190. U.S. Department of Energy; Argonne, Illinois. https:// doi:10.1016/j.dsr2.2016.07.001 https://tethys.pnnl.gov/pub​ tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/be​havioral-responses-fish- lications/temporal-patterns-habitat-use-small-cetacea​ current-based-hydrokinetic-tur​bine-under-multiple ns-oceanographically-dynamic-marine Hastie, G. D., Russell, D. J. F., Lepper, P., Elliott, J., Wil- Dhanak, M., Kilfoyle, A., Ravenna, S., Coulson, R., Fran- son, B., Benjamins, S., and Thompson, D. 2018. Harbour kenfield, J., Jermain, R., Valdes, G., and Spieler, R. 2015. seals avoid tidal turbine noise: Implications for collision Characterization of EMF Emissions from Submarine risk. Journal of Applied Ecology, 55(2), 684-693. doi:10.11​ Cables and Monitoring for Potential Responses of Marine 11/1365-2664.12981 https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications​ Species. Paper presented at the 11th European Wave and /harbour-seals-avoid-tidal-turbine-noise-implications​ Tidal Energy Conference, Nantes, France. https://tethys.pn​ -collision-risk nl.gov/publications/characterization-emf-emissions-subma​ rine-cables-and-monitoring-potential-responses Haverson, D., Bacon, J., Smith, H. C. M., Venugopal, V., and Xiao, Q. 2018. Modelling the hydrodynamic and Fairley, I., Karunarathna, H., and Chatzirodou, A. 2017. morphological impacts of a tidal stream development in Modelling the Effects of Marine Energy Extraction on Ramsey Sound. Renewable Energy, 126, 876-887. doi:10​ Non-Cohesive Sediment Transport and Morphological .1016/j.renene.2018.03.084 https://tethys.pnnl.gov/pub​ Change in the Pentland Firth and Orkney Waters. Report lications/modelling-hydrodynamic-morphological-impac​ by Swansea University for Marine Scotland Science. ts-tidal-stream-development-ramsey-sound doi:10.7489/1913-1 https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/mo​ delling-effects-marine-energy-extraction-non-cohesive​ -sediment-transport Holdman, A. K., Haxel, J. H., Klinck, H., and Torres, L. G. 2019. Acoustic monitoring reveals the times and tides of harbor porpoise (Phocoena phocoena) distribution off central Oregon, U.S.A. Marine Mammal Science, 35(1), 164-186. doi:10.1111/mms.12537 https://tethys.pnnl.gov​ /publications/acoustic-monitoring-reveals-times-tides​ -harbor-porpoise-phocoena-phocoena-distribution 24 OES-ENVIRONMENTAL 2020 STATE OF THE SCIENCE REPORT International Council for the Exploration of the Sea Nedwell, J., and Brooker, A. 2008. Measurement and (ICES). 2019. Working Group on Marine Benthal Renew- Assessment of Background Underwater Noise and its able Developments (WGMBRED; Report No. 550297). Comparison with Noise from Pin Pile Drilling Opera- ICES Scientific Reports, 1:6. doi:10.17895/ices.pub.4914 tions During Installation of the SeaGen Tidal Turbine https://tethys.pnnl.gov​/publications/working-group- Device, Strangford Lough. Report No. 724R0120. Report marine-benthal-renewable​-developments by Subacoustech Ltd. for Collaborative Offshore Wind Joy, R., Wood, J. D., Sparling, C. E., Tollit, D. J., Copping, A. E., and McConnell, B. J. 2018. Empirical measures of harbor seal behavior and avoidance of an operational tidal turbine. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 136, Research into the Environment (COWRIE). https:// tethys.pnnl.gov/pub​lications/measurement-assessmentbackground-underwa​ter-noise-its-comparison-noisepin-pile 92-106. doi:10.1016/j.marpolbul.2018.08.052 https:// Ocean Renewable Power Company (ORPC). 2013. Cob- tethys.pnnl.gov​/publications/empirical-measures-harbor- scook Bay Tidal Energy Project: 2012 Environmen- seal-behavior​-avoidance-operational-tidal-turbine tal Monitoring Report. Report by Ocean Renewable Khaled, F., Guillou, S., Hadri, F., and Méar, Y. 2019. Numerical modelling of the effect of the hydro-kinetic turbines on the transport of sediments - Application Power Company; Portland, Maine. https://tethys.pnnl​ .gov/publications/cobscook-bay-tidal-energy-project-20​ 12-environmental-monitoring-report to the Rhone site. MATEC Web Conference, 261, 05003. Ocean Renewable Power Company (ORPC). 2014a. doi:10.1051/matecconf /201926105003 https://tethys.pnnl​ Cobscook Bay Tidal Energy Project: 2013 Environmen- .gov/publications/numerical-modelling-effect-hydro-kine​ tal Monitoring Report. Report by Ocean Renewable tic-turbines-transport-sediments-application Power Company; Portland, Maine. https://tethys.pnnl​ Kramer, S. H., Hamilton, C. D., Spencer, G. C., and Ogston, H. O. 2015. Evaluating the Potential for Marine and .gov/publications/cobscook-bay-tidal-energy-project-20​ 13-environmental-monitoring-report Hydrokinetic Devices to Act as Artificial Reefs or Fish Ocean Renewable Power Company (ORPC). 2014b. Aggregating Devices. Based on Analysis of Surrogates Cobscook Bay Tidal Energy Project: 2013 Environmen- in Tropical, Subtropical, and Temperate U.S. West tal Monitoring Report. Report by Ocean Renewable Coast and Hawaiian Coastal Waters. OCS Study BOEM Power Company; Portland, Maine. https://tethys.pn​ 2015-021. Report by H. T. Harvey & Associates for U.S. nl.gov/publications/cobscook-bay-tidal-energy-project​ Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and -2016-environmental-monitoring-report Renewable Energy, Golden, Colorado. https://​te​t​h​ys​.pn​nl​ .gov​/pub​lications​/eva​l​u​a​ting​-po​ten​tial​-ma​ri​ne​-hy​d​r​o​ki​n​e​ tic​-de​vi​c​es​-act​-ar​ti​fi​c​i​al​-re​e​fs​-or​-fish Onoufriou, J., Brownlow, A., Moss, S., Hastie, G., and Thompson, D. 2019. Empirical determination of severe trauma in seals from collisions with Lagerquist, B. A., Palacios, D. M., Winsor, M. H., Irvine, tidal turbine blades. Journal of Applied Ecology, 56(7), L. M., Follett, T. M., and Mate, B. R. 2019. Feeding home 1712-1724. doi:10.1111/1365-2664​.13388 https:// ranges of Pacific Coast Feeding Group gray whales. The tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/empirical-deter​mination- Journal of Wildlife Management, 83(4), 925-937. doi:10​ severe-trauma-seals-collisions-tidal-turbine​-blade .1002/jwmg.21642 https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/fe​ eding-home-ranges-pacific-coast-feeding-group-gray​ -whales Pine, M. K., Schmitt, P., Culloch, R. M., Lieber, L., and Kregting, L. T. 2019. Providing ecological context to anthropogenic subsea noise: Assessing listening space Long, C. 2017. Analysis of the Possible Displacement of reductions of marine mammals from tidal energy Bird and Marine Mammal Species Related to the Instal- devices. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 103, lation and Operation of Marine Energy Conversion Sys- 49-57. doi:10.1016/j.rser.2018.12.024 https://​te​t​h​ys​.pn​nl​ tems. Report No. 947. Report for Scottish Natural Heri- .gov​/pub​lications​/pr​o​vi​d​ing​-eco​l​o​gi​c​al​-con​te​xt​-an​t​h​r​o​po​g​ tage; Redgorton, Scotland. https://tethys.pnnl.gov/pub​ enic​-sub​sea​-no​i​se​-as​ses​s​i​ng​-lis​te​ni​ng​-spa​ce lications/analysis-possible-displacement-bird-marine​ -mammal-species-related-installation SECTION A – INTRODUCTION 25 Robertson, F., Wood, J., Joslin, J., Joy, R., and Polagye, Viehman, H., Boucher, T., and Redden, A. 2018. Winter B. 2018. Marine Mammal Behavioral Response to Tidal and summer differences in probability of fish encounter Turbine Sound (DOE-UW-06385). Report by University (spatial overlap) with MHK devices. International Marine of Washington for U.S. Department of Energy Office of Energy Journal, 1(1). doi:10.36688/imej.1.9-18 https://​ Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Washington tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/winter-summer-differen​ D.C. https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/marine-mammal​ ces -probability-fish-encounter-spatial-overlap-mhk- -behavioral-response-tidal-turbine-sound devices Savidge, G., Ainsworth, D., Bearhop, S., Christen, Westerberg, H., and Lagenfelt, I. 2008. Sub-sea power N., Elsaesser, B., Fortune, F., Inger, R., Kennedy, R., cables and the migration behaviour of the European eel. McRobert, A., Plummer, K. E., Pritchard, D. W., Sparling, Fisheries Management and Ecology, 15(5-6), 369-375. C. E., and Whittaker, T. J. T. 2014. Strangford Lough and doi:10.1111/j.1365-2400.2008.00630.x https://tethys.pnnl​ the SeaGen Tidal Turbine. In M. A. Shields and A. I. L. .gov/publications/sub-sea-power-cables-migration-beha​ Payne (Eds.), Marine Renewable Energy Technology and viour-european-eel Environmental Interactions (pp. 153-172). Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands. https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications​ /strangford-lough-seagen-tidal-turbine Williamson, B., Fraser, S., Williamson, L., Nikora, V., and Scott, B. 2019. Predictable changes in fish school characteristics due to a tidal turbine support structure. Schmitt, P., Culloch, R., Lieber, L., Molander, S., Hammar, Renewable Energy, 141, 1092-1102. doi:10.1016/j.renene.20​ L., and Kregting, L. 2017. A tool for simulating collision 19.04.065 https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/predictable​ probabilities of animals with marine renewable energy -changes-fish-school-characteristics-due-tidal-turbine​ devices. PLoS ONE, 12(11), e0188780. doi:10.1371/journal.po​ -support-structure ne.0188780 https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/tool-simu​ lating-collision-probabilities-animals-marine-renewable​ -energy-devices Yoshida, T., Kitazawa, D., and Mizukami, Y. 2017. Observing Fish Using Underwater Camera at the Test Site Before Installing Ocean Power Generation. Paper Sparling, C., Lonergan, M., and McConnell, B. 2018. Har- presented at the 36th International Conference on bour seals (Phoca vitulina) around an operational tidal Ocean, Offshore and Arctic Engineering, Trondheim, turbine in Strangford Narrows: No barrier effect but Norway. https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/observing-fi​ small changes in transit behaviour. Aquatic Conservation: sh-using-underwater-camera-test-site-installing-ocean​ Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems, 28(1), 194-204. doi:10​ -power-generation .1002/aqc.2790 https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/harbo​ ur-seals-phoca-vitulina-around-operational-tidal-turbi​ ne-strangford-narrows-no Marine Renewable Energy: Environmental Effects and Monitoring Strategies Copping, A.E 2020. Marine Renewable Energy: Environmental Effects and Monitoring Strategies. In A.E. Copping and L.G. Hemery (Eds.), OES-Environmental 2020 State of the Science Report: Environmental Effects of Marine Renewable Energy Development Around the World. Report for Ocean Energy Systems (OES). (pp. 18-26). doi:10.2172/1632880 Go to https://tethys​.pnnl.gov for a comprehensive collection of papers, reports, archived presentations, and other media about environmental effects of marine renewable energy development. REPORT AND MORE INFORMATION CONTACT OES-Environmental 2020 State of the Science full report and executive summary available at: https://tethys​.pnnl.gov/publications/state-of-the​-science-2020 Andrea Copping Pacific Northwest National Laboratory andrea.copping@pnnl.gov +1 206.528.3049 26 OES-ENVIRONMENTAL 2020 STATE OF THE SCIENCE REPORT Section B Current Knowledge of Key Device Interactions with the Marine Environment Collision Risk for Animals around Turbines.......................................... 28 Chapter 4.0 Risk to Marine Animals from Underwater Noise Generated by Marine Renewable Energy Devices................................66 Chapter 5.0 Risk to Animals from Electromagnetic Fields Emitted by Electric Cables and Marine Renewable Energy Devices.......................86 Chapter 6.0 Changes in Benthic and Pelagic Habitats Caused by Marine Renewable Energy Devices.................................................104 Chapter 7.0 Changes in Oceanographic Systems Associated with Marine Renewable Energy Devices.............................................126 Chapter 8.0 Encounters of Marine Animals with Marine Renewable Energy Device Mooring Systems and Subsea Cables..........................146 Chapter 9.0 Social and Economic Data Collection for Marine Renewable Energy...................................................................154 Section B Chapter 3.0 28 OES-ENVIRONMENTAL 2020 STATE OF THE SCIENCE REPORT 3.0 Chapter authors: Carol E. Sparling, Andrew C. Seitz, Elizabeth Masden, Kate Smith Contributors: Natalie Isaksson, Hayley K. Farr Collision Risk for Animals around Turbines The potential for marine animals to encounter and collide with turbines, especially tidal and river turbines, along with the biological, ecological, and regulatory consequences of any such interactions, remain active areas of research and topics of global interest. Uncertainty and knowledge gaps associated with collision risk continue to present challenges within consenting/permitting (hereafter consenting) processes for turbine developments. Consequently, collision risk continues to be the focus of significant research effort, which in recent years has included environmental monitoring of operational devices and arrays. This chapter addresses the overall progress and growth in knowledge across this topic area, and specific progress related to marine mammals, fish, and seabirds. SECTION B – CURRENT KNOWLEDGE OF KEY DEVICE INTERACTIONS WITH THE MARINE ENVIRONMENT 29 There are additional risks to marine animals, particu- the scale of meters to a few hundred meters), could also larly marine mammals and large fish species, related influence encounter rates and collision risk (Lieber et to collision with the vessels involved in the installation al. 2018; Waggitt et al. 2017). The ecological significance and maintenance of marine renewable energy (MRE) of any collision events will depend on the physiological, projects. However, this chapter focuses on risks from population, and ecosystem consequences of any such collision with the moving parts of MRE devices and interactions (Band et al. 2016). systems. Despite the potential for encounters and collisions, knowledge of actual risk is limited because the fre- 3.1. IMPORTANCE OF THE ISSUE C quency of occurrence of these events (e.g., Copping et al. 2016; Furness et al. 2012) and their consequences are unknown. Detecting encounters or collision events or ollision risk is an issue that applies most directly observing animal movement and behavior in relation to tidal and river energy conversion technologies to an underwater object (i.e., a turbine) is challenging. (ORJIP Ocean Energy 2017). It relates to the moving In the absence of empirical data, assumptions about components of devices (blades and rotors), as well as how animals might avoid and evade turbines have been dynamic technologies, such as tidal kites or oscillat- made based on lessons learned by the wind energy ing blades. Wave energy technologies are thought to industry (Scottish Natural Heritage 2016). How an ani- be more benign with respect to collision risk because mal might perceive a tidal or river turbine and any asso- there are fewer submerged moving parts that have col- ciated risk is generally unknown, but information about lision potential (Greaves et al. 2016). The potential risk visual fields and sensory biology may provide some to marine animals from interactions with the moor- insights into how species may be able to see or hear ing and anchor lines of floating wave or tidal devices turbines (Band et al. 2016; Hansen et al. 2017; Hastie et is addressed separately in Chapter 8 (Encounters of al. 2018a; Martin and Wanless 2015; Martin et al. 2008; Marine Animals with Marine Renewable Energy Device Nedelec et al. 2016; Popper and Hawkins 2018). Mooring Systems and Subsea Cables). The risk of birds colliding with wind turbines has been extensively studied, offering certain lessons that can be learned and applied to the risk of marine animals colliding with underwater turbines; these lessons are noted where pertinent. Many species of mammals, fish, and seabirds are subject to extensive legal protection globally: for example, in the United States (U.S.) they are protected by the Marine Mammal Protection Act (1972), Endangered Species Act (1973), and the Magnuson-Stevens Act (1976); in the European Union by the Habitats Direc- Several factors contribute to the risk associated with tive (1992) and Birds Directive (2009); in Canada by the the likelihood of animals colliding with turbine blades Species at Risk Act (2002) and Fisheries Act (1985); and and the consequences of such collisions to the animal in Australia by the Environment Protection and Biodi- if a collision occurs. The factors that will affect this versity Act (1999). Further, many species of fish support risk include the characteristics of the devices, ani- subsistence, recreational, and commercial fisheries. mal behavior, and animal densities at the depth of the The nations contributing to this report have invested relevant moving parts of devices; these factors are significant effort in improving the management and explored throughout this chapter. The broad overlap movement of species back within safe biological limits between tidal and river resource areas and important (Hilborn 2020); but elsewhere (e.g., in developing econ- habitats for fish, marine mammals, and seabirds (e.g., omies) practices are reducing an increasing number of Benjamins et al. 2017; Macaulay et al. 2015; Staines et commercial stocks to unsustainable levels (FAO 2018). al. 2019; Viehman and Zydlewski 2017; Viehman et al. Under either practice, the increased mortality of these 2018; Waggitt et al. 2016) may increase the potential for stocks is undesirable and undermines the sustainability encounters (Figure 3.1), including collisions. However, of the species populations. Many seabird populations spatial and temporal patchiness in marine animal dis- are already in decline and experiencing numerous pres- tribution, influenced by fine-scale hydrodynamics (at sures such as climate change, contamination, and fishing bycatch (Paleczny et al. 2015). 30 OES-ENVIRONMENTAL 2020 STATE OF THE SCIENCE REPORT In general, where there is uncertainty about impacts, particularly in relation to protected species, regulatory processes in many jurisdictions currently follow the “precautionary principle” regarding the potential impacts and their consequences (Kreibel et al. 2001). In Europe and North America, precautionary regulatory approaches have led to conditions being placed on licenses, permits, and authorizations to reduce collision risk, such as through operational restrictions. Such conditions also commonly require developers to conduct post-installation monitoring that is focused on collision risk (Bennett et al. 2016). The purposes of such monitoring include validating the predictions of collision risk made in environmental impact assessments, and improving the knowledge about nearfield interactions between devices and marine wildlife. Monitoring is also commonly used to inform and enable regulators to adaptively manage tidal and river current projects. Gaps in knowledge about collision risk and its consequences can therefore lead to conservative approaches in conducting environmental impact assessments and in implementing tidal energy developments (Le Lièvre and O’Hagan 2015; ORJIP Ocean Energy 2019). Although no evidence to date shows that direct interactions with tidal or river current energy technologies will cause measurable harm to individual marine animals or populations, colli- 3.2. SUMMARY OF KNOWLEDGE THROUGH 2016 I n 2016, the state of the science for the risk of marine animal collision with MRE devices was in its infancy. Given the few deployed devices and considerable research challenges (e.g., difficulty working in dynamic tidal habitats or fast-flowing rivers, inability to monitor specific strike events, and a lack of a funding mechanisms to undertake strategic research and monitoring that might elucidate the problem), there was limited understanding of the nature of interactions between marine animals and MRE devices, including avoidance and evasion behaviors. Further, the understanding of the likely consequences of any occurrence of collision events, if they occurred, was limited. No collisions had been observed around single turbines or small arrays prior to 2016, but collision remained a concern and it was one of the most challenging potential occurrences to monitor and observe. The 2016 State of the Science report (Copping et al. 2016) identified the following key priorities related to collision risk for marine mammals, fish, and seabirds: ◆ the understanding of species’ spatial and temporal sion risk remains a key issue for the future growth of the use of tidal habitat, species’ behavior around operat- tidal and river current energy sector (Copping et al. 2017). ing devices and arrays, and the consequences of col- In general, aspects of this chapter that focus on collision risk in relation to marine mammals and seabirds are considered for tidal turbines, while collisions with fish may be applicable for freshwater river turbines or marine tidal turbines. Freshwater turbines may be referred to as river turbines or hydrokinetic turbines. development and refinement of methods to improve lision for both individuals and populations; and ◆ potential advancement of the science by benefiting from continued stakeholder engagement, adoption of an adaptive management approach, and standardization of the language used when describing collision risk, as well as species’ avoidance and evasion behaviors. Figure 3.1. Interactions of (from left to right) a harbor seal, a school of pollack, and a European shag with a non-operating tidal turbine. (Photo courtesy of Nova Innovation) SECTION B – CURRENT KNOWLEDGE OF KEY DEVICE INTERACTIONS WITH THE MARINE ENVIRONMENT 31 3.3. DEFINITIONS Researchers studying collision risk have created terminology to use in describing interactions, building off definitions provided in the 2016 State of the Science report. These key definitions for collision risk are provided in Table 3.1. Table 3. 1. Key terminology of relevance to collision risk between marine animals and MRE devices. Term Definition Avoidance Animals moving away from the area around an MRE device, at some distance from the object (ABPmer 2010; Wilson et al. 2007). Collision • Physical contact between marine animals and moving components of MRE devices, or with dynamically moving technologies. • Does not always imply injury (Amaral et al. 2015). • Includes pressure fields around blades (Wilson et al. 2007). Collision rate • Predicted rate of collisions between animals and moving components of MRE devices, or with dynamically moving technologies (Scottish Natural Heritage 2016). • Usually incorporates a correction factor for an “avoidance rate” to account for the assumed proportion of animals taking avoidance or evasive actions (Scottish Natural Heritage 2016), but does not take potential consequences into account. Density at risk depth • The density of animals at water depth likely to bring them into contact with relevant moving components of tidal or river turbines, or with dynamically moving technologies (Scottish Natural Heritage 2016). • For seabirds and marine mammals, usually calculated from surface densities from baseline surveys, with a correction factor applied. Encounter • To be in close proximity of a turbine. • May lead to a collision but only if the animal does not take appropriate avoidance or evasive action (Wilson et al. 2007). Encounter rate Predicted rate of animals and turbines occupying the same point in space and time (Scottish Natural Heritage 2016). Evasion Change in behavior to escape impact or contact with an MRE device at close range, analogous to swerving to prevent collision with an obstacle in the road (ABPmer 2010; Wilson et al. 2007). Farfield The area of ocean or bay around an MRE device, generally defined as more than five device diameters from the device or array of devices. Nearfield The localized area of sea occupied by and in very close proximity to an MRE device, generally considered to be within one to five device diameters. Passive avoidance To be swept clear of moving components of MRE devices, or dynamically moving technologies, by hydrodynamic forces (Scottish Natural Heritage 2016). Post-installation or • post-consent monitoring • Sublethal collisions Monitoring carried out to gather data before devices are deployed (post-consent monitoring) or monitoring of the environmental effects of deployed MRE devices (post-installation monitoring). Generally, either required by regulators to validate predictions made in environmental assessments or to provide an evidence base for adaptive management of effects for which there is residual uncertainty. • Collisions between marine animals and moving parts of devices that result in injury rather than immediate death. • Might include blunt force trauma or concussion and such effects may cause secondary injury or death, or affect an animal’s future foraging success and ability to reproduce (Onoufriou et al. 2019). • Sublethal effects are likely to be extremely difficult to predict or measure. 32 OES-ENVIRONMENTAL 2020 STATE OF THE SCIENCE REPORT 3.4.1. SUMMARY OF KNOWLEDGE THROUGH 2016 As documented in the 2016 State of the Science report, there was no evidence of direct interactions between marine mammals and tidal devices or that such interactions will cause harm to individuals or populations (Copping et al. 2016). While numerous collision risk models have been developed to predict the likelihood and consequences of collision for marine mammals (e.g., Band 2014; Wilson et al. 2007), the potential for collision will likely vary significantly with site-dependent characteristics such as location, water depth, and tidal velocity. Prior to publication of the 2016 State of the Science report, the lack of data available from monitoring studies conducted around operational MRE devices significantly hampered our understanding of marine mammals interaction in the vicinity of MRE devices. Several projects were in various stages of development at the time the 2016 report was published (e.g., MeyGen, Inner Sound; Shetland Tidal Array, Bluemull Sound; DeltaStream, Ramsey Sound; Cobscook Bay, Maine). Therefore, at that time, the potential for collisions between marine mammals and tidal turbines remained a significant concern, and uncertainty in this area was causing barriers to the consenting of tidal projects worldwide. 3.4.2. KNOWLEDGE GENERATED SINCE 2016 Baseline Studies Studies have maintained a continuing focus on understanding marine mammal use of tidal environments. The results of these studies collectively demonstrate variability between sites and locations, making it diffi- 3.4. COLLISION RISK TO MARINE MAMMALS M cult to make generalizations about marine mammal use of tidal sites. Recent investigations into fine-scale harbor porpoise (Phocoena phocoena) density and the use of the water arine mammals are considered in many nations column at a variety of tidal sites in Scotland have pro- to be most at risk from collision with turbines, vided substantial data about harbor porpoise depth particularly as many marine mammal populations are distribution and underwater behavior in tidal rapids. under stress from other anthropogenic activities as well These studies found a large degree of variation between as effects of climate change (Fabry et al. 2008). Knowl- sites (Macaulay et al. 2015, 2017). They also showed that edge generated prior to and since 2016 about marine the depth distribution of harbor porpoises was typically mammal collision is addressed, followed by what has bimodal; porpoises spent time foraging at the surface been learned since 2016. or at depth, and spent less time at intermediate depths. This suggests that the depth of turbine placement may strongly influence collision risk. At the only site where measurements were taken at night (Kyle Rhea, Scotland), SECTION B – SECTION B – CURRENT KNOWLEDGE OF KEY DEVICE INTERACTIONS WITH THE MARINE ENVIRONMENT 33 porpoises were more often located near the sea surface, highlighting the importance of understanding daily variation in species depth distribution to assure accurate prediction of collision risk (Macaulay et al. 2015). Benjamins et al. (2017) demonstrated that the distribution of harbor porpoises can vary in tidal habitats at very small spatial and temporal scales, such that collision risk estimated on the basis of wide-scale average densities may not reflect actual risk at any one specific site. Project- and Site-based Monitoring MeyGen, Inner Sound, Pentland Firth, Scotland The first turbines at the MeyGen tidal energy site were deployed in 2016 in the Inner Sound of Pentland Firth in Scotland (Figure 3.2). Four 1.5 MW turbines were installed during the 2016–2017 timeframe and, to date, the array has generated more than 15 GWh of energy for the grid. The project environmental monitoring plan (PEMP; Rollings et al. [2016]) associated with the turbine array Seal-tagging studies in the United Kingdom (UK) have was developed to understand collision risk; one of the increased knowledge about the behavior of harbor and main elements that required monitoring as a condition of grey seals in tidal environments. In the narrow, tidal consent was “collision/encounter interactions with the channel of Kyle Rhea on the west coast of Scotland, har- tidal turbines for diving birds, marine mammals and fish bor seals (Phoca vitulina) are present between April and of conservation concern.” The PEMP included two pri- August, and they haul out during the ebb tide and spend mary objectives: a high proportion of their time during the flood tide ◆ actively foraging in the high current areas (Hastie et al. rates for harbor seals, and verify and improve the 2016). Another telemetry study (Joy et al. 2018) revealed that in the tidal currents of Strangford Narrows in Northern Ireland, harbor seals predominately swam against the prevailing current during both ebb and flood tides. Similarly, as reported by Band et al. (2016), har- Detect and quantify potential avoidance and collision accuracy of collision/encounter rate models. ◆ Provide sufficient monitoring data for impact assessment to allow each subsequent stage of the development to proceed. bor seals in the Pentland Firth predominately traveled Although the principal objective of the PEMP was to slowly against the current. Similar to the seals at Kyle monitor the presence of harbor seals, the technology Rhea, not all seal dives were to the seabed and there was deployed (video cameras, active and passive acoustic a proportion of mid-water diving. This behavior con- monitoring [PAM]) was capable of monitoring for other trasts with previous studies where most seal diving was marine mammal species, including grey seals and harbor thought to be to the seabed. In contrast to the behavior porpoises, as well as fish (e.g., Atlantic salmon [Salmo of the Kyle Rhea harbor seals, which were distributed in salar]) and diving seabirds (e.g., black guillemots [Cep- high current areas on the flood tide, Lieber et al. (2018) phus grylle] and shags [Phalacrocorax aristotelis]).). The reported that harbor seals and grey seals (Halichoerus exact details of the sensor technologies are covered in grypus) in the Strangford Narrows were more likely to Chapter 10 (Environmental Monitoring Technologies be distributed on the periphery of high current areas. and Techniques for Detecting Interactions of Marine However, this assertion was based on a limited sample Animals with Turbines). of observations from a vessel conducting repeat line transect surveys over two days (one on a spring tide and one on a neap tide). Similar to the case presented above for harbor porpoises, these studies indicate a high degree of between-site variability in seal occurrence and behavior, making it difficult to generalize collision risk between sites. Studies of prey abundance might provide additional information about the presence of marine mammals around turbines, but no such studies have been undertaken to date. Figure 3.2. A MeyGen tidal turbine ready for deployment in the Inner Sound of Pentland Firth in Scotland. (Photo courtesy of SIMEC Atlantis Energy) 34 OES-ENVIRONMENTAL 2020 STATE OF THE SCIENCE REPORT During the initial 322 days of data collection (October Sound was reduced during turbine operation relative to 2017 to September 2018), more than 740 million transient non-operation in the post-deployment phase (Onoufriou sounds were recorded on the PAM system. After post- 2020; Palmer et al. 2019). processing and verification, 724 porpoise and 26 dolphin events had 10 or more clicks. The numbers of porpoise clicks per event varied considerably with a mean of 220 (95 percent confidence interval [CI] 31–979). Similarly, the durations of the events varied from 0.5 to more than 2700 seconds (95 percent CI 21–1200). It is likely that some of these events involved more than one animal. Monthly reports of cetacean detections and system operations were provided to MeyGen and the Scottish Government The MeyGen project team is currently collaborating with SMRU to deploy an integrated monitoring platform during the next phase of turbine installation at the MeyGen site (Project Stroma, previously known as MeyGen Phase 1b, comprises an additional two turbines) to add key data about seal behavior and encounter rates. For technical details about this monitoring platform, see Section 10.4.4. of this report. between October 2017 and January 2019. A key output of Nova Innovation, Bluemull Sound, Shetland, Scotland the PAM data analyses will be the temporal occurrence of In 2014, Nova Innovation installed a 30 kW demon­ porpoise and dolphins around the turbine and the three- stration turbine in Bluemull Sound. This turbine was dimensional (3D) locations of echolocation clicks in rela- decommissioned in 2016 and was followed in the same tion to the position and operational status of the turbine; year by the installation and commissioning of the world’s these data are not yet available although ongoing analysis first offshore tidal array, comprising two Nova M100 (100 suggests evidence of avoidance at both a medium (tens of kW) turbines. A third turbine was added in early 2017 and meters) and a fine-scale (meters) from the rotors. Tesla battery storage was added in 2018 (Figure 3.3). In addition to activities associated with the MeyGen PEMP Current plans, under the Enabling Future Arrays in and as part of the Marine Mammal Scientific Support Tidal (EnFAIT)1 project, are to extend the array from program at the Sea Mammal Research Unit (SMRU) (Uni- three to six turbines during 2020 to 2021 to achieve a versity of St Andrews, Scotland), a series of seal telemetry total rated capacity of 600 kW. Nova’s Shetland Tidal studies have been undertaken close to the area in which Array is approximately 25 km from the Yell Sound Coast the MeyGen array is located. Prior to the deployment of Special Area of Conservation (SAC) designated for har- the turbines, 24 harbor seals were tagged in the Inner bor seal. The average foraging distance of harbor seals is Sound to quantify the movements of seals in a wider spatial context. The results from these tag deployments are presented by Hastie et al. (2018b). An additional 16 harbor seals were tagged between April 16 and 18, 2018, to provide data during the turbine operation phase. Of these tagged seals, 12 transmitted both location data and highresolution dive data. From the tags deployed in 2018, 504 days of data were collected, which included 53,484 global positioning system (GPS) locations (i.e., a GPS fix obtained from the tag during a surfacing event). During this deployment, tagged seals spent approximately 12 percent of their time within the Inner Sound and approximately 0.001 percent within the whole MeyGen lease area. A total of four GPS locations were recorded within 100 m of a turbine and the closest GPS location was 35 m from a turbine. To assess the effects of the turbine installation on harbor seal distribution, the species’ use of space before and after installation was quantified. In general, seal use of the area showed a pattern of reduced usage within the Inner Sound post-deployment compared to predeployment. Furthermore, seal usage within the Inner Figure 3.3. Nova Innovation’s three-turbine tidal array in Bluemull Sound, Shetland, Scotland. (Photo courtesy of Nova Innovation) 1. https://www.enfait.eu/ SECTION B – CURRENT KNOWLEDGE OF KEY DEVICE INTERACTIONS WITH THE MARINE ENVIRONMENT 35 30 to 50 km (Sharples et al. 2012), so animals associated mately 20% of all footage recorded between October with the SAC may forage within Bluemull Sound. The 2015 and March 2020. A combination of random and environmental assessment report for the six-turbine stratified sampling approaches was used to extract foot- array predicts that up to four harbor seal collisions per age for analysis, to ensure coverage across the full tidal year may occur, assuming a 98 percent avoidance rate, cycle, and times of presumed increased collision risk. 2 based on the Encounter Risk Model detailed by the Scottish Natural Heritage (2016). Because this number was less than the potential biological removal (Wade 1998) for the relevant seal management unit (calculated to be 20 seals), regulatory and advisory bodies considered it to be acceptable, provided that appropriate monitoring was in place to validate these numbers. Eight mammal species (including Eurasian otter, Lutra lutra) have been recorded in land-based surveys, with grey seal, harbor seal and harbor porpoise the most frequently recorded (Nova Innovation 2020). Harbor porpoise were recorded in the area immediately around the turbines in 0.71% of scans, grey seal in 0.06% of scans and harbor seal in 0.32% of scans. For the nine years of The conditions of project licenses issued by Shetland survey data, the modeled probability of occurring within Island Council and Marine Scotland require the envi- the area immediately around the turbines is < 0.02 for ronmental effects of the array to be monitored, as set harbor porpoise and < 0.001 for both grey and harbor forth in an environmental monitoring plan. Land-based seals, indicating a very low turbine encounter risk for visual surveys of the site are carried out to gather infor- even the most commonly occurring marine mammals. mation about the spatiotemporal distribution of marine Harbor seal is the only mammal species that has been mammals and birds in Bluemull Sound, and subsea video observed in the subsea video footage analyzed to date. is used to monitor for potential collisions and nearfield Thirteen instances of harbor seal have been observed, all interactions of marine animals with turbines. Land-based during periods of slow tidal flow below the turbine cut- surveys that began in 2010 prior to the deployment of any in speed, when the turbines were not operating. On one turbines at the site, are still ongoing, and methodologies occasion, a harbor seal was observed actively pursuing have recently been modified to focus on the turbine array fish around the base of the turbine. No physical contact area, rather than the wider Sound to gather informa- between marine mammals and the turbine blades has tion more specific to understanding collision risk. The been observed in any of the video footage to date (Nova approach is based on understanding site-use at different Innovation 2020). 3 scales, to understand the likelihood of nearfield encounters between marine animals and turbines, as a descriptor of collision risk. Nearfield encounters are only possible if an animal uses the site. The likelihood increases if an animal uses the area immediately around the turbines and increases again if the animal actively swims or dives around the turbines during turbine operation. SeaGen Strangford Lough, Northern Ireland There has been no new monitoring work at the SeaGen site since 2016 because the turbine (Figure 3.4) ceased to be operational in 2015 and was decommissioned in 2019. However, two scientific papers were published based on the outcomes of the monitoring program, which added to the knowledge base about collision risk. Sparling et al. Video monitoring uses three cameras per turbine, each (2018) presented the results of a seal telemetry study, attached to the nacelle (two directed toward the turbine which indicated that tagged seals transited less often rotor and one directed toward the seabed). The turbine and swam farther away from the turbine when it was is not illuminated, so video monitoring is only effective operational than when it was not, and demonstrated that during daylight hours; water clarity at the site is gen- seals continued to use the narrows to transit through erally very good and can be exceptional. The cameras Strangford Lough with no overall change in their transit record continuously but use a motion-detection system rates. This indicates that the turbine did not create a bar- to automatically retain footage of potential wildlife- rier effect, but that there was some degree of mid-range turbine interactions. A sub-sample of over 4000 hours avoidance (of ~200 m). Joy et al. (2018) quantified the of Nova’s full 20,000+ hours of video footage have been degree of local avoidance as a 68 percent reduction in examined and analyzed to date, representing approxi- seal use of the area within 200 m of the turbine. Building 2. https://www2.gov.scot/Topics/marine/Licensing/marine/scoping/NOVAAdditionalTurbine/MLApp-022018/Ext-EA-Report upon these results, Joy et al. (2018) demonstrated that taking this avoidance action indicates that a 90 percent 3. https://www2.gov.scot/Topics/marine/Licensing/marine/scoping/nova 36 OES-ENVIRONMENTAL 2020 STATE OF THE SCIENCE REPORT than spring tides, and lower at the highest rates of flow. The short period over which the monitoring was carried out limited analysis of porpoise behavior or their presence near the turbine. Analysis of tracks suggested that porpoises and dolphins were capable of detecting the structure and responding to it. FORCE, Bay of Fundy, Nova Scotia, Canada The Fundy Ocean Research Centre for Energy (FORCE) environmental effects monitoring program monitors effects at the FORCE test site outside the immediate vicinity of the devices with the initial understanding that developers with berth sites are responsible for monitoring close range effects around their own turbines. Monitoring using PAM to detect harbor porpoises within 200 to 1700 m of the site did not indicate any evidence of porpoise exclusion during the deployment or operation of Cape Sharp Tidal Venture’s 16 m diamFigure 3.4. The SeaGen tidal turbine when installed in Strangford Lough, Northern Ireland. (Photo courtesy of SIMEC Atlantis Energy) eter 2 MW Open Hydro tidal turbine at Berth D (pres- reduction in collision risk is likely, compared to estimates However, click activity was significantly reduced at the derived from standard collision risk models. C-PODs (i.e., PAM devices) closest to the turbine (200 to DeltaStream, Ramsey Sound, Wales At the time the 2016 State of the Science report was published, the DeltaStream tidal energy device had been recently deployed in Ramsey Sound, Pembrokeshire, in Wales. The approach to monitoring was described ence detected on 98.5 percent of the days monitored). 230 m) and increased at the site 1700 m away, suggesting short-range acoustic effects on activity and spatial use by porpoises (Tollit et al. 2019). This suggests a reduction in potential collision risk relative to that assumed from baseline assessments. but no data were presented. The turbine was deployed Work is also under way at FORCE to establish an inte- in December 2015 and remained operational until grated, performance-tested sensor package that is March 2016. The 12-channel hydrophone PAM system accepted by regulators, for use by developers deploying provided data (Malinka et al. 2018), while the Remote equipment to monitor close range interactions, under Acoustic Monitoring Platform, which had a multibeam a program named “The Pathway Program,” in collabo- sonar, produced no usable data. The PAM results indi- ration with the Offshore Energy Research Association cated that the monitoring system successfully detected and Nova Scotia Department of Energy and Mines. This and localized porpoise and dolphin vocalizations over program aims to provide a proven platform alongside the three-month deployment period (Malinka et al. automated data processing algorithms and software for 2018). Porpoises and dolphins were detected, respec- analysis of passive and active acoustic data (see Chapter tively, on 91.3 percent and 13.2 percent of the days dur- 10, Environmental Monitoring Technologies and Tech- ing the monitoring period, and patterns of porpoise niques for Detecting Interactions of Marine Animals occurrence at the site could be linked to a range of with Turbines), which will provide important data for covariates, such as tidal cycle, diurnal cycle, and sea- resolving uncertainties related to collision risk. son, which may be important when characterizing the Sustainable Marine Energy, Grand Passage, Nova risk of collision for devices at this location. Most of the encounters (71 percent of dolphin encounters and 91 percent of porpoise encounters) occurred during hours of darkness. Porpoises were detected across a wide range of flow rates, but detections were higher during ebb tide than during flood tide, higher during neap tides Scotia, Bay of Fundy, Canada In late 2018, Sustainable Marine Energy (Canada) Ltd. (SME) deployed a floating tidal energy converter (PLATI), in Grand Passage, Canada. The project environmental effects monitoring plan is designed to provide information about underwater noise added to the marine envi- SECTION B – CURRENT KNOWLEDGE OF KEY DEVICE INTERACTIONS WITH THE MARINE ENVIRONMENT 37 ronment by PLAT-I, and assess how marine animals Minesto: Strangford Lough, Northern Ireland and respond to PLAT-I. Mitigation measures implemented Holyhead Deep, Anglesey, Wales during the deployment included daylight-only operation Minesto UK has carried out a number of studies of the of turbines and halting turbine operation if species at risk collision risk posed by their unique kite-design tidal were observed near the device. In addition, direct moni- energy generator. The collaborative, European Union toring of the platform was required during all periods of (EU)-funded Powerkite4 project collected environmen- turbine operation. This monitoring included video camera tal data (Kregting et al. 2018), and collision risk models recording of each of the four operating turbines, record- were developed (Schmitt et al. 2017) and recently trans- ing of acoustic data over the full range of marine mammal lated to an open-source game engine called Blender vocalizations, and conducting marine animal observa- (blender​.org). Simulations loosely based on the quarter- tions at 30-minute intervals. scale Minesto device indicated that there is a variable To meet these requirements, four video cameras were positioned facing downstream, each camera approximately centered on its associated rotor. The method provided an effective means of monitoring turbine rotors and assessing potential interactions with marine life, because visibility was generally good, light was sufficient, and suspended particles were few. An experienced third-party contractor conducted video analysis, which included collision probability ranging from an inevitable collision if an animal passes at the position of the mooring point to the probability of collision decreasing with distance from the central mooring point (Schmitt et al. 2017). At the mean flight depth of the kite, the probability of collision is approximately 80 percent in the center of the kite trajectory, and more collisions are predicted to occur with the tether than with the kite itself. screening representative samples for potential animal Multibeam sonars were deployed around the Minesto sightings and verifying or refuting potential sightings. quarter-scale device installed in Strangford Lough in Video quality was mainly rated as fair to good; inanimate Northern Ireland to (1) understand the spatiotemporal materials such as seaweed and other debris were noted variability in seal and fish presence around the device frequently. Aside from several observations of jellyfish, and how it corresponds to fine-scale changes in hydro- only one positive identification of marine life was made (a dynamics, and (2) collect evidence of nearfield subsur- fish – smelt) (C. Chandler, personal communication). face behavior, including data about animal movement, Passive acoustic data collection was accomplished using a stationary icListen high-frequency hydrophone sus- depth, trajectories, and possible evasive behaviors (Lieber et al. 2017). pended beneath the PLAT-I hull. Ambient noise data In addition to the Powerkite project, Minesto has also indicated that turbine noise is below noise levels typically conducted simulation-based assessments of collision emitted by fishing and recreational vessels, so no hearing risk for consenting applications for their Strangford injury to fish or harbor porpoise would be expected. Lough and Holyhead Deep (Anglesey, Wales) projects. Intermittent marine animal observations made either from onboard PLAT-I or from the control shore station resulted in no observations of marine animals within 500 m of the platform during the initial testing period (C. Chandler, personal communication). Booth et al. (2015) assessed collision probabilities for harbor seals in relation to the Strangford Lough deployment, based on their reported depth distributions. This work reported that the probability of a simulated animal coming into direct contact with the device varied depending on the anchor point of the device (surface or Subsequent testing phases will incorporate learnings bottom-mounted) and the animal’s swimming speed and expand research and development activities aimed and behavior. Overall, collision probabilities varied at developing cost-effective environmental monitoring between 0.05 percent and 8 percent depending on the systems that will function effectively and reliably dur- conditions simulated. Booth et al. (2015) also assessed ing future deployments. the consequences relative to population levels of a range of collision rates to provide context for the results of the collision probability modeling exercise. This allowed for an exploration of the level of collision risk that might be 4. https://www.powerkite-project.eu/ 38 OES-ENVIRONMENTAL 2020 STATE OF THE SCIENCE REPORT considered acceptable (i.e., not resulting in a significant were tagged and shown to pass through the storm surge impact on each population in the long term). For grey seals barrier, suggesting that it did not act as a physical bar- and harbor porpoises, very high encounter rates would be rier to their movement. It is not clear how the seals are required to achieve collision rates that would be of concern traversing the storm surge barrier, however; their depth at the population level (higher still if assuming some form of passage and favored phase of the tides are not known. of evasion). These encounter rates were considered to be This lack of information makes it difficult to estimate beyond what one would reasonably expect to see at any the risk of collision. site at the scale of this project. However, for bottlenose dolphins, based on the collision probabilities and population consequence assessment (assuming no evasion), even a single collision would be detrimental and therefore, effort was required to understand empirical encounter rates in the presence of the turbine for this species. Field Trials Progress has been made in understanding the potential consequences of collision risk. Researchers at SMRU in Scotland have carried out a series of collision trials, using a vessel-mounted turbine blade and seal and porpoise carcasses to mimic blade strikes. Magnetic Minesto recently installed a Deep Green device (their 0.5 resonance imaging scans of carcasses after the trials MW kite) at Holyhead Deep, Anglesey, in Wales (Figure demonstrated that significant skeletal damage occurs 3.5). In 2019, a PAM system was developed in conjunction at speeds above 6 m/s (Onoufriou et al. 2019). Although with the commissioning of the kite; further details of the tidal-stream velocities will seldom reach this speed, the system are provided in Chapter 10 (Environmental Moni- speed of the blade tip may. Below these speeds, there toring Technologies and Techniques for Detecting Interac- was no evidence of skeletal trauma or obvious indicators tions of Marine Animals with Turbines). The objective was of extensive soft-tissue damage, but because of the dif- to monitor cetacean movement and investigate response ficulties in assessing soft-tissue damage such as bruis- around the operational kite. The species of interest were ing and tissue edema in previously frozen carcasses, the harbor porpoise and several dolphin species, in particular soft-tissue assessments were not considered reliable bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus) for which a single indicators. Grear et al. (2018) tested two mechanical collision is estimated to cause population-level effects (G. properties of harbor seal tissues to understand the abil- Veneruso, personal communication). ity of the skin and blubber to resist blunt force trauma. There were significant differences in responses between the test speeds and age of the animal, but not in the orientation of the tissue relative to the strike. Tissues were either frozen or fresh. In the case of the frozen tissue, an increase in stiffness and strength of the skin was found, but there was no conclusive trend in blubber material properties. They concluded that frozen tissue, especially skin, cannot serve as an accurate replacement for testing fresh material. It is also important to note that there has been no reliable assessment of the likelihood or consequence of concussion as a result of strike, Figure 3.5. Minesto’s Deep Green 0.5 MW tidal kite being deployed at Holyhead Deep, in Anglesey, Wales. (Photo courtesy of Minesto) Oosterschekering, Netherlands The Oosterschekering, a storm surge barrier in the Netherlands, houses five integrated tidal turbines in an area where harbor porpoise, grey seals, and harbor seals are known to occur (Leopold and Scholl 2019). The surge barrier has been in place since 1986 and the turbines were installed in December 2015. Before the tidal turbines were installed, a small number of seals which has the potential to be fatal (i.e., the animal loses consciousness and drowns). The potential for marine mammals to hear tidal energy devices is an important concept related to understanding collision risk (Hastie et al. 2018a). The interactions are complex and depend on turbine source levels, ambient sound, propagation in moving water, sensory abilities, swim speeds, and diving behaviors. Empirical measurement of the noise emitted by turbines and the understanding of how noise propagates is one area SECTION B – CURRENT KNOWLEDGE OF KEY DEVICE INTERACTIONS WITH THE MARINE ENVIRONMENT 39 in which progress has been made, as reviewed in detail As collision risk models are improved, field monitoring in Chapter 4 (Risk to Marine Animals from Underwater data will still be needed to validate predictive models. Noise Generated by Marine Renewable Energy Devices). All indications from sites monitored to date are that marine mammals should detect tidal turbines acoustically and may use avoidance behaviors if they perceive the turbines to be a threat. Field playback studies using recordings of tidal turbines indicate responses at the scale of a few hundred meters, although the responses depend on the acoustic characteristics of the signal and the hearing sensitivity of the species (Hastie et al. 2018a; Robertson et al. 2018). Turbines that emit mostly low-frequency noise may not be audible at long ranges to high-frequency specialists such as harbor porpoises. Similarly, devices that emit more higher-frequency sound may not be audible to low-frequency hearing species. This highlights the need to take into account the turbine-specific acoustic footprint and the hearing capabilities of the species likely to be present. Predictive modeling of the acoustic energy output of new turbines prior to their deployment should inform the range at which marine animals may be able to hear devices and provide insight into the ability of animals to respond appropriately and avoid collision (Marmo 2017). However, the degree to which the audibility and “warning distance” actually influence behavior, and ultimately the risk of collision, is uncertain. Several studies have investigated the sensitivity of collision models to various input parameters. For example, Copping and Grear (2018) presented an analysis that incorporated a number of different parameters into a simple collision risk model, including variation in sitespecific geography, tidal current, depth distribution of animals, and a prediction of the likely severity of collision. This analysis suggested that collisions leading to “serious injury” were likely to be relatively rare events but that the risk of serious injury varied between species and site and, in particular, in the degree of channel “blockage” created by turbines. Similarly, Band et al. (2016) demonstrated a reduction in predicted collision risk with sequential parameter refinements, which incorporated detailed information about seal behavior, depth distribution, turbine characteristics, severity of collision, etc. However, analyses such as these also indicate that predictions of risk are extremely sensitive to assumptions about behavioral parameters that can only be measured around operating turbines, parameters such as avoidance or fine-scale evasive responses. For instance, Joy et al. (2018), by incorporating empirical data collected around SeaGen (Sparling et al. 2018), recently demonstrated the effect of incorporating observed levels of avoidance of the turbine. As sum- Modeling and Data Inputs marized in Section 3.4.2, collision risk estimates using Since the publication of the 2016 State of the Science empirical seal density estimates in the presence of the report, considerable progress has been made in the area turbine were 90 percent lower than those estimated of collision risk modeling, including the development of using data from before turbine installation, indicating modified models to quantify predictions of collision risk an avoidance value of approximately 60 percent. for non-horizontal-axis turbine designs (see the dis- 3.4.3. RESEARCH AND MONITORING NEEDS TO RETIRE THE ISSUE cussion by Booth et al. [2015] and Schmitt et al. [2017] above in relation to the Minesto device). Other examples include simulations that provide a framework to allow behavioral influences such as food availability and responses to noise to be incorporated, as was created for Ramsey Sound (Lake et al. 2017). A spatially explicit Individual-Based Modeling (IBM) approach is being developed at SMRU to explore the potential consequences of the impacts of MRE projects, including collision. However, this outcome is still at least a year away from completion (B. McConnell, personal communication). Given the complexity of behavioral responses and the need to understand collision risk at the array scale, the future of collision risk modeling is uncertain. 40 There are still a number of knowledge gaps and uncertainties in relation to the probability and consequences of collisions between marine mammals and tidal energy devices, including better understanding of the likelihood of collision with and avoidance of turbines, better understanding of the consequences of a collision with a turbine blade, translating individual collision risk to populationlevel risk, better understanding of the sublethal effects that may cause secondary injury or death, scaling of collision risk from a single turbine to arrays, and the need for collaboration among sectors to retire the risk of collision, as described in the following paragraphs. OES-ENVIRONMENTAL 2020 STATE OF THE SCIENCE REPORT Likelihood of collision with and avoidance of turbines mals. More information about (1) the occurrence and by marine mammals – There are indications that some nature of the injuries, and (2) the links between injury degree of “mid-range” avoidance exists at the scale of and an individual’s ability to survive and reproduce is a few hundred meters around devices, and in response needed for these analyses. to playbacks (Hastie et al. 2018a; Joy et al. 2018; Sparling et al. 2018). However, information describing the occurrence and behavior of marine mammals at close range to devices (1–10s of meters) does not exist. The tools and technologies to allow this research to be conducted are being developed (Cotter et al. 2018; Gillespie et al. 2020; Hastie et al. 2019; Malinka et al. 2018; Sparling et al. 2016). Information about the equipment and techniques that contribute to determining collision risk and close encounters with animals and turbines can be found in Chapter 10 (Environmental Monitoring Technologies and Techniques for Detecting Interactions of Marine Animals with Turbines). Scaling collision risk from a single turbine to arrays – With few devices in the water, insight into the potential risk to marine mammals from turbine blades cannot be well predicted as the industry moves toward larger commercial arrays. Among the challenges for scaling up the knowledge of collision risk from a single device would be whether animal responses to individual turbines might influence collision risk with other turbines in an array. Predictive models validated with collision risk data collected around single devices and small arrays may be useful to understanding the range of potential outcomes, identifying particular sensitivities, and directing future avenues of research. It may also Consequences of collision with a turbine blade – Fur- be possible to directly incorporate array-scale predic- ther work is needed to determine the consequence of tive modeling into array design optimization, combin- a collision and how likely it is that a marine mammal ing collision risk constraints with other optimization will die as a result of the encounter. Indications are that parameters. this likelihood will vary with species, device type, speed of encounter, the body part struck, and the part of the device with which the animal collides (Copping and Grear 2018; Onoufriou et al. 2019). Collaboration among sectors to retire the risk of collision – Collaborative approaches involving academia, industry, and government have been shown to be good models for determining the level of risk associated Translating individual collision risk to population- with collision and for enabling the development of a level risk – There is a need to understand the potential common understanding that can lead to risk retire- population-level consequences of collision. If mortality ment for collision. A number of academic/govern- rates can be determined from predicted collision rates, ment/industry collaborations have been successful, then it is straightforward to incorporate the latter as an including those associated with Ocean Energy Systems additional source of mortality into traditional matrix (OES)-Environmental for other stressors (as detailed population models to predict the future population in Chapter 13, Risk Retirement and Data Transferability trajectory of affected populations. These models must for Marine Renewable Energy). However, retiring col- be dynamic to enable incorporation of a changing col- lision risk involves additional challenges beyond the lision risk as the population size changes. Alternative technical challenges already noted. Issues of commer- approaches include comparison of predicted mortality cial confidentiality, project timelines, and budgetary rates to a calculated potential biological removal value constraints sometimes conflict with academic require- (Wade 1998). ments, including open-source requirements, data shar- Sublethal effects – Effects that do not result in serious injury or death are difficult to predict or measure but could have serious consequences; for example, blunt force trauma or concussion could affect an animal’s future foraging success and ability to reproduce. Techniques exist for incorporating sublethal effects into the prediction of future population consequences, but the necessary knowledge to carry out these analyses does ing, and attitudes toward publishing. To address these challenges, funding sources need to have a degree of flexibility to respond to changing project timelines, and research institutions need to retain key expertise. There also needs to be a degree of external governance of monitoring and research programs to assure that maximum benefit is drawn for all stakeholders, and that objective and trusted science is delivered. not currently exist for collision risk and marine mamSECTION B – CURRENT KNOWLEDGE OF KEY DEVICE INTERACTIONS WITH THE MARINE ENVIRONMENT 41 3.5.1. SUMMARY OF KNOWLEDGE THROUGH 2016 At the time the 2016 State of the Science report was published, fish species were considered to be potentially at risk of collision with MRE devices. Results from several fish-turbine interaction tests in laboratory settings suggested high survival rates (>95 percent; Amaral et al. 2015; Castro-Santos and Haro 2015). Similarly, field studies were used to elucidate fish presence, avoidance, and evasion around MRE devices, but fish strikes had not been observed (Broadhurst et al. 2014; Hammar et al. 2013; Viehman and Zydlewski 2015). Substantial progress was made in the development of models that estimate the possibility of fish encountering MRE devices (Shen et al. 2015; Tomechik et al. 2015), the consequences of blade strike (Romero-Gomez and Richmond 2014), and the population-level ecological risks (Amaral et al. 2015; Hammar et al. 2015). 3.5.2. KNOWLEDGE GENERATED SINCE 2016 Flume/Laboratory Studies Three flume studies conducted since publication of the 2016 State of the Science report were aimed at understanding certain aspects of the risk hydrokinetic turbines may pose to fishes, as well as understanding fishes’ avoidance behavior around an operating turbine (Yoshida et al. 2020; Zhang et al. 2017) and the results of blade strike on fishes (Bevelhimer et al. 2019). To understand avoidance behavior, the ratios of turbine tip speed to fish size and swimming velocity were estimated for a proposed turbine in coastal Japan and were replicated in a scaled-down laboratory setting (Zhang 3.5. COLLISION RISK TO FISH M et al. 2017). The passing rates, positions, and reactions of Japanese rice fish (Oryzias latipes) were recorded after upstream and downstream releases near an axial flow any species of fish have been considered to be at turbine in a rectangular swim flume, during which the risk from collision with turbines in tidal and river flow velocity was held constant and the rotation fre- environments. However, few empirical data were avail- quency was varied. Based on the study results, Zhang able before the 2016 State of the Science report was writ- et al. (2017) concluded that, similar to other flume and ten to assess the risk. A summary of what was known at field studies, turbine operation significantly affected the that time is followed here by more recent findings. avoidance behavior of fish, which increased as rotational frequency and tip speed increased. These behavioral alterations likely decrease collision risk for fishes in the wild and provide information for parameter estimation of numerical models aimed at further understanding fish behavior around turbines. The study results led the authors to recommend that hydrokinetic turbines with 42 OES-ENVIRONMENTAL 2020 STATE OF THE SCIENCE REPORT relatively high rotational frequencies be placed at the Baseline Field Studies downstream end of a channel to minimize the collision Two baseline studies conducted since 2016 had a pri- risk to fishes. Currently, the feasibility of transferring mary focus on understanding the presence/absence of these results to other fish taxa and turbine designs is fishes at two different sites—one in the Bay of Fundy, unknown. Yoshida et al. (2020) similarly carried out a in Cobscook Bay, Maine (Viehman and Zydlewski 2017) laboratory-scale water tank test to examine the behav- and the other in Minas Passage, Nova Scotia (Viehman iors of the ray-finned Tamoroko (Gnathopogon elonga- et al. 2018), while a third baseline study quantified how tus) around turbine blades rotated by a motor. A water the distribution of fish schools overlaps with the opera- current was applied to the flume as well. Although most tional depth and tidal current speeds used by tidal kites fish passed outside the turbine blades throughout the in the Irish Sea (Whitton et al. 2020). Investigators used duration of the experiment, when the current was added different acoustic methods to examine fish presence/ to the flume the behavior of the fish changed, result- absence and vertical distribution, including single- ing in approximately a one percent chance of collision beam and split-beam echosounders in Cobscook Bay, with a blade. However, of two fish collisions observed, and an Acoustic Zooplankton and Fish Profiler (AZFP) neither resulted in injury to the fish and both were in Minas Passage, while in the Irish Sea, both methods thought to have occurred because the fish was affected were used. In Cobscook Bay, data were continuously by the current. Comparing with the results for Japanese collected for two years at the proposed depth of an MRE rice fish (Zhang et al. 2017), the authors suggested that turbine using a bottom-mounted, side-looking echo- the ray-finned Tamoroko has a higher risk of collision sounder. From these data, fish counts were determined despite its faster swimming speed (Yoshida et al. 2020). and temporal patterns in abundance were examined. In In addition, it appears that fishes capable of avoiding Minas Passage, data were collected during one month turbine blades without a current may be less capable of each in winter and summer by an upward-facing AZFP doing so when a current is running (Yoshida et al. 2020). deployed at the FORCE test site. In the Irish Sea at the To understand the effects of blade strikes on fishes, three fish species (gizzard shad [Dorosoma cepedianum], rainbow trout [Oncorhynchus mykiss], and hybrid striped bass [Morone saxatilus x M. chrysops]) were exposed to simulated blade strikes in a laboratory setting (Bevelhimer et al. 2019). The relationships among blade thickness, impact velocity, and body orientation were examined to understand the relationships between turbine characteristics and the probability of injury and mortality of different fish species. Mid-body strikes West Anglesey Demonstration Zone for tidal energy, AZFP data were collected for three months in late fall to winter, while split-beam echosounder data were collected and trawls were conducting for groundtruthing at the beginning and end of the AZFP data collection period. From these data, fish density, distribution, and overlap with a proposed hydrokinetic device were calculated in relation to one or more of the following: season, tide stage, diel stage, tidal current speeds, or suspended particulate matter. resulted in the highest mortality, followed by head In study locations in the Bay of Fundy and the Gulf of strikes, while tail strikes produced the lowest mortality. Maine where tidal turbines are proposed for deploy- Lateral strikes caused greater mortality than dorsal and ment, fish abundance (quantified as counts and den- ventral strikes, and higher strike velocities and thinner sity) and vertical distribution varied with the season, blades contributed to increased mortality. Results such diel stage, and tidal stage (Viehman and Zydlewski as these ultimately could be used to inform injury and 2017; Viehman et al. 2018). In the Irish Sea, fish school mortality estimates of fish interacting with turbines and diel vertical migrations were driven by depth of light by turbine designers to modify designs to minimize the penetration into the water column, which in turn is probability and impact of blade strike. Currently, there controlled by the supply of solar radiation and cross- are no reports of such studies informing the design of sectional area of suspended particulate matter (Whitton turbines, but this is an important area to inform the et al. 2020). As a result, fish schools were found shal- evolution of future device designs. lower in the morning and evening, and deeper in the middle of the day, with the fish at the deepest depths during lower current speeds corresponding with neap tides. When fish schools were present, they only over- SECTION B – CURRENT KNOWLEDGE OF KEY DEVICE INTERACTIONS WITH THE MARINE ENVIRONMENT 43 lapped with predicted kite operation depths 5% of the ties were observed during installation and maintenance time, representing a mean of 6% of the potential kite periods than during normal device operation. The operating time. authors emphasized the importance of timing device These baseline observations aid in understanding the potential collision risk of fishes and turbines. Because fish counts may be proportional to the encounter rate installation, maintenance and decommissioning to avoid major fish migrations or presence of endangered and threatened species (Staines et al. 2019). of fish with a turbine at the same depth, variable fish One study was conducted to understand the aggrega- abundance and distribution in both studies indicate tion characteristics of fishes around a turbine support that the risk to fish is similarly variable (Viehman and structure in a high-energy tidal site near the Orkney Zydlewski 2017). Furthermore, the linkage between Islands in Scotland (Fraser et al. 2018; Williamson et al. fish presence and environmental cycles may not be 2019). Using multifrequency echosounder data, the ini- restricted to the locations mentioned in these studies, tial analysis found a large increase in fish-school num- which could help refine the predictions of potential fish bers at the turbine site relative to a control site, which interactions at other tidal energy sites by using model- was inferred to be an attraction effect of the static sup- ing exercises. port structure (Fraser et al. 2018). The second analysis Deployed Support Structures and Turbines used a predictive approach that relied on Generalized Group Behavior By extending the same methodologies and approaches used in pre-deployment baseline studies, installation and post-installation assessment of the impacts of support structures and turbines on fishes, such as avoidance behavior and encounter probability, can be inferred at a group level by observing multiple fish, such as shoals or even local populations. Specifically, comparisons of fish presence/absence, counts, or densities in locations where a turbine is deployed and in nearby reference locations (where a turbine is not deployed) can be made. Similar comparisons can be made before and after a support structure or turbine is deployed to infer the effects of turbines as part of post-consent monitoring programs. Additive Models, and found that the fish-school area and occupied depth around the static turbine support structure were significantly related to the time of day, current velocity, and tide stage (ebb/flood; Williamson et al. 2019). Both analyses found that there were more fish schools present at water velocities less than 1.0 m/s than at higher velocities, and there were more fish schools present near the turbine site than at the control site. From the results, it was inferred that the aggregation of prey fishes near turbine structures may increase prey availability and predator foraging efficiency, which may increase predator collision risk (Williamson et al. 2019). It was further inferred that the biggest change in the behavior of predatory fish would occur at night when they were predicted to occupy deeper waters, which may be manifested in energetics and collision risk, both One study examined the relative impacts of device of which may ultimately have effects at the popula- installation vs. normal operation by using a Before- tion level. The investigators concluded that information After-Control-Impact study design to compare an about changes in fishes around turbine structures can index of fish density close to and farther away from be used to estimate the cumulative effects on predators an MRE tidal energy device deployed in Cobscook Bay, at a population level, by incorporating observational Maine (Staines et al. 2019). The index consisted of mean results into ecosystem and population models. Lieber volume backscattering strength obtained from 24-hour et al. (2019) also reported the presence of a predictable stationary, down-looking hydroacoustic surveys. foraging hotspot for several tern species in the surface These data were collected several times per year at an wake of the SeaGen device. Although no observations “impact” site close to an MRE device and at a control of marine mammals were reported, it is possible that site farther away from the MRE device, both before and predators could be attracted to such a hotspot, thereby after turbine installation. One of the main findings was increasing the potential for collision. that the operational status of the installed turbine and on-water activity disturbances (e.g., industry vessel and diving activities) varied at the impact site and possibly influenced results. Specifically, lower fish densi44 During the EnFAIT project in Bluemull Sound, Scotland, fish of the genus Pollachius (identified as saithe, Pollachius virens) were regularly observed in the subsea OES-ENVIRONMENTAL 2020 STATE OF THE SCIENCE REPORT video footage (around 20-30% of footage analyzed In the relatively turbid East River of New York, DID- to date— Nova Innovation 2020). The only other fish SON data collected in the vicinity of a bottom-mounted species observed in the footage was an individual long- horizontal-axis turbine were analyzed to identify and spined scorpion fish (Taurulus bubalis) attached to one understand individual fish swim tracks around a rotat- of the cameras lenses and an unidentified large species ing horizontal-axis turbine (Bevelhimer et al. 2017). thought to be a dogfish, around the base of the turbine. In contrast, in the Kvichak River in Alaska, which is The saithe usually occurred in groups of five or more relatively clear, optical cameras were used to document individuals, often much larger. Individuals were gener- and understand fish behavior around a horizontal-axis ally seen around the nacelle and blades of the turbines helical turbine (Matzner et al. 2017). In general, indi- at slack tide and the start of the flood and ebb, mov- vidual fishes appeared to adjust their behavior around ing closer to the seabed or to the shelter created by the turbines. In the East River, some fish responded to nacelle as tidal flow increased. Some exceptions were the turbine by adjusting their swimming behavior, for observed, with individual fish persisting in the vicin- example by making small adjustments in their swim- ity of the nacelle and blades once the turbines started ming direction and velocity as they passed near the rotating. However, most fish observations corresponded turbine, which can be termed evasion (Bevelhimer et al. to periods of slower flow speeds and no physical contact 2017). Specifically, individual fishes that were headed between fish and the turbine blades was ever observed toward rotating blades usually avoided the blades by in any of the footage. reducing their swimming velocity, adjusting their To understand the aggregation characteristics of fishes near rotating turbines, hydroacoustic surveys were conducted in the East River, New York (Bevelhimer et al. 2017) and in Cobscook Bay, Maine (Grippo et al. 2017) to examine fish densities and distributions in relation to horizontal swimming direction slightly, and angling away. In the Kvichak River, all adult fish demonstrated some type of avoidance reaction, as did the majority of juveniles; approximately one-third of juveniles passed through the turbine (Matzner et al. 2017). turbines. In both studies, the results suggest that rotat- This information about the behavior of individual fishes ing turbines elicit an avoidance response in fishes, even around rotating turbines can be scaled up to the group as far as 140 m from the device (Grippo et al. 2017). Col- level by incorporating it into collective behavior models lectively, these studies demonstrate that groups of fish or individual-based models to improve the understand- show avoidance behavior relative to turbines on differ- ing of the impacts of turbines on populations (Shen ent time scales, indicating a reduced probability that et al. 2016). However, current field-based efforts to fish will physically interact with a rotating device. include such information are infrequent (Hammar et al. Individual Behavior of Fishes 2015; Staines et al. 2020) and, as such, real-world data To monitor the individual behavior of fishes near turbines, relatively fine-scale (centimeter to meter scale) information must be collected using cameras or acoustic imaging systems. In cases when individual behavior to parameterize these behaviors in models are limited (Bevelhimer et al. 2017). Consequently, these two studies represent an important step toward understanding the behavior of individual fishes near rotating turbines. is being monitored, individual fish are identified and Collisions between Turbines and Fishes their reactions (or lack thereof) near a turbine are clas- While most field-based research focuses on group-level sified into different types, such as attraction or avoid- and individual-level behavior around turbines, rela- ance. Optical cameras provide relatively high-resolu- tively little focuses on the frequency of actual collisions tion information, but their use is limited by darkness between turbines and fishes. This line of research is in or lack of water clarity. In contrast, acoustic imaging its infancy, as demonstrated by the fact that no fish col- systems (i.e., BlueView, Dual-Frequency Identification lision research was reviewed in the 2016 State of the Sci- Sonar [DIDSON], ARIS) can be used in darkness and ence report. Since 2016, two projects have examined fish low-clarity water, but they provide lower-resolution collisions with turbines (Bevelhimer et al. 2017; Matzner information than that of optical cameras, and species et al. 2017). Both research projects that examined the identification is not always possible. frequency of fish collisions relied on manual review of data, because automated detections and descriptions SECTION B – CURRENT KNOWLEDGE OF KEY DEVICE INTERACTIONS WITH THE MARINE ENVIRONMENT 45 of collision events are currently not possible. In the East tigators to address regulatory questions. To under- River, New York, potential collision events documented stand encounter risk, probabilistic models are used in DIDSON data collected in the vicinity of a bottom- to determine the probability that a fish will occur in a mounted horizontal-axis turbine were identified through predefined volume of water that corresponds to some automated analyses (Bevelhimer et al. 2017). Subse- component(s) of a turbine. Generally, these models rely quently, potential collision events were manually evalu- on understanding horizontal and vertical fish distri- ated by examining the characteristics of those fish tracks bution, the physical characteristics of the turbine site to infer blade strikes. In the Kvichak River, Alaska, optical including water depth and bathymetric characteristics, camera footage was visually examined for collision events and turbine characteristics including their placement in (Matzner et al. 2017). the environment and their dimensions. Encounter risk In both studies, collisions ranged from infrequent to nonexistent. In the East River, 36 individual tracks were identified as having the possibility of having had a close encounter with the turbine based on each fish’s proximity to the turbine, but there were no observations of fish being struck by rotating blades in the video images that were obtained (Bevelhimer et al. 2017). In more than 42 hours of camera footage reviewed from the Kvichak River, there were only 20 potential contact interactions, of which only 3 were classified as “maybe” collisions after close visual examination (Matzner et al. 2017). On only one occasion was an actual contact confirmed, and it involved an adult fish that contacted the camera, not the turbine itself. More interactions with the turbine were was modeled in two studies, one in Cobscook Bay, Maine (Shen et al. 2016) and one in Minas Passage, Nova Scotia (Viehman et al. 2018). In Cobscook Bay, a model used empirically collected echosounder data from stationary and mobile hydroacoustic surveys to examine the probability that fish would be at the depth of the turbine and could therefore encounter it as close as 10 m upstream (Shen et al. 2016). In Minas Passage, empirical fish density and vertical distribution data collected by an echosounder were used to estimate the probability of spatial overlap with the device under three fish distribution scenarios: (1) uniform vertical distribution; (2) winter vertical distribution; and (3) summer vertical distribution (Viehman et al. 2018). detected at night, which the investigators hypothesized In general, the probability of encounter is low and var- resulted from probable bias introduced by nighttime use ies with the season, fish community, and turbine design. of artificial light. The bias was speculated to exist because In Cobscook Bay, the maximum probability of a given lights were thought to possibly attract fish and increase fish encountering the whole device during a year was their detection probability as a result of the light being 0.432 (95 percent CI: [0.305, 0.553]), and the probability reflected from the fish itself (Matzner et al. 2017). of a given fish encountering only device blades during Modeling Studies a year was 0.058 (95 percent% CI: [0.043, 0.073]; Shen As a valuable complement to field-based studies, modeling studies have been conducted to understand several facets of potential impacts of hydrokinetic devices on fishes, including encounter risk, behavior, and collision risk. These models can fill information gaps when field studies are not feasible or lack the spatial or temporal resolution to answer important questions. In the past, many models did not incorporate empirical data (i.e., data collected in the field), but this is changing as research on turbines effects matures. Encounter Risk et al. 2016). In Minas Passage, the probability that fish would encounter the marine hydrokinetic device based on spatial overlap alone was 0.00175 with uniform vertical distribution (Viehman et al. 2018). The probability of encounter was 0.00064 for the winter vertical distribution of fish (median proportion of fish at turbine depth = 0.365), and 0.00099 for the summer vertical distribution (median proportion of fish at turbine depth = 0.566). These are likely conservative estimates of encounter probability because neither model incorporated the avoidance or evasion behaviors of fishes. If avoidance and evasion behaviors are considered, the encounter In the context of MRE devices, encounter risk is consid- probability would likely be considerably lower. ered to be the probability that a fish spatially overlaps Behavior of Fishes when Encountering a Turbine with different components of a hydrokinetic device (Viehman et al. 2018). These components can vary among studies and are typically predefined by inves46 The behavior of fishes when encountering a turbine has been explored in one study in an IBM framework OES-ENVIRONMENTAL 2020 STATE OF THE SCIENCE REPORT (Grippo et al. 2017). The goal of the study was to use cal significance, and potential drivers of behavioral 3.5.3. RESEARCH AND MONITORING NEEDS TO RETIRE THE ISSUE responses. To accomplish this, data from field surveys, Additional research and monitoring, including field hydrodynamic modeling, and behavioral simula- studies, modeling, and flume studies, can advance tions that described fish responses hundreds of meters our understanding of the risks of fish collision with upstream and downstream of the turbine were corre- MRE and hydrokinetic devices. In addition, in many lated to stimuli generated by the turbine, as well as cur- cases, the results from one approach can inform other rents in the environment. Fish behavior near the turbine approaches, such as field study results providing infor- was simulated in a relatively simple individual-based mation for model validation and improvement. These model (Eulerian-Lagrangian-Agent Method [ELAM]) studies should focus on all stages of MRE development, and related to three potential stimuli generated by the including the collection of baseline information and turbine, including flow patterns, noise, and visual stim- post-installation impacts on fishes. Because monitoring uli. Initial results indicated low impacts to fish (Grippo of and research on the potential impacts of turbines on et al. 2017). fishes is a relatively new field, most of the recommenda- Collision Risk Modeling tions are basic compared to other mature fields related empirical data to characterize the magnitude, ecologi- Collision risk modeling is used to understand, predict, and assess potential rates of a fish either running into static components of a turbine or being struck by mov- to understanding anthropogenic impacts on organisms. Some of the priority needs for understanding collision risk for fishes with MRE devices are listed below. ing parts of the turbine (Xodus Group 2016). In general, Placement of MRE devices – The generalized recom- collision risk models use a physical description of the mendation, based upon flume research (Zhang et al. turbine and characteristics of fishes such as body size, 2017), for placing MREs at the downstream end of a abundance, and swimming activity to estimate poten- channel should be re-examined, because it is likely that tial collision rates. To accomplish this, the models placement recommendations will vary with location quantify how often the turbine parts will be in the same and fish species. place at the same time as a fish. The occurrence of turbine parts will depend on the turbine size, architecture, and movement characteristics. Groundtruthing acoustic targets – To determine which fish species are in the vicinity of MRE devices, acoustic targets should be groundtruthed for both baseline and To understand collision risk for Atlantic salmon pass- post-installation research and monitoring that use ing near the turbine site, four scenarios based on two acoustic methods (echosounders), which will lead to project stages and two different types of turbines were better understanding of fish distribution and behavior. considered (Xodus Group 2016). Turbine characteristics were taken from device-specific engineering information, whereas the sources of hydrodynamic and bathymetric characteristics were not described. Using a 95 percent avoidance rate for Atlantic salmon, which is based on previous research and is assumed to be precautionary (Scottish Natural Heritage 2016), and the worst-case scenario of an array consisting of 200 individual 10-bladed turbines, the collision risk for any given individual fish of a certain life stage that passes through the turbine site during its oceanic migratory circuit is expected to be 0.007 percent for grilse and adults, and 0.003 percent for smolts. Scenarios with fewer turbines and turbines with fewer blades produced lower collision risk estimates. Individual fish behavior – Detailed information about the behavior of individual fishes should be collected to complement information gained from group-level observations to understand the ramifications of altered behavior (Bevelhimer et al. 2017) and to inform encounter probability and collision risk models. Once methodologies are refined, they can be used to answer behavioral questions that have eluded researchers. Because echosounders (e.g., split-beam sonar) have not been particularly effective in sampling nearfield areas, once a fish gets close to a turbine, this method is less helpful than cameras for determining the extent and outcomes of interactions. Even with cameras, identifying collision versus avoidance at close distances remains problematic (Matzner et al. 2017). The use of newly (or yet to be) developed echosounder and camera data SECTION B – CURRENT KNOWLEDGE OF KEY DEVICE INTERACTIONS WITH THE MARINE ENVIRONMENT 47 processing algorithms should provide valuable information. Actual collisions between turbines and fishes are thought to be rare, but determining the effect of a collision on a fish will help understand actual impacts that can be used to model the population-level impacts of turbines. Effects of underwater lights on fish behavior – The effects of lights used for monitoring fish behavior during periods of darkness should be examined to understand the potential influences of light on fish behavior and subsequent biases that may be introduced during nighttime monitoring of fish/turbine interactions (Matzner et al. 2017). Lights can either attract or repel fishes, and without knowing the exact effects of light on fish behavior on a species-specific basis, it is not possible to understand the sampling bias. Literature from research around hydroelectric dams may provide some insight. Figure 3.6. Schematic of stimulus fields produced by a turbine that could affect fish behavior. (Illustration by Robyn Ricks) elucidated through tagging or other methods should be overlaid on the fields around the turbine, and correlations among environmental fields, physical Automated detection of fish collisions – Many moni- covariates, and fish behavior should be determined. toring methods still rely heavily on manual and visual Conducting such an exercise would enable more accu- processing. Although this approach likely leads to rate prediction of fish behavior in the absence of other accurate results, it is time-consuming and, in some means, such as field monitoring. In addition, there is cases, prevents comprehensive monitoring (Matzner a need to understand fish behavior in close proximity et al. 2017) or reporting. Efforts should be devoted to with turbines. In many cases, particularly when using developing automated detection to better understand echosounders to monitor fishes, the turbine blades the frequency of the collision of fishes with turbines in and fishes are indistinguishable, or the turbine blades the field and to avoid the need for manual processing cause feedback and mask fish detections at close range of echosounder data. Further development of auto- (Shen et al. 2016). mated algorithms for both echosounder and camera data are also needed to reduce the burden of the storage and post-processing of collected data. Consequences of the collision of fish with turbines – The outcomes of actual collisions of fishes and MREs are relatively unknown and should be examined. Even Correlation of fish behavior with stimuli – High- if a fish is not actually struck by a turbine, it may resolution information about fish behavior should be experience other sublethal behavioral and physiologi- quantitatively correlated to stimulus fields around cal effects. Investigating sublethal and non-contact turbines, including noise, pressure, velocity, accelera- effects will also be important for understanding the tion, and water particle characteristics, to advance effects of turbines on fishes. understanding of fish behavior in response to these stimuli (Figure 3.6). Grippo et al. (2017) qualitatively examined these questions, but rigorous quantitative analyses are needed. To do this, fields around the operating/rotating turbine, including water velocity, pressure, acceleration, and water particle characteristics (Nedelec et al. 2016; Popper and Hawkins 2018) should be measured. Next, fine-scale fish behavior 48 Optimizing turbine operation for fish safety – While also considering electricity production, research to identify optimum blade velocity should examine the trade-off between avoidance behavior and severity of injuries, because increased blade velocity results in increased avoidance behavior, while decreased blade velocity results in decreased severity of injuries and mortality (Zhang et al. 2017). OES-ENVIRONMENTAL 2020 STATE OF THE SCIENCE REPORT Realism and groundtruthing of collision and encounter models – Encounter probability models need to incorporate realistic representations of fish behavior, including avoidance and evasion behavior observed during field studies (Viehman and Zydlewski 2017). These models need to be rigorously groundtruthed to determine the realism of their outputs. Effects of MRE arrays on fish – Future studies should examine the impacts of MRE arrays, which may have implications that differ substantially from those of single devices (Shen et al. 2016). The effects of turbines on fishes beyond the individual-turbine and individual-fish levels should be pursued as the MRE industry scales up. For example, how a device (or devices) affects the migration of groups of animals, such as schooling salmon or herring, over prolonged periods should be investigated, and expanded to include consideration of turbine arrays. It is likely that a turbine array will alter the biota in an ecosystem by repelling some species and attracting others (Fraser et al. 2018). Implications of fish collision on populations – The population-level impacts of MRE devices on fishes should be determined using a variety of approaches, including using population dynamics modeling and examining long-term data about the abundance of fishes, to provide a more holistic understanding of fish collision risks. As the industry develops, regulators will have to consider the potential effects on fish populations, using data gathered from single devices and small arrays, and applying tools used in consideration of other development processes. Also of consideration are the community-level effects that might be caused by MRE development. By altering the fish community, ecosystem effects such as changes in the food web structure, as well as the overall and relative abundance of fishes, will likely be realized. Further- 3.6. COLLISION RISK TO SEABIRDS S eabirds are considered to be at risk from tidal turbine development if they dive at the locations and depths of operational turbines. Understanding this more, an attractant effect, particularly of predatory risk involves understanding the geographic distribu- fishes, may disproportionately affect other fish spe- tion, seasonal habitat use, diving depth and timing, and cies, particularly low-abundance species like Atlantic other behavioral movements of the seabirds of concern, salmon and some populations of Pacific salmon. as they may overlap with operational turbines. SECTION B – CURRENT KNOWLEDGE OF KEY DEVICE INTERACTIONS WITH THE MARINE ENVIRONMENT 49 3.6.1. SUMMARY OF KNOWLEDGE THROUGH 2016 GPS location data to gain dive profiles for seabirds at As of 2016, knowledge about the risk of seabird colli- data, collision risk models were under development to sion with MRE devices was limited, in part because of a estimate likely collision rates (Grant et al. 2014; Scot- lack of operational devices. Consequently, most stud- tish Natural Heritage 2016), but the data to param- ies focused on the potential vulnerability of seabirds’ eterize the models were limited. habitat relative to the presence of MRE devices rather than collision risk. While no empirical data were available about the collision impacts of seabirds with MRE devices, several studies assessed the relative sensitivities of different seabird species or species groups to the potential adverse effects of MRE devices (e.g., Furness et al. 2012; Wilson et al. 2007). Cormorants and auk species including European shag (Phalacrocorax aristotelis) MRE sites. In the absence of empirical seabird collision 3.6.2. KNOWLEDGE GENERATED SINCE 2016 Since the publication of the 2016 State of the Science report, studies have continued to investigate habitat use and fine-scale interactions with turbines as well as the development of monitoring techniques, as a proxy for collision risk for seabirds and tidal turbines. and black guillemot (Cepphus grylle) were highlighted as Site-wide Scale and Habitat Use the species most at risk because of their diving behavior An understanding of seabird habitat use across a poten- and depth and the resulting potential for overlap with tial tidal-stream development site can provide informa- operating or moving turbine parts (Furness et al. 2012; tion about the likelihood of a diving seabird and a tidal Langton et al. 2011). Several studies used land- and turbine co-occurring in two-dimensional space (i.e., lat- boat-based visual observations to investigate seabird itude and longitude). Waggitt et al. (2016) used a combi- presence and use of tidal areas. Their findings suggested nation of vessel-based seabird surveys, hydrodynamic that although highly energetic tidal channels may pro- modeling, and acoustic surveys to test for associations vide predictable foraging sites for a range of seabird between diving seabirds and physical features in a tidal- species, the specific details of habitat use and therefore stream environment—the Fall of Warness in the Orkney risk will be site-specific and may also vary within a site Islands, Scotland. Their results showed that for the spe- (Wade 2015; Waggitt and Scott 2014). cies of interest (Atlantic puffins [Fratercula arctica], black Technology and remote observation methods were also used to investigate the potential impacts of MRE devices on seabirds. Williamson et al. (2017) used the Flow, Water Column and Benthic Ecology (FLOWBEC) platform equipped with a variety of sensors to assess the underwater interactions of seabirds (as well as fish and marine mammals) with tidal turbines. A similar integrated instrumentation system was also developed by Polagye et al. (2014). In addition, Jackson (2014) used above-water cameras on the Pelamis wave energy device at the European Marine Energy Centre (EMEC) in the Orkney Islands, Scotland, to assess the use of the wave structure and surrounding water by seabirds, and they found use by eight species, most frequently by Arctic terns (Sterna paradisaea). Floating tidal turbines operate near the surface; therefore, for these types of devices, the results from Jackson (2014) suggest the guillemots, common guillemots [Uria aalge], and European shags), individuals were associated with fast and slow horizontal currents, high turbulence, upward and downward vertical currents, and hard-rough seabeds. However, the strength of the associations was speciesspecific. In particular, the study demonstrated a strong association of Atlantic puffins with fast horizontal flow, highlighting the potential for this species to be at risk of collision with tidal turbines. Following on from this, Waggitt et al. (2017) used data from shore-based seabird surveys across six sites in Scotland to identify trends in the use of habitats by black guillemots and European shags. However, their results did not provide any clear generalizations, suggesting that species habitat use of tidal-stream environments and the associated risk of collision with turbines may vary greatly between development sites. implications for collision risk should be investigated GPS tracking of black guillemot breeding on the island further. Bird-borne technology (particularly time- of Stroma in the Pentland Firth, UK, found little overlap depth recorders) were also used to collect data about between birds and the MeyGen lease area; 73.2 percent the potential risk from MRE devices, but it was not of the GPS points fell outside the area (Johnston 2019). possible to couple the diving profiles of seabirds with Foraging occurred at shallower depths (at mean depths 50 OES-ENVIRONMENTAL 2020 STATE OF THE SCIENCE REPORT of 24 m) and at slower tidal velocities than in the lease and puffin in 1.08% of scans. For the 9 years of survey area. This may be due to the energetic cost of ben- data, the modeled probability of a bird diving in the thic diving in strong currents. The study found a large area immediately around the turbines is <0.05 for both amount of individual variability in habitat use, sug- black guillemot and Atlantic puffin, <0.03 for Euro- gesting that in addition to species- and site-specificity, pean shag and <0.01 for all other species. In general, individual specialization may modulate collision risk. the probability of birds diving around the turbines was Cole et al. (2018) used a modified ornithodolite (a pair of binoculars with a built-in laser rangefinder, digital compass, and inclinometer) to quantify animal space use and the fine-scale space use in a highly dynamic tidal area (Ramsey Sound, Wales) by diving seabirds, to locate the birds. Their results showed that the standard deviation of distance measurements was 1–2 m within a 2 km range. However, systematic error in the laser rangefinder distance measurement, as well as the influence of the target bird size and color, could lead to an increase in the actual 3-D positional error (Cole et al. 2018). Despite these limitations, the orni- greater on flood tides than the ebb and lower at faster tidal flows, indicating a very low turbine encounter risk for even the most commonly occurring diving birds. Black guillemot and European shag were the only bird species observed in the subsea video footage. Eleven occurrences of shag and seven of guillemot were observed, all during slack tide or periods of tidal flow below the cut-in speed, when the turbines were not operating. On three occasions, European shag were observed actively pursuing fish around turbines. No physical contact between birds and the turbine blades was ever observed in any of the footage. thodolite is a useful tool for assigning individuals to Unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) have recently been locations in space and therefore for understanding used to understand how seabirds use tidal flow areas how they might be at risk of collision. In relation to in high-flow tidal areas of the Pentland Firth (Wil- bird behavior and habitat use, they found that indi- liamson et al. 2018). Limited research has been con- viduals avoided the main channel where mean current ducted on the effect of UAVs on birds and specifically speeds were fastest, preferring instead the relatively non-breeding, resting, or feeding birds (Vas et al. slack waters. They also noted that diving birds ori- 2015) rather than breeding birds (Brisson-Curadeau ented into the flow and could therefore potentially et al. 2017; Weimerskirch et al. 2017). It is thought that drift backward if their swim speed was less than the the effect on behavior is minimal when UAVs are oper- current speed, potentially drifting into a turbine if ated at appropriate heights, though this will be spe- they occupied the same stretch of water (Cole et al. cies-specific. UAVs provide a cost-effective method 2018). Similar behavior of “conveyor belt foraging” for measuring seabird distributions and hydrody- was documented by Robbins (2017) for black guille- namic features concurrently. Vessel-based observers mots in Bluemull Sound, Scotland, where the density were used to confirm UAV observations of seabirds of black guillemots also showed a significant negative while their UAV hydrodynamic measurements were relationship with current speed. groundtruthed against vessel-based hydroacoustics Thirty-three bird species have been recorded in landbased surveys during the EnFAIT project in Bluemull Sound (Nova Innovation 2020). Fifteen species are known to dive to the turbine depth (≥ 15m below sea level), and therefore capable of encountering and interacting with the turbines. Black guillemot and European shag accounted for over 90% of all sightings, with other diving bird species, such as Atlantic puffin, northern gannet (Morus bassanus), common guillemot and red-throated diver (Gavia stellata) recorded infrequently. Black guillemot were recorded diving in the area immediately around the turbines in 2.75% of scans, European shag in 1.04% of scans (Williamson et al. 2018). This research aims to develop algorithms for the automated detection of animals and hydrodynamic features from UAV data. A UAV was used with vantage point surveys to observe top predators around a manmade structure (SeaGen) in Strangford Lough, Northern Ireland, demonstrating the presence of a predictable foraging hotspot for several tern species in the surface wake of the device (Lieber et al. 2019). During the study, SeaGen was being decommissioned and the rotors were removed, although the monopile was still in place, thereby creating a surface wake effect. It has been hypothesized that foraging hotspots generated around operational SECTION B – CURRENT KNOWLEDGE OF KEY DEVICE INTERACTIONS WITH THE MARINE ENVIRONMENT 51 devices could potentially lead to an ecological trap, tion Model takes a different approach; it uses popula- i.e., a situation in which birds are attracted to an oper- tion modeling to determine “the critical additional ating turbine because of the increased foraging oppor- mortality due to underwater collisions with a turbine tunities and consequently experiencing an increased which would cause an adverse effect to an animal collision risk (Lieber et al. 2019). An ecological trap population” (Scottish Natural Heritage 2016). All three occurs when “organisms make poor habitat choices models require data to parameterize, and recom- based on cues that correlated formerly with habitat mended values for some of these standard parameters, quality” (Schlaepfer et al. 2002). This behavior could such as biometrics (body length and wingspan) and increase the risk of collision, thereby outweighing the diving behavior (dive depths, swim speeds, etc.), are benefit gained from foraging (Battin 2004; Kristan provided in the guidance. The guidance can be used to 2003). The degree to which the surface wave effects determine which model is best suited to the specific observed at SeaGen might be replicated at depth by circumstance of an MRE development and for the data wakes created by fully submerged devices and any available. corresponding implications for the creation of feeding hotspots at depth is unclear. Fine-scale Interactions To better understand the risk of collision of seabirds with underwater turbines, it is vital to understand how individuals will interact with the devices. To date, there has been limited information about the under- 3.6.3. RESEARCH AND MONITORING NEEDS TO RETIRE THE ISSUE Significant data gaps remain because only a limited number of studies have been conducted, so there is no evidence to show that direct interactions with tidal turbines will occur or cause harm to individual sea- water movements and behaviors of seabirds around birds or populations. tidal turbines, in part because of the low number of Seabird Movement and Behavior – There is a lack of data operational devices. A proxy for empirical data about interactions information has been collated about seabird diving behavior in an attempt to parameterize collision risk models. Robbins (2017) produced a synthesis of data about seabird diving behavior (18 different parameters) for 22 species found in UK waters. This study found that existing knowledge of foraging and diving behavior is highly variable across species and parameters and that for some of the most vulnerable species, such as loons and black guillemots (Furness et al. 2012), data uncertainty is high. For such species, targeted research will be required. about and observations of nearfield animal movements and behaviors around tidal turbines, which would be required for a variety of designs and across a range of tidal locations. This means that we do not currently understand how seabirds interact with operational turbines and we are unable to predict how devices might affect individuals at new development sites, which limits the evidence base for environmental impact assessments. This is also evident when using collision risk models, which currently make assumptions about avoidance or evasion responses of seabirds, based on learning from offshore wind turbines (Scottish Natural Heritage 2016), because Guidance on Collision Risk and Monitoring there are no empirical data from tidal turbines. Since the publication of the 2016 State of the Science Detecting Collisions – Even if more data about the report, Scottish Natural Heritage has published guid- close-range behavior of seabirds relative to turbines ance on how to assess collision risk between underwa- become available, it will still be necessary to detect and ter turbines and marine wildlife, including diving sea- record actual collision events, and doing so may not birds (Scottish Natural Heritage 2016). The guidance be possible because of poor underwater visibility and presents three separate models: (1) the Encounter turbidity (RPS Group 2010). Having empirical evidence Rate Model, (2) the Collision Risk Model, and (3) the of collisions (or the lack thereof) not only allows for a Exposure Time Population Model. The approaches of better understanding of risk but will aid in the valida- the Encounter Rate and Collision Risk Models are sim- tion of collision risk models. In addition, there is a lack ilar to those used for wind turbines (Band 2012); they of information about the consequences of collisions for use a model for the turbine and the animal to estimate seabirds, if they occur; i.e., whether a collision event the likely risk of collision. The Exposure Time Popula- would lead to mortality. Research has started to address 52 OES-ENVIRONMENTAL 2020 STATE OF THE SCIENCE REPORT this issue for marine mammals but it has yet to be ◆ explored for seabirds (Onoufriou et al. 2019). Improve the understanding of the displacement of seabirds from operating tidal energy sites to understand the true size of the population at risk. Seabird Species Behavior – Gaps in our knowledge of seabird diving behavior remain. Although some sea- The priorities for monitoring at future tidal energy birds are well-studied, studies often focus on a limited development sites are as follows: number of species at only a few locations. The synthe- ◆ Monitor nearfield underwater interactions with sis of marine bird diving behavior conducted by Rob- and behaviors of seabirds in response to deployed bins (2017) to inform our understanding of the risk of devices. underwater collision with tidal-stream turbines found that data gaps remain, particularly for some vulnerable ◆ ing) of seabird habitat use in relation to hydrody- species such as black guillemots and loons. Data need to namic features to improve the understanding of be collected from more than one location over several seasons including the breeding season. Improved data should be used to parameterize underwater collision how seabirds use high-flow environments. ◆ porated uncertainty into an assessment of seabird vulnerability relative to MRE developments and found The priorities for the development of technology, methodologies, and tools include the following: ◆ Develop methods to improve the understanding of the behavior of seabirds around operating devices, high levels of uncertainty associated with seabird use particularly avoidance and evasion behaviors. of tidal races. This affects confidence in our estimates of the likely risk of collisions between diving seabirds Target observations to determine the extent of displacement effects. risk models. Seabird Use of Tidal Races – Wade et al. (2016) incor- Target observations (rather than generic monitor- ◆ Develop sensors and cameras to assure that any and tidal turbines, so wherever possible uncertainty collisions can be detected with confidence and that should be presented transparently. However, careful collisions can be classified by species, and to deter- consideration should be given to who is communicating mine the effects/consequences of collision (i.e., the uncertainty, in what form, and to whom, as well as mortality rate). importantly, for what reason (van der Bles et al. 2019). Research Priorities – Many of the priorities for reducing the risk of seabird collisions with tidal turbines ◆ Develop automated methods for processing the large quantities of data, such as underwater video/ camera images, that are often recorded at sites. overlap with those proposed for marine mammals and fish, and many remain from those recommended in the 2016 State of the Science report. The priorities that could be addressed by research, monitoring, and methods and tools, are listed below. Priorities for research include the following: ◆ Improve the knowledge of seabird diving behavior where knowledge gaps remain for vulnerable species to increase the evidence base for use in estimation of collision rates in models. ◆ Develop collision risk methods that incorporate the movement of seabirds around turbine arrays rather than around single turbines. ◆ Test the assumption of collision risk models that all mortality is associated with collision events. ◆ Include variability and uncertainty in collision risk modeling. SECTION B – CURRENT KNOWLEDGE OF KEY DEVICE INTERACTIONS WITH THE MARINE ENVIRONMENT 53 3.7. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS In addition, it is vital to examine the overlap and K birds around turbines (Scott et al. 2014). By collecting ey progress has been made to better understand collision risk, and evidence is steadily growing across a range of disciplines, informed by research and post-installation monitoring of operational devices. No collisions have been observed in nearfield monitoring carried out to date around operational turbines. However, because deployments have been limited and monitoring challenges are significant, gaps in potential interaction that may occur among predator and prey species, through the integration of data collected about marine mammals, fish, and diving seadata about the three major groups of marine animals at risk through coordinated monitoring programs (adding sea turtles in appropriate waters), the understanding of the potential interactions around MRE devices will be improved for each group and the potential interactions between the groups, such as the availability of forage fish around turbines forming prey for marine mammals knowledge remain. It is also important to acknowledge or seabirds, will be better elucidated. that the absence of observations of collisions does occur. Uncertainty about collision risk, including the 3.7.2. EVIDENCE OF FACTORS AFFECTING COLLISION RISK potential for collision events to occur, continues to The broad-scale use of tidal energy areas by mobile be a significant influential factor in consenting pro- marine predators for feeding and foraging is well- cesses and their outcomes for tidal and river energy established (e.g., Benjamins et al. 2015). However, developments. The increase in turbine device and array recent research presented in this chapter indicates deployments, coupled with increased reporting about that collision risk is more nuanced than the straight- the findings derived from monitoring at existing oper- forward spatial overlap of animals with tidal and river ational projects over the next few years, will be critical energy areas. Predator occupancy patterns appear in addressing some of the key gaps and uncertainties. to be strongly associated with tidal phases, current Crucial to this effort will be improving the dissemi- strengths, and flow structures, most likely in response nation, sharing, and use of the data gathered around to forced prey distribution and behaviors (Lieber et al. operational devices, and the information generated 2018, 2019), which will affect the likelihood of spa- from these data, in a way that does not compromise tial overlap at times of risk (i.e., when turbine blades any commercial confidentiality or intellectual property are rotating). There appears to be some heterogene- for device developers, suppliers, or researchers. ity in these associations across different tidal sites 3.7.1. INTEGRATION OF INFORMATION, TECHNOLOGY, AND ENGINEERING EXPERTS IN MONITORING PROGRAMS (e.g., Waggitt et al. 2017) but also some differences not provide definitive evidence that collisions will not (e.g., Hastie et al. 2016). As evidence of the influence of fine-scale hydrodynamics on marine animal distribution and behavior in tidal energy habitats grows, it Improvements in the methodologies used to collect, will improve our understanding of the probability of store, share, and analyze data pertaining to collision encounters with operating tidal devices, and the cor- risk are required. Key to achieving these improve- responding implications for collision risk. ments will be better integration, from the design Where there is spatial overlap between operating tidal stage, of the efforts of experts in engineering and information technology to improve the technologies used in monitoring (including improved reliability, survivability, and cost), as well as managing, analyzing, and disseminating the data. The development of automated data processing algorithms and software for analyzing data gathered around operational devices will be key to resolving uncertainties about devices and marine animals, the animals’ behavioral responses to the physical and acoustic presence of devices will be the primary factors influencing collision risk. Such responses include attraction, avoidance, and evasion. These factors can be better understood by measuring the response of marine animals to the actual presence of installed devices and arrays. collision risk. 54 OES-ENVIRONMENTAL 2020 STATE OF THE SCIENCE REPORT 3.7.3. ASSESSING COLLISION RISK AND ITS CONSEQUENCES Assessments of collision risk for tidal energy projects often include the use of predictive models to quantify potential collisions (e.g., Scottish Natural Heritage 2016) and the likely consequences of such predictions for species’ populations (e.g., King et al. 2015). In general, collision models are relatively simple, based on the broad spatial overlap of marine animals with tidal energy development areas, and on the measured or estimated animal density, often across a much wider area. Outputs should therefore be treated with caution to avoid inflating their scientific basis. Outputs provide a useful indication of the potential magnitude of collision risk, but contextualization and interpretation also are crucial. Equally uncertain are the consequences to an individual animal if a collision with a moving part of a 3.7.4. POST-INSTALLATION MONITORING OF COLLISION RISK Globally, uncertainty and knowledge gaps about collision risk have been key drivers of the requirement for and design of post-installation monitoring programs for tidal and river energy projects (see Chapter 12, Adaptive Management with Respect to Marine Renewable Energy). This is an area in which there has been significant activity in recent years, and there is a growing body of evidence about the interactions between animals and tidal devices. Significant progress has also been made in the development of monitoring techniques and instruments to address the challenges of gathering robust information of relevance to collision risk in tidal energy environments and around operating devices (see Chapter 10, Environmental Monitoring Technologies and Techniques for Detecting turbine were to occur. For some species, the research Interactions of Marine Animals with Turbines). is moving beyond the assumption that all collisions The increase in tidal device and array deployments, will result in the death of the animal, but the potential consequences for marine mammals across the size range from small pinnipeds and cetaceans to large whales, as well as fish and diving seabirds, are not well known. More investigations are needed to assure that an overly conservative approach to predicting the outcomes of collisions can be avoided. A key driver of the global concern about collision risk is the potential for such effects to lead to losses of individuals, which may affect ecosystem dynamics and the long-term status of populations. For many species, particularly those with spatially restricted, declining, or small populations, even a very low collision risk could result in concern about its effects on longterm population viability. For many species, limited evidence of life history or population demographics presents a challenge to understanding the potential as well as reporting on the findings of existing operational projects over the next few years, are expected to further address some of the collision risk critical gaps and uncertainties. These efforts include opportunities for meta-analyses across multiple sites and projects. Key to the success of this work will be the MRE industry, regulators, researchers, and funding agencies working collaboratively to understand how to best fund, share, and disseminate the results of research and monitoring programs to collectively move toward a better understanding of collision risk. This will require the exploration and development of mechanisms for sharing data and information without compromising commercial interests or intellectual property rights, as well as consideration of the needs of the consenting processes, including independent review and scrutiny of outputs. for such effects. In the case of some species of “charismatic megafauna,” the loss of individual animals might be deemed unacceptable from a societal or legal, rather than biological, perspective. SECTION B – CURRENT KNOWLEDGE OF KEY DEVICE INTERACTIONS WITH THE MARINE ENVIRONMENT 55 3.8. REFERENCES Benjamins, S., Dale, A. C., Hastie, G., Waggitt, J. J., Lea, ABP Marine Environmental Research Ltd. (ABPmer) Stream Environments. In R. N. Hughes, D. J. Hughes, I. 2010. Collision Risk of Fish with Wave and Tidal Devices P. Smith, and A. C. Dale (Eds.), Oceanography and Marine (R.1516). Report by ABP Marine Environmental Research Biology (Vol. 53, pp. 54). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press. Ltd for Welsh Assembly Government, Southhampton, https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/confusion-reigns​ Hampshire. https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/collision​ -review-marine-megafauna-interactions-tidal-stream​ -risk-fish-wave-and-tidal-devices -environments Amaral, S. V., Bevelhimer, M. S., Čada, G. F., Giza, D. J., Benjamins, S., van Geel, N., Hastie, G., Elliott, J., and Jacobson, P. T., McMahon, B. J., and Pracheil, B. M. 2015. Wilson, B. 2017. Harbour porpoise distribution can vary Evaluation of Behavior and Survival of Fish Exposed to at small spatiotemporal scales in energetic habitats. an Axial-Flow Hydrokinetic Turbine. North American Deep Sea Research Part II: Topical Studies in Oceanography, Journal of Fisheries Management, 35(1), 97-113. doi:10​ 141, 191-202. doi:10.1016/j.dsr2.2016.07.002 https://tethys​ .1080/02755947.2014.982333 https://tethys.pnnl.gov​ .pnnl.gov/publications/harbour-porpoise-distribution-can​ /publications/evaluation-behavior-survival-fish-exposed​ -vary-small-spatiotemporal-scales-energetic-habitats -axial-flow-hydrokinetic-turbine Bennet, F., Culloch, R., and Tait, A. 2016. Guidance on Band, B. 2012. Using a collision risk model to assess bird effective adaptive management and post-consent mon- collision risks for offshore windfarms. Report by Brit- itoring strategies (RiCORE Project Report No. RICORE- ish Trust for Ornithology for The Crown Estate. https://​ D5-2D5-4). Report by Robert Gordon University for tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/using-collision-risk-model​ European Commission; Project, Aberdeen, Scotland. -assess-bird-collision-risks-offshore-wind-farms https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/guidance-effective​ Band, B. 2014. Annex 3. Detailed Collision Risk Assessment: Marine Mammals, Basking Shark, and Diving M.-A., Scott, B., and Wilson, B. 2015. Confusion Reigns? A Review of Marine Megafauna Interactions with Tidal- -adaptive-management-post-consent-monitoring​ -strategies Birds (Report No. REP 443-04-01 20141120). European Bevelhimer, M. S., Pracheil, B. M., Fortner, A. M., Saylor, Marine Energy Centre, Stromness, Orkney. https://​ R., and Deck, K. L. 2019. Mortality and injury assessment tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/emec-fall-warness-test-site​ for three species of fish exposed to simulated turbine -environmental-appraisal blade strike. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sci- Band, B., Sparling, C. E., Thompson, D., Onoufriou, J., San Martin, E., and West, N. 2016. Refining Estimates of Collision Risk for Harbour Seals and Tidal Turbines. Scottish Marine and Freshwater Science Vol 7 No 17. ences, 76(12), 2350-2363. doi:10.1139/cjfas-2018-0386 https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/mortality-injury​ -assessment-three-species-fish-exposed-simulated​ -turbine-blade-strike Marine Scotland Science, Aberdeen, Scotland. https://​ Bevelhimer, M., Scherelis, C., Colby, J., and Adonizio, tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/refining-estimates-collision​ M. A. 2017. Hydroacoustic Assessment of Behavioral -risk-harbour-seals-tidal-turbines Responses by Fish Passing Near an Operating Tidal Battin, J. 2004. When Good Animals Love Bad Habitats: Ecological Traps and the Conservation of Animal Populations. Conservation Biology, 18(6), 1482-1491. doi:10​ .1111/j.1523-1739.2004.00417.x https://tethys.pnnl.gov​ /publications/when-good-animals-love-bad-habitats​ -ecological-traps-conservation-animal-populations Turbine in the East River, New York. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society, 146(5), 1028-1042. doi:10​ .1080/00028487.2017.1339637 https://tethys.pnnl.gov​ /publications/hydroacoustic-assessment-behavioral​ -responses-fish-passing-near-operating-tidal Birds Directive (Directive 2009/147/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 November 2009 on the conservation of wild birds). OJ L 20, 26.1.2010, p. 7-25. [European Union] 56 OES-ENVIRONMENTAL 2020 STATE OF THE SCIENCE REPORT Booth, C., Sparling, C., Wood, J., Tollitt, D., Scott-Hey- Copping, A., Grear, M., Jepsen, R., Chartrand, C., and Gor- ward, L., Rexstad, E., Hultgren, Y., Johnsson, M., and ton, A. 2017. Understanding the potential risk to marine Knutzen, E. 2015. Advancing a Key Consenting Risk for mammals from collision with tidal turbines. International Tidal Energy: The Risk of Marine Mammal Collision for Journal of Marine Energy, 19, 110-123. doi:10.1016/j.ijome​ In-Stream Tidal Energy Devices. Paper presented at the .2017.07.004 https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications​ 3rd Marine Energy Technology Symposium, Washing- /understanding-potential-risk-marine-mammals-collision​ ton, D.C. https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/advancing​ -tidal-turbines -key-consenting-risk-tidal-energy-risk-marine​ -mammal-collision-stream-tidal Copping, A., Sather, N., Hanna, L., Whiting, J., Zydlewski, G., Staines, G., Gill, A., Hutchison, I., O’Hagan, A., Simas, Brisson-Curadeau, É., Bird, D., Burke, C., Fifield, D. A., T., Bald, J., Sparling, C., Wood, J., and Masden, E. 2016. Pace, P., Sherley, R. B., and Elliott, K. H. 2017. Seabird Annex IV 2016 State of the Science Report: Environmen- species vary in behavioural response to drone census. tal Effects of Marine Renewable Energy Development Scientific Reports, 7(1), 17884. doi:10.1038/s41598-017​ Around the World. Report by Pacific Northwest National -18202-3 https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/seabird​ Laboratory for Ocean Energy Systems. https://tethys.pnnl​ -species-vary-behavioural-response-drone-census .gov/publications/state-of-the-science-2016 Broadhurst, M., Barr, S., and Orme, C. D. L. 2014. In-situ Cotter, E. D., Joslin, J., and Polagye, B. 2018. Track- ecological interactions with a deployed tidal energy ing and classification of targets detected by a moving device; an observational pilot study. Ocean & Coastal multibeam sonar. The Journal of the Acoustical Society Management, 99, 31-38. doi:10.1016/j.ocecoaman​ of America, 143(3), 1957. doi:10.1121/1.5036430 https:// .2014.06.008 https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/situ​ tethys​-engineering.pnnl.gov/publications/tracking- -ecological-interactions-deployed-tidal-energy-device​ classification​-targets-detected-moving-multibeam-sonar -observational-pilot-study Castro-Santos, T., and Haro, A. 2015. Survival and Behavioral Effects of Exposure to a Hydrokinetic Turbine on Juvenile Atlantic Salmon and Adult American Shad. Estuaries and Coasts, 38(1), 203-214. doi:10.1007​ Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. 16 U.S.C. ch. 35 § 1531 et seq. [U.S.] Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth). [Australia] /s12237-013-9680-6 https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications​ Fabry, V. J., Seibel, B. A., Feely, R. A., and Orr, J. C. 2008. /survival-behavioral-effects-exposure-hydrokinetic​ Impacts of ocean acidification on marine fauna and -turbine-juvenile-atlantic-salmon ecosystem processes. ICES Journal of Marine Science, Cole, E.-L., Waggitt, J. J., Hedenstrom, A., Piano, M., Holton, M. D., Börger, L., and Shepard, E. L. C. 2018. The Ornithodolite as a tool to quantify animal space use 65(3), 414-432. doi:10.1093/icesjms/fsn048 https://​ tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/impacts-ocean-acidification​ -marine-fauna-ecosystem-processes and habitat selection: a case study with birds diving in Fisheries Act, S.C. 1985, c. F-14, s. 1. [Canada] tidal waters. Integrative Zoology, 14(1), 4-16. doi:10.1111​ Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations /1749-4877.12327 https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications​ /ornithodolite-tool-quantify-animal-space-use-habitat​ -selection-case-study-birds-diving Copping, A., and Grear, M. 2018. Applying a simple model for estimating the likelihood of collision of marine mammals with tidal turbines. International (FAO) 2018. The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2018 - Meeting the sustainable development goals (ISBN 978-92-5-130562-1). Report by United Nations; Rome, Italy. https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/state​ -world-fisheries-aquaculture-2018-meeting-sustainable​ -development-goals Marine Energy Journal, 1, 27-33. doi:10.36688/imej​ .1.27-33 https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/applying​ -simple-model-estimating-likelihood-collision-marine​ -mammals-tidal-turbines SECTION B – CURRENT KNOWLEDGE OF KEY DEVICE INTERACTIONS WITH THE MARINE ENVIRONMENT 57 Fraser, S., Williamson, B. J., Nikora, V., and Scott, B. E. Grippo, M., Shen, H., Zydlewski, G., Rao, S., and 2018. Fish distributions in a tidal channel indicate the Goodwin, A. 2017. Behavioral Responses of Fish to a behavioural impact of a marine renewable energy instal- Current-Based Hydrokinetic Turbine Under Multiple lation. Energy Reports, 4, 65-69. doi:10.1016/j.egyr.2018.01​ Operational Conditions: Final Report (ANL/EVS-17/6). .008 https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/fish-distributions​ Report by Argone National Laboratory for U.S. Depart- -tidal-channel-indicate-behavioural-impact-marine​ ment of Energy; Argonne, Illinois. https://tethys.pnnl.gov​ -renewable-energy /publications/behavioral-responses-fish-current-based​ Furness, R. W., Wade, H. M., Robbins, A. M. C., and Mas- -hydrokinetic-turbine-under-multiple den, E. A. 2012. Assessing the sensitivity of seabird pop- Habitats Directive (Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 ulations to adverse effects from tidal stream turbines May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and and wave energy devices. ICES Journal of Marine Science, of wild fauna and flora). OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7-50. 69(8), 1466-1479. doi:10.1093/icesjms/fss131 https://​ [European Union] tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/assessing-sensitivity-seabird​ -populations-adverse-effects-tidal-stream-turbines​ -wave Hammar, L., Andersson, S., Eggertsen, L., Haglund, J., Gullström, M., Ehnberg, J., and Molander, S. 2013. Hydrokinetic turbine effects on fish swimming behav- Gillespie, D., Palmer, L., Macaulay, J., Sparling, iour. PLoS ONE, 8(12), e84141. doi:10.1371/journal.pone​ C., Hastie, G. 2020. Passive acoustic methods for .0084141 https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/hydrokinetic​ tracking the 3D movements of small cetaceans -turbine-effects-fish-swimming-behaviour around marine structures. PLoS ONE 15(5), e0229058. doi:10.1371/journal​.pone.0229058 https:// tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/passive​-acoustic-methodstracking-3d-movements-small​-cetaceans-around-marine Hammar, L., Eggertsen, L., Andersson, S., Ehnberg, J., Arvidsson, R., Gullström, M., and Molander, S. 2015. A Probabilistic Model for Hydrokinetic Turbine Collision Risks: Exploring Impacts on Fish. PLoS ONE, 10(3), Grant, M., Trinder, M., and Harding, N. 2014. A diving e0117756. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0117756 https://tethys​ bird collision risk assessment framework for tidal tur- .pnnl.gov/publications/probabilistic-model-hydrokinetic​ bines (Report No. 773). Report by RPS group for Scottish -turbine-collision-risks-exploring-impacts-fish Natural Heritage; Inverness, Scotland. https://tethys.pnnl​ .gov/publications/diving-bird-collision-risk-assessment​ -framework-tidal-turbines Hansen, K. A., Maxwell, A., Siebert, U., Larsen, O. N., and Wahlberg, M. 2017. Great cormorants (Phalacrocorax carbo) can detect auditory cues while diving. The Science of Nature, Grear, M. E., Motley, M. R., Crofts, S. B., Witt, A. E., 104(5), 45. doi:10.1007/s00114-017-1467-3 https://tethys.pnnl​ Summers, A. P., and Ditsche, P. 2018. Mechanical prop- .gov/publications/great-cormorants-phalacrocorax-carbo-can​ erties of harbor seal skin and blubber − a test of anisot- -detect-auditory-cues-while-diving ropy. Zoology, 126, 137-144. doi:10.1016/j.zool.2017.11.002 https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/mechanical-properties​ -harbor-seal-skin-blubber-test-anisotropy Hastie, G. D., Bivins, M., Coram, A., Gordon, J., Jepp, P., MacAulay, J., Sparling, C., and Gillespie, D. 2019. Threedimensional movements of harbour seals in a tidally ener- Greaves, D., Conley, D., Magagna, D., Aires, E., Chambel getic channel: Application of a novel sonar tracking system. Leitão, J., Witt, M., Embling, C. B., Godley, B. J., Bick- Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems, nell, A. W. J., Saulnier, J.-B., Simas, T., O’Hagan, A. M., 29(4), 564-575. doi:10.1002/aqc.3017 https://tethys.pnnl.gov​ O’Callaghan, J., Holmes, B., Sundberg, J., Torre-Enciso, /publications/three-dimensional-movements-harbour-seals​ Y., and Marina, D. 2016. Environmental Impact Assess- -tidally-energetic-channel-application-novel ment: Gathering experiences from wave energy test centres in Europe. International Journal of Marine Energy, 14, 68-79. doi:10.1016/j.ijome.2016.02.003 https://tethys​ .pnnl.gov/publications/environmental-impact-assessment​ -gathering-experiences-wave-energy-test-centres​ -europe Hastie, G. D., Evers, C., Gillespie, D., Irving, P., Onoufriou, J., Sparling, C. E., and Thompson, D. 2018b. Marine Mammals and Tidal Energy: Report to Scottish Government - MRE Theme. Report by Sea Mammal Research Unit for Scottish Government; St Andrews, Scotland. https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/marine-mammals​ -tidal-energy-report-scottish-government 58 OES-ENVIRONMENTAL 2020 STATE OF THE SCIENCE REPORT Hastie, G. D., Russell, D. J. F., Benjamins, S., Moss, S., Joy, R., Wood, J. D., Sparling, C. E., Tollit, D. J., Cop- Wilson, B., and Thompson, D. 2016. Dynamic habi- ping, A. E., and McConnell, B. J. 2018. Empirical mea- tat corridors for marine predators; intensive use of a sures of harbor seal behavior and avoidance of an coastal channel by harbour seals is modulated by tidal operational tidal turbine. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 136, currents. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 70(12), 92-106. doi:10.1016/j.marpolbul.2018.08.052 https:// 2161-2174. doi:10.1007/s00265-016-2219-7 https://tethys​ tethys.pnnl.gov​/publications/empirical-measures-harbor- .pnnl.gov/publications/dynamic-habitat-corridors-marine​ seal-behavior​-avoidance-operational-tidal-turbine -predators-intensive-use-coastal-channel-harbour-seals King, S. L., Schick, R. S., Donovan, C., Booth, C. G., Burg- Hastie, G. D., Russell, D. J. F., Lepper, P., Elliott, J., man, M., Thomas, L., and Harwood, J. 2015. An interim Wilson, B., Benjamins, S., and Thompson, D. 2018a. framework for assessing the population consequences Harbour seals avoid tidal turbine noise: Implications of disturbance. Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 6(10), for collision risk. Journal of Applied Ecology, 55(2), 684- 1150-1158. doi:10.1111/2041-210X.12411 https://tethys​ 693. doi:10.1111/1365-2664.12981 https://tethys.pnnl.gov​ .pnnl.gov/publications/interim-framework-assessing​ /publications/harbour-seals-avoid-tidal-turbine-noise​ -population-consequences-disturbance -implications-collision-risk Kregting, L., Schmitt, P., Lieber, L., Culloch, R., Horne, Hilborn, R., Amoroso, R. O., Anderson, C. M., Baum, J. N., and Smyth, D. 2018. D6.2 Environmental Impact K., Branch, T. A., Costello, C., de Moor, C. L., Faraj, A., Report of the H2020 project PowerKite. Report by Hively, D., Jensen, O. P., Kurota, H., Little, L. R., Mace, Queen’s University Belfast for European Commission; P., McClanahan, T., Melnychuk, M. C., Minto, C., Osio, Northern Ireland, UK. https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications​ G. C., Parma, A. M., Pons, M., Segurado, S., Szuwalski, /d62-environmental-impact-report-h2020-project​ C. S., Wilson, J. R., and Ye, Y. 2020. Effective fisher- -powerkite ies management instrumental in improving fish stock status. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 117(4), 2218. doi:10.1073/pnas.1909726116 https://tethys​ .pnnl.gov/publications/effective-fisheries-management​ -instrumental-improving-fish-stock-status Kristan, W. B.. 2003. The role of habitat selection behavior in population dynamics: source–sink systems and ecological traps. Oikos, 103(3), 457-468. doi:10​ .1034/j.1600-0706.2003.12192.x https://tethys.pnnl.gov​ /publications/role-habitat-selection-behavior-population​ -dynamics-source-sink-systems-ecological Jackson, A. C. 2014. Riding the waves: use of the Pelamis device by seabirds. Paper presented at the 2nd International Conference on Environmental Interactions of Marine Renewable Energy Technologies, Stornoway, Scotland. https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/riding​ -waves-use-pelamis-device-seabirds Johnston, D. T. 2019. Investigating the Foraging Ecology of Black Guillemots Cepphus grylle in Relation to Tidal Stream Turbines and Marine Protected Areas. Doctoral Dissertation, University of the Highlands and Islands, Inverness, Scotland. https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications​ /investigating-foraging-ecology-black-guillemots​ -cepphus-grylle-relation-tidal-stream Kreibel, D., Tickner, J., Epstein, P., Lemons, J., Levins, R., Loechler, E. L., and Stoto, M. 2001. The precautionary principle in environmental science. Environmental Health Perspectives, 109(9), 871-876. https://tethys.pnnl​ .gov/publications/precautionary-principle-environmental​ -science Kristan, W. B. I. 2003. The role of habitat selection behavior in population dynamics: source-sink systems and ecological traps. Oikos, 103(3), 457–468. doi: 10.1034/j.1600-0706.2003. 12192.x https://tethys.pnnl.gov​ /publications/role-habitat-selection-behavior-population​ -dynamics-source-sink-systems-ecological Lake, T., Masters, I., and Croft, N. 2017. Algorithms for Marine Mammal Modelling and an Application in Ramsey Sound. Paper presented at the 12th European Wave and Tidal Energy Conference, Cork, Ireland. https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/algorithms-marine​ -mammal-modelling-application-ramsey-sound Langton, R., Davies, I. M., and Scott, B. E. 2011. Seabird conservation and tidal stream and wave power generation: Information needs for predicting and managing potential impacts. Marine Policy, 35(5), 623-630. doi:10.1016/j.marpol.2011.02.002 https://tethys.pnnl.gov​ /publications/seabird-conservation-tidal-stream-wave​ -power-generation-information-needs-predicting SECTION B – CURRENT KNOWLEDGE OF KEY DEVICE INTERACTIONS WITH THE MARINE ENVIRONMENT 59 Le Lièvre, C., and O’Hagan, A. M. 2015. Legal and Macaulay, J., Malinka, C., Coram, A., Gordon, J., and institutional review of national consenting processes Northridge, S. 2015. The density and behaviour of (RiCORE Project, Deliverable 2.2). Report by Univer- marine mammals in tidal rapids (Report No. MR 7.1.2). sity College Cork for European Commission; Aber- Report by Sea Mammal Research Unit for Scottish deen, Scotland. https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/legal​ Government; St. Andrews, Scotland. https://tethys.pnnl​ -institutional-review-national-consenting-processes .gov/publications/mr712-density-behaviour-marine​ Leopold, M., and Scholl, M. 2019. Monitoring geti- -mammals-tidal-rapids jdenturbines Oosterscheldekering: Jaarrapportage Magnuson-Stevens Fisheries Conservation and Man- 2018 (Report C010/19). Wageningen Marine Research, agement Act of 1976. 16 U.S.C. ch 38 § 1801 et seq. [U.S.] Wageningen UR (University & Research centre), Netherlands. https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications​ /monitoring-getijdenturbines-oosterscheldekering​ -oosterscheldekering-tidal-turbines Malinka, C. E., Gillespie, D. M., Macaulay, J. D. J., Joy, R., and Sparling, C. E. 2018. First in situ passive acoustic monitoring for marine mammals during operation of a tidal turbine in Ramsey Sound, Wales. Marine Lieber, L., Nilse, T., Zambrano, C., and Kregting, L. Ecology Progress Series, 590, 247-266. doi:10.3354​ 2017. Optimising multiple multibeam sonars to assess /meps12467 https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/first-situ​ marine life interactions with an underwater kite. -passive-acoustic-monitoring-marine-mammals-during​ Paper presented at the 12th European Wave and Tidal -operation-tidal-turbine Energy Conference, Cork, Ireland. https://tethys.pnnl.gov​ /publications/optimising-multiple-multibeam-sonars​ -assess-marine-life-interactions-underwater-kite Lieber, L., Nimmo-Smith, W. A. M., Waggitt, J. J., and Kregting, L. 2018. Fine-scale hydrodynamic metrics underlying predator occupancy patterns in tidal stream environments. Ecological Indicators, 94, 397408. doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2018.06.071 https://tethys.pnnl​ .gov/publications/fine-scale-hydrodynamic-metrics​ -underlying-predator-occupancy-patterns-tidal-stream Lieber, L., Nimmo-Smith, W. A. M., Waggitt, J. J., and Kregting, L. 2019. Localised anthropogenic wake generates a predictable foraging hotspot for top predators. Communications Biology, 2(1), 123. doi:10.1038/s42003​ -019-0364-z https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/localised​ -anthropogenic-wake-generates-predictable-foraging​ -hotspot-top-predators Macaulay, J., Gordon, J., Gillespie, D., Malinka, C., and Northridge, S. 2017. Passive acoustic methods for finescale tracking of harbour porpoises in tidal rapids. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 141(2), 1120-1132. doi:10.1121/1.4976077 https://tethys.pnnl​ .gov/publications/passive-acoustic-methods-fine-scale​ -tracking-harbour-porpoises-tidal-rapids Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972. 16 U.S.C. ch 31 § 1361 et seq. [U.S.] Marmo, B. 2017. Operational noise from tidal turbine arrays and the accessment of collision risk with marine mammals. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 141(5), 3921-3921. doi:10.1121/1.4988862 https://tethys​ .pnnl.gov/publications/operational-noise-tidal-turbine​ -arrays-assessment-collision-risk-marine-mammals Martin, G. R., and Wanless, S. 2015. The visual fields of Common Guillemots Uria aalge and Atlantic Puffins Fratercula arctica: foraging, vigilance and collision vulnerability. Ibis, 157(4), 798-807. doi:10.1111/ibi.12297 https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/visual-fields-common​ -guillemots-uria-aalge-atlantic-puffins-fratercula​ -arctica Martin, G. R., White, C. R., and Butler, P. J. 2008. Vision and the foraging technique of Great Cormorants Phalacrocorax carbo: pursuit or close-quarter foraging? Ibis, 150(3), 485-494. doi:10.1111/j.1474-919X.2008.00808​ .x https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/vision-foraging​ -technique-great-cormorants-phalacrocorax-carbo​ -pursuit-or-close Matzner, S., Trostle, C., Staines, G., Hull, R., Avila, A., and Harker-Klimes, G. 2017. Triton: Igiugig Fish Video Analysis (PNNL-26576). Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, Washington. https://tethys.pnnl​ .gov/publications/triton-igiugig-fish-video-analysis 60 OES-ENVIRONMENTAL 2020 STATE OF THE SCIENCE REPORT Nedelec, S. L., Campbell, J., Radford, A. N., Simpson, Palmer, L., Gillespie, D., Macaulay, J., Onoufriou, J., S. D., and Merchant, N. D. 2016. Particle motion: the Sparling, C. E., Thompson, D., and Hastie, G. D. 2019. missing link in underwater acoustic ecology. Methods Marine Mammals and Tidal Energy: Annual Report in Ecology and Evolution, 7(7), 836-842. doi:10.1111/2041​ to Scottish Government -MRE Theme. Report by Sea -210X.12544 https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/particle​ Mammal Research Unit for Scottish Government; St. -motion-missing-link-underwater-acoustic-ecology Andrews, Scotland. https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications​ Nova Innovation Ltd. 2020. EnFAIT - Enabling Future Arrays in Tidal Year 3 Environmental Monitoring Report. Available at: https://www.enfait.eu/publications/ Onoufriou, J. 2020. Harbour seals in a tidal stream environment: movement ecology and the effects of a renewable energy installation. Doctoral Dissertation. University of St Andrews, St Andrews, Scotland. /marine-mammals-tidal-energy-annual-report-scottish​ -government Polagye, B., Copping, A., Suryan, R., Kramer, S., BrownSaracino, J., and Smith, C. 2014. Instrumentation for Monitoring around Marine Renewable Energy Converters: Workshop Final Report (PNNL-23100). Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, Washington. https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/instrumentation​ Onoufriou, J., Brownlow, A., Moss, S., Hastie, G., and -monitoring-around-marine-renewable-energy​ Thompson, D. 2019. Empirical determination of severe -converters-workshop-final trauma in seals from collisions with tidal turbine blades. Journal of Applied Ecology, 56(7), 1712-1724. doi:10.1111​ /1365-2664.13388 https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications​ /empirical-determination-severe-trauma-seals-collisions​ -tidal-turbine-blade Offshore Renewables Joint Industry Programme (ORJIP). 2017. ORJIP Ocean Energy: The Forward Look; an Ocean Energy Environmental Research Strategy for the UK. Report by Aquatera Ltd for The Crown Estate, Marine Scotland Science, Welsh Assembly Government, Scottish Natural Heritage, Natural Resources Wales; Stromness, Orkney. https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications​ Popper, A. N., and Hawkins, A. D. 2018. The importance of particle motion to fishes and invertebrates. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 143(1), 470-488. doi:10.1121/1.5021594 https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications​ /importance-particle-motion-fishes-invertebrates Robbins, A. 2017. Seabird Ecology in High-Energy Environments: Approaches to Assessing Impacts of Marine Renewables. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, Scotland. https://tethys.pnnl.gov​ /publications/seabird-ecology-high-energy-environments​ -approaches-assessing-impacts-marine /orjip-ocean-energy-forward-look-ocean-energy​ Robertson, F., Wood, J., Joslin, J., Joy, R., and Polagye, -environmental-research-strategy-uk-0 B. 2018. Marine Mammal Behavioral Response to Tidal Offshore Renewables Joint Industry Programme (ORJIP). 2019. Supporting good practice in consenting for tidal steam and wave technologies in Wales. Report by Aquatera Ltd for The Crown Estate, Marine Scotland Science, Welsh Assembly Government, Scottish Natural Turbine Sound (DOE-UW-06385). Report by University of Washington for U.S. Department of Energy Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Washington D.C. https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/marine-mammal​ -behavioral-response-tidal-turbine-sound Heritage, Natural Resources Wales; Stromness, Orkney. Rollings, E., Donovan, C., Eastham, C. 2016. MeyGen http://www.orjip.org.uk/documents Tidal Energy Project Phase 1 Project Environmental Paleczny, M., Hammill, E., Karpouzi, V., and Pauly, D. 2015. Population Trend of the World’s Monitored Seabirds, 1950-2010. PLoS ONE, 10(6), e0129342. doi:10.1371​ /journal.pone.0129342 https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications​ Monitoring Programme (Report No. MEY-1A-70-HSE018-I-PEMP). Report by MeyGen. https://tethys.pnnl​ .gov/publications/meygen-tidal-energy-project-phase​ -1-project-environmental-monitoring-programme /population-trend-worlds-monitored-seabirds-1950​ Romero-Gomez, P., and Richmond, M. C. 2014. Simu- -2010 lating blade-strike on fish passing through marine hydrokinetic turbines. Renewable Energy, 71, 401-413. doi:10.1016/j.renene.2014.05.051 https://tethys.pnnl.gov​ /publications/simulating-blade-strike-fish-passing​ -through-marine-hydrokinetic-turbines SECTION B – CURRENT KNOWLEDGE OF KEY DEVICE INTERACTIONS WITH THE MARINE ENVIRONMENT 61 RPS Group. 2010. A review of the potential use of Shen, H., Zydlewski, G., Viehman, H., and Staines, G. sonar to observe the underwater behaviour of div- 2015. Estimating the Probability of Fish Encountering ing birds near tidal energy devices. Scottish Natural a Marine Hydrokinetic Device. Paper presented at the Heritage Archive Report No. 051. https://tethys.pnnl​ 3rd Marine Energy Technology Symposium (METS), .gov/publications/review-potential-use-sonar-observe​ Washington, D.C. https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications​ -underwater-behaviour-diving-birds-near-tidal-energy /estimating-probability-fish-encountering-marine​ Schlaepfer, M. A., Runge, M. C., and Sherman, P. W. -hydrokinetic-device-conference-paper 2002. Ecological and evolutionary traps. Trends in Ecol- Shen, H., Zydlewski, G. B., Viehman, H. A., and Staines, ogy & Evolution, 17(10), 474-480. doi:10.1016/S0169​ G. 2016. Estimating the probability of fish encounter- -5347(02)02580-6 https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications​ ing a marine hydrokinetic device. Renewable Energy, /ecological-evolutionary-traps 97, 746-756. doi:10.1016/j.renene.2016.06.026 https://​ Schmitt, P., Culloch, R., Lieber, L., Molander, S., Hammar, L., and Kregting, L. 2017. A tool for simulating col- tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/estimating-probability-fish​ -encountering-marine-hydrokinetic-device lision probabilities of animals with marine renewable Sparling, C., Gillespie, D., Hastie, G., Gordon, J., Macau- energy devices. PLoS ONE, 12(11), e0188780. doi:10.1371​ lay, J., Malinka, C., Wu, M., and McConnell, B. 2016. /journal.pone.0188780 https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications​ Scottish Government Demonstration Strategy: Trialling /tool-simulating-collision-probabilities-animals-marine​ Methods for Tracking the Fine Scale Underwater Move- -renewable-energy-devices ments of Marine Mammals in Areas of Marine Renew- Scott, B., Langton, R., Philpott, E., and Waggitt, J. 2014. Seabirds and Marine Renewables: Are we Asking the Right Questions? In S. M. and P. A. (Eds.), Marine Renewable Energy Technology and Environmental Interactions. Humanity and the Sea (pp. 81-92). Dordrecht, Neth- able Energy Development. Scottish Marine and Freshwater Science Vol 7 No 14. Marine Scotland Science, Aberdeen, Scotland. https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications​ /scottish-government-demonstration-strategy-trialling​ -methods-tracking-fine-scale erlands: Springer https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications​ Sparling, C., Lonergan, M., and McConnell, B. 2018. Har- /seabirds-marine-renewables-are-we-asking-right​ bour seals (Phoca vitulina) around an operational tidal -questions turbine in Strangford Narrows: No barrier effect but Scottish Natural Heritage. 2016. Assessing collision risk between underwater turbines and marine wildlife. Scottish Natural Heritage Guidance Note. https://tethys​ .pnnl.gov/publications/assessing-collision-risk-between​ -underwater-turbines-marine-wildlife Sharples, R. J., Moss, S. E., Patterson, T. A., and Ham- small changes in transit behaviour. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems, 28(1), 194-204. doi:10.1002/aqc.2790 https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications​ /harbour-seals-phoca-vitulina-around-operational-tidal​ -turbine-strangford-narrows-no Species at Risk Act, S.C. 2002. c. 29. [Canada] mond, P. S. 2012. Spatial variation in foraging behaviour Staines, G., Deng, Z. D., Li, X., Martinez, J., Kohn, N., and of a marine top predator (Phoca vitulina) determined Harker-Klimes, G. 2020. Using acoustic telemetry for by a large-scale satellite tagging program. PLoS ONE, high-resolution sablefish movement informing poten- 7(5), e37216. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0037216 https://​ tial interactions with a tidal turbine. Paper presented tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/spatial-variation-foraging​ at OCEANS 2019 MTS/IEEE SEATTLE, Seattle, WA. -behaviour-marine-top-predator-phoca-vitulina​ doi:10.23919/OCEANS40490.2019.8962600 https://tethys​ -determined .pnnl.gov/publications/using-acoustic-telemetry-high​ -resolution-sablefish-movement-informing-potential 62 OES-ENVIRONMENTAL 2020 STATE OF THE SCIENCE REPORT Staines, G., Zydlewski, G., and Viehman, H. 2019. Viehman, H. A., and Zydlewski, G. B. 2015. Fish Interac- Changes in Relative Fish Density Around a Deployed tions with a Commercial-Scale Tidal Energy Device in Tidal Turbine during on-Water Activities. Sustain- the Natural Environment. Estuaries and Coasts, 38(1), ability, 11(2). doi:10.3390/su11226262 https://tethys.pnnl​ 241-252. doi:10.1007/s12237-014-9767-8 https://tethys​ .gov/publications/changes-relative-fish-density-around​ .pnnl.gov/publications/fish-interactions-commercial-scale​ -deployed-tidal-turbine-during-water-activities -tidal-energy-device-natural-environment Tollit, D., Joy, R., Wood, J., Redden, A., Booth, C., Viehman, H. A., and Zydlewski, G. B. 2017. Multi-scale Boucher, T., Porskamp, P., and Oldreive, M. 2019. Base- temporal patterns in fish presence in a high-velocity line Presence of and Effects of Tidal Turbine Installation tidal channel. PLoS ONE, 12(5), e0176405. doi:10.1371​ and Operations on Harbour Porpoise in Minas Pas- /journal.pone.0176405 https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications​ sage, Bay of Fundy, Canada. Paper presented at Marine /multi-scale-temporal-patterns-fish-presence-high​ Renewables Canada 2018, Halifax, Nova Scotia. https://​ -velocity-tidal-channel tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/baseline-presence-effects​ -tidal-turbine-installation-operations-harbour-porpoise​ -minas Wade, H. M. 2015. Investigating the Potential Effects of Marine Renewable Energy Developments on Seabirds. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Aberdeen, Tomichek, C., Colby, J., and Adonizio, M. 2015. Improve- Aberdeen, Scotland. https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications​ ments to Probabilistic Tidal Turbine-Fish Interaction /investigating-potential-effects-marine-renewable​ Model Parameters. Paper presented at the 3rd Marine -energy-developments-seabirds Energy Technology Symposium (METS), Washington, D.C. https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/improvements​ -probabilistic-tidal-turbine-fish-interaction-model​ -parameters Wade, H. M., Masden, E. A., Jackson, A. C., and Furness, R. W. 2016. Incorporating data uncertainty when estimating potential vulnerability of Scottish seabirds to marine renewable energy developments. Marine van der Bles, A. M., van der Linden, S., Freeman, A. L. Policy, 70, 108-113. doi:10.1016/j.marpol.2016.04.045 J., Mitchell, J., Galvao, A. B., Zaval, L., and Spiegelhal- https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/incorporating-data​ ter, D. J. 2019. Communicating uncertainty about facts, -uncertainty-when-estimating-potential-vulnerability​ numbers and science. Royal Society Open Science, 6(5), -scottish 181870. doi:10.1098/rsos.181870 https://tethys.pnnl.gov​ /publications/communicating-uncertainty-about-facts​ -numbers-science Wade, P. R. 1998. Calculating Limits to the Allowable Human-Caused Mortality of Cetaceans and Pinnipeds. Marine Mammal Science, 14(1), 1-37. doi:10.1111/j.1748​ Vas, E., Lescroël, A., Duriez, O., Boguszewski, G., and -7692.1998.tb00688.x https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications​ Grémillet, D. 2015. Approaching birds with drones: first /calculating-limits-allowable-human-caused-mortality​ experiments and ethical guidelines. Biology Letters, -cetaceans-pinnipeds 11(2), 20140754. doi:10.1098/rsbl.2014.0754 https://tethys​ .pnnl.gov/publications/approaching-birds-drones-first​ -experiments-ethical-guidelines Waggitt, J. J., Cazenave, P. W., Torres, R., Williamson, B. J., and Scott, B. E. 2016. Quantifying pursuit-diving seabirds’ associations with fine-scale physical features Viehman, H., Boucher, T., and Redden, A. 2018. Winter in tidal stream environments. Journal of Applied Ecology, and summer differences in probability of fish encounter 53(6), 1653-1666. doi:10.1111/1365-2664.12646 https://​ (spatial overlap) with MHK devices. International Marine tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/quantifying-pursuit-diving​ Energy Journal, 1(1). doi:10.36688/imej.1.9-18 https://​ -seabirds-associations-fine-scale-physical-features-tidal tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/winter-summer-differences​ -probability-fish-encounter-spatial-overlap-mhk​ -devices SECTION B – CURRENT KNOWLEDGE OF KEY DEVICE INTERACTIONS WITH THE MARINE ENVIRONMENT 63 Waggitt, J. J., Robbins, A. M. C., Wade, H. M., Masden, E. Williamson, B., Fraser, S., McIlvenny, J., Couto, A., A., Furness, R. W., Jackson, A. C., and Scott, B. E. 2017. Chapman, J., Wade, H., Martin, J., Wilson, J., Evans, T., Comparative studies reveal variability in the use of tidal Hunter, D., Fenn, S., Culloch, R., Tait, A., Chimienti, stream environments by seabirds. Marine Policy, 81, 143- M., Edwards, E., Williamson, L., Davies, I., and Scott, 152. doi:10.1016/j.marpol.2017.03.023 https://tethys.pnnl​ B. 2018. Multi-platform studies of the MeyGen tidal .gov/publications/comparative-studies-reveal-variability​ energy site – using UAVs to measure animal distribu- -use-tidal-stream-environments-seabirds tions and hydrodynamic features. Paper presented Waggitt, J. J., and Scott, B. E. 2014. Using a spatial overlap approach to estimate the risk of collisions between deep diving seabirds and tidal stream turbines: A review of potential methods and approaches. Marine Policy, 44, at the MASTS: Annual Science Meeting, Glasgow, UK. https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/multi-platform​ -studies-meygen-tidal-energy-site-using-uavs-measure​ -animal 90-97. doi:10.1016/j.marpol.2013.07.007 https://tethys​ Williamson, B., Fraser, S., Williamson, L., Nikora, V., .pnnl.gov/publications/using-spatial-overlap-approach​ and Scott, B. 2019. Predictable changes in fish school -estimate-risk-collisions-between-deep-diving-seabirds characteristics due to a tidal turbine support struc- Weimerskirch, H., Prudor, A., and Schull, Q. 2017. Flights of drones over sub-Antarctic seabirds show species- and status-specific behavioural and physiological responses. Polar Biology, 41(2), 259-266. doi:10.1007​ ture. Renewable Energy, 141, 1092-1102. doi:10.1016​ /j.renene.2019.04.065 https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications​ /predictable-changes-fish-school-characteristics-due​ -tidal-turbine-support-structure /s00300-017-2187-z https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications​ Wilson, B., Batty, R., Daunt, F., and Carter, C. 2007. Col- /flights-drones-over-sub-antarctic-seabirds-show​ lision Risks Between Marine Renewable Energy Devices -species-status-specific-behavioural and Mammals, Fish and Diving Birds. Report by Scottish Whitton, T. A., Jackson, S. E., Hiddink, J. G., Scoulding, B., Bowers, D., Powell, B., D’Urban Jackson, T., Gimenez, L., and Davies, A. G. 2020. Vertical migrations of fish schools determine overlap with a mobile tidal stream Association for Marine Science for Scottish Government; Oban, Scotland. https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications​ /collision-risks-between-marine-renewable-energy​ -devices-mammals-fish-diving-birds marine renewable energy device. Journal of Applied Ecol- Xodus Group. 2016. Brims Tidal Array Collision Risk ogy, 57(4), 729-741. doi:10.1111/1365-2664.13582 https:// Modelling - Atlantic Salmon. Report by Xodus Group tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/vertical-migrations​-fish- for Brims Tidal Array Ltd; London, UK. https://tethys​ schools-determine-overlap-mobile-tidal-stream​-marine .pnnl.gov/publications/brims-tidal-array-collision-risk​ Williamson, B., Fraser, S., Blondel, P., Bell, P. S., Wag- -modelling-atlantic-salmon gitt, J. J., and Scott, B. E. 2017. Multisensor Acoustic Yoshida, T., Zhou, J., Park, S., Muto, H., and Kitazawa, Tracking of Fish and Seabird Behavior Around Tidal D. 2020. Use of a model turbine to investigate the high Turbine Structures in Scotland. IEEE Journal of Oce- striking risk of fish with tidal and oceanic current anic Engineering, 42(4), 948-965. doi:10.1109/JOE.2016​ turbine blades under slow rotational speed. Sustain- .2637179 https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/multisensor​ able Energy Technologies and Assessments, 37, 100634. -acoustic-tracking-fish-seabird-behavior-around-tidal​ doi:10.1016/j.seta.2020.100634 https://tethys.pnnl.gov​ -turbine-structures /publications/use-model-turbine-investigate-high​ -striking-risk-fish-tidal-oceanic-current-turbine Zhang, J., Kitazawa, D., Taya, S., and Mizukami, Y. 2017. Impact assessment of marine current turbines on fish behavior using an experimental approach based on the similarity law. Journal of Marine Science and Technology, 22(2), 219-230. doi:10.1007/s00773-016-0405-y https://​ tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/impact-assessment-marine​ -current-turbines-fish-behavior-using-experimental​ -approach 64 OES-ENVIRONMENTAL 2020 STATE OF THE SCIENCE REPORT NOTES Collision Risk for Animals Around Turbines Sparling, C.E., A.C. Seitz, E. Masden, and K. Smith. 2020. Collision Risk for Animals around Turbines. In A.E. Copping and L.G. Hemery (Eds.), OES-Environmental 2020 State of the Science Report: Environmental Effects of Marine Renewable Energy Development Around the World. Report for Ocean Energy Systems (OES). (pp. 28-65). doi:10.2172/1632881 REPORT AND MORE INFORMATION CONTACT OES-Environmental 2020 State of the Science full report and executive summary available at: https://tethys​.pnnl.gov/publications/state-of-the​-science-2020 Andrea Copping Pacific Northwest National Laboratory andrea.copping@pnnl.gov +1 206.528.3049 Go to https://tethys​.pnnl.gov for a comprehensive collection of papers, reports, archived presentations, and other media about environmental effects of marine renewable energy development. SECTION B – CURRENT KNOWLEDGE OF KEY DEVICE INTERACTIONS WITH THE MARINE ENVIRONMENT 65 66 OES-ENVIRONMENTAL 2020 STATE OF THE SCIENCE REPORT 4.0 Chapter authors: Brian Polagye and Christopher Bassett Contributor: Dorian M. Overhus Risk to Marine Animals from Underwater Noise Generated by Marine Renewable Energy Devices In all ocean environments, desirable locations for wave and tidal energy development have multiple natural sources of sound (e.g., waves, wind, and sediment transport), varying levels of anthropogenic and biological noise, and measurement quality challenges (e.g., flow-noise, self-noise) (Wenz 1962). Many marine animals rely on sound for biological functions, including communication, social interaction, orientation, foraging, and evasion. The extent to which marine animals detect and produce sound varies by frequency (spanning roughly four decades from 10 Hz to 100 kHz) and is taxa-specific. Because of the relatively limited data available, hearing sensitivity is often generalized to taxonomic groups (e.g., cetaceans that have low-frequency hearing specialization) (NMFS 2018). SECTION B – CURRENT KNOWLEDGE OF KEY DEVICE INTERACTIONS WITH THE MARINE ENVIRONMENT 67 When considering the risks to marine animals that the acoustic footprint of construction and maintenance result from any anthropogenic activity, one must con- activities (e.g., vessel traffic) can be considered in a sider the amplitude, frequency, and directionality of the comprehensive analysis of acoustic effects, the activities noise source, as well as propagation losses, prevailing that potentially cause risk are not unique to MRE ambient noise, hearing thresholds, and possible behav- devices, are better characterized, and their effects on ioral responses (Figure 4.1). Measurements that support marine animal behaviors are better understood (e.g., any of these individual topics can be difficult to obtain, Holt et al. 2009; Jensen et al. 2009; Lesage et al. 1999). but it is not feasible to quantify risks without first ade- In addition, construction and maintenance activities quately constraining these factors. are of relatively short duration in comparison to MRE device operation. Consequently, we emphasize noise As with other marine industries, there is a general interest in understanding the noise radiated by marine renewable energy (MRE) devices and whether this noise has implications for marine animals that inhabit areas in which MRE development could occur. This chapter focuses on new knowledge related to noise produced by MRE devices that has been published since 2016. While produced by MRE device operation. Further, while the importance of acoustic particle velocity to fishes is widely recognized (Popper and Hawkins 2018), we only discuss radiated noise in terms of acoustic pressure. This is because in the acoustic farfield, particle velocity can be directly related to acoustic pressure (i.e., for our area of interest, these are not independent quantities). 3. Ambient noise 1. MRE device noise 4. Hearing sensitivity 2. Sound propagation Figure 4.1. Determining the impact of radiated noise from marine energy converters is difficult and requires physical and biological inputs. (1) The sound produced by a marine renewable energy (MRE) device is affected by its design and is expected to vary with operating state. (2) As for other sources, sound radiated from MRE devices decreases in intensity as it propagates outward. The total decrease in sound intensity between a source and any location in space is affected by the frequency of the sound, water properties, bathymetry, and composition of the seabed. (3) An animal at some distance from the MRE device will receive both that sound and other ambient noise from natural, biological, and anthropogenic sources. If radiated MRE device noise is below ambient noise levels, then it cannot be detected by any marine animal and any biological response cannot be attributed to MRE device noise. (4) In addition, different marine animals have hearing sensitivities that vary both in frequency and intensity, making their abilities to detect or respond to a sound dependent on its characteristics. Consequently, even if MRE device noise exceeds ambient noise, it would still not be detectable if it is below a marine animal’s hearing threshold. (Illustration by Rose Perry) 68 OES-ENVIRONMENTAL 2020 STATE OF THE SCIENCE REPORT 4.1. IMPORTANCE OF THE ISSUE erated by MRE devices, observations to date, which are B marine animals from operational MRE device noise is ecause sound is central to the way that many marine animals interact with their surroundings, and each other, the potential impacts of anthropogenic noise have received considerable attention. These impacts include auditory masking, stress, behavioral changes, and acoustic responses or injuries (Southall et al. 2007). Acoustic injuries resulting from noise exposure include temporary threshold shifts and, in extreme cases, barotrauma or death. Much of regulatory and research interest has been concerned about summarized by Copping et al. (2016) and in the ensuing sections of this chapter, suggest that acoustic injury to unlikely. Further, acoustic injuries attributed to sound produced during installation are also unlikely, particularly if pile driving is not employed. While pile driving is a construction technique commonly used for offshore wind farms,1 it is rarely used in the MRE sector and, unless device designs change considerably, this practice of rare use is unlikely to change.2 However, radiated noise from operational MRE devices may be audible to some marine animals and could induce behavioral noise sources that are more pervasive (e.g., vessel traf- responses. fic) and/or of higher amplitudes (e.g., seismic surveys), Because sound is one of several factors that affect ani- and these concerns have been extended to MRE devices (wave energy converters [WECs] and tidal, river, and ocean current turbines). Consequently, MRE device noise or its potential impacts have been the focus of multiple studies (e.g., Robinson and Lepper 2013). Globally, the regulatory protections afforded to marine animals, particularly marine mammals (e.g., the Marine Mammal Protection Act [1972] in the United States [U.S.], the Marine Strategy Framework Directive [2008] and the Habitats Directive [1992] in the European Union [E.U.]) mandate that measures be taken to minimize any ecological impacts arising from emissions of anthropogenic underwater noise. As such, consideration of the potential impacts of MRE device noise is often required as part of the environmental assessments carried out in support of licensing processes related to MRE deployments. However, the outcomes of these requirements vary by region. In the U.S., this has included requirements for pre- and post-installation acoustic measurements around the majority of MRE deployments. In the E.U., acoustic measurements have also often been carried out but are optional, because the existing knowledge base has been sufficient to assess ecological impacts. Although significant uncertainties remain about the risks posed to marine animals by sounds gen- mal behavior, it can be challenging to establish an in situ link between underwater noise and animal behavior. For example, establishing such a link has been difficult even for offshore wind (e.g., Bailey et al. 2010; Russell et al. 2016), which has been deployed at a much greater scale than MRE devices; for the acoustic effects of vessel traffic (e.g., Rolland et al. 2012), which occurs at a larger scale than any renewable energy generation in the ocean; and for seismic surveys (e.g., Przeslawski et al. 2018), which produce much higher-amplitude sound than any MRE devices. Consequently, most studies investigating the underwater noise effects of MRE deployments assess received sound levels at various distances from operating devices and compare these levels to ambient noise and/or animal hearing sensitivity as a proxy for potential behavioral responses. Because MRE device noise is radiated over a range of frequencies, knowledge of marine animal hearing sensitivity is important for establishing the context for radiated noise (Figure 4.2). As discussed in the following sections, a number of studies have found that MRE device noise only exceeds ambient noise at short distances from the source (e.g., <50 m). Under these conditions, it is unlikely that any observed in situ behavioral change could be attributed solely to radiated noise. 1. Pile driving involves applying impact or vibratory forces to large diameter metal piles to drive them into soft sediments. The forces applied to the pile cause sound to radiate directly from the pile, as well as secondary radiation through the sediment (Dahl et al. 2015). The pressure waves have high peak-to-peak amplitudes, which can cause acoustic injury to marine animals. 2. A number of tidal turbines use pile foundations, but they are embedded in gravity anchors or installed by drilling, which produces lower-amplitude sound than piling driving (Aquatera 2011). SECTION B – CURRENT KNOWLEDGE OF KEY DEVICE INTERACTIONS WITH THE MARINE ENVIRONMENT 69 SOURCE TYPE Biological Natural Anthropogenic Marine energy converter Marine animals Earthquakes/microseisms Wind driven noise Rainfall Sediment transport Marine energy converter SOU R C E Wind turbines Pile driving Vessels (recreational to commercial) Sub-bottom profiling sonars Fisheries/ hydrographic sonars F REQUE NCY 1 Hz 100 Hz 1 kHz 10 kHz 100 kHz Sea turtles HEARING RANG E Fishes Baleen whales Seals and sea lions Dolphins and porpoises Figure 4.2. An overview of biological, natural physical, and anthropogenic noises in marine environments and the hearing ranges of marine animals. For sources, the horizontal bars denote the frequencies associated with the most energetic sound they generate. Many of these sources produce less energetic sound outside of the indicated range. In the case of marine energy converters, the dashed line at higher frequencies conveys scientific uncertainties about the upper frequency limit of their radiated noise. For hearing ranges, the horizontal bars correspond to the full range of frequencies likely audible to the groups of animals. Information used in this figure is drawn from resources including Discovery of Sound in the Sea (DOSITS) and similar figures, such as presented in Scholik-Schlomer (2015). (Illustration by Rose Perry) 70 OES-ENVIRONMENTAL 2020 STATE OF THE SCIENCE REPORT 4.2. SUMMARY OF KNOWLEDGE THROUGH 2016 B measured radiated noise from WECs but did not draw conclusions about their potential environmental effects (Beharie and Side 2012; Lepper et al. 2012). Modeling of radiated noise prior to 2016 was more lim- y 2016, few studies or modeling efforts had been ited. One modeling study indicated that a tidal turbine’s published that extended the knowledge of MRE peak noise level at 1 m would exceed hearing thresholds device noise or its effects on marine animals. The for some fish and marine mammals species, but that 2016 State of the Science report (Copping et al. 2016) the noise levels would be unlikely to result in acoustic addressed the effects of MRE device noise on marine effects including hearing threshold shifts (Lloyd et al. wildlife described in systematic reviews, field studies, 2014). Another modeling study reported that noise from and modeling studies. The conclusions of each study a WEC could be audible to harbor seals at frequencies varied slightly based upon its environment, marine ani- below 1 kHz and distances beyond 50 m (Ikpekha et mal presence, and proximity to coastal areas that had al. 2014). Although this result appears to conflict with significant sources of other anthropogenic noise. How- Tougaard (2015), different treatments of ambient noise ever, all studies shared similar findings. account for this apparent inconsistency. Specifically, The first systematic review (Robinson and Lepper 2013) the simulations by Ikpekha et al. (2014) do not account reported uncertainties (e.g., uncertainty in MRE device noise characteristics, marine animal response to this noise) similar to those of a contemporary report about the environmental effects of MRE (Copping et al. 2013). for audibility with respect to ambient noise. When accounting for the ambient noise conditions reported by Tougaard (2015), these results are consistent and suggest the modeled WEC noise would not be audible to Even given these uncertainties, Robinson and Lepper harbor seals, even at short ranges. (2013) concluded that MRE devices were unlikely to cause In aggregate, these studies support the assertion that acoustic injury to marine animals (even during construc- underwater noise emitted by operational MRE devices tion) and unlikely to cause behavioral effects at long dis- is unlikely to cause acoustic injury to marine animals tances. A second systematic review (Thomsen et al. 2015) (Copping et al. 2013; Cruz et al. 2015; Haikonen et al. concluded that operational MRE device noise was not of 2013; Lloyd et al. 2014; Robinson and Lepper 2013; Tou- concern. Further, the authors concluded that acoustic gaard 2015). However, some studies suggest a possibil- injury as a result of underwater noise generated by MRE ity of behavioral responses (Cruz et al. 2015; Haikonen developments was unlikely, with the possible exception et al. 2013). Based on the available information at the of cases where pile driving was used during construction. time, Copping et al. (2016) identified the following In addition to these reviews, measurements of sound challenges and targets for future work: from individual MRE devices were conducted in several ◆ the ambient environment locations. Tougaard (2015), based on field measurements from the Danish coast of the North Sea, sug- ◆ gested that harbor seals (Phoca vitulina) were likely to be able to discern the noise from hydraulic pumps used during startup and shutdown for a WEC, but were unlikely to detect noise during normal operation. Similarly, Cruz et al. (2015) determined that the noise emit- sonars, ships, pile driving), but that such noise levels from WECs could elicit behavioral responses by certain cetaceans. Observations of a cross-flow tidal turbine suggested that some marine animals might detect the emitted sound, but behavioral modifications and acoustic injury were unlikely (ORPC 2014). Other studies Establishing an international standard for measuring noise emitted by MRE devices ◆ Accurately modeling noise from an array of MRE devices using measurements from a single device ◆ Quantifying the direct and indirect effects of noise from MRE devices on animals ted by an oscillating surge WEC was minor compared to noise generated from other marine activities (e.g., Distinguishing an MRE device’s noise from that of ◆ Closing knowledge gaps related to hearing thresholds and threshold shifts in marine animals. All of these challenges share features common to a variety of anthropogenic noise sources. Further, the last two items above are broad-ranging and not possible for the MRE community to address in isolation. SECTION B – CURRENT KNOWLEDGE OF KEY DEVICE INTERACTIONS WITH THE MARINE ENVIRONMENT 71 4.3. KNOWLEDGE GENERATED SINCE 2016 On a more progressive note, several advances have been S different marine mammal hearing groups (NMFS 2018). ince 2016, limited progress has been made in some of the five challenging areas targeted above. First, robustly distinguishing MRE device sound from ambient noise remains a challenge. Second, no significant attempts have been made to model arrays with high fidelity, but few arrays exist against which models can be benchmarked. Such modeling efforts require reliable acoustic source and environmental parameters (e.g., sound velocity variations in water and sediments), which are often not available when taking measurements around MRE devices or at potential deployment sites for arrays. Third, as discussed below, quantification of direct and indirect effects on marine animals has made in understanding marine animal hearing thresholds and shifts, including updated regulatory guidance for the U.S. about appropriate weighting functions for In addition, under the auspices of the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) Technical Committee 114 (TC 114), an international consensus Technical Specification has been published, which lays out a standardized approach to characterizing radiated noise around MRE devices (IEC 2019). More significantly, several MRE devices have been characterized in the field and a few studies have made progress toward establishing links between radiated noise and behavioral responses. As for studies published prior to 2016, none of them suggest that radiated noise from MRE device operation is likely to cause acoustic injury. been challenging because of the limited number of MRE The following subsections summarize advances in MRE device deployments, large device-to-device variations device measurements, biological consequences, and mea- in radiated noise, and the inherent difficulty of quanti- surement standards. These discussions include brief notes fying behavioral responses. about methodology and key findings, but do not fully review the work; hence, readers are encouraged to consult the primary sources. The acoustic terminology used in the papers cited in this chapter is summarized in Box 4.1. BOX 4.1. ACOUSTIC TERMINOLOGY I n this chapter “received levels” correspond to radiated noise from an acoustic source that would be detected by a receiver (hydrophone or marine animal) at some distance away. A particular case of received levels is the “source level,” which corresponds to received levels at a reference distance of 1 m from the sound source. Source levels are used in combination with propagation modeling to estimate received levels at greater distances. Other terms are described in the table below and in the online supplementary material (accessible at https://tethys.pnnl.gov/state-of-the-science-2020-supplementary-underwater-noise), and additional mathematical detail is included in the International Organization for Standardization (2016) terminology list and the IEC (2019) Technical Specification. For readers unfamiliar with the subject matter and standard nomenclature, many high-quality resources provide introductory material. Two recommended sources are the Discovery of Sound in the Sea website (www​.dosits​.org) and United Kingdom National Physical Laboratory’s Good Practice Guide No. 133 (Robinson et al. 2014). For two reasons, it is important not to conflate received levels of radiated noise in water with those in air. First, the decibel scales in water and air use different reference values, so they are not directly comparable (Dahl et al. 2007). Second, because marine animal hearing is significantly different than human hearing, marine animal perception of underwater sound is considerably different than human perception of in-air sound. Terminology Description Units Sound pressure spectral density level Sound pressure associated with a particular frequency presented with a bandwidth of 1 Hz. dB re 1 μPa 2 /Hz Decidecade sound pressure level (decidecade SPL) The sound pressure level (SPL) in a decidecade (one-third octave) band. dB re 1 μPa Broadband sound pressure level (broadband SPL) SPL across a range of frequencies. The associated frequencies must be specified. If calculated over all measured frequencies, this is equal to the root mean square (RMS) SPL. dB re 1 μPa Source level A measure of sound radiated by a source defined as the sound pressure level at a reference distance of 1 m. The associated frequencies must be specified. dB re 1 μPa at 1 m 72 OES-ENVIRONMENTAL 2020 STATE OF THE SCIENCE REPORT 4.3.1. TIDAL, OCEAN, AND RIVER CURRENT TURBINES Direct comparisons to site-specific ambient noise, Lossent et al. (2018) measured radiated noise from a regarding audibility ranges. While a number of state- tidal turbine and estimated its audibility for marine mammals. The authors used a drifting hydrophone (see Chapter 10, Environmental Monitoring Technologies and Techniques for Detecting Interactions of Marine Animals with Turbines) to measure radiated noise from an OpenHydro tidal turbine (axial-flow, high solidity) deployed in the English Channel (Brittany, France) at distances between 100 and 2400 m. Turbine source levels were estimated from regressions of spatially binned averages of decidecade sound pressure level (SPL). These source levels were then used with ray tracing and parabolic equation modeling to estimate the distance at which received levels would exceed relatively low levels of ambient noise typical of the open ocean, and would exceed audibility thresholds for different species. The maximum source level estimated by Lossent et al. (2018) was 152 dB re 1 μPa at 1 m in the 128 Hz decidecade band, and all other decidecade source levels fell below 137 dB re 1 μPa at 1 m. The authors noted broadband components of radiated noise at frequencies from approximately 40 to 8000 Hz, with amplitude modulations related to the turbine rotation rate. Multiple tonal components of noise were also noted between 20 and 1300 Hz. Measurements suggested the source is omnidirectional. On the basis of acoustic modeling, the authors estimated that radiated noise would exceed ambient noise at distances up to 1.5 km. When combined with hearing thresholds, maximum estimated marine mammal detection ranges were approximately 1 km. The results presented by Lossent et al. (2018) highlight some of the challenges of separating ambient noise from radiated MRE device noise, particularly as a function of distance from the assumed source. Clear MRE device signatures attributed to the turbine were present at relatively close ranges but had low signal-to-noise ratios relative to ambient noise farther from the device. At some frequencies, regressions for propagation losses appeared to have coefficients that were inconsistent with expected range-dependent spreading and attenuation losses (e.g., cylindrical or spherical spreading), suggesting that some of this noise should not be attributed to the turbine. Consequently, for some frequencies, source levels may be biased high because of a conflation of ambient noise and radiated noise from the turbine. rather than literature values for relatively quiet, open ocean conditions, would better support conclusions ments were made regarding behavioral changes and avoidance, no direct measurements of animal behavior were made in the study. Schmitt et al. (2018) measured radiated noise from a tidal turbine and correlated noise with operating conditions. Measurements of a ¼-scale Minesto AB subsea kite equipped with an axial-flow turbine were presented in the study. In this work, a drifting hydrophone was used to measure sound from the MRE device operating in Strangford Narrows (Northern Ireland, United Kingdom [UK]) during a period when currents were constant at approximately 1 m/s. Measured decidecade SPLs were reported for three operating conditions involving different turbine shaft speeds, kite velocities, and tether twists. Decidecade SPLs for all cases were based on average levels from 15 seconds before and 15 seconds after the hydrophone passed directly above the center of the kite’s flight path (i.e., within 15 m of the kite). Given the uncertainty of the specific location of the kite, results are presented as the mean received levels over the sampling period, and multiple samples were averaged for each operational condition. Maximum decidecade SPLs reported by Schmitt et al. (2018) were less than 110 dB re 1 μPa at a frequency of approximately 300 Hz. Over much of the reported bandwidth (20 Hz to 100 kHz), observed decidecade SPLs were less than 95 dB re 1 μPa. For some operational conditions, clear modulation of the signal was observed and related to the kite’s flight-path period. Results from the three measured operational conditions demonstrated that the largest differences in radiated noise were attributable to changes in the turbine speed (i.e., higher rotor speeds were correlated with increased noise levels). In comparison, changes in radiated noise due to tether twists or through-water kite speed were limited. Schmitt et al. (2018) made no attempt to address the potential biological consequences or audibility ranges of the device. Although source levels were not estimated, the distances from the hydrophone to the source in this study were on the order of tens of meters and may be considered a coarse proxy for source levels. Ambient noise levels from the site were used to contextualize radiated noise. This suggests that radiated noise from the kite exceeds ambient noise across most of the reported SECTION B – CURRENT KNOWLEDGE OF KEY DEVICE INTERACTIONS WITH THE MARINE ENVIRONMENT 73 bandwidth at locations close to the source. However, Pine et al. (2019) estimated source spectral density lev- ambient noise data were collected in 2014, while turbine els from two turbines and evaluated the reduction in measurements were obtained in 2016. Because of this “listening space”, a proxy for behavioral change, for temporal gap, there is some inherent uncertainty in the harbor seals and harbor porpoises (Phocoena phocoena) portions of the acoustic spectrum that were ascribed to in varying conditions of ambient noise. This study built radiated noise from the MRE device. on Schmitt et al.’s (2018) by combining source spectra Risch et al. (2020) measured radiated noise from an Atlantis AR1500 tidal turbine (18 m diameter; 1.5 MW rated capacity) in Pentland Firth, Scotland (UK). The radiated noise measurements were obtained using drifting hydrophones at ranges up to approximately 2300 m, during which mean tidal currents ranged from 2.2 to 3.1 m/s. Measurements revealed that, when operating, the noise attributable to the turbine occurred primarily in the 50 to 1000 Hz range, although lower intensity device noise was observed above ambient conditions at higher and lower frequencies. Decidecade sound pressure levels showed increases of at least 30 to 40 dB relative to ambient noise for close range measurements (range less than 20 m). Turbine noise intensity increased with rotation rate, with 10 to 20 dB differences observed between the lowest and fastest rotation rates, but the frequency content was similar for all rotation rates. Broadband noise was observed at relatively short ranges (approximately 300 m or less), while, for two MRE devices with seasonal ambient noise measurements and species audiograms to investigate the “listening space reduction” for harbor seals and harbor porpoises. Listening space is defined by the volume over which an animal can detect biologically relevant sound. Therefore, listening space reductions contextualize the regions of potential biological responses for the two marine mammal species. The two MRE devices considered were a tidal kite (Schmitt et al. 2018) and an axialflow turbine (Schottel, characterized by Schmitt et al. 2015). In the case of the tidal kite, radiated noise measurements were converted to source levels using spherical spreading with the distances between the devices and the hydrophone at the closest point of approach (approximately 6 m). The ranges of ambient noise for summer and winter conditions were constrained by the 5th and 95th percentiles. Parabolic equation and ray tracing models were used to model propagation losses between the hypothetical turbines and receiver locations. at greater ranges, observed noise was dominated by The results presented by Pine et al. (2019) demonstrate a series of oscillating tones from 100 to 2000 Hz. A the importance of well-constrained source spectra, high-frequency (20 kHz) narrowband tone was also ambient noise levels, and species audiograms. Differ- identified, which was present when the turbine was ent patterns were present in the listening space reduc- in an operating mode, but did not vary with rotation tions across species, seasons, and turbine types. These rate. This noise was attributed by the authors to the patterns were attributed to the relative distributions generator, although no further details are provided to of noise as a function of frequency in the source spec- support this conclusion and it might be attributable to tra and the audiograms of the species. As a proxy for other, non-rotating system components (e.g., switch- behavioral effects, listening space is conservative in ing converters in power electronics). Noise increases that relatively large reductions still occur when received of 5 dB or less were attributed to the turbine at ranges levels from an MRE device are close to ambient levels. up to 2300 m during periods with relatively calm con- For example, when MRE device noise exceeds ambi- ditions. However, measurements suggest that beyond ent levels by 1, 3, and 6 dB, the respective decreases in ranges of approximately 100 m, turbine noise is only listening space are 26%, 60%, and 84% if a representa- observed above ambient noise for frequencies below tive propagation loss coefficient of 15 is applied. In the 2 kHz. The biological implications for the observed context of the measured variability in ambient noise (30 variations in sound with rotational rate are briefly dB within individual frequency bands), these are small noted, but there is no formal analysis of detection changes and contribute to large, implicit uncertainties ranges by marine animals. in estimates for listening space reduction. Further, the conservative nature of this approach is apparent when comparing it to Hastie et al.’s (2018) approach (dis- 74 OES-ENVIRONMENTAL 2020 STATE OF THE SCIENCE REPORT cussed further later in this section), in which received with prior studies (e.g., Robinson and Lepper 2013), levels that could be correlated with observed behavioral because of vessel traffic, received levels were higher responses exceed the source level used by Pine et al.’s during installation than during operation. On average, (2019) analysis. In other words, while the methodology at a 200 m distance, the WEC was undetectable in a sta- underpinning the listening space reduction accounts tistical sense (i.e., deviations of, at most, 1 dB between for key variables, because a reduction in listening space times of WEC operation and non-operation). However, will not necessarily lead to a behavioral response, this the results of a focused examination of WEC-attributed is likely an extremely conservative proxy for behavioral sound during periods of low ambient noise suggest a change. Nonetheless, this metric may be helpful for primary contribution from tonal sound at 30 Hz, 60 constraining the focus areas for studies attempting to Hz, 80 Hz, and 100 Hz with received spectral density observe behavioral changes as a consequence of expo- levels exceeding 100 dB re 1 µPa2/Hz when the power sure to radiated noise from MRE devices. take-off units were active, as well as periodic, intermit- Bevelhimer et al. (2016) compared measured ambient noise in a river to characteristics of turbine noise to estimate detection ranges for five fish species. Relatively few studies have considered ambient noise in rivers or the potential acoustic effects of MRE devices in riverine environments. Bevelhimer et al. (2016) compared measurements of ambient noise sources in the Mississippi River to measurements of the Ocean Renewable Power Company (ORPC) TidGen tidal turbine in Cobscook Bay, Maine. Other sources of anthropogenic ambient noise, namely different types of vessels, were noted to be of higher amplitude than the TidGen turbine. Finally, Bevelhimer et al. (2016) compared the tent sound at frequencies from 100 to 1000 Hz that were hypothesized to be a consequence of the power takeoffs reaching their end stops. Because of the difficulty of definitively attributing sound to the WEC, the authors recommended that, in the future, multiple hydrophone recording systems be simultaneously deployed to localize WEC sound. A minor weakness of the Walsh et al. (2017) study was that underwater noise measurements were treated in a relatively qualitative manner, and it is not clear whether the presented information is received levels at the 200 m stand-off distance from the WEC or nominal acoustic source levels calculated using a simple propagation model. TidGen spectrum to audiograms for five fish species, Polagye et al. (2017) measured radiated noise from noting that the turbine noise should fall below all of the same point-absorber WEC at a different loca- their reported hearing thresholds at a distance of 21 m tion. After testing in Falmouth Bay, the Lifesaver was from the source. redeployed at the U.S. Navy’s Wave Energy Test Site 4.3.2. WAVE ENERGY CONVERTERS A limited number of new studies of noise generated by WECs have been published since 2016, but they include a study of one WEC, the Fred Olsen Lifesaver, a point absorber, which was characterized at two locations using different methodologies. Walsh et al. (2017) measured radiated noise from the Lifesaver, during a 2-year test at the FabTest test site in Falmouth Bay, UK. The objective of the study was to evaluate the feasibility of using hydrophones at a relatively large stand-off distance from a WEC (200 m) to monitor its physical condition. No attempt was made to study the potential effects of radiated noise on marine animal behavior. Measurements were conducted using moored hydrophones at a distance of 10 m above the seabed in water depths of 25 to 45 m. Results are presented for frequencies from 10 Hz to 32 kHz. Consistent (WETS) in Kaneohe, Hawaii, U.S. Two deployments were conducted between 2016 and 2019, one at the 60 m berth and one at the 30 m berth. Polagye et al. (2017) described outcomes from fixed platform measurements on the seabed at a distance of approximately 100 m and drifting measurements, primarily at closer range, for the deployment at the 60 m berth. Drifting measurements resolved frequencies from 10 Hz to 200 kHz and were used to attribute radiated noise to the WEC and its moorings based on co-temporal comparisons between measurements in close proximity to the WEC and a “reference” site at a distance of 1200 m from the WEC. In addition to sound consistent with the power takeoff reported by Walsh et al. (2017) (i.e., periodic tonal elevation from 30 Hz to 1 kHz), multiple intermittent sounds associated with the WEC or its mooring were detected at frequencies up to 200 kHz, and the highest frequencies were associated with impact noise from a failing mooring chain. At a distance of 35 m from the SECTION B – CURRENT KNOWLEDGE OF KEY DEVICE INTERACTIONS WITH THE MARINE ENVIRONMENT 75 WEC, the sound attributed to the power take-off had a this sound was actually attributable to the permanent pressure spectral density level that was approximately moorings at the site, not the WEC. This forensic analy- flat from 50 Hz to 300 Hz at ~85 dB re 1 µPa /Hz, and sis also highlights the benefits of conducting relatively declined to 70 dB re 1 µPa /Hz at 1 kHz. All WEC and long-term acoustic measurements around a WEC, mooring sounds were detected in the fixed observa- including during pre-installation, installation, opera- tions, albeit at lower amplitudes because of the greater tion, removal, and post-removal. Another tangential distance between the source and the receiver. Variations benefit of such long-term monitoring, as discussed by in broadband (0 to 40 kHz) received SPLs as a function Walsh et al. (2017), is the potential for monitoring the of wave height and period showed some dependence on mechanical health of MRE devices. 2 2 sea state, but frequency-domain analysis demonstrated that this was primarily a consequence of flow-noise from wave orbital velocities close to the seabed in the 0 to 10 Hz band, which exceeded radiated noise from the WEC (Polagye 2017). Broadband received SPLs at a range of 100 m were centered around 115 dB re 1µPa, and ranged from 105 to 125 dB re 1 µPa. 4.3.3. BIOLOGICAL CONSEQUENCES OF RADIATED NOISE As previously discussed, all of the research published prior to 2016, as well as the studies of MRE device noise reviewed in this chapter, used sound detection as a proxy for biological consequence. Since 2016, several Similar methods were applied to the subsequent attempts, with varying success, have been made to deployment of the Lifesaver at the 30 m berth (Polagye, directly observe the behavioral responses of various pers. comm.). Drifting measurements again identified species to MRE device noise. These efforts have relied elevated sound attributed to the power take-off, but at a on “playbacks” of MRE device noise, which isolates stand-off distance of 25 m with the power take-off dis- underwater noise effects from other, potentially con- abled, received spectral levels of approximately 75 dB re founding, effects of device presence (e.g., accumula- 1 µPa /Hz were still present around 60 Hz, and declined tions of prey around an artificial reef). to approximately 65 dB re 1 µPa /Hz at 1000 Hz. No Schram et al. (2017) used a mesocosm experiment to 2 2 WEC-attributable sound was identifiable above 1000 Hz. investigate the behavioral responses of four fish species The measurements at WETS are also indicative of the to simulated tidal turbine noise. The authors exposed challenge of attributing sound to a particular com- four species of freshwater fish to turbine sound in a ponent of the WEC using short-duration, single- mesocosm setting to evaluate changes in fish location hydrophone measurements. Specifically, Polagye et al. as a consequence of sound amplitude and duration of (2017) attributed a tonal “warble” with a fundamental exposure. One species (redhorse suckers [Moxostoma frequency around 790 Hz to a failing bearing on one of carinatum]) showed some response by increasing their the power take-off units. This diagnosis was consistent distance from the sound source, while the three other with the periodicity of the sound in this frequency band species displayed either a mixed or limited response. having a moderate correlation with wave period and The turbine sound was based on recordings of the mechanical wear observed on the power take-off dur- ORPC TidGen tidal turbine (Bevelhimer et al. 2016). The ing an engineering inspection. Between recovery from authors noted several challenges associated with inter- the 60 m berth and redeployment at the 30 m berth, the preting and generalizing their results. First, because of Lifesaver underwent minor maintenance and, therefore the limitations of the underwater speaker system, the the absence of this sound in measurements at the 30 frequency content of the playback departed from the m berth was considered unremarkable. However, sub- original measurement. Specifically, the measured sound sequent analysis of fixed observations (Polagye, pers. from the turbine had its highest amplitude at frequen- comm.) during recovery of the WEC from the 60 m berth cies less than 0.3 kHz, but the playback had a relatively found that the warble persisted even with the power flat spectrum that peaked around 10 kHz. Consequently, take-offs being inactive, that this sound vanished fish behavioral changes were interpreted relative to when the WEC was removed from its moorings, and the broadband SPLs that were not entirely consistent that the sound then returned after the moorings were with the actual structure of turbine sound. Second, the re-tensioned without the WEC present. Consequently, acoustic localization system used to track the fish was 76 OES-ENVIRONMENTAL 2020 STATE OF THE SCIENCE REPORT primarily effective in the along-pen direction, while Robertson et al. (2018) used shore observers to quantify received levels varied in the across-pen direction, par- the behavioral response of harbor seals and harbor por- ticularly close to the sound source. Overall, the authors poises to simulated tidal turbine noise in a tidal chan- concluded that a significant behavioral response would nel (Admiralty Inlet, Washington, U.S., using a method not likely be anticipated for either short-term or long- similar to that of Hastie et al. (2018). Here, an amplified term exposures to turbine sound. recording from the ORPC RivGen turbine (unpublished Hastie et al. (2018) used shore observers and tagging to demonstrate the behavioral response (localized avoidance) of harbor seals to simulated tidal turbine noise in a tidal channel. To assess behavioral changes and avoidance exhibited by harbor seals exposed to tidal turbine noise, the authors tagged and remotely observed harbor seals during exposures to simulated tidal turbine noise in Kyle Rhea, an energetic tidal channel on the west coast of Scotland, UK. They evaluated the behavioral response by comparing patterns in spatially resolved abundance between periods with simulated turbine sound (playback) and periods with only ambient noise (control). The playbacks were based on interpreted measurements from the SeaGen turbine (Strangford Lough, Northern Ireland, UK) and had a broadband (115 to 3750 Hz) source level of 175 dB re 1 µPa at 1 m. Hastie et al. (2018) reported no changes in total numbers of seals in the water in the study area (defined as the distance at which harbor seals could be observed in the 450 m wide channel) between the control and playback periods. However, usage decreased between 11 to 41 percent at distances of less than 500 m from the acoustic source. Given that no differences in overall abundance were noted, these results suggested localized avoidance without a broader-scale impact. The authors extensively discussed a number of issues related to their results. First, in comparison to other measured tidal turbines, the playback source levels were of relatively high ampli- data) was used as a sound source and, as for the Hastie et al. (2018) effort, the study was partitioned into control and playback periods. Broadband (30 Hz to 10 kHz) source levels were 158 dB re 1 µPa at 1 m, which was lower than the source level used by Hastie et al. (2018) (175 dB re 1 µPa at 1 m), but substantially higher than the actual RivGen turbine. Unlike the Hastie et al. (2018) effort, harbor seals showed no measurable response to the simulated turbine sound. However, because of the lower source level, harbor seals would have needed to be within 10 m of the source to experience received levels similar to those correlated with localized avoidance by Hastie et al. (2018). The difference in geographic location and turbine sound signature may also have contributed to the apparent divergence in outcomes. Over the three seasonal playback trials (each two weeks in duration, divided between control and playback periods), harbor porpoises were found to initially avoid the playback source by 300 m, but this distance declined to 100 m during the second trial, and no avoidance was apparent during the third trial. This could be an indication of habituation or increased tolerance. However, because the vessel used to deploy the sound source was only present during the playback periods (for reasons of cost), it is uncertain whether the avoidance and potential habituation were in response to simulated turbine sound, survey vessel presence, or seasonal variations in harbor porpoise behavior. seven frequency-modulated narrowband tones from 115 4.3.4. PROGRESS ON MODELING to 3750 Hz. These playbacks would be a novel stimulus The availability of numerical modeling tools should be for the seals and may have contributed to the observed exploited, when helpful, to support the assessment of avoidance behavior. Whether or not similar behavior the underwater noise impacts of MRE devices. Farcas would be observed with any combination of lower source et al. (2016) summarized considerations related to their levels, differences in frequency content, or greater levels application and parameterization for environmental of habituation are unknown. The tracking tags on the impact assessment. A recent modeling result of relevance seals also only reported their positions, not the received for planning the installation and subsequent monitor- sound level, so a quantitative dose-response analysis ing of MRE devices was published by Lin et al. (2019) and was not possible. focused on the use of parabolic equation modeling for tude. Second, the playback sound consisted of a series of propagation losses at an offshore wind site. A key finding was that seasonal differences in the water properties (well-mixed vs. stratified) resulted in considerable difSECTION B – CURRENT KNOWLEDGE OF KEY DEVICE INTERACTIONS WITH THE MARINE ENVIRONMENT 77 ferences in propagation losses because of a downward The specification establishes two levels of characteriza- refracting sound speed profile. Such findings could be tions. Both use the same methods for measurement, used to inform construction plans to mitigate potential analysis, and reporting, such that the types of char- impacts by exploiting time periods when depth-aver- acterization are differentiated only by the number of aged propagation losses are expected to be at a maxi- required measurements and the conclusions that can mum. Conversely, these findings could inform monitor- be supported. The “Level A” characterization is more ing plans intended to observe biological responses when extensive and evaluates temporal trends (e.g., correla- depth-integrated propagation losses are expected to be tion between received levels and wave height and period at a minimum, and therefore, the signal-to-noise ratio for WECs) and spatial variability (i.e., degree of direc- at a given distance could be maximized. tional variations in received levels). The “Level B” char- Since 2016, relatively little progress has been made with regard to the modeling of sound produced by MRE devices. Halfa et al. (2018) focused on the development of a temporal-domain, three-dimensional finite-element sound propagation model. This model, Paracousti, has been compared to multiple analytical and modeling approaches with favorable results and facilitates the integration of multiple acoustic sources. No other efforts have developed new models for MRE device noise or focused on the development of advanced tools for prop- acterization provides a snapshot of received levels at a single temporal condition and spatial location. These two levels of characterization recognize that radiated noise from some MRE devices may not warrant a comprehensive characterization, but that more limited characterizations should be conducted in a consistent manner for comparability across projects. Effectively, a Level A characterization is a series of Level B characterizations conducted at several temporal conditions and spatial positions. agation modeling. It is, however, noteworthy that many The Technical Specification includes end-to-end of the studies highlighted here used models common in requirements for acoustic measurements, including the other underwater acoustics applications (e.g., parabolic following: equation modeling, ray tracing). ◆ 4.3.5. INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS The capabilities of the acoustic measurement system and calibration requirements ◆ Contextual measurements (e.g., wave height and The IEC TC 114, which develops international consen- period around WECs, current speed around tidal tur- sus standards for marine energy conversion technolo- bines) gies, has published its first Technical Specification for characterizing radiated noise from MRE devices: IEC ◆ surements to meet Level A or Level B characteriza- 62600-40 (IEC 2019). The specification, developed tion for each category of MRE device (i.e., WEC, cur- over a 4-year period with input from multiple National Committees (Canada, France, Germany, Ireland, Netherlands, Spain, UK, U.S.), describes methods for charac- rent turbine, or OTEC plant) ◆ vessel traffic) turbines (tidal and river), and ocean thermal energy ◆ Analysis methods to reduce acoustic measurements to sound pressure density levels, decidecade SPLs, rates many of the unique considerations for observa- and broadband SPLs tions in MRE environments summarized by Lepper and Robinson (2016). Data review to exclude measurements with obvious contamination from other acoustic sources (e.g., terizing received levels in the vicinity of WECs, current conversion (OTEC) plants. The specification incorpo- Temporal conditions and spatial locations for mea- ◆ Requirements for reporting temporal and spatial variations in received levels. 78 OES-ENVIRONMENTAL 2020 STATE OF THE SCIENCE REPORT Crucially, IEC 62600-40 implicitly attributes all sound Although source localization is widely used in ocean in measurement sequences that satisfy data acceptance environments to localize radiated noise, it has not yet criteria to the MRE device. This approach was taken been used to discriminate between ambient noise and because no international consensus yet exists for objec- radiated MRE device noise (i.e., frequency-dependent tively attributing radiated noise to an MRE device. As localization of noise sources compared to known MRE discussed later in this chapter, this is a critical research device position). In the absence of localization capabili- need and, as methods are matured, they should be ties, there is a risk that ambient noise or, worse, flow- incorporated into subsequent editions of IEC 62600-40. noise, can be conflated with MRE device noise. In such By default, measurements are required to resolve frequencies from 10 Hz to 100 kHz, though there are allowances for expanding or contracting this frequency range as warranted by specific conditions and regulatory requirements. At the lower end of this range, flownoise, which is non-propagating sound caused by water motion relative to a hydrophone, is a concern because it has the potential to artificially inflate decidecade and broadband SPLs. Flow-noise can arise from turbulence advected over the hydrophone element and vortices shed by the hydrophone element. Consequently, the specification includes recommendations to identify the probability of flow-noise in measurements and potential mechanisms to minimize flow-noise. While flownoise is a well-documented issue for fixed platforms cases, estimated source levels for sound propagation studies would be biased high and potentially overstate the acoustic footprint of operating MRE devices. This difficulty is compounded if ambient noise at some frequencies is driven by the same physical processes as MRE power generation. For example, as the current speed rises, the power output and rotation rate for most turbines increase, but depending on the site, the radiated noise from sediment transport (e.g., Bassett et al. 2013) also increases and can be mistaken for MRE device noise. Despite these challenges, attempting to distinguish radiated noise from ambient contributions, even when uncertainties remain, is an important step in the process of understanding the potential consequences of radiated noise from MRE devices. in tidal energy environments (e.g., Bassett et al. 2014), The second research need is to connect radiated noise experience suggests that this can also be a concern for to behavioral changes in marine animals. If the radiated fixed platforms in wave energy environments when noise of an MRE device only marginally exceeds ambi- wave orbital velocities extend to hydrophone depths. ent noise at close range (e.g., <50 m), it is not practically For example, at WETS, flow-noise periodically masked possible to solely ascribe a behavioral response to radi- propagating ambient noise at frequencies up to 50 Hz ated noise. For higher received levels, the link between for a fixed hydrophone at the 30 m depth (Polagye et al. radiated noise and animal behavior is a complicated one 2017). In general, accurate measurement of propagat- to establish and is best addressed by bioacoustic special- ing sound at low frequencies (<50 Hz) is complicated by ists. However, the broader acoustic research community flow-noise masking and typical roll-offs in hydrophone can support such efforts in two important ways. The sensitivity when higher frequencies (>10 kHz) are also first is to present acoustic data in a frequency-resolved of interest. manner that allows species-specific audibility to be taken into account. While broadband SPLs can be helpful 4.4. RESEARCH AND MONITORING NEEDS TO RESOLVE THE ISSUE O f all the outstanding research and monitoring needs, the most critical undeveloped capability is differentiating between MRE device noise and ambient noise. Such differentiation is needed to establish the true acoustic characteristics of MRE devices and esti- for comparisons across MRE devices, they are insufficient for biological interpretation. Second, as discussed above, when possible, differentiating between MRE device noise and ambient noise will facilitate biological interpretation. Overall, given the potential uncertainty related to acoustic sources, ambient noise, and speciesspecific audiograms, behavioral response studies are only likely to provide useful information if MRE device noise and ambient noise are well characterized. mate received levels as a function of depth and range. SECTION B – CURRENT KNOWLEDGE OF KEY DEVICE INTERACTIONS WITH THE MARINE ENVIRONMENT 79 4.5. GUIDANCE ON MEASURING UNDERWATER NOISE FROM MRE DEVICES 4.6. RECOMMENDATIONS I not answer all the remaining research questions identi- EC 62600-40 provides guidance for the measurement of underwater noise around MRE devices, including instrument calibration, methods for acoustic and contextual measurements, methods for data W e recommend two categories of activity going forward. Successful execution of these activities will fied by Copping et al. (2016; e.g., effects of arrays), but will establish a strong foundation for future study. ◆ acoustic measurements across a broader range of processing, and uniform presentation of results. How- MRE devices and settings. These should be included ever, in areas where international consensus does not in a publicly-accessible library of MRE device noise yet exist, several considerations are not prescriptively signatures. Direct comparisons are enabled by the addressed. First, as previously discussed, no method measurement guidance discussed in Section 4.5, is given to differentiate between MRE device noise and particularly Level A characterization under IEC ambient noise. Second, while flow-noise is described 62600-40. Use of standardized methods will allow as being problematic at low frequencies (frequencies outcomes from individual studies to be generalized audible only to fish and low-frequency cetaceans), no in a way that contributes to global risk identification. prescriptive guidance is given about its identification An improved understanding of the characteristics or mitigation. We note that it has been established that of the radiated noise from MRE devices and the fac- free-drifting measurements reduce flow-noise, but tors that control them will facilitate effective study do not guarantee that it will be negligible, because any designs to understand behavioral responses to this velocity differential between the hydrophone and sur- noise. To achieve this, it will be necessary to establish rounding water at the scale of the hydrophone element robust methods for differentiating MRE device noise will generate flow-noise. Progress in these areas will be from ambient noise and, at the lowest frequencies, tracked by IEC TC 114 through an ad hoc group and, as minimize contamination from flow-noise. Finally, international consensus emerges, improved methods challenges and recommended refinements to the will be incorporated into the next edition (nominally methodology should be communicated to the IEC expected in 2024) of the Technical Specification by a ad hoc group monitoring the implementation of IEC Maintenance Team. Consequently, experience using 62600-40. the first edition of the Technical Specification should be communicated to the relevant IEC National Commit- Expand the evidence base of rigorous, comparable ◆ Establish a framework for studying the behavioral tees or the Convener of the ad hoc group. Contributors consequences of radiated noise from MRE devices. of feedback are encouraged to contact their IEC TC 114 To fully understand the risks, it will be neces- National Committee Lead if they are from a participating sary to move beyond using audibility as a proxy for country. Individuals from other countries can contact behavioral response. However, as discussed here, the TC 114 Chair to discuss mechanisms for involvement. establishing the link between radiated noise and In interpreting measurements of underwater noise around MRE devices, it is important to remember that variations in received levels can be a consequence of factors other than variations in the acoustic source (e.g., seasonal changes in propagation). As explanatory factors for ambient noise are identified, they can be controlled for in experimental design and reduce the risk of ambient noise being conflated with MRE device noise. IEC 6260040 takes steps in this direction by recommending that measurements be undertaken only in a restricted set of metocean conditions for each category of MRE device. 80 behavioral responses in mesocosm or field studies is challenging for a variety of reasons, including the confounding variables that affect animal behavior and the generally low amplitude of observed MRE device noise relative to ambient noise. Such links will be particularly difficult to establish for threatened or endangered species because of the low sample sizes in the field and uncertainty in their audiograms. Research community agreement on a framework for evaluating behavioral consequences could begin to answer this important question. OES-ENVIRONMENTAL 2020 STATE OF THE SCIENCE REPORT 4.7. REFERENCES Copping, A., Hanna, L., Whiting, J., Geerlofs, S., Grear, Aquatera. 2011. Environmental Monitoring Report - 2011 energy development around the world. Annex IV Final Installation of monopile at Voith Hydro test berth, Fall Report (PNNL-22176). Pacific Northwest National of Warness, Orkney. Report by Aquatera Ltd. for Voith Laboratory, Richland, Washington. Report by Pacific Hydro, Orkney, Scotland. https://tethys.pnnl.gov​ Northwest National Laboratory for Ocean Energy Sys- /publications/environmental-monitoring-report-2011​ tems https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/environmental​ -installation-monopile-voith-hydro-test-berth-fall -effects-marine-energy-development-around-world​ Bailey, H., Senior, B., Simmons, D., Rusin, J., Picken, G., M., Blake, K., Coffey, A., Massaua, M., Brown-Saracino, J., Battey, H. 2013. Environmental effects of marine -annex-iv-final-report and Thompson, P. M. 2010. Assessing underwater noise Copping, A., Sather, N., Hanna, L., Whiting, J., levels during pile-driving at an offshore windfarm and Zydlewski, G., Staines, G., Gill, A., Hutchison, I., its potential effects on marine mammals. Marine Pol- O’Hagan, A., Simas, T., Bald, J., Sparling, C., Wood, J., lution Bulletin, 60(6), 888-897. doi:10.1016/j.marpolbul​ Masden, E. 2016. Annex IV 2016 State of the Science .2010.01.003 https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/assessing​ Report: Environmental Effects of Marine Renewable -underwater-noise-levels-during-pile-driving-offshore​ Energy Development Around the World. Report by -windfarm-its-potential Pacific Northwest National Laboratory for Ocean Energy Bassett, C., Thomson, J., Dahl, P. H., and Polagye, B. 2014. Flow-noise and turbulence in two tidal chan- Systems. https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/state-of-the​ -science-2016 nels. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 135(4), Cruz, E., Simas, T., Kasanen, E. 2015. Discussion of 1764-1774. doi:10.1121/1.4867360 https://tethys.pnnl.gov​ the effects of the underwater noise radiated by a wave /publications/flow-noise-turbulence-two-tidal-channels energy device - Portugal. Paper presented at the 11th Bassett, C., Thomson, J., and Polagye, B. 2013. Sediment-generated noise and bed stress in a tidal channel. Journal of Geophysical Research, 118(4), 2249-2265. doi:10.1002/jgrc.20169 https:// European Wave and Tidal Energy Conference, Nantes, France. https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/discussion​ -effects-underwater-noise-radiated-wave-energy-device​ -portugal tethys.pnnl.gov/publications​/sediment-generated-noise- Dahl, P., de Jong, C. Popper, A. 2015. The Underwater bed-stress-tidal-channel Sound Field from Impact Pile Driving and Its Potential Beharie, R., Side, J. 2012. Acoustic Environmental Monitoring - Wello Penguin Cooling System Noise Study (2012/01/AQ). Report by International Centre for Island Effects on Marine Life. Acoustics Today, 11, 18-25. https://​ tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/underwater-sound-field​ -impact-pile-driving-its-potential-effects-marine-life Technology for Aquatera Ltd., Orkney, Scotland. https://​ Dahl, P., Miller, J., Cato, D., Andrew, R. 2007. Under- tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/acoustic-environmental​ water Ambient Noise. Acoustics Today, 3, 23-33. https://​ -monitoring-wello-penguin-cooling-system-noise-study tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/underwater-ambient-noise Bevelhimer, M. S., Deng, Z. D., and Scherelis, C. 2016. Farcas, A., Thompson, P. M., and Merchant, N. D. 2016. Characterizing large river sounds: Providing context for Underwater noise modelling for environmental impact understanding the environmental effects of noise pro- assessment. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, duced by hydrokinetic turbines. Journal of the Acoustical 57, 114-122. doi:10.1016/j.eiar.2015.11.012 https://tethys​ Society of America, 139(1), 85-92. doi:10.1121/1.4939120 .pnnl.gov/publications/underwater-noise-modelling​ https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/characterizing​ -environmental-impact-assessment -large-river-sounds-providing-context-understanding​ Habitats Directive (Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 -environmental May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora). OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7-50. [European Union] SECTION B – CURRENT KNOWLEDGE OF KEY DEVICE INTERACTIONS WITH THE MARINE ENVIRONMENT 81 Hafla, E., Johnson, E., Johnson, C. N., Preston, L., International Organization for Standardization (ISO). Aldridge, D., and Roberts, J. D. 2018. Modeling underwa- 2016. ISO/DIS 18405.2:2016(E): Underwater Acoustics ter noise propagation from marine hydrokinetic power - Terminology. https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/iso​ devices through a time-domain, velocity-pressure -184052017-underwater-acoustics-terminology solution. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 143(6), 3242-3253. doi:10.1121/1.5039839 https://tethys​ .pnnl.gov/publications/modeling-underwater-noise​ -propagation-marine-hydrokinetic-power-devices​ -through-time Haikonen, K., Sundberg, J., and Leijon, M. 2013. Characteristics of the Operational Noise from Full Scale Wave Energy Converters in the Lysekil Project: Estimation of Potential Environmental Impacts. Energies, 6(5), 25622582. doi:10.3390/En6052562 https://tethys.pnnl.gov​ /publications/characteristics-operational-noise-full-scale​ -wave-energy-converters-lysekil-project Jensen, F. H., Bejder, L., Wahlberg, M., Aguilar Soto, N., Johnson, M., and Madsen, P. T. 2009. Vessel noise effects on delphinid communication. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 395, 161-175. doi:10.3354/meps08204 https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/vessel-noise-effects​ -delphinid-communication Lepper, P., Harland, E., Robinson, S., Theobald, P., Hastie, G., and Quick, N. 2012. Acoustic noise measurement methodology for the Billia Croo wave energy test site: Annex A: Summary of operational underwater noise from a Pelamis WEC system at the EMEC wave energy test site May 2011: Comparison of Pelamis system Hastie, G. D., Russell, D. J. F., Lepper, P., Elliott, J., Wil- operational and baseline noise measurements (Report son, B., Benjamins, S., and Thompson, D. 2018. Harbour No. 374-01-02). Report by European Marine Energy seals avoid tidal turbine noise: Implications for collision Centre (EMEC), Orkney, Scotland. https://tethys.pnnl.gov​ risk. Journal of Applied Ecology, 55(2), 684-693. doi:10​ /publications/acoustic-noise-measurement-methodology​ .1111/1365-2664.12981 https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications​ -billia-croo-wave-energy-test-site /harbour-seals-avoid-tidal-turbine-noise-implications​ -collision-risk Lepper, P., and Robinson, S. 2016. Measurement of Underwater Operational Noise Emitted by Wave and Holt, M. M., Noren, D. P., Veirs, V., Emmons, C. K., and Tidal Stream Energy Devices. In A. N. Popper and A. Veirs, S. 2009. Speaking up: Killer whales (Orcinus orca) Hawkins (Eds.), The Effects of Noise on Aquatic Life II (pp. increase their call amplitude in response to vessel noise. 615-622), Springer: New York, NY. https://tethys.pnnl​ The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 125(1), .gov/publications/measurement-underwater-operational​ EL27-EL32. doi:10.1121/1.3040028 https://tethys.pnnl​ -noise-emitted-wave-tidal-stream-energy-devices .gov/publications/speaking-killer-whales-orcinus-orca​ -increase-their-call-amplitude-response-vessel Lesage, V., Barrette, C., Kingsley, M. C. S., and Sjare, B. 1999. The effect of vessel noise on the vocal behavior Ikpekha, O.W., Soberon, F., and Daniels, S. 2014. Model- of belugas in the St. Lawrence River estuary, Canada. ling the Propagation of Underwater Acoustic Signals of Marine Mammal Science, 15(1), 65-84. doi:10.1111/j.1748​ a Marine Energy Device Using Finite Element Method. -7692.1999.tb00782.x https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications​ Paper presented at the International Conference on /effect-vessel-noise-vocal-behavior-belugas-st-lawrence​ Renewable Energies and Power Quality (ICREPQ’14), -river-estuary-canada Cordoba, Spain. https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications​ /modelling-propagation-underwater-acoustic-signals​ -marine-energy-device-using-finite Lin, Y.-T., Newhall, A. E., Miller, J. H., Potty, G. R., and Vigness-Raposa, K. J. 2019. A three-dimensional underwater sound propagation model for offshore wind International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC). farm noise prediction. Journal of the Acoustical Society of 2019. Marine energy - Wave, tidal and other water America, 145(5), EL335-EL340. doi:10.1121/1.5099560 current converters - Part 40: Acoustic characteriza- https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/three-dimensional​ tion of marine energy converters (IEC TS 62600- -underwater-sound-propagation-model-offshore-wind​ 40:2019). https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/acoustic​ -farm-noise -characterization-marine-energy-converters-iec-ts​ -62600-402019 82 OES-ENVIRONMENTAL 2020 STATE OF THE SCIENCE REPORT Lloyd, T. P., Turnock, S. R., and Humphrey, V. F. 2014. Polagye, B. 2017. Challenges to characterization of Assessing the influence of inflow turbulence on noise sound produced by marine energy converters. In Marine and performance of a tidal turbine using large eddy Renewable Energy. Springer, Cham. https://tethys.pnnl​ simulations. Renewable Energy, 71, 742-754. doi:10.1016​ .gov/publications/challenges-characterization-sound​ /j.renene.2014.06.011 https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications​ -produced-marine-energy-converters /assessing-influence-inflow-turbulence-noise​ -performance-tidal-turbine-using-large-eddy Polagye, B., Murphy, P., Cross, P., and Vega, L. 2017. Acoustic characteristics of the Lifesaver wave energy Lossent, J., Lejart, M., Folegot, T., Clorennec, D., Di Iorio, converter. Paper presented at the 12th European L., and Gervaise, C. 2018. Underwater operational noise Wave and Tidal Energy Conference (EWTEC), Cork, level emitted by a tidal current turbine and its potential Ireland. https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/acoustic​ impact on marine fauna. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 131, -characteristics-lifesaver-wave-energy-converter 323-334. doi:10.1016/j.marpolbul.2018.03.024 https:// tethys​.pnnl.gov/publications/underwater-operational-noiselevel​-emitted-tidal-current-turbine-its-potential-impact Popper, A., and Hawkins, A. 2018. The importance of particle motion to fishes and invertebrates. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 143(1), 470-488. doi:10.1121​ Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972. 16 U.S.C. ch 31 § /1.5021594 https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/importance​ 1361 et seq. [United States] -particle-motion-fishes-invertebrates Marine Strategy Framework Directive (Directive Przeslawski, R., Brooke, B., Carroll, A. G., and Fellows, M. 2008/56/EC of the European Parliament and of the 2018. An integrated approach to assessing marine seis- Council of 17 June 2008 establishing a framework for mic impacts: Lessons learnt from the Gippsland Marine community action in the field of marine environmental Environmental Monitoring project. Ocean & Coastal policy). OJ L 164, 25.6.2008, p. 19–40. [European Union] Management, 160, 117-123. doi:10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2018​ National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2018. 2018 Revisions to: Technical Guidance for Assessing the Effects of Anthropogenic Sound on Marine Mammal .04.011 https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/integrated​ -approach-assessing-marine-seismic-impacts-lessons​ -learnt-gippsland-marine Hearing (Version 2.0): Underwater Thresholds for Onset Risch, D, van Geel, N., Gillespie, D. and Wilson, B. 2020. of Permanent and Temporary Threshold Shifts. NOAA Characterisation of underwater operational sound of Technical Memorandum NMFS-OPR-59. Report by a tidal stream turbine. Journal of the Acoustical Society National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. of America, 147(4), 2547-2555. doi:10.1121/10.0001124 Department of Commerce, Silver Spring, MD. https://​ https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/characterisation​ tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/2018-revisions-technical​ -underwater-operational-sound-tidal-stream-turbine -guidance-assessing-effects-anthropogenic-sound​ -marine-mammal Robertson, F., Wood, J., Joslin, J., Joy, R., and Polagye, B. 2018. Marine Mammal Behavioral Response to Tidal Ocean Renewable Power Company (ORPC). 2014. Cob- Turbine Sound (Report No. DOE-UW-06385). Report by scook Bay Tidal Energy Project: 2013 Environmen- University of Washington for U.S. Department of Energy tal Monitoring Report. Report by Ocean Renewable Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Power Company, Portland, ME. https://tethys.pnnl.gov​ Washington D.C. https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications​ /publications/cobscook-bay-tidal-energy-project-2013​ /marine-mammal-behavioral-response-tidal-turbine​ -environmental-monitoring-report -sound Pine, M. K., Schmitt, P., Culloch, R. M., Lieber, L., and Robinson, S., and Lepper, P. 2013. Scoping Study: Kregting, L. T. 2019. Providing ecological context to Review of Current Knowledge of Underwater Noise anthropogenic subsea noise: Assessing listening space Emissions from Wave and Tidal Stream Energy Devices. reductions of marine mammals from tidal energy The Crown Estate, London, UK. https://tethys.pnnl.gov​ devices. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, /publications/scoping-study-review-current-knowledge​ 103, 49-57. doi:10.1016/j.rser.2018.12.024 https://tethys​ -underwater-noise-emissions-wave-tidal-stream .pnnl.gov/publications/providing-ecological-context​ -anthropogenic-subsea-noise-assessing-listening-space SECTION B – CURRENT KNOWLEDGE OF KEY DEVICE INTERACTIONS WITH THE MARINE ENVIRONMENT 83 Robinson, S., Lepper, P., and Hazelwood, R. 2014. Good Schramm, M. P., Bevelhimer, M., and Scherelis, C. 2017. Practice Guide for Underwater Noise Measurement. Effects of hydrokinetic turbine sound on the behavior National Physical Laboratory Good Practice Guide No. of four species of fish within an experimental meso- 133. The Crown Estate, London, UK. https://tethys.pnnl​ cosm. Fisheries Research, 190, 1-14. doi:10.1016/j.fishres​ .gov/publications/good-practice-guide-underwater-noise​ .2017.01.012 https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/effects​ -measurement -hydrokinetic-turbine-sound-behavior-four-species-fish​ Rolland, R. M., Parks, S. E., Hunt, K. E., Castellote, M., -within-experimental Corkeron, P. J., Nowacek, D. P., Wasser, S. K., and Kraus, Southall, B., Bowles, A., Ellison, W., Finneran, J., Gentry, S. D. 2012. Evidence that ship noise increases stress in R., Greene, C. J., Kastak, D., Ketten, D., Miller, J., Nachti- right whales. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological gall, P., Richardson, W., Thomas, J., and Tyack, P. 2007. Sciences, 279(1737), 2363-2368. doi:10.1098/rspb.2011​ Marine Mammal Noise Exposure Criteria: Initial Scien- .2429 https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/evidence-ship​ tific Recommendations. Aquatic Mammals, 33(4), 411- -noise-increases-stress-right-whales 521. doi:10.1080/09524622.2008.9753846 https://tethys​ Russell, D. J. F., Hastie, G. D., Thompson, D., Janik, V. M., Hammond, P. S., Scott-Hayward, L. A. S., Matthiopou- .pnnl.gov/publications/marine-mammal-noise-exposure​ -criteria-initial-scientific-recommendations los, J., Jones, E. L., and McConnell, B. J. 2016. Avoidance Thomsen, F., Gill, A. B., Kosecka, M., Andersson, M., of wind farms by harbour seals is limited to pile driv- André, M., Degraer, S., Folegot, T., Gabriel, J., Judd, A., ing activities. Journal of Applied Ecology, 53(6), 1642- Neumann, T., Norro, A., Risch, D., Sigray, P., Wood, 1652. doi:10.1111/1365-2664.12678 https://tethys.pnnl​ D., and Wilson, B. 2016. MaRVEN – Environmental .gov/publications/avoidance-wind-farms-harbour-seals​ Impacts of Noise, Vibrations and Electromagnetic -limited-pile-driving-activities Emissions from Marine Renewable Energy (RTD-KI- Schmitt, P., Elsäßer, B., Coffin, Hood, and Starzmann, R. 2015. Field Testing a Full-Scale Tidal Turbine Part 3: Acoustic Characteristics. Paper presented at the 11th European Wave and Tidal Energy Conference, Nantes, NA-27738-EN-N). Report for European Commission, Brussels. doi:10.2777/272281 https://tethys.pnnl.gov​ /publications/marven-environmental-impacts-noise​ -vibrations-electromagnetic-emissions-marine France. https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/field-testing​ Tougaard, J. 2015. Underwater Noise from a Wave -full-scale-tidal-turbine-part-3-acoustic-characteristics Energy Converter Is Unlikely to Affect Marine Mam- Schmitt, P., Pine, M. K., Culloch, R. M., Lieber, L., and Kregting, L. T. 2018. Noise characterization of a subsea tidal kite. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 144(5), EL441-EL446. doi:10.1121/1.5080268 https://​ mals. PLoS ONE, 10(7), 1-7. doi:10.1371/journal.pone​ .0132391 https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/underwater​ -noise-wave-energy-converter-unlikely-affect-marine​ -mammals tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/noise-characterization​ Walsh, J., Bashir, I., Garrett, J. K., Thies, P. R., Blondel, -subsea-tidal-kite P., and Johanning, L. 2017. Monitoring the condition of Scholik-Schlomer, A. 2015. Where the Decibels Hit the Water: Perspectives on the Application of Science to Real-World Underwater Noise and Marine Protected Species Issues. Acoustics Today, 11(3), 36-44. https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/where-decibels-hit​ -water-perspectives-application-science-real-world​ -underwater-noise Marine Renewable Energy Devices through underwater Acoustic Emissions: Case study of a Wave Energy Converter in Falmouth Bay, UK. Renewable Energy, 102(Part A), 205-213. doi:10.1016/j.renene.2016.10.049 https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/monitoring-condition​ -marine-renewable-energy-devices-through-underwater​ -acoustic Wenz, G. M. 1962. Acoustic Ambient Noise in the Ocean: Spectra and Sources. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 34(12), 1936-1956. doi:10.1121/1.1909155 https://​ tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/acoustic-ambient-noise​ -ocean-spectra-sources 84 OES-ENVIRONMENTAL 2020 STATE OF THE SCIENCE REPORT NOTES Risk to Marine Animals from Underwater Noise Generated by Marine Renewable Energy Devices Polagye, B. and C. Bassett. 2020. Risk to Marine Animals from Underwater Noise Generated by Marine Renewable Energy Devices. In A.E. Copping and L.G. Hemery (Eds.), OES-Environmental 2020 State of the Science Report: Environmental Effects of Marine Renewable Energy Development Around the World. Report for Ocean Energy Systems (OES). (pp. 66-85). doi:10.2172/1633082 REPORT AND MORE INFORMATION CONTACT OES-Environmental 2020 State of the Science full report and executive summary available at: https://tethys​.pnnl.gov/publications/state-of-the​-science-2020 Andrea Copping Pacific Northwest National Laboratory andrea.copping@pnnl.gov +1 206.528.3049 Go to https://tethys​.pnnl.gov for a comprehensive collection of papers, reports, archived presentations, and other media about environmental effects of marine renewable energy development. SECTION B – CURRENT KNOWLEDGE OF KEY DEVICE INTERACTIONS WITH THE MARINE ENVIRONMENT 85 86 OES-ENVIRONMENTAL 2020 STATE OF THE SCIENCE REPORT 5.0 Chapter authors: Andrew B. Gill, Marieke Desender Contributor: Levy G. Tugade Risk to Animals from Electromagnetic Fields Emitted by Electric Cables and Marine Renewable Energy Devices Interest in the potential effects of anthropogenic electromagnetic fields (EMFs) within the marine environment has increased in recent years, in part as a result of advanced knowledge gained from conducting dedicated research studies. To understand and interpret the potential environmental interactions of marine renewable energy (MRE)-related EMF emissions, it is necessary to consider the source of the EMFs and address the source within the context of the knowledge about the electro- and magneto-sensitivity of marine species. SECTION B – CURRENT KNOWLEDGE OF KEY DEVICE INTERACTIONS WITH THE MARINE ENVIRONMENT 87 5.1. IMPORTANCE OF THE ISSUE The primary source of anthropogenic EMF emis- A sions depend on the cable configurations in relation to ny anthropogenic activity that uses electrical cables in the marine environment is a primary source of EMFs. The cables emit EMFs along their entire lengths, whether transmitting high-voltage direct current (DC) or alternating current (AC). Currently, high-voltage AC (HVAC) electrical cables are used to connect all types of offshore and MRE devices both among units in an array and to marine substations; and HVAC or high-voltage DC (HVDC) can be used to export power to shore. The interactions between EMFs emitted by MRE power generation with the naturally occurring geomagnetic field (GMF) can potentially alter the behavior of marine animals that are receptive to these fields (Figure 5.1), including potentially altering avoidance or attraction behaviors. It is important to know the intensity of the emitted EMF, which depends on the type of current (DC or AC), the cable characteristics, the power transmitted, sions associated with MRE systems is the cables used to transmit the electricity produced, and their emisthe ambient environment. EMF emissions may also be associated with offshore substations receiving multiple cables and, in some cases, transforming voltages between AC and DC. Current interest is focused on EMFs generated within the cable and existing along its length, propagating perpendicular to the cable axis into the surrounding environment, and decaying with distance from the source. In DC cables, the EMF emitted is a static field, whereas in AC cables, the EMF is normally a low-frequency sinusoidal field. E-fields are contained within the cable by shielding and grounding that allow the field to dissipate quickly, but a B-field is still emitted in the outside environment. When an animal or water current causes motion through a B-field, secondary induced electric fields (iE-fields) are generated (Figure 5.1). AC current passing through a standard, the local GMF, and surrounding environmental factors three-core cable will also create iE-fields (Figure 5.1). (Figure 5.1). The EMF scales with the energy produced by In Figure 5.1, the separate E-field and B-field com- multiple and/or larger MRE devices and higher powerrated cables. The response of receptor animals fundamentally depends on the sensitivity of the animals, which is determined by the sensory systems they possess (Snyder et al. 2019). The movement and distribution of the animals also plays a role in the probability of an encounter with an EMF and may depend on the species life stage, as well as the spatial and temporal use of the environment where the EMF occurs (Figure 5.1). An EMF has two components: electric fields (E-fields) and magnetic fields (B-fields1). The Earth creates its own GMF and has E- and B-fields associated with natural phenomena (e.g., lightning), while also being permeated by EMFs from outside the Earth’s atmosphere (Gill et al. 2014). In seawater, natural E-fields are produced by the interaction between the conductivity of the water, the Earth’s rotation of the B-field, and the motion of tides/currents (Stanford 1971), which creates localized motion-induced fields. ponents of the EMFs emitted by a buried subsea cable (red) are shown, as well as the ambient geomagnetic field (black) and bioelectric fields from living organisms (orange). Figure 5.1a shows the EMF associated with a DC cable; Figure 5.1b shows the EMF associated with a standard three-phase AC subsea cable with the current following a typical sine wave back and forth through each core. For both cables the direct E-field is shielded by cable material (black outer cable), but B-fields (blue) are not shielded and propagate to the surrounding environment. An iE-field is created in the fish (yellow) as it moves through the B-field emitted by the cable. Localized iE-fields will also be induced by seawater moving through the B-field and the GMF. In addition, for the AC cable, the out-of-phase B-field emitted by each core of the cable causes a rotation in the magnetic emission, which induces an iE-field in the surrounding conductive seawater (red), that is emitted into the environment above the seabed. 1. B-field is the accepted nomenclature for the magnetic field. It is technically termed the magnetic flux density. The B-field is easily measured (in the International System of Units unit of Tesla) and takes account of the permeability of the medium. 88 OES-ENVIRONMENTAL 2020 STATE OF THE SCIENCE REPORT (a) DC (b) AC Figure 5.1. Diagrams summarizing the natural and anthropogenic electric fields (E-fields), induced electric fields (iE-fields) and magnetic fields (B-fields) encountered by an electromagnetic-sensitive fish moving across the seabed. (Adapted from Newton et al. 2019) 5.2. SUMMARY OF KNOWLEDGE THROUGH 2016 2000; Westerberg and Lagenfelt 2008) and possibly S prevented further interpretation (Gill et al. 2014). ome marine animals are capable of sensing EMFs to reaching the limit between animal attraction to and repulsion from EMFs (Huveneers et al. 2013). However, the state of the knowledge until 2016 was limited, which aid in their orientation, migration, and prey loca- While most of the field and semi-natural studies con- tion (Kirschvink 1997; Tricas and New 1998; Walker et ducted before 2016 focused on behavioral effects, none al. 1992). As of 2016, studies have focused on a diversity have shown any demonstrable significant impacts of of organisms such as elasmobranchs (sharks, skates, EMF on sensitive species (e.g., Gill et al. 2014). How- and rays), agnatha (lampreys), crustacea (lobsters and ever, a controlled laboratory experiment showed some prawns), mollusks (bivalves, snails, and cephalopods), adverse effects of prolonged exposure to high-intensity cetaceans (whales and dolphins), bony fish (teleosts EMFs (in the millitesla [mT] range) on the physiol- and chondrosteans), and sea turtles (Copping et al. ogy, development, and growth of several species of 2016). Anthropogenic EMFs may interfere with the demersal fish and crustaceans (Woodruff et al. 2012). It ambient EMF, and anomalies in the behavioral patterns is important to note that, to date, EMF levels similar to of animals have been observed (Gill et al. 2014). Some these experimental conditions have not been observed studies have shown that sensitive animals may respond around deployed MRE devices. These effects would be to anthropogenic B-fields at or below the geomagnetic more likely observed for sessile species that stay near intensity or ambient conditions (in the range of 30 to undersea cables than motile species, but knowledge of 60 microtesla [μT] approximately). However, EMFs are the effects of EMF on these sessile species had not been currently considered unlikely to generate any ecologi- established by 2016. cally significant impacts on receptive species at these low field intensities (Gill et al. 2014). B-field patterns produced by different cable configurations can be detected and mapped using magnetom- The strength of anthropogenic E-fields associated eters (Normandeau et al. 2011), but it is more difficult with MRE-type cables, that have been measured, are in to measure E-field emissions. As of 2016, only a few the 1 to 100 µV/cm range, which is similar to the bio- groups had developed or were developing the instru- electric fields emitted by prey species; such E-fields mentation to detect E-fields at the low-intensity levels act as attractants for electroreceptive ocean predators expected to occur around MRE devices (e.g., Oregon (Kalmijn 1982; Peters et al. 2007; Tricas and New 1998). State University, Swedish Defense Research Agency). Cables associated with larger MRE arrays will produce Mathematical modeling has been used to complement greater B- and E-fields, potentially interfering with field and laboratory measurements, because it is more migratory movements due to a perceived barrier effect cost-effective for predicting conditions over larger (Tesch and Lalek 1973; Westerberg and Begout-Anras areas than measurements recorded under difficult field SECTION B – CURRENT KNOWLEDGE OF KEY DEVICE INTERACTIONS WITH THE MARINE ENVIRONMENT 89 conditions. However, the measurement data needed to ent update focuses on whether an effect or response validate EMF models are lacking. recorded in a study can be considered an impact. Based on the knowledge acquired up to 2016, there was In the four years since the publication of the 2016 State insufficient reason to consider establishing definitive of the Science report, interest in the topic of EMFs has mitigation efforts. However, if mitigation was deemed grown, and some notable research projects have pro- necessary, technical design standards could be pro- vided an improved understanding of the interactions posed, such as the use of helically twisted three-con- between EMFs and aquatic life, with a focus on fish and ductor cables to reduce EMF emissions (Petterson and invertebrate receptor species. The research has either Schönborg 1997). Burial of cables is not an effective mit- involved laboratory-based controlled studies of B- or igation measure for EMFs because the cables emit EMFs E-fields or field-based experiments or surveys of EMF- into the environment directly as B-fields and create iE- emitting subsea cables. Within the academic literature, fields in the seawater and, therefore, have the potential some key reviews have been published, specifically to affect sea life. Cable burial does, however, separate about magnetoreception in fish (Formicki et al. 2019), most demersal and benthic animals from the maximum electroreception in marine fish (Newton et al. 2019), EMF emissions at the cable surface, owing to the physi- the perception of anthropogenic electric and magnetic cal distance between the seabed surface and the cable. emissions by marine animals (Nyqvist et al. 2020), and To fill significant knowledge gaps about EMFs, the 2016 State of the Science report (Copping et al. 2016) recommended further efforts toward characterizing EMFs in AC vs. DC transmission sys- ◆ tems, in single vs. multiple cables configurations, and in the electrical topology of various MRE devices measuring actual EMF levels linked to the location ◆ and depth of devices, as well as the spatial and temporal variability of EMFs to which animals would potentially be subjected carrying out dose-response studies to establish spe- ◆ cies-specific ranges of detections, and thresholds for and types of responses ◆ ◆ the environmental impacts of subsea cables (Taormina et al. 2018). These reviews demonstrate that when considering the potential response of an organism to EMFs, the topic should be divided into two categories: organisms that have the sensory capability to detect and respond to B-fields, and organisms that have the sensory capability to detect and respond to E-fields (although recent evidence suggests that some organisms may be able to detect both types of fields directly) (see Newton et al. 2019). The primary consideration for EMFs emitted by subsea cables is the B-field, which should be considered in relation to the ambient GMF and the iE-fields that occur. For organisms that detect E-fields, direct E-fields developing modeling tools that combine EMF models will only occur in the environment if a cable (AC or DC) and dose-response studies with ecological models is not properly grounded or if the design of the electri- implementing long-term research and monitoring cal system leads to electrical leaks; however, iE-fields to assess cumulative impacts, especially impacts on will be associated with the B-field. Therefore, while vulnerable life-history stages. understanding both elements of EMFs is important, the B-field is regarded as the primary focus for understand- 5.3. KNOWLEDGE GENERATED SINCE 2016 I n the 2016 State of the Science report (Copping et al. 2016), the importance of differentiating the poten- tial environmental effects of EMFs when assessing the interactions between MRE devices and receptors was highlighted (e.g., by Boehlert and Gill 2010). The pres- 90 ing organism response to MRE EMFs. The predominant taxonomic groups discussed in the 2016 State of the Science report were fish and invertebrates. The current review of recent literature includes consideration of new knowledge about the responses of electro- and magnetoreceptive organisms to changes in the magnetic and/or electric environment. An overview of knowledge generated since 2016 and a set of recommendations are covered in the remainder of this chapter. OES-ENVIRONMENTAL 2020 STATE OF THE SCIENCE REPORT 5.3.1. RESPONSES TO EMF – FISH (ADULT) structures may reside within the naso-olfactory cap- Field Studies of EMFs permanent magnets, used in shark-repellent studies, Studies of magnetosensitive species migration have continued to be a focus of field investigations. The migration success of Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) in San Francisco Bay, California (United States [U.S.]) was found to be largely unchanged after installation of a 200 kV HVDC subsea cable (Wyman et al. 2018). However, the proportion of salmon crossing the cable location was larger than the proportion not sules of sandbar sharks (Anderson et al. 2017). Strong have been shown to induce avoidance behaviors in a number of elasmobranch species (Richards et al. 2018; Siegenthaler et al. 2016). However, it is unclear whether the avoidance effects were a result of the fish responding directly to magnetic stimuli or to iE-fields. Newton (2017) showed that the yellow stingray uses GMF polarity to solve spatial tasks and detect changes in GMF strength and inclination angle. These two magnetic cues crossing it. Furthermore, fish were more likely to be may be used for orientation and to derive a location. detected on one side of their normal migration route. Electric Fields Fish migration paths moved closer to the cable at some locations, but farther away at others, which was attributed to other higher-intensity B-field sources, such as metal bridges. Together with other environmental factors, transit times through some parts of the bay were slightly reduced (Wyman et al. 2018). The results of a field experiment conducted in Long Island Sound, Connecticut (U.S.) showed that little skates (Leucoraja erinacea) crossed over a 300 kV HVDC transmission cable. However, the skates showed a strong distributional response associated with the higher EMF zone, moved significantly greater distances The anatomy, physiology, and behavior of electroreceptive species have been the subjects of a number of studies over the past few decades. Most studies since 2016 have focused on determining whether electroreceptive species detect B-fields directly or indirectly by induction (see above). Bellono et al. (2018) indicated that the electroreceptive sensitivity of some species of benthic shark appears to be adapted to a narrow range of electrical stimuli, such as those emitted by prey, whereas in some species of skate the EMF receptors are more broadly tuned, which may enable them to detect both prey stimuli and the electric organ discharges of other along the cable route, and displayed increased turning individuals. activity (Hutchison et al. 2018). A number of fish can be affected adversely by high- Magnetic Fields intensity E-fields, such as those used in electric fish- A number of species have the ability to detect and respond to B-fields, likely via a magnetite-based sensory process (Diebel et al. 2000; Kirschvink and Gould 1981; Kirschvink and Walker 1985), but other hypoth- ing (de Haan et al. 2016), but these E-fields are several orders of magnitude greater (30 to 100 V/m approximately 20 cm from electrodes) than those associated with subsea cables (Table 5.1) and are not regarded as eses remain to be demonstrated (Binhi and Prato 2017). relevant to MRE EMFs. Research on elasmobranch response to EMFs in the approaches an EMF, it experiences an iE- field, which 5.3.2. RESPONSE TO EMF – FISH (EMBRYONIC AND LARVAL) stimulates its electroreceptive sensory apparatus. This The strongest effects of EMFs on an individual organ- hypothesized mechanism of indirect magnetic stimulus ism will most likely occur during either the embryonic detection has been offered as a plausible explanation or larval stages of species settling on the bottom, par- of the responses of yellow stingray (Urobatus jamai- ticularly for those species that have a long incubation censis), which learned to associate magnetic anomalies period (see Nyqvist et al. 2020 and references therein). with food rewards up to six months after first exposure Most early life-history studies have been conducted (Newton and Kajiura 2017). Other recent studies sug- on freshwater fish species and have focused on the gest that elasmobranchs can detect magnetic fields B-field. The application of B-field studies will not differ directly rather than via induction of E-fields (Anderson between fresh and ocean water, but for E-fields, direct et al. 2017). To date, elasmobranchs have no known or iE-fields only propagate in seawater because of the direct B-field receptors, but putative magnetoreceptive conductivity of the medium. environment has considered that when an individual SECTION B – CURRENT KNOWLEDGE OF KEY DEVICE INTERACTIONS WITH THE MARINE ENVIRONMENT 91 In a study of rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss), No studies concerning E-fields in the predictive range demersal eggs and larvae were exposed under experi- associated with MRE devices have been conducted to mental conditions to static B-fields (10 mT, DC) and date, largely because the industry is still emerging and a low-frequency EMF (1 mT, AC) for 36 days (Fey et power generation levels are relatively low and isolated, al. 2019a). No effect on embryonic or larval mortal- and EMF studies have seldom been required in the ity, hatching time, larval growth, or swim-up from marine environment for established industries. the bottom was found. However, both low-frequency and static exposures enhanced the yolk-sac absorption rate. Larvae with absorbed yolk-sacs were less efficient at first feeding, resulting in smaller weights at age. A smaller yolk sac and faster absorption rate were also observed in exposed (static magnetic, 10 mT, DC) freshwater Northern pike (Esox lucius) (Fey et al. 2019b). In addition, hatching was one day earlier, but no differences in hatching success and larval mortality or size of larvae were noted. The appearance of embryonic mela- 5.3.3. RESPONSE TO EMF – INVERTEBRATES Relatively little is known about the effects of EMFs on marine benthic invertebrates, but some decapod crustaceans are known to be magnetosensitive. Research since 2016 concerning invertebrates generally supports previous studies that demonstrated no or minor effects of encounters with EMFs, but some findings are equivocal (Albert et al. 2020). nophores, a key developmental marker, in common Field Studies whitefish (Coregonus lavaretus) and vendace (Coregonus During a field experiment in southern California and the albula) was delayed, while increased static field inten- Puget Sound, Washington State (U.S.), no evidence was sities caused a concentration of melanin in their cells found that the catchability of two commercially impor- (Brysiewicz et al. 2017). A low-intensity (hypo)mag- tant crab species (Metacarcinus magister and Cancer netic field (i.e., weaker than the GMF) has been found to productus) was influenced by their having to traverse an cause a decrease in the activity of intestinal enzymes, energized low-frequency submarine AC power cable (35 proteinases, and glycosidases in crucian carp (Carasius kV and 69 kV, respectively) to enter a baited trap (Love carasius) (Kuz'mina et al. 2015). Furthermore, the activ- et al. 2017a). Greater turning activity and altered distri- ity of intracellular calcium (Ca )-dependent protein- bution of American lobster (Homarus americanus) in the ase (calpains) decreased, and this could have potential presence of static HVDC EMFs (Cross Sound Cable: 300 consequences for calcium signaling pathways leading to kV; Table 5.1) were highlighted recently in a field study changes in the morphology and activity of cell organ- using large enclosures above a domestic electrical power elles. These calpains were also inactivated in crucian cable in Long Island Sound, Connecticut (U.S.) (Hutchi- carp, roach (Rutilus rutilus), and common carp (Cyprinus son et al. 2018, 2020). carpio) (Kantserova et al. 2017). A newer study investi- Magnetic Fields 2+ gating the genotoxicity and cytotoxicity responses during the early development of rainbow trout exposed to a low-frequency (50 Hz 1 mT) EMF for 40 days, showed nuclear abnormalities and alterations in the number of cell nuclei (Stankevičiūtė et al. 2019). In a laboratory study, Scott et al. (2018) observed a clear attraction of European edible crabs (Cancer pagurus) to shelters that had a relatively high B-field (2.8 mT, compared to nT- or µT-level EMFs measured in the field) associated with them, and the crabs spent less time Even though these studies were conducted under con- roaming. The daily behavioral and physiological rhyth- trolled laboratory conditions, they highlight how expo- mic processes (i.e., circadian rhythm) of the haemo- sure to B-fields in the millitesla range have implications lymph L-Lactate and D-Glucose levels were disrupted. for developmental, genetic, and physiological outcomes However, the EMF (2.8 mT and 40 mT) had no effect for early life stages. The laboratory-induced B-field on stress-related parameters, such as haemocyanin intensities are high compared to microtesla or nan- concentrations, respiration rate, activity level, or the otesla fields measured around subsea cables (Table 5.1). antennular flicking rate. However, with increased cable power transmission and subsequent B-field strength, the effects on the development of early life stages may become a consideration in the future. 92 An experimental study by Taormina et al. (2020) exposed juvenile European lobsters (Homarus gammarus) to a DC or AC B-field (maximum up to 200 μT) and OES-ENVIRONMENTAL 2020 STATE OF THE SCIENCE REPORT found no statistically significant effect on their explor- Although these fields have been shown to cause neuro- atory and sheltering behaviors. They suggested that a muscular disruption, they are several orders of magni- behavioral response to B-fields, up to 200 μT, does not tude greater than those associated with subsea cables appear to be a factor influencing the European lobster’s and so are not considered further in this report. juvenile life stage, although there was a confounding influence of light affecting their sheltering behavior. The authors commented that higher magnetic values (which could be encountered while seeking shelter close to a cable) may need to be considered when studying the potential B-field effects on the behavior of this species. 5.3.4. RESPONSE TO THE PRESENCE OF SUBSEA CABLES – FAUNAL COMMUNITIES To assess the effects on the community of species inhabiting the environment on or adjacent to subsea cables, a small number of studies have conducted field A laboratory study assessing the effects of environmen- surveys along cable routes. tally realistic, low-frequency B-field (1 mT) exposure Love et al. (2017b) used submersible surveys of ener- on the behavior and physiology of the common ragworm (Hediste diversicolor) did not find any evidence of avoidance or attraction behaviors (Jakubowska et al. 2019). The polychaetes did, however, exhibit enhanced burrowing activity when exposed to the B-field. In addition, food consumption and respiration rates were not affected, but ammonia excretion was reduced in exposed animals, with plausible consequences for their metabolism; however, knowledge about the biological relevance of this response is currently absent (Jakubowska et al. 2019). gized cables (35 kV) to compare the invertebrate colonizing community and the fish assemblages present in southern California (U.S.). Magnetic fields of energized cables reached background levels within 1 m and no statistical differences in the faunal communities were found. Factors such as substrate or depth were more relevant than proximity to the cable in explaining the variation of fish community and density in association with a 245 kV HVAC transmission cable in Lake Ontario, Ontario (Canada) (Dunlop et al. 2016). Dunham et al. (2015) found that the abundance of decapods (princi- Stankevičiūtė et al. (2019) investigated potential genetic pally the prawn and shrimp species) associated with the damage (i.e., genotoxicity) and damage or destruction glass sponge reefs colonizing three 230 kV HVAC cables of cells (i.e., cytotoxicity) in the common ragworm and off Vancouver Island, British Columbia (Canada) differed Baltic clam (Limecola balthica) after a relatively long- from their abundance at control survey sites; they were term (12 days) exposure to a 50 Hz 1 mT EMF. The expo- less abundant around the cables. Diver and remotely sure affected both species, but the strongest response operated vehicle surveys across Bass Strait in Tasmania was elicited in the Baltic clam, for which six out of the (Australia) found a third of a cable route visually unde- eight measured parameters were significantly elevated tectable within two years; after three and a-half years, in the gill cells. No cytotoxic effect was induced in com- the colonizing benthic species were similar to the nearby mon ragworm immune system cells, but the develop- hard-bottom species (Sherwood et al. 2016). ment of micronuclei and nuclear buds on filaments These studies collectively suggest that benthic commu- demonstrated a potential effect on the integrity of genetic material that may cause diseases. Electric Fields Relative to species navigation and prey detection, a limited number of previous studies indicated that some freshwater invertebrate species may be able to detect low-intensity E-fields comparable to those induced by subsea cables (Patullo and MacMillan 2010). However, no similar studies of marine invertebrate response to nities growing along cables routes are generally similar to those in nearby areas, although some locations perhaps show a difference in the abundance of a few species. However, it is important to note that any observed changes could be the result of the physical presence of the cable or other features in the environment, rather than an EMF effect (see Chapter 6, Changes in Benthic and Pelagic Habitats Caused by Marine Renewable Energy Devices). E-fields are found in the literature for the period from 2016 to 2019. Invertebrates have been shown to respond to high-intensity fields such as those used in electric fishing at sea (Polet et al. 2005; Soetaert et al. 2014). SECTION B – CURRENT KNOWLEDGE OF KEY DEVICE INTERACTIONS WITH THE MARINE ENVIRONMENT 93 5.4. GUIDANCE ON MEASURING EMF FROM MRE DEVICES AND CABLES vehicle equipped with a commercial magnetometer and A cables on the east coast of Florida (U.S.). The values dvancing our knowledge of the characteristics of EMFs emitted by cables or MRE devices is essential for understanding the possible consequences of exposure of the aquatic environment and for developing accurate predictive models of EMFs. Since the MaRVEN (Marine Renewable Energy, Vibration, Electromagnetic fields and Noise) project deployed the SEMLA (Swedish Electromagnetic Low-Noise Apparatus) device to measure in situ E-fields and B-fields emitted by subsea MRE cables (Thomsen et al. 2015), a few studies have continued to focus on quantifying the extent of anthropogenic EMFs using field measurements and modeling (Table 5.1). Field strengths and the depth and angle of buried HVDC power cables are parameters that determine the extent of the EMF above the seabed and can be modeled, but these models need to be validated in the field. Dhanak et al. (2016) used an autonomous underwater custom-built, three-axis E-field sensor that simultaneously measured E-fields and B-fields by following a lawnmower-type survey path above AC and DC power of the emitted fields were within the expected EMF intensity of these cables. The modeled B-fields for the Trans Bay Cable in San Francisco, California (U.S.) were very similar to field measurements and consistent with expectations (Kavet et al. 2016), as was the case for measurements of the B-field emitted by the Basslink HVDC across Bass Strait in Tasmania (Australia) (Sherwood et al. 2016). Nonetheless, the emissions from other B-field sources, such as metal bridge structures or geological deposits, might be up to a hundred times greater than the B-field emission from the cable and might distort the B-field, making it impossible to model and discern B-fields emitted by and measured around the cable in some locations (Kavet et al. 2016). Hence, in some cases the actual EMF emitted into the environment will not match the modeled outputs. Table 5.1. Measurements from high-voltage alternative current (AC) and direct current (DC) subsea cables since 2016. The distances above the seafloor were extracted from studies when provided. The electromagnetic field (EMF) extent refers to the distance that EMF is measurable in relation to the ambient fields perpendicular to the cable axis. Cable Current Location Magnetic field (B-field) Electric field (E-field) Extent EMF Reference 2 - 2.4 amps DC South Florida Max: 150 µT Max: 60 µV/m 10s m Dhanak et al. (U.S.) Mean: 30 nT (estimated) (2016) 0.98 - 1.59 AC 2.2 m above 4 m above cable AC > DC amps, 60 Hz seafloor Trans Bay Cable DC (200 kV, 400 MW, 85 km) San Francisco Bay, California (U.S.) 1.15 - 1.2 µT 3 m above seafloor n/a <40 m Basslink DC (500 kV, 237 MW, 290 km) Bass Strait, Tasmania 58.3 µT 5.8 µV/m 15 - 20 m (Australia) Kavet et al. (2016) Sherwood et al. (2016) Cross Sound DC Connecticut (U.S.) (300 kV, 330 MW, 40 km) DC: AC: 0.4 - 18.7 µT max: 0.7 mV/m AC: max 0.15 µT AC-DC B-fields: 5 - 10 m Hutchison et al. (2018) Neptune DC New Jersey (U.S.) (500 kV, 660 MW, 105 km) DC: DC: 1.3 - 20.7 µT 0.4 mV/m AC: max 0.04 µT AC: max: E-fields up to 100 m Hutchison et al. (2018) AC: B-field up to 10 m AC: E-field up to 50 m (estimated) Hutchison et al. (2018) Sea2shore AC Rhode Island (U.S.) 0.05 - 0.3 µT 1-25 µV/m (502 amps, 30 MW, 32 km) 94 OES-ENVIRONMENTAL 2020 STATE OF THE SCIENCE REPORT Hutchison et al. (2018, 2020) discovered AC fields asso- al. 2018). Furthermore, knowledge about how sensitive ciated with two HVDC power cables (Cross Sound and species will respond and adapt to an aquatic environ- Neptune Cables, Table 5.1) that extended tens of meters ment that is being increasingly altered by anthropo- farther than the DC fields. This unexpected finding is genic E- and B-fields, not just from MRE but other most likely explained by harmonic currents created human activities, is lacking (Newton et al. 2019). during AC-DC conversion at the converter station on each end of the cables. In the same study, an AC cable at a small wind farm emitted B-fields that were ten times lower than those modeled, suggesting self-cancellation inside the three-conductor cable owing to the twisted design of the cable. In general, the research concerning EMF effects requires an understanding of both the EMF environment in which the sensitive organisms will encounter EMFs and the context of their responses. With a growing number of cables being deployed, and increases in the power being transmitted, the extent of EMFs emitted into the Remote-sensing satellites have the potential to become environment will increase with additional MRE deploy- a new tool for studying EMFs in the ocean. The Euro- ments and associated cables. Therefore, the likelihood of pean Space Agency (ESA) launched satellites in 2013 (as animals encountering EMFs in the aquatic environment part of the SWARM mission) to study various aspects of will increase, as will the intensities experienced. the Earth's B-field. One of the goals of SWARM was to study ocean circulation based on its EMF signature. In 2018, electric currents generated in the world’s oceans due to seawater movement through the Earth’s B-field were detected by the ESA satellites. These large-scale datasets will provide further context for the electromagnetic environment relevant to marine life. MRE installations currently are of relatively small scale and they are not the only sources of EMFs in the environment. Questions about the environmental effects of EMFs remaining to date can be addressed and management decisions can be supported by considering some key elements (Figure 5.2). To date, although some of the study results suggest 5.5. RESEARCH AND MONITORING NEEDS TO RESOLVE THE ISSUE T he 2016 State of the Science report highlighted effects of EMFs on certain species (see Section 5.4), the lack of specific information has led to the general conclusion that EMFs associated with subsea cables are not harmful and do not pose a risk to biota. This would appear to be an appropriate conclusion for MRE devices and cables because their EMF signatures are significant gaps in the current knowledge of the low. However, the lack of evidence does not neces- impacts of EMF from MRE on receptive species. In the sarily equate to a lack of impacts. Future increases in intervening years, the conduct of more specific research EMFs in the marine environment, due to the develop- has increased the knowledge base, allowing for fur- ment of MRE arrays, may increase the potential risk to ther consideration of whether the interaction between sensitive receptors and require additional investigation receptive species and EMFs has any biological signifi- to enhance our knowledge and understanding of the cance that could translate to ecological impacts. New emerging spectrum of effects. research has shown evident effects and responses of individual species at behavioral, physiological, developmental, and genetic levels. However, based on the evidence to date, the ecological impacts associated with MRE subsea power cables may be weak or moderate at the scale that is currently considered or planned. Nonetheless, it is important to recognize that this assessment comes from studies of a small number of cables, and several researchers have acknowledged that data about impacts are scarce and many uncertainties concerning electromagnetic effects remain (Taormina et If studies provide evidence that a given receptor organism responds to EMFs, then the next step toward the determination of any impact would be to investigate the likelihood of a receptor to encounter the EMF emission extent (Figure 5.2). For non-mobile receptors, the emission-response relationship will depend on the duration of the exposure, the intensity and frequency of the EMF, and the threshold levels at which a response will occur. Knowledge about thresholds is currently very poor and, therefore, requires more specific attention. SECTION B – CURRENT KNOWLEDGE OF KEY DEVICE INTERACTIONS WITH THE MARINE ENVIRONMENT 95 For mobile species, the most likely response is expected ◆ The sources and intensity of EMFs emitted by subsea to be attraction to the EMF or avoidance of higher-level cables are directly determined by the cable charac- EMFs. However, physiological effects could occur within teristics and the power being transmitted. Quantify- the receptor animal. With multiple cables (or sources ing these parameters in the aquatic environment is of EMFs), the likelihood of encounter will be greater crucial for characterizing emissions and for accurate (Figure 5.2); hence, cumulative effects of an encoun- modeling. Deployment of small-scale devices is ter with EMFs are plausible. To date, studies have been required to gather data to quantify the EMFs related conducted in controlled settings (either in laboratories to power transmission. or field-deployed enclosures) or have involved visual observations around single cables. No EMF receptor interaction studies have been conducted in relation to multiple subsea cables, even around existing offshore wind farms, so there is no evidence to enable cumulative effects assessments to be undertaken, and no other data about this topic exist from other industries. ◆ Cables and MRE devices are part of a whole power system of electrical generation and transmission infrastructure. Each of the different parts will have a role in the variability of the EMFs emitted. Understanding the whole power system and how its different parts influence EMF variability is important for determining the EMF environment encountered Additional research is needed to determine the specific environmental impacts of EMFs on the aquatic life highlighted in Figure 5.2. This knowledge will be required because the more extensive EMFs associated with future by receptor species. In addition, evidence that wide AC fields are associated with DC cables (Hutchison et al. 2018) makes the interpretation of the biological effects of EMFs from DC cables more complex. MRE and subsea cable deployments will require a greater degree of confidence than currently exists. The targeted priorities for future research include the following: • Electric and/or magnetic Define EMF • Type AC/DC • Ambient context Potential receptors of emitted EMF Marine or aquatic mammals and turtles M o ve m e n t Community of organisms – large-scale a n d Altered migration – large-scale d i st r i b u t io n Movement pattern – medium-scale Potential receptors of emitted EMF Marine or aquatic invertebrates Potential receptors of emitted EMF Fish (teleosts and elasmobranchs) Avoidance or attraction – small-scale L if e Early life stage development Hist orie s Physiological or biochemical change (e.g., energetic) Prey or predator detection Genetic or genotoxic aspects Likelihood of encounter with EMF = Number of cables + emission extent Population level change – manifested through health, survival, and/or reproductive success of target species Figure 5.2. The key elements that need to be considered when assessing the environmental impact of electromagnetic fields (EMFs) on sensitive receptors. If a population-level change is demonstrated, there is the potential for cumulative or cascading effects at the ecological community level. (Graphic by Robyn Ricks) 96 OES-ENVIRONMENTAL 2020 STATE OF THE SCIENCE REPORT ◆ Field measurements of EMF intensity and its vari- dose-response scenarios and applying population- ability within the environment are required to better based approaches (e.g., ecological modeling). predict the actual EMF emitted. To date, some elec- ◆ tromagnetic models predict EMFs similar to those of species (like pelagic sharks, marine mammals or the small number of cables actually measured; how- fishes) and dynamic cables (i.e., cables in the water ever, where cables are not perfectly grounded or have column). These gaps remain in part because of leakage currents, further EMFs can also propagate, difficulties in evaluating impacts at population scales and models are not set up to predict these situations. around these deployments (Taormina et al. 2018). These other EMFs may be relevant to the response Field-tagging studies can be used to improve the of sensitive receptors and may require ambient measurements of EMFs at MRE development sites. Measuring the environmental EMF requires equip- knowledge base. ◆ on egg development, hatching success, and larval fit- to simultaneously measure the E- and B-fields. To ness. Furthermore, because cables may be protected date, only a handful of devices have been built to and stabilized with rock armor or artificial structures, achieve these measurements, which are vital for the potential role of any habitat/refuge associated validating EMF models. Therefore, affordable meth- with subsea cables needs to be considered. Because ods and equipment for measuring EMFs should be some of these artificial structures are now being developed so that measurements taken with these designed to attract species of interest (e.g., commer- instruments at MRE project sites can be compared to cial species), an important question has arisen about the power output of the devices. determining whether their role as suitable habi- Understanding the relationship between EMFs and tat may be counteracted by potentially “negative” sensitive receptor species requires dose-response studies. If the effects are determined to be significant and negative, then appropriate mitigation measures impacts of EMFs emitted by the electrical cable. ◆ of the species population is required (Figure 5.2). sufficient evidence, additional studies of the most Impacts can only be determined through replicated sensitive life stages of receptor animals to exposure studies that show consistent evidence of a response. to different EMFs (sources, intensities) are required ◆ collection and sharing of EMF characteristics should mollusks, and sea turtles. be encouraged and facilitated. If local conditions are Laboratory studies of species response to EMFs at also taken into consideration, their consideration different intensities and durations will be required to will assist with assessments of similar cables in dif- determine the thresholds for species-specific and life ferent environments. stage-specific dose responses. The threshold indicators could be developmental, physiological, genetic, and/or behavioral. ◆ Field studies using modern tagging and tracking systems will provide insight into behavioral and, in some cases, physiological evidence for determining the potential effects on mobile receptors of encountering multiple cables. These types of studies may be required when considering the installation of cable networks and large arrays of MRE devices. The findings should be collected with regard to their use in modeling the exposure likelihood for determining Because EMFs are associated with any subsea transmission cable, regardless of the MRE device, the juvenile life stages of elasmobranchs, crustacea, ◆ To determine whether an effect is negative, demonstration of the effect at the biologically relevant unit may need to be developed. Given the current lack of and should be focused on the early embryonic and Long-term and in situ studies are needed to address the question of the effects of chronic EMF exposure ment that has the necessary sensitivity and accuracy ◆ Data gaps exist between the interaction of pelagic ◆ To date, there are no environmental standards or guidelines for subsea cable deployment or the measurement of EMFs. Synthesizing current knowledge requires a number of assumptions and, because the nature of the knowledge is patchy, there are no apparent significant environmental impacts that require regulation. This interpretation and the associated assumptions will likely need to be reviewed in the future as the knowledge and understanding of subsea conditions expands, particularly when considering the planned larger power-rated cables, greater networks of MREs, and the subsea infrastructure. SECTION B – CURRENT KNOWLEDGE OF KEY DEVICE INTERACTIONS WITH THE MARINE ENVIRONMENT 97 5.6. CONCLUSION S 5.7. REFERENCES ince the publication of the 2016 State of the Science Albert, L., Deschamps, F., Jolivet, A., Olivier, F., report, which highlighted significant gaps in the Chauvaud, L., and Chauvaud, S. 2020. A cur- knowledge of the impacts of EMFs from MRE on recep- rent synthesis on the effects of electric and mag- tive species, more targeted research has increased the netic fields emitted by submarine power cables on knowledge base. This has increased our understanding invertebrates. Marine Environmental Research, 159, of whether the interactions between receptive species 104958. doi:10.1016/j.marenvres​.2020.104958 https:// and EMFs have any biological significance that could tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/current​-synthesis-effects- translate into ecological impacts. New research, both electric-magnetic-fields-emitted​-submarine-power- field and laboratory studies, has shown measurable cables effects and responses to E- and/or B-fields on a small number of individual species (behavioral, physiological, developmental and genetic levels), but not at the EMF intensities associated with MRE. However, an effect or response to MRE EMFs does not necessarily mean there are impacts. Currently, conclusive evidence is insufficient and additional knowledge about receptor species Anderson, J. M., Clegg, T. M., Véras, L. V. M. V. Q., and Holland, K. N. 2017. Insight into shark magnetic field perception from empirical observations. Scientific Reports, 7(1), 11042. doi:10.1038/s41598-017-11459​ -8 https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/insight-shark​ -magnetic-field-perception-empirical-observations (at different life stages), exposure to different EMFs Bellono, N.W., Leitch, D., and Julius, D. 2018. Molecu- (sources, intensities), and the determination of the EMF lar tuning of electroreception in sharks and skates. environment is needed. Based on the knowledge to date, Nature, 558, 122-126. doi:10.1038/s41586-018-0160-9 biological or ecological impacts associated with MRE https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/molecular-tuning​ subsea power cables may be weak or moderate at the -electroreception-sharks-skates scale that is currently being considered or planned. It is important, however, to acknowledge that this assessment comes from a handful of studies and that data about impacts are scarce, so significant uncertainties concerning electromagnetic effects remain. Because EMFs are associated with any subsea transmission cable, the collection and sharing of EMF characteristics should be encouraged and facilitated, for example, by making these practices a condition of permissions being granted for MRE deployments. Taking local conditions into consideration will help with future assessments of similar cables in different environments to assist the MRE industry. Binhi, V. N., and Prato, F. S. 2017. Biological effects of the hypomagnetic field: An analytical review of experiments and theories. PLoS ONE, 12(6), e0179340. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0179340 https://tethys.pnnl.gov​ /publications/biological-effects-hypomagnetic-field​ -analytical-review-experiments-theories Boehlert, G., and Gill, A. 2010. Environmental and Ecological Effects of Ocean Renewable Energy Development: A Current Synthesis. Oceanography, 23(2), 68-81. https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/environmental​ -ecological-effects-ocean-renewable-energy​ -development-current-synthesis Brysiewicz, A., Formicki, K., Tański, A., and Wesołowski, P. 2017. Magnetic field effect on melanophores of the European whitefish Coregonus lavaretus (Linnaeus, 1758) and vendace Coregonus albula (Linnaeus, 1758) (Salmonidae) during early embryogenesis. The European Zoological Journal, 84(1), 49-60. doi:10.1080/11250003.2016​ .1272644 https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/magnetic​ -field-effect-melanophores-european-whitefish​ -coregonus-lavaretus-linnaeus 98 OES-ENVIRONMENTAL 2020 STATE OF THE SCIENCE REPORT Copping, A., Sather, N., Hanna, L., Whiting, J., Zydlewski, Fey, D. P., Jakubowska, M., Greszkiewicz, M., Andrule- G., Staines, G., Gill, A., Hutchison, I., O’Hagan, A., Simas, wicz, E., Otremba, Z., and Urban-Malinga, B. 2019a. Are T., Bald, J., Sparling, C., Wood, J., and Masden, E. 2016. magnetic and electromagnetic fields of anthropogenic Annex IV 2016 State of the Science Report: Environmental origin potential threats to early life stages of fish? Effects of Marine Renewable Energy Development Aquatic Toxicology, 209, 150-158. doi:10.1016/j.aquatox​ Around the World. Report by Pacific Northwest National .2019.01.023 https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/are​ Laboratory for Ocean Energy Systems. https:// -magnetic-electromagnetic-fields-anthropogenic-origin​ tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/state-of-the​-science-2016 -potential-threats-early-life de Haan, D., Fosseidengen, J. E., Fjelldal, P. G., Burg- Fey, D. P., Greszkiewicz, M., Otremba, Z., and graaf, D., and Rijnsdorp, A. D. 2016. Pulse trawl fishing: Andrulewicz, E. 2019b. Effect of static magnetic field characteristics of the electrical stimulation and the on the hatching success, growth, mortality, and effect on behaviour and injuries of Atlantic cod (Gadus yolk-sac absorption of larval Northern pike Esox morhua). ICES Journal of Marine Science, 73(6), 1557- lucius. Science of the Total Environment, 647, 1239- 1569. doi:10.1093/icesjms/fsw018 https://tethys.pnnl​ 1244. doi:10.1016​/j.scitotenv.2018.07.427 https:// .gov/publications/pulse-trawl-fishing-characteristics​ tethys.pnnl.gov/publications​/effect-static-magnetic-field- -electrical-stimulation-effect-behaviour-injuries hatching-success-growth​-mortality-yolk-sac-absorption Dhanak, M., Coulson, R., Dibiasio, C., Frankenfield, J., Formicki, K., Korzelecka-Orkisz, A., and Tański, A. Henderson, E., Pugsley, D., and Valdes, G. 2016. Assess- 2019. Magnetoreception in fish. Journal of Fish Biology, ment of Electromagnetic Field Emissions from Subsea 95(1), 73-91. doi:10.1111/jfb.13998 https://tethys.pnnl.gov​ Cables. Paper presented at the 4th Marine Energy Tech- /publications/magnetoreception-fish nology Symposium, Washington, D.C. https://tethys​ .pnnl.gov/publications/assessment-electromagnetic-field​ -emissions-subsea-cables Gill, A. B., Gloyne-Philips, I., Kimber, J., and Sigray, P. 2014. Marine Renewable Energy, Electromagnetic (EM) Fields and EM-Sensitive Animals. In M. A. Shields and Diebel, C. E., Proksch, R., Green, C. R., Neilson, P., and A. I. L. Payne (Eds.), Marine Renewable Energy Technology Walker, M. M. 2000. Magnetite defines a vertebrate and Environmental Interactions (pp. 61-79). Dordrecht: magnetoreceptor. Nature, 406(6793), 299-302. doi:10​ Springer Netherlands. https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications​ .1038/35018561 https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications​ /marine-renewable-energy-electromagnetic-em-fields​ /magnetite-defines-vertebrate-magnetoreceptor -em-sensitive-animals Dunham, A., Pegg, J. R., Carolsfeld, W., Davies, S., Hutchison, Z., Sigray, P., He, H., Gill, A., King, J., and Murfitt, I., and Boutillier, J. 2015. Effects of submarine Gibson, C. 2018. Electromagnetic Field (EMF) Impacts power transmission cables on a glass sponge reef and on Elasmobranch (shark, rays, and skates) and Ameri- associated megafaunal community. Marine Environ- can Lobster Movement and Migration from Direct Cur- mental Research, 107, 50-60. doi:10.1016/j.marenvres​ rent Cables (OCS Study BOEM 2018-003). Report by .2015.04.003 https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/effects​ University of Rhode Island for Bureau of Ocean Energy -submarine-power-transmission-cables-glass-sponge​ Management, U.S. Department of Interior, Sterling, -reef-associated-megafaunal VA. https://tethys.pnnl​.gov/publications/electromagnetic- Dunlop, E. S., Reid, S. M., and Murrant, M. 2016. Limited influence of a wind power project submarine cable field-emf-impacts​-elasmobranch-shark-rays-skatesamerican-lobster on a Laurentian Great Lakes fish community. Journal Hutchison, Z. L., Gill, A. B., Sigray, P., He, H., and King, of Applied Ichthyology, 32(1), 18-31. doi:10.1111/jai.12940 J. W. 2020. Anthropogenic electromagnetic fields (EMF) https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/limited-influence​ influence the behaviour of bottom-dwelling marine -wind-power-project-submarine-cable-laurentian-great​ species. Scientific Reports, 10(1), 4219. doi:10.1038/s41598​ -lakes-fish -020-60793-x https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications​ /anthropogenic-electromagnetic-fields-emf-influence​ -behaviour-bottom-dwelling-marine SECTION B – CURRENT KNOWLEDGE OF KEY DEVICE INTERACTIONS WITH THE MARINE ENVIRONMENT 99 Huveneers, C., Rogers, P. J., Semmens, J. M., Beckmann, Kirschvink, J. and Walker, M. 1985. Particle-Size Con- C., Kock, A. A., Page, B., and Goldsworthy, S. D. 2013. siderations for Magnetite-Based Magnetoreceptors. In Effects of an Electric Field on White Sharks: In Situ Kirschvink, J., Jones, D., and MacFadden, B. (Eds.), Mag- Testing of an Electric Deterrent. PLoS ONE, 8(5), e62730. netite Biomineralization and Magnetoreception in Organ- doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0062730 https://tethys.pnnl.gov​ isms (pp. 243-254). New York, NY: Plenum Press. https://​ /publications/effects-electric-field-white-sharks-situ​ tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/particle-size-considerations​ -testing-electric-deterrent -magnetite-based-magnetoreceptors Jakubowska, M., Urban-Malinga, B., Otremba, Z., and Kuz’mina, V. V., Ushakova, N. V., and Krylov, V. V. 2015. Andrulewicz, E. 2019. Effect of low frequency electro- The effect of magnetic fields on the activity of protein- magnetic field on the behavior and bioenergetics of the ases and glycosidases in the intestine of the crucian polychaete Hediste diversicolor. Marine Environmental carp Carassius carassius. Biology Bulletin, 42(1), 61-66. Research, 150, 104766. doi:10.1016/j.marenvres.2019​ doi:10.1134/S1062359015010070 https://tethys.pnnl.gov​ .104766 https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/effect-low​ /publications/effect-magnetic-fields-activity-proteinases​ -frequency-electromagnetic-field-behavior-bioenergetics​ -glycosidases-intestine-crucian-carp -polychaete-hediste Love, M. S., Nishimoto, M. M., Clark, S., McCrea, M., Kalmijn, A. J. 1982. Electric and magnetic field detec- and Bull, A. S. 2017a. Assessing potential impacts of tion in elasmobranch fishes. Science, 218(4575), 916- energized submarine power cables on crab harvests. 918. doi:10.1126/science.7134985 https://tethys.pnnl​ Continental Shelf Research, 151, 23-29. doi:10.1016/j.csr​ .gov/publications/electric-magnetic-field-detection​ .2017.10.002 https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/assessing​ -elasmobranch-fishes -potential-impacts-energized-submarine-power-cables​ Kantserova, N. P., Krylov, V. V., Lysenko, L. A., Usha- -crab-harvests kova, N. V., and Nemova, N. N. 2017. Effects of Hypo- Love, M. S., Nishimoto, M. M., Snook, L., Schroeder, D. magnetic Conditions and Reversed Geomagnetic Field M., and Scarborough Bull, A. 2017b. A Comparison of on Calcium-Dependent Proteases of Invertebrates and Fishes and Invertebrates Living in the Vicinity of Ener- Fish. Izvestiya, Atmospheric and Oceanic Physics, 53(7), gized and Unenergized Submarine Power Cables and 719-723. doi:10.1134/S0001433817070040 https://tethys​ Natural Sea Floor off Southern California, USA. Jour- .pnnl.gov/publications/effects-hypomagnetic-conditions​ nal of Renewable Energy, 13. doi:10.1155/2017/8727164 -reversed-geomagnetic-field-calcium-dependent​-proteases https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/comparison-fishes​ Kavet, R., Wyman, M. T., and Klimley, A. P. 2016. Modeling Magnetic Fields from a DC Power Cable Buried -invertebrates-living-vicinity-energized-unenergized​ -submarine-power Beneath San Francisco Bay Based on Empirical Mea- Newton, K. C. 2017. Cognitive and Magnetosensory surements. PLoS ONE, 11(2), e0148543. doi:10.1371​ Ecology of the Yellow Stingray, Urobatis jamaicensis. /journal.pone.0148543 https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications​ Doctoral Dissertation, Florida Atlantic University, Boca /modeling-magnetic-fields-dc-power-cable-buried​ Raton, FL. https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/cognitive​ -beneath-san-francisco-bay-based -magnetosensory-ecology-yellow-stingray-urobatis​ Kirschvink, J. L. 1997. Homing in on vertebrates. Nature, -jamaicensis 390(6658), 339-340. doi:10.1038/36986 https://tethys​ Newton, K. C., Gill, A. B., and Kajiura, S. M. 2019. Elec- .pnnl.gov/publications/magnetoreception-homing​ troreception in marine fishes: chondrichthyans. Jour- -vertebrates nal of Fish Biology, 95(1), 135-154. doi:10.1111/jfb.14068 Kirschvink, J. L., and Gould, J. L. 1981. Biogenic magnetite as a basis for magnetic field detection in animals. https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/electroreception​ -marine-fishes-chondrichthyans Biosystems, 13(3), 181-201. doi:10.1016/0303-2647(81)​ 90060-5 https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/biogenic​ -magnetite-basis-magnetic-field-detection-animals 100 OES-ENVIRONMENTAL 2020 STATE OF THE SCIENCE REPORT Newton, K. C., and Kajiura, S. M. 2017. Magnetic field Richards, R. J., Raoult, V., Powter, D. M., and Gaston, discrimination, learning, and memory in the yellow T. F. 2018. Permanent magnets reduce bycatch of ben- stingray (Urobatis jamaicensis). Animal Cognition, 20; 603- thic sharks in an ocean trap fishery. Fisheries Research, 614. doi:10.1007/s10071-017-1084-8 https://tethys.pnnl​ 208, 16-21. doi:10.1016/j.fishres.2018.07.006 https:// .gov/publications/magnetic-field-discrimination-learning​ tethys.pnnl​.gov/publications/permanent-magnets-reduce- -memory-yellow-stingray-urobatis-jamaicensis bycatch​-benthic-sharks-ocean-trap-fishery Normandeau Associates Inc., Exponent Inc., Tricas, Scott, K., Harsanyi, P., and Lyndon, A. R. 2018. Under- T., and Gill, A. 2011. Effects of EMFs from Undersea standing the effects of electromagnetic field emissions Power Cables on Elasmobranchs and other Marine from Marine Renewable Energy Devices (MREDs) on Species (OCS Study BOEMRE 2011-09). Report by the commercially important edible crab, Cancer pagu- Normandeau Associates Inc. for Bureau of Ocean rus (L.). Marine Pollution Bulletin, 131, 580-588. doi:10​ Energy Management Pacific OCS Region, U.S. Depart- .1016/j.marpolbul.2018.04.062 https://tethys.pnnl.gov​ ment of the Interior, Camarillo, CA. https://tethys.pnnl​ /publications/understanding-effects-electromagnetic-field​ .gov/publications/effects-emfs-undersea-power-cables​ -emissions-marine-renewable-energy-devices -elasmobranchs-other-marine-species Sherwood, J., Chidgey, S., Crockett, P., Gwyther, D., Ho, Nyqvist, D., Durif, C., Johnsen, M. G., De Jong, K., For- P., Stewart, S., Strong, D., Whitely, B., and Williams, A. land, T. N., and Sivle, L. D. 2020. Electric and magnetic 2016. Installation and operational effects of a HVDC sub- senses in marine animals, and potential behavioral marine cable in a continental shelf setting: Bass Strait, effects of electromagnetic surveys. Marine Environ- Australia. Journal of Ocean Engineering and Science, 1(4), mental Research, 155, 104888. doi:10.1016/j.marenvres​ 337-353. doi:10.1016/j.joes.2016.10.001 https://tethys​ .2020.104888 https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/electric​ .pnnl.gov/publications/installation-operational-effects​ -magnetic-senses-marine-animals-potential-behavioral​ -hvdc-submarine-cable-continental-shelf-setting-bass -effects-electromagnetic Siegenthaler, A., Niemantsverdriet, P. R. W., Laterveer, Patullo, B. W., and Macmillan, D. L. 2010. Making sense M., and Heitkönig, I. M. A. 2016. Aversive responses of electrical sense in crayfish. The Journal of Experimental of captive sandbar sharks Carcharhinus plumbeus to Biology, 213(4), 651. doi:10.1242/jeb.039073 https://tethys​ strong magnetic fields. Journal of Fish Biology, 89(3), .pnnl.gov/publications/making-sense-electrical-sense​ 1603-1611. doi:10.1111/jfb.13064 https://tethys.pnnl.gov​ -crayfish /publications/aversive-responses-captive-sandbar-sharks​ Peters, R. C., Eeuwes, L. B. M., and Bretschneider, F. -carcharhinus-plumbeus-strong-magnetic-fields 2007. On the electrodetection threshold of aquatic Snyder, D., Bailey, W., Palmquist, K., Cotts, B., and vertebrates with ampullary or mucous gland electro- Olsen, K. 2019. Evaluation of Potential EMF Effects on receptor organs. Biological Reviews, 82(3), 361-373. Fish Species of Commercial or Recreational Fishing doi:10.1111/j.1469-185X.2007.00015.x https://tethys.pnnl​ Importance in Southern New England (OCS Study BOEM .gov/publications/electrodetection-threshold-aquatic​ 2019-049). Report by CSA Ocean Sciences Inc. and -vertebrates-ampullary-or-mucous-gland Exponent for Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, U.S. Pettersson, P., and Schonborg, N. 1997. Reduction of power system magnetic field by configuration twist. IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery, 12(4), 1678-1683. doi:10​ Department of the Interior, Sterling, VA. https://tethys​ .pnnl.gov/publications/evaluation-potential-emf-effects​ -fish-species-commercial-or-recreational-fishing .1109/61.634190 https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/reduction​ Soetaert, M., Chiers, K., Duchateau, L., Polet, H., Ver- -power-system-magnetic-field-configuration-twist schueren, B., and Decostere, A. 2014. Determining the Polet, H., Delanghe, F., and Verschoore, R. 2005. On electrical fishing for brown shrimp (Crangon crangon): I. Laboratory experiments. Fisheries Research, 72(1), 1-12. doi:10.1016/j.fishres.2004.10.016 https://tethys.pnnl.gov​ /publications/electrical-fishing-brown-shrimp-crangon​ -crangon-i-laboratory-experiments safety range of electrical pulses for two benthic invertebrates: brown shrimp (Crangon crangon L.) and ragworm (Alitta virens S.). ICES Journal of Marine Science, 72(3), 973-980. doi:10.1093/icesjms/fsu176 https://tethys.pnnl​ .gov/publications/determining-safety-range-electrical​ -pulses-two-benthic-invertebrates-brown-shrimp SECTION B – CURRENT KNOWLEDGE OF KEY DEVICE INTERACTIONS WITH THE MARINE ENVIRONMENT 101 Stanford, T. 1971. Motionally Induced Electric and Mag- MRE. Report by Danish Hydraulic Institute for European netic Fields in the Sea. Journal of Geophysical Research, Union, Brussels. https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications​ 76(15), 3476-3492. doi:10.1029/JC076i015p03476 /marven-environmental-impacts-noise-vibrations​ https://​tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/motionally-induced- -electromagnetic-emissions-marine electric​-magnetic-fields-sea Tricas, T. C., and New, J. G. 1997. Sensitivity and Stankevičiūtė, M., Jakubowska, M., Pažusienė, J., response dynamics of elasmobranch electrosensory Makaras, T., Otremba, Z., Urban-Malinga, B., Fey, primary afferent neurons to near threshold fields. Jour- D. P., Greszkiewicz, M., Sauliutė, G., Baršienė, J., and nal of Comparative Physiology A, 182(1), 89-101. doi:10​ Andrulewicz, E. 2019. Genotoxic and cytotoxic effects .1007/s003590050161 https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications​ of 50 Hz 1 mT electromagnetic field on larval rain- /sensitivity-response-dynamics-elasmobranch​ bow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss), Baltic clam (Limecola -electrosensory-primary-afferent-neurons balthica) and common ragworm (Hediste diversicolor). Aquatic Toxicology, 208, 109-117. doi:10.1016/j.aquatox​ .2018.12.023 https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/genotoxic​ -cytotoxic-effects-50-hz-1-mt-electromagnetic-field​ -larval-rainbow-trout Taormina, B., Bald, J., Want, A., Thouzeau, G., Lejart, M., Desroy, N., and Carlier, A. 2018. A review of potential impacts of submarine power cables on the marine environment: Knowledge gaps, recommendations and future directions. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 96, 380-391. doi:10.1016/j.rser.2018.07.026 https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/review-potential​ -impacts-submarine-power-cables-marine-environment​ -knowledge-gaps Taormina, B., Di Poi, C., Agnalt, A.-L., Carlier, A., Desroy, N., Escobar-Lux, R. H., D’eu, J.-F., Freytet, F., and Durif, C. M. F. 2020. Impact of magnetic fields generated by AC/ DC submarine power cables on the behavior of juvenile European lobster (Homarus gammarus). Aquatic Toxicol- Walker, M. M., Kirschvink, J. L., Ahmed, G., and Dizon, A. E. 1992. Evidence that fin whales respond to the geomagnetic field during migration. Journal of Experimental Biology, 171(1), 67. https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications​ /evidence-fin-whales-respond-geomagnetic-field-during​ -migration Westerberg, H., and Begout-Anras, M-L. 2000. Orientation of silver eel (Anguilla anguilla) in a disturbed geomagnetic field. In Advances in telemetry, Proceedings of the third conference on fish telemetry in Europe. Norwich, England, June 1999. Moore, A., andI Russel, I. (eds.), CEFAS, Lowestoft. Westerberg, H., and Lagenfelt, I. 2008. Sub-sea power cables and the migration behaviour of the European eel. Fisheries Management and Ecology, 15(5-6), 369375. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2400.2008.00630.x https://tethys​ .pnnl.gov/publications/sub-sea-power-cables-migration​ -behaviour-european-eel ogy, 220, 105401. doi:10.1016/j.aquatox.2019.105401 https:// Woodruff, D., Schultz, I., Marshall, K., Ward, J., and tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/impact-magnetic​-fields- Cullinan, V. 2012. Effects of Electromagnetic Fields on generated-acdc-submarine-power-cables​-behavior-juvenile Fish and Invertebrates Task 2.1.3: Effects on Aquatic Tesch, F. W., and Lelek, A. 1973. Directional behaviour of transplanted stationary and migratory forms of the eel, Anguilla Anguilla, in a circular tank. Netherlands Journal of Sea Research, 7, 46-52. doi:10.1016/0077-7579(73​ )90031-8 https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/directional​ -behaviour-transplanted-stationary-migratory-forms​ -eel-anguilla-anguilla Thomsen, F., Gill, A., Kosecka, M., Andersson, M., André, M., Degraer, S., Folegot, T. G., J., Judd, A., Neumann, T., Norro, A., Risch, D., Sigray, P., Wood, D., and Wilson, B. 2015. MaRVEN - Environmental Impacts of Noise, Vibrations and Electromagnetic Emissions from Marine Renewable Energy. Report No. RTD-K3-2012102 Organisms Fiscal Year 2011 Progress Report. Report No. PNNL-20813. Report by Pacific Northwest National Laboratory for U.S. Department of Energy, Washington DC. https://tethys.pnnl​.gov/publications/effectselectromagnetic-fields-fish​-invertebrates-task-213effects-aquatic-organisms Wyman, M. T., Peter Klimley, A., Battleson, R. D., Agosta, T. V., Chapman, E. D., Haverkamp, P. J., Pagel, M. D., and Kavet, R. 2018. Behavioral responses by migrating juvenile salmonids to a subsea high-voltage DC power cable. Marine Biology, 165(8), 134. doi:10.1007​ /s00227-018-3385-0 https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications​ /behavioral-responses-migrating-juvenile-salmonids​ -subsea-high-voltage-dc-power-cable OES-ENVIRONMENTAL 2020 STATE OF THE SCIENCE REPORT NOTES Risk to Animals from Electromagnetic Fields Emitted by Electric Cables and Marine Renewable Energy Devices Gill, A.B. and M. Desender. 2020. Risk to Animals from Electromagnetic Fields Emitted by Electric Cables and Marine Renewable Energy Devices. In A.E. Copping and L.G. Hemery (Eds.), OES-Environmental 2020 State of the Science Report: Environmental Effects of Marine Renewable Energy Development Around the World. Report for Ocean Energy Systems (OES). (pp. 86-103). doi:10.2172/1633088 REPORT AND MORE INFORMATION CONTACT OES-Environmental 2020 State of the Science full report and executive summary available at: https://tethys​.pnnl.gov/publications/state-of-the​-science-2020 Andrea Copping Pacific Northwest National Laboratory andrea.copping@pnnl.gov +1 206.528.3049 Go to https://tethys​.pnnl.gov for a comprehensive collection of papers, reports, archived presentations, and other media about environmental effects of marine renewable energy development. SECTION B – CURRENT KNOWLEDGE OF KEY DEVICE INTERACTIONS WITH THE MARINE ENVIRONMENT 103 104 OES-ENVIRONMENTAL 2020 STATE OF THE SCIENCE REPORT Chapter author: Lenaïg G. Hemery Contributor: Deborah J. Rose Changes in Benthic and Pelagic Habitats Caused by Marine Renewable Energy Devices Most marine renewable energy (MRE) devices must be attached to the seafloor in some way, either through gravity foundations, pilings, or anchors, and with mooring lines, transmission cables, and devices themselves in the water column. Physical changes in benthic and pelagic habitats have the potential to alter species occurrence or abundance at a localized scale, lead to some level of habitat loss, provide opportunities for colonization by non-native species, alter patterns of ecological succession, modify ecosystem functioning, and affect behavioral responses of marine organisms. The transformation of the seafloor and/or water column habitat to new hard substratum because of the presence of the MRE devices may also lead to artificial reef effects or changes in animal behavior. While there is no indication that MRE devices affect marine habitats differently than other structures currently and historically placed in the ocean, regulators and stakeholders may continue to have concerns. SECTION B – CURRENT KNOWLEDGE OF KEY DEVICE INTERACTIONS WITH THE MARINE ENVIRONMENT 105 105 6.1. IMPORTANCE OF THE ISSUE dominated by coarse sediments, boulders, or rocky out- he potential changes in marine habitats induced T isms that are highly influenced by physical processes by MRE may be similar to those of other industries and natural variability, such as current velocity and crops. Benthic communities associated with these habitats are typically stress-tolerant, opportunistic organ- that interact with the seabed and/or have water column sediment dynamics (Kregting et al. 2016; O’Carroll et al. or surface expression, like offshore wind farms (OWFs), 2017a). These environments are often rich in biodiver- oil and gas platforms (OGPs), navigation buoys, or sity and there are concerns that the turbulent wake of a communication cables. Regulators and stakeholders tidal turbine might alter the local benthic communities have raised concerns about several effects on marine (Kregting et al. 2016; O’Carroll et al. 2017a). The wake habitats caused by these other industries (e.g., modi- may also alter the phytoplankton and primary produc- fication of benthic and pelagic habitats, artificial reef tion in the water column, especially near large-scale effect, biofouling by non-native species). As Want and arrays that may have the potential to change the hydro- Porter (2018) wrote, “with a general trend towards dynamics of the ambient flow (Schuchert et al. 2018). stricter statutory environmental controls, the onus Laying cable may prove challenging in such environ- will be on the MRE industry to demonstrate minimal ments, compared to those that feature a soft-sediment disturbance.” Deploying single MRE devices and/or seafloor, and pose risks of damaging benthic habitats arrays of devices in a sustainable way means assuring (Taormina et al. 2018). that environmental risks related to a change in habitat Any structure left long enough in the marine environ- (especially habitats for threatened or endangered species) are identified at each site, avoided, managed, and/ or mitigated. Experience at OWFs provides evidence that local biodiversity may drastically change in the vicinity of an MRE device over time, thereby modifying the resilience of the ecosystem (Causon and Gill 2018). However, because marine ecosystems are exposed to natural environmental fluctuations at various temporal and spatial scales, the ability to detect changes due to anthropogenic pressures will depend on the robustness of the survey design (Bicknell et al. 2019; Sheehan et al. 2018). In addition, the cumulative effects of activities across diverse sectors may be substantial at the scale of an MRE deployment site and will need to be taken into account to understand and manage changes in the marine environment (Causon and Gill 2018; Wilding et ment has the potential to be colonized by fouling organisms and then act as an artificial reef by attracting fish and other mobile animals; MRE devices are no different, especially because of their seabed moorings and associated infrastructures (Alexander et al. 2016). While a single tidal turbine or wave energy converter (WEC) has a relatively limited ecological footprint, an array of devices may act as a network of interconnected artificial reef, in a way similar to that of OWFs (Causon and Gill 2018). This reef effect may spread at the ecosystem scale, with yet-to-be-identified effects on the structure and functioning of local and regional food webs (Raoux et al. 2017). As the worldwide economy keeps growing and maritime shipping lanes expand, dispersion and propagation of al. 2017). non-native species is becoming a more prominent issue The distribution of benthic communities is strongly habitats. MRE devices may act as “stepping stones” influenced by the depth and characteristics of the seafloor as well as the current speed, and few studies have described the natural variability of assemblages in high-energy-flow environments (Kregting et al. 2016). The exploitation of tidal energy requires high tidal velocities that are usually associated with a seafloor for the marine environment, especially in nearshore for many of these non-native species to colonize new places and cross biogeographical barriers (Adams et al. 2014; Wilding et al. 2017). The connectedness of deployment sites with harbors and marinas, more particularly those where non-native species have been documented to occur, is an important consideration to keep in mind during the initial planning of a project (Bray et al. 2017). 106 OES-ENVIRONMENTAL 2020 STATE OF THE SCIENCE REPORT 6.2. SUMMARY OF KNOWLEDGE THROUGH 2016 survey at the SeaGen tidal turbine. Changes detected in B munity composition were similar across all sampling efore 2016, there were only a few deployed wave and tidal devices, notably the SeaGen tidal turbine in Northern Ireland, the OpenHydro tidal generator in the Orkney Islands of Scotland, European Marine Energy Centre tidal devices in the Orkney Islands, and the Lysekil WEC in Sweden. OWFs have been found to be reasonably comparable to MRE devices in terms of their effects on artificial reef and benthic habitats (Kramer et al. 2015), and they were used as a surrogate for many of the analyzed effects of wave and tidal devices in 2016. benthic communities over time were attributed to temporal variability and natural processes including species competition and succession. Overall, changes in comstations and the reference station. Under natural ocean conditions, benthic communities undergo succession with changes in the dominant species as the communities reach a dynamic mature state. This pattern of succession and the time needed to reach the mature state must be considered when monitoring benthic communities around MRE devices to determine whether changes are natural or caused by the presence of an MRE device or array. Additional structures in the ocean, such as fish aggre- Concerns have been expressed about MRE devices gating devices, offshore oil platforms, sunken vessels, potentially providing opportunities for non-native spe- artificial reefs, and navigation buoys, were also used cies to colonize new areas and spread across habitats, as surrogate devices for predicting the effects of MRE especially with the additional connectivity provided devices on benthic habitats (Arena et al. 2007; Clynick et by MRE arrays (Adams et al. 2014; Mineur et al. 2012). al. 2008; Kramer et al. 2015; Page et al. 1999; Vaselli et Although there have been reports of non-native spe- al. 2008; Wehkamp and Fischer 2013). cies colonizing underwater structures associated with By 2016, several studies showed no impacts of MRE devices or OWF locations on benthic communities or species abundance (De Backer et al. 2014; Lindeboom et al. 2011, 2015; Wilhelmsson et al. 2006). Other studies examining benthic communities at the deployed offshore wind devices (Langhamer 2012), few studies have examined the mechanisms for dissemination of non-native species or suggested that MRE devices pose a higher risk for invasions than other existing marine installations (Mineur et al. 2012). OpenHydro tidal device in the Orkney Islands, Scotland, The 2016 State of the Science report (Copping et al. 2016) found increased abundance and diversity of fish and identified the following data gaps and priorities for predators over time compared to a control site (Broad- future research regarding changes in habitats: hurst et al. 2014; Broadhurst and Orme 2014). Benthic ◆ organisms and fish at the Lysekil WEC project site in tidal) in the field on benthic habitats, as opposed to Sweden were found to have higher biomass, density, species richness, and species diversity than the reference location because of the increased structural com- relying on surrogate structures. ◆ to determine their cumulative impacts. results were not statistically significant (Langhamer ◆ found to colonize structures on the seafloor and in the well as natural patterns of succession. ◆ ◆ Determine whether MRE devices create novel stepping stones for non-native species. such as blue mussels (Mytilus edulis) led to the creation of new habitats and thus colonization by other benthic Validate models of community change and artificial reef effects with field data. water column (Keenan et al. 2011). Colonization of the vertical structure of offshore wind pilings by species Develop a framework of ecosystem changes that incorporates the potential for cascading effects as At the SeaGen tidal turbine, organisms including mussels, barnacles, brittle stars, crabs, and more, have been Address the potential benthic and artificial reef effects from arrays or co-located wave and tidal sites plexity of the seabed at the foundations, although the 2010; Langhamer and Wilhelmsson 2009). Determine the effects of MRE devices (wave and ◆ Monitor impacts on benthic communities at existing organisms and reef fish (Krone et al. 2013; Maar et al. wave and tidal locations to evaluate and determine 2009). Keenan et al. (2011) also reported that benthic the extent of the response to installation and opera- communities were different during each subsequent tion of MRE devices. SECTION B – CURRENT KNOWLEDGE OF KEY DEVICE INTERACTIONS WITH THE MARINE ENVIRONMENT 107 6.3. KNOWLEDGE GENERATED SINCE 2016 and creation of habitats (e.g., biofouling, artificial reef, everal different types of WECs and tidal turbines S of non-native invasive species. have been tested in real conditions over the last 6.3.1. ALTERATION OF EXISTING HABITATS AND RECOVERY TIMEFRAMES decade at various locations. However, few have stayed in the water long enough (i.e., several years) to monitor and observe persistent or long-term environmental changes caused by the presence and functioning of the device. Most of the knowledge related to changes in habitats caused by MRE devices still comes from surrogate industries like OWFs, OGPs, or power and communication cables (Dannheim et al. 2019), as well as from a few modeling studies. However, the hard and sturdy structures of most OWFs and OGPs span the entire water column from the seafloor to the surface, while most MRE devices are either bottom-mounted without surface expression or floating and attached to the seafloor by mooring structures (e.g., Figure 6.1). Knowledge transfer from surrogate industries thus depends on the context. Two main types of changes for the benthic and pelagic habitats are generated by MRE devices (Figure 6.1): damaging effects (e.g., trenching, footprint effect) reserve effect). These habitat changes may also lead to indirect effects, for example facilitating the propagation The installation and operation of MRE devices may lead to alteration and/or loss of existing benthic habitats, for example during cable installation or due to turbulence and scouring around device and mooring foundations. Trenching and Digging for Installation of Devices and Cables There is currently a great diversity of tidal turbine and WEC technology designs, most of them floating or bottom-mounted. The loss of benthic habitat due to the footprint of anchors and foundations is widely acknowledged by decision-makers, particularly when vulnerable marine ecosystems or other fragile habitats have been identified during the siting process and avoidance and mitigation measures are taken (Greaves and Iglesias 2018). Cable laying to link MRE devices to an offshore substation and/or the onshore grid may lead Onshore substation Point absorber Concrete mattress Biofouling Artificial reef effect Buried cable Tidal turbine Oscillating wave surge converter Offshore substation Unburied cable Footprint effect Figure 6.1. Schematic of various wave and tidal energy devices, and associated equipment, and their potential effects on the benthic and pelagic habitats. (Illustration by Rose Perry) 108 OES-ENVIRONMENTAL 2020 STATE OF THE SCIENCE REPORT to direct disturbance or alteration of a much larger area Where the seafloor is dominated by unconsolidated or of benthic habitats (i.e., following a path on the seafloor consolidated hard substrate, cables are usually laid on hundreds to thousands meters long), even though the top of the sediment, sometimes encased in protective physical disturbance of the seabed is very limited com- iron pipes or covered with concrete mattresses (Figure pared to other human activities, such as bottom fishing 6.2) or natural rocks (Kraus and Carter 2018; Sheehan or deep-sea mining (Taormina et al. 2018). The cable- et al. 2018; Taormina et al. 2018). In this case, distur- laying method used depends on the nature of the sea- bance is limited to the footprint of the cable itself and floor, and each method may result in different spatial its protection material, unless unstabilized portions of and temporal scales of damage (Kraus and Carter 2018; the cable drag the surrounding seafloor if caught up in Taormina et al. 2018). local hydrodynamic disturbances (Dunham et al. 2015; Jetting and ploughing are among the favored methods for burying cables in soft sediments, the former resulting in a much wider disturbance strip than the latter (100 to 2000 m and 2 to 8 m respectively; Kraus and Carter 2018; Taormina et al. 2018). Depending on the wave and current dynamics, turbidity resulting from cable laying can persist for several days, thereby limiting the available light for primary producers, reducing prey detectability for fish and filtration efficiency for suspension-feeders. However, these effects are shortterm, and resuspended sediment tends to settle in a matter of days (Taormina et al. 2018). Habitat recovery Taormina et al. 2018). Direct impacts of such methods of cable laying are the crushing, damaging, or displacement of organisms (Dunham et al. 2015; Taormina et al. 2018). However, unless cables are laid on slow-growing taxa like glass sponge reefs (Dunham et al. 2015), colonization of the iron, concrete, or rocky cable protections by encrusting organisms may lead to full recovery of the disturbed seafloor to the pre-cable state. Recovery has happened within one to eight years (Kraus and Carter 2018 and examples therein; Sheehan et al. 2018; Taormina et al. 2018), in some cases showing evidence of successful ecological successions (Sheehan et al. 2018). is site-specific, but seafloors where jetting or plough- The recovery timeframe for benthic communities after ing have been used to lay cables have shown rates of full buried or unburied cable laying may be difficult to distin- recovery to pre-trenching benthic communities from guish from natural variability (Dunham et al. 2015; Kraus two weeks to six years, similar to recovery rates for the and Carter 2018; Sheehan et al. 2018), and post-installa- sediment itself (Kraus and Carter 2018 and examples tion monitoring might be needed over the span of a few therein; Sheehan et al. 2018; Taormina et al. 2018). A years to assess whether mitigation measures are neces- subsequent effect of cables buried in the sediment is the sary along the cable route. Monitoring may be required localized increase in temperature at the cable-sediment over longer periods of time in areas where fragile and/or interface, which has unknown consequences for benthic slow-growing engineer species (e.g., seagrass meadows) organisms (Taormina et al. 2018 and references therein). cannot technically be avoided by a cable route. Figure 6.2. Pictures of iron shells and concrete mattresses used to protect an unburied cable at the Paimpol-Bréhat tidal turbine test site in France. The picture on the left was taken one month after the installation of the concrete mattress in 2013 (photo courtesy of Olivier Dugornay, Ifremer), and the picture on the right was taken six years later during a video survey (photo courtesy of Ifremer). SECTION B – CURRENT KNOWLEDGE OF KEY DEVICE INTERACTIONS WITH THE MARINE ENVIRONMENT 109 Scouring by Local Turbulences during Operation: The Footprint Effect footprint effect of a tidal turbine on benthic commu- While the loss of seafloor habitat directly under the directly adjacent to the device (Kregting et al. 2016; nities is thus likely to be limited to the seafloor area anchors or foundations of MRE devices is inevitable and O’Carroll et al. 2017a). should be mitigated during the siting process, further 6.3.2. CREATION OF NEW HABITATS loss of benthic habitats during operation due to scouring by local turbulence in the immediate vicinity of the anchors and/or foundations (i.e., the footprint effect) is also a concern. This concern has been assessed and measured in real conditions involving tidal turbines (Kregting et al. 2016; O’Carroll et al. 2017a; O’Carroll et al. 2017b), concrete anchors on soft sediments (Henkel 2016), and artificial structures in an estuary (Mendoza and Henkel 2017). The last two studies particularly looked at infauna and the authors did not find any statistically significant differences in species richness, diversity, or assemblage composition compared to reference sites (Henkel 2016; Mendoza and Henkel 2017). However, the sediment mean grain size significantly varied and the abundance of organisms was slightly higher in sediments closer to the structures in the estu- MRE devices can also provide new habitats to biofouling species, have effects similar to artificial reefs and fish aggregating devices, and even act as marine reserves. Biofouling Biofouling is a design and engineering concern for devices because it might affect performance and maintenance schedules. No antifouling paint or coating has proven fully efficient in preventing biofouling in the long run, and placing MRE devices, foundations, and cables in the water may create new hard-bottom habitats in areas where none previously existed (Figure 6.3). Few MRE devices have been in the water long enough (i.e., several years) to characterize biofouling communities and successional rates (Want and Porter ary setting (Mendoza and Henkel 2017). 2018), but experience at OWFs and OGPs can provide The three former studies focused on epifaunal com- the wind energy and oil and gas industries usually pro- munities on rocky habitats around the SeaGen tidal turbine in Strangford Lough, Northern Ireland (Kregting et al. 2016; O’Carroll et al. 2017a; O’Carroll et al. 2017b). Benthic communities were highly variable within the study area, and covered a large spectrum of successional stages (Kregting et al. 2016; O’Carroll et al. 2017a). Although the epifauna in the area directly under the blades and legs of the turbine was significantly more variable than farther away from the turbine (O’Carroll et al. 2017a), seasonal variability significantly affected epifaunal communities regardless of the station (O’Carroll et al. 2017b). It is thought that at this particular site, as well as in other high-velocityflow environments favorable to tidal energy developments, epifaunal communities are highly resilient and mainly composed of mosaics of opportunistic species adapted to great physical disturbance (Kregting et al. 2016; O’Carroll et al. 2017a, 2017b). While the authors noticed a negative effect of SeaGen on epifaunal organisms in the immediate vicinity of the turbine, probably due to the increased local turbulences that kept benthic communities at an early successional stage, the effect quickly dissipated with distance from the turbine (i.e., one rotor diameter away; O’Carroll et al. 2017a). The 110 some related insight. However, the structures used by vide habitats for fouling organisms from the seafloor to the surface, whereas MRE devices typically do not span the whole water column (except for their mooring structures and dynamic cables). Fouling assemblages will inevitably vary between deployment sites (geography, habitats), devices, and components (Macleod et al. 2016; Want et al. 2017), but all start with a biofilm of marine bacteria and fungi followed over time by successions of initial (e.g., barnacles, hydroids and tubeworms) then secondary (e.g., anemones, ascidians and mussels) colonizers (Causon and Gill 2018; Dannheim et al. 2019). These communities are specific to hard substrates and often follow a vertical zonation (Dannheim et al. 2019). Various successional stages may be observed within an array of MRE devices in the same way different stages of development are observed in OWFs (Causon and Gill 2018). Some of the most common biofoulers on OWFs are mussels; they compose 90 percent of epistructural biomass in the upper zone of wind turbine foundations in some locations (Slavik et al. 2018). Prolific biofouling organisms (e.g., barnacles, serpulid worms, ascidians) often have short pelagic larval durations and may be transported to artificial structures by construction OES-ENVIRONMENTAL 2020 STATE OF THE SCIENCE REPORT Figure 6.3. Heavily colonized tripod of a decommissioned tidal turbine in the Orkney Islands, Scotland (left), and 25 x 25 cm quadrat showing a close-up of the biofouling organisms, mainly barnacles, sponges, and brittle stars (right). (Photos courtesy of Andrew Want, Heriot-Watt University) and maintenance vessels (Bray et al. 2017; Wilding et Artificial Reef Effect al. 2017). Successful colonization by biofoulers will be In addition to providing artificial substrate for sessile influenced by natural ocean variability, the seasonal availability of larvae, and the survival rates of recruits (Langhamer 2016). Biofouling can occur relatively rapidly; bare space can be colonized to almost 90 percent within two months in some cases (Viola et al. 2018). Relatively high densities of opportunistic species were found on some WECs at the Lysekil test site in Sweden (Langhamer 2016). The overall species compositions found in the intertidal habitats provided by wind turbine foundations and oil platform pilings often resemble those of nearby natural intertidal habitats and/ or local harbors (Coolen et al. 2018; Viola et al. 2018). Similarly, species composition on the deeper sections of such structures as well as on the concrete foundations of MRE devices more resemble those of local subtidal natural reefs (Coolen et al. 2018; Langhamer 2016). Maximum biodiversity has been found at intermediate depths (i.e., halfway up the water column) on the foundations of wind turbines, where disturbance is also intermediate (Coolen et al. 2018). In high-energy environments, the floating parts of WECs may not provide much of a suitable intertidal habitat for biofoulers because of the constant motion and wave impacts (Causon and Gill 2018). Ultimately, biofouling is a natural process that is nearly impossible to avoid on artificial structures deployed in marine environments. (fouling) species, MRE devices may potentially attract mobile organisms like decapods, demersal and pelagic fish, and apex predators, and in that sense have effects similar to artificial reefs or fish aggregating devices (Dannheim et al. 2019; Langhamer 2016). This effect has been measured and described within several OWFs in European waters (Methratta and Dardick 2019). Several fish species have been shown to aggregate around offshore wind turbine foundations and other artificial hard structures, benefiting from foraging on the benthic communities on the foundations and adjacent habitats (Causon and Gill 2018; Dannheim et al. 2019). By increasing the complexity of the seafloor and surrounding water, OWFs and MRE devices also provide shelter and food (e.g., fouling organisms) for aggregating species, thereby potentially leading to changes in the diversity, abundance, and size of taxa making up the local communities (Causon and Gill 2018; Dannheim et al. 2019; Langhamer et al. 2018). However, the type of device and foundation, their spacing (in the case of an array), local arrangement, and portion of water occupied are important factors controlling the impact of the artificial reef effect (Adams et al. 2014; Causon and Gill 2018; Krone et al. 2017; Langhamer 2016). At the scale of an array of MRE devices, the artificial reef effect could lead to regional changes, including a shift from soft-sediment to hard-substrate communities and, potentially, intertidal communities (Causon and Gill 2018). SECTION B – CURRENT KNOWLEDGE OF KEY DEVICE INTERACTIONS WITH THE MARINE ENVIRONMENT 111 The artificial reef effect may not apply to every spe- The reef effect of artificial structures can be consid- cies, as demonstrated by the case of viviparous eelpouts ered to be ecologically positive because the artificial (Zoarces viviparous) at the foundations and scour protec- reef increases habitat complexity and functions as an tion of an OWF in Sweden, where no clear attraction or additional food source, refuge for endangered species, avoidance was observed or could be distinguished from and nursery ground (Krone et al. 2017; Langhamer et al. natural variability (Langhamer et al. 2018). However, 2018; Loxton et al. 2017; Raoux et al. 2017; Taormina et scour protection structures on the seabed at OWFs in al. 2018). Conversely, these structures can also lead to the southern North Sea, as well as foundations with- negative effects by facilitating the introduction of non- out scour protection, have been shown to attract high native species or causing important shifts in local com- numbers of benthic and demersal mobile taxa such as munities (Dannheim et al. 2019; Loxton et al. 2017). The cod (Gadus morhua), wrasse (Ctenolabrus rupestris), and nature and importance of the effects may vary accord- edible crab (Cancer pagurus), and even serve as nurs- ing to the location of the deployment, the existing eco- ery grounds for some of these species (e.g., Krone et al. system, and natural habitats (Loxton et al. 2017). 2017; van Hal et al. 2017). Tidal turbines and the foun- Reserve Effect dations of wind turbines also tend to attract pelagic fish; significantly increased observations and sizes of fish schools in the wake flow and changes in the vertical distribution of fish schools in the vicinity of a turbine have been noted, although there was some variability in the depths, days, and tidal cycles (Fraser et al. 2018; van Hal et al. 2017; Williamson et al. 2019). In addition to providing food, artificial structures may also provide flow refuges for pelagic fish (Fraser et al. 2018). The reserve effect is defined as the condition in which habitats and marine communities in the vicinity of a device or array of devices are de facto protected from fishing when exclusion zones are in place (Alexander et al. 2016). This effect can be beneficial; it promotes the potential recovery of local populations of some vulnerable species and benefits local fisheries if spillover is observed in the wider surrounding (non-protected) area around the devices (Coates et al. 2016). This reserve Recent studies have also demonstrated that power effect has already been confirmed, with various degrees cables and associated armoring structures between of success, around some OWFs such as those in the MRE devices and substations may act as smaller artifi- North Sea (Coates et al. 2016; Krone et al. 2017; van Hal cial reefs as they are colonized and create new habitats et al. 2017). For example, three years after the exclusion (Bicknell et al. 2019; Taormina 2019; Taormina et al. of bottom fisheries, fragile benthic communities within 2018). Once past the first stages of biofouling, cable an OWF showed subtle changes toward recovery, and structures and their new epifaunal communities attract the authors suspected illegal trawling in the no-fishery mobile macro- and megafauna (Taormina et al. 2018). area prevented far more significant changes from being This effect was observed on cables laid at a wave test observed (Coates et al. 2016). Nonetheless, significant site in Cornwall, England, where the abundance of increases in edible crab, wrasse, and cod populations pollack and saithe (Pollachius spp.) was higher around were observed within the exclusion zone of other OWFs the cables than in the surrounding natural habitats compared to open areas nearby (Krone et al. 2017; van (Bicknell et al. 2019). The reef effect is expected to be Hal et al. 2017), suggesting that exclusion zones around stronger on soft sediments (if cables are not buried) MRE devices may act as large-scale refugia for vulner- than where cables are laid on top of or among natural able organisms, potentially those that are of commercial rocky reefs (Taormina et al. 2018), thereby creating value. small local reefs and hubs of biodiversity. However, if the cable protections are of a different structure than the surrounding natural reef (e.g., concrete mattresses vs. boulders), different species assemblages and reef effects may result (Sheehan et al. 2018). While it might take several years to observe a significant reserve effect during recovery within an exclusion zone around MRE devices (Causon and Gill 2018; Coates et al. 2016), models can help understand the extent of this effect. Alexander et al. (2016) used an Ecopath with Ecosim (EwE) and Ecospace modeling approach to investigate the implications of artificial reef and exclusion zone effects in relation to MRE devices. The model 112 OES-ENVIRONMENTAL 2020 STATE OF THE SCIENCE REPORT showed a substantial increase in the biomass of several Studies of OWFs and OGPs have shown that non-native taxa within the exclusion zone, but not much over- species are mainly found on structures occupying the spilling outside of the MRE area (Alexander et al. 2016). upper water column, similar to intertidal habitats However, the authors highlighted some noticeable (Coolen et al. 2018; Viola et al. 2018), and that some caveats of their study (e.g., fixed rectangular spatial of these organisms exhibit habitat preferences dif- map, coarse spatial scale, binary habitat type assign- ferent from related native species, which allows them ment to species) that would need to be addressed before to occupy different ecological niches and avoid direct generalizing similar approaches (Alexander et al. 2016). competition (Coolen et al. 2016). However, the devel- Similarly, Raoux et al. (2019) used an EwE model to opment of native communities seemed to inhibit the simulate the potential reef effect by an OWF, its reserve recruitment of non-native species on OGP pilings in effect, and the combined reef and reserve effect. The southern California (Viola et al. 2018) and marine cables results showed an overall limited reserve effect at the in the English Channel (Taormina 2019). In the OGP ecosystem level, because of the relatively small size of piling case, the authors also demonstrated that anthro- the fishery closure area. pogenic disturbance (e.g., maintenance by scraping) 6.3.3. ADDITIONAL INDIRECT EFFECTS The environmental effects discussed above are direct changes to marine habitats associated with MRE devices. These changes can become ecologically significant beyond the physical boundaries of the area of deployment (Krone et al. 2017; Slavik et al. 2018) or trigger a diversity of indirect effects and cascading processes locally, such as increases in biomass or recruitment of non-native invasive species (Causon and Gill 2018; Dannheim et al. 2019). However, these indirect effects have not been documented for MRE developments at this time and are presented here as a summary of discussions within the MRE and OWF communities. Facilitation of Non-Native Species Dispersion enhanced the colonization by non-native species for at least 15 months, unless maintenance was timed to occur after the peak of the reproductive season (Viola et al. 2018). Non-native invasive species will be more likely to colonize parts of MRE devices that stay on the surface (e.g., surface attenuators) or occupy the top section of the water column (e.g., point-absorber buoys, oscillating water columns, overtopping devices, tidal lagoons), thereby providing environmental conditions similar to intertidal habitats (Causon and Gill 2018). For example, while underwater cables and their armoring structures on the seafloor can act as artificial reefs, there is very little evidence of colonization by non-native species (Taormina et al. 2018). In fact, only three occurrences of non-indigenous sea squirts were recorded during five years of monitoring along the cable route at Wave While biofouling of an exposed surface in the water is Hub, Cornwall, in the United Kingdom (UK) (Sheehan a natural process, it can also facilitate the installation et al. 2018), and the densities of two non-native species of non-native species. Most non-native invasive spe- along the cable at Paimpol-Bréhat in Brittany, France, cies are organisms that have been moved around mari- became similar to those measured on the natural sur- time traffic lines by ballast water and have established rounding seafloor six years after the installation of the themselves on harbor structures (piers, pilings, docks) cable (Taormina 2019). and nearby shallow-water reefs. This phenomenon has already been described for OWFs in Europe and OGPs in California (e.g., Coolen et al. 2016, 2018; van Hal et al. 2017; Viola et al. 2018) and is a potential concern regarding MRE devices (Dannheim et al. 2019; Loxton et al. 2017; Want et al. 2017), even if non-native species have yet to be reported to occur on MRE devices already deployed offshore (Want et al. 2017; Want and Porter 2018). New MRE sites, especially large arrays of devices, are believed to provide new habitats for biofouling and artificial reef non-native species and could potentially act as stepping stones between already colonized areas and new natural habitats (Adams et al. 2014; Bray et al. 2017; Loxton et al. 2017). Like other biofouling organisms, non-native species might be transported to the energy extraction sites via construction and maintenance vessels (Bray et al. 2017; Wilding et al. 2017); however, a more likely means of introduction may be the towing of MRE devices to local harbors for maintenance, where non-native species are present and are SECTION B – CURRENT KNOWLEDGE OF KEY DEVICE INTERACTIONS WITH THE MARINE ENVIRONMENT 113 likely to colonize (Loxton et al. 2017; Want et al. 2017). organisms from fouling and aggregating organisms that The use of biophysical models along with pelagic larval enrich sediments (Causon and Gill 2018; Langhamer durations of known non-native species may help pre- 2016; Slavik et al. 2018). Local enrichment of organic dict the connectedness of sites with local habitats and matter is more likely to occur near WECs and wind tur- harbors (Adams et al. 2014; Bray et al. 2017; Vodopivec bines, especially because of associated mussel growth et al. 2017). Such models have shown that potential MRE (Langhamer 2016), rather than near tidal turbines and OWF sites in Scotland and the Adriatic Sea could where hydrodynamic forces may be too strong to favor provide suitable habitats for pelagic larvae produced in local accumulations of organic matter. An increase in local harbors or nearshore habitats that would otherwise benthic biomass would in turn benefit higher trophic have perished offshore, de facto improving their survival levels, up to apex predators, thereby potentially inten- rate (Adams et al. 2014; Bray et al. 2017; Vodopivec et al. sifying the reef effect (Raoux et al. 2017). 2017). These sites could, in turn, act as source populations and allow species to disperse further, potentially across natural biogeographical barriers (Adams et al. 2014). Siting and device maintenance need to be thought through carefully to prevent such connectedness between harbors and MRE sites for non-native species. Two recent studies have used an EwE modeling approach (Alexander et al. 2016; Raoux et al. 2017), respectively conducted for periods of 25 years at an MRE site and 30 years at an OWF while increasing the biomass of targeted benthic and fish compartments (Figure 6.4). Both studies showed that the biomass and Local and Regional Increase in Biomass and Organic Matter local food webs changed significantly within the model So far, the increases in local and regional biomass and leading to a rise in detritivory in the food web (Raoux changes in food webs due to the biofouling and artifi- et al. 2017). In the case of the OWF, the total system cial reef effects of MRE devices are mostly hypotheses biomass increased by 40 percent after 30 years (Raoux and a matter of modeling approaches, because such et al. 2017). In addition, the approach by Alexander effects may take years, if not decades, to be observed et al. (2016) added an Ecospace component to predict through environmental monitoring. Benthic food webs changes beyond the MRE area, showing that the bio- are predicted to benefit from MRE devices and OWFs mass changes were mainly occurring inside the area, through litter falls, i.e., the deposition of feces and dead rather than outside of it. areas, especially with an increase in mussel biomass Figure 6.4. Functional groups used in an Ecopath with Ecosim model, arranged by trophic levels on the y-axis and benthic/pelagic coupling across all trophic levels on the x-axis. Functional groups in blue had their biomasses set to their accumulated maximum during the modeling approach. (From Raoux et al. 2017) 114 OES-ENVIRONMENTAL 2020 STATE OF THE SCIENCE REPORT Effects of Oceanographic Changes MRE devices is not expected to reach levels observed on Other indirect effects of WECs and tidal turbines on wind turbine foundations, because they do not provide marine habitats are the local and regional effects that as much habitat throughout the water column as their changes in flow created by MRE devices (see Chap- wind counterparts (Causon and Gill 2018). ter 7, Changes in Oceanographic Systems Associated with Marine Renewable Energy Devices), especially arrays, could have on benthic and pelagic organisms. A habitat suitability modeling approach demonstrated that barnacles would largely respond negatively to the reduction in bed-shear stress generated by tidal turbine farms, whereas edible crabs would respond positively (du Feu et al. 2019). However, these effects are thought to be mainly restricted to the direct vicinity of tidal arrays, similar to the footprint effect, and farfield effects on benthic communities are unlikely (du Feu et al. 2019; Kregting et al. 2016). Changes in flow and hydrographic conditions due to MRE devices (see Chapter 7, Changes in Oceanographic Systems Associated with Marine Renewable Energy Devices) may add a level of variability in local and farfield phytoplankton dynamics and processes (Dannheim et al. 2019). The idea is that local disturbances in the wake of devices would modify the stratification, thereby increasing vertical mixing and turbidity, which in turn would either increase the phytoplankton primary production because of higher nutrient availability, or lower it because of lack of light (Dannheim et al. 2019; Floeter et al. 2017). The question was recently addressed using biogeochemical models in the context of large-scale tidal turbine arrays: 66 MW, 800 MW, and 8 GW (Schuchert et al. 2018; van der Molen et al. 2016). Model results suggested the loss of up to 25 percent of local phytoplankton concentrations, although well below the natural seasonal variations (Schuchert et al. 2018), as well as negligible farfield effects in the case of an 800 MW tidal array, or increase in farfield phytoplankton primary production with a less-realistic 8 GW tidal array (van der Molen et al. 2016). Extreme biofouling by filter-feeding organisms on device components is also thought to modify local hydrodynamics and phytoplankton processes. Slavik et al. (2018) used a biogeochemical model to investigate the question in relation to OWFs. Model results suggested losses of up to 8 percent of regional annual primary productivity due to increased filtration by epifauna, with the maximum loss occurring within the OWFs (Slavik et al. 2018). However, biofouling on 6.4. RESEARCH AND MONITORING NEEDS TO RESOLVE THE ISSUE T his literature review has highlighted several gaps in our knowledge that need to be addressed to advance our understanding of the risks associated with changes in benthic and pelagic habitats. Often, monitoring and research programs are disconnected from one another, so the results from one program do not necessarily contribute to answering questions asked by another (Dannheim et al. 2019; Loxton et al. 2017). Benthic and pelagic communities change over time (e.g., seasonal variability, succession stages, post-disturbance resilience), and long-term studies are required to understand their ecological processes (Langhamer 2016; Taormina et al. 2018; Wilding et al. 2017). However, there is little understanding of appropriate spatial and temporal scales for environmental impact assessment (EIA) and monitoring in relation to MRE, or of the suitable thresholds of undesirable consequences (Wilding et al. 2017). Stakeholders need justified guidelines for the levels of biodiversity, as well as the assemblages and scales to be considered (Wilding et al. 2017). This holds true for native communities as well as for potentially invasive organisms that may constitute part of the biofouling and artificial reef taxa (Loxton et al. 2017). There are gaps to fill concerning the composition of biofouling assemblages on MRE devices and aggregating species found around devices, their geographic distribution, connectivity, and dispersion abilities (Adams et al. 2014; Bray et al. 2017; Want and Porter 2018), so that regulators can knowingly assess risk and develop biosecurity measures to prevent the spread of non-native invasive species (Loxton et al. 2017). Underwater visual surveys are very useful approaches for observing changes in species and habitat composition and distribution on and around MRE devices, either through scuba diver surveys, unmanned video transects, or cameras mounted on static structures (Bender SECTION B – CURRENT KNOWLEDGE OF KEY DEVICE INTERACTIONS WITH THE MARINE ENVIRONMENT 115 et al. 2017). However, the high-energy environments and presence of structures and cables in the water often make for challenging conditions, and methods may need to be refined (e.g., Sheehan et al. 2020). Even greater challenges associated with image-based surveys are the amount of footage that needs to be processed to 6.5. GUIDANCE ON MEASURING CHANGES IN BENTHIC AND PELAGIC HABITATS CAUSED BY MRE for optimized protocols (e.g., Taormina et al. 2020). B The potential impact of localized temperature increase impacts like the deployment of MRE devices (Smo- caused by electric cables on infauna communities is an korowski and Randall 2017; Wilding et al. 2017). Such aspect of environmental effects on benthic organisms analyses are particularly effective when impacts are that has not been addressed much yet (Taormina et al. important and/or long-lasting, and less effective when 2018). Infauna communities constitute important food changes are variable or gradual (Wilding et al. 2017). sources for benthic and demersal organisms like flat- Some authors, especially in the case of tidal turbine fish. However, considering the narrow footprint of the arrays, recommend an asymmetrical BACI survey cables and the expected low levels of thermal radiation, design, in which there are more control stations than this impact may turn out to be insignificant. Nonethe- impact stations (O’Carroll et al. 2017a). Other survey less, it needs to be tested, at least through modeling designs, like a before-after-gradient design, are equally studies, especially in the case of larger arrays of devices. suitable for MRE development sites (Bailey et al. 2014; Different types of modeling approaches (e.g., biogeo- Ellis and Schneider 1997). In any case, it is important extract ecologically relevant information and the need chemical, food web, habitat suitability) were recently used to address several questions related to changes efore-after-control-impact (BACI) analyses are among the best-suited survey designs for measur- ing changes over spatial and temporal anthropogenic that good quality baseline data be collected to provide information about the natural variability within the in benthic and/or pelagic habitats due to MRE devices survey area (Bicknell et al. 2019). and/or OWFs (Adams et al. 2014; Alexander et al. 2016; Some authors have highlighted the difficulty involved Bray et al. 2017; du Feu et al. 2019; Raoux et al. 2017; in characterizing the temporal natural variability of Schuchert et al. 2018; Slavik et al. 2018; van der Molen benthic and pelagic ecosystems and differentiating such et al. 2016). Such modeling efforts need to be pursued, variability from impacts induced by MRE devices when because models help answer questions that are difficult impact assessment and monitoring surveys only span to address with monitoring and field observations and a couple of years (Wilding et al. 2017). Extreme changes on a reasonable time scale. Multispecies and trophic (either natural or anthropogenically induced) are more interaction models are particularly valuable, but trickier likely to be detected over a short survey timeframe, to implement, because they may require physiological while subtle changes are more likely to take longer to and ecological data that are not yet available (Schuchert observe. Some authors recommend that monitoring et al. 2018). studies last more than three years to enable accurate The effects of partial and complete decommissioning measurement of extreme and subtle changes (Wilding of MRE devices are still unclear. As highlighted earlier, devices left long enough in the water will create habi- et al. 2017), if not six to eight years to cover the recovery timeframe of some cable sites (Kraus and Carter 2018; tat colonized by biofoulers and act as artificial reefs, Sheehan et al. 2018; Taormina et al. 2018). thereby enhancing local biodiversity, so partial decom- In addition, attention needs to be given to the extent missioning could be favored. However, devices may also of the spatial scale to provide enough strength in facilitate the establishment of invasive species and total detecting potential impacts (Bicknell et al. 2019). The decommissioning may be recommended (Coolen et al. diversity and spatial variability of benthic habitats are 2018; Sheehan et al. 2018). Both options have benefits more likely to be characterized if the baseline sampling and drawbacks that will most likely be weighed on a design during the EIA process involves a large-scale case-by-case basis, but regulators will need guidelines regular-spaced grid supplemented with randomly for preferable options given certain circumstances selected additional stations, in order to identify local (Fowler et al. 2018; Sheehan et al. 2018). patches and gradients in habitats and communities 116 OES-ENVIRONMENTAL 2020 STATE OF THE SCIENCE REPORT (Kregting et al. 2016; O’Carroll et al. 2017b; Wilding et al. 2017). Follow-up monitoring surveys may sample a subset of the baseline survey as long as they cover the diversity of habitats and communities initially identified (O’Carroll et al. 2017b; Wilding et al. 2017). Using a modeling approach may be helpful in highlighting some potential changes in benthic and/or pelagic habitats and species that can then be specifically looked for. Habitat suitability models (e.g., MaxEnt) are particularly valuable when it comes to identifying areas that feature the appropriate ecological requirements for a species to establish itself, and these models may help track the settlement of non-native species (Adams et al. 2014; du Feu et al. 2019). Regarding pelagic communities such as nekton organisms, parametric mod- 6.6. RECOMMENDATIONS W hile several questions have been addressed over the four years since publication of the previous State of the Science report, numerous authors have highlighted recommendations for conducting research and monitoring to reduce the uncertainty around some of the changes in benthic and pelagic habitats and to move the industry forward (Bray et al. 2017; Dannheim et al. 2019; Linder and Horne 2018; Loxton et al. 2017; Macleod et al. 2016; O’Carroll et al. 2017b; Wilding et al. 2017). Suggestions for the path forward include the following: ◆ and monitoring surveys. els (e.g., state-space model) work best for detecting changes, time-series models and semi-parametric Define relevant spatial and temporal scales for EIAs ◆ Identify justified and acceptable thresholds for models are better fitted for quantifying such changes, changes in benthic and pelagic environments, and nonparametric models are preferred for forecast- including the extent of loss or the level of coloniza- ing changes (Linder and Horne 2018; Linder et al. 2017). tion by biofouling and artificial reef organisms. Among food web models, the EwE modeling approach is one of the most easily accessed and commonly used approaches for modeling human-induced ecosystemwide changes over long periods of time, particularly in ◆ and connectedness during the siting process. ◆ native biofouling and artificial reef species. Raoux et al. 2017). However, many other model types ◆ Use (transfer) as much as possible knowledge and lessons learned from other offshore industries such 2014) or agent-based models (Fulton et al. 2015). Mod- as offshore wind, oil and gas extraction, and fisheries. elers interested in MRE would benefit from consulting with experienced ecological and fisheries modelers to Characterize the diversity and ecological characteristics of biofouling communities and common non- data-poor systems like MRE sites (Alexander et al. 2016; also exist, such as size-based models (Rogers et al. Use modeling approaches to define habitat suitability ◆ Identify the cumulative effects of MRE devices and determine what approach would be better suited given other activities occurring in the same area, especially their specific questions and the available data. Experi- relative to the artificial reef, reserve, and stepping ence drawn from modeling associated with an ecosys- stone effects. tem approach to fisheries or coastal management would also suggest that an ensemble modeling approach is likely an effective option to pursue given the current levels of uncertainty (Cheung et al. 2016; Fulton et al. 2019). SECTION B – CURRENT KNOWLEDGE OF KEY DEVICE INTERACTIONS WITH THE MARINE ENVIRONMENT 117 6.7. REFERENCES Bray, L., Kassis, D., and Hall-Spencer, J. M. 2017. Adams, T. P., Miller, R. G., Aleynik, D., and Burrows, 125, 73-81. doi:10.1016/j.marenvres.2017.01.006 https://​ M. T. 2014. Offshore marine renewable energy devices tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/assessing-larval-connectivity​ as stepping stones across biogeographical boundar- -marine-spatial-planning-adriatic ies. Journal of Applied Ecology, 51(2), 330-338. doi:10.1111​ Broadhurst, M., Barr, S., and Orme, C. D. L. 2014. In-situ /1365-2664.12207 https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications​ /offshore-marine-renewable-energy-devices-stepping​ -stones-across-biogeographical Assessing larval connectivity for marine spatial planning in the Adriatic. Marine Environmental Research, ecological interactions with a deployed tidal energy device; an observational pilot study. Ocean & Coastal Management, 99, 31-38. doi:10.1016/j.ocecoaman​ Alexander, K. A., Meyjes, S. A., and Heymans, J. .2014.06.008 https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/situ​ J. 2016. Spatial ecosystem modelling of marine -ecological-interactions-deployed-tidal-energy-device​ renewable energy installations: Gauging the util- -observational-pilot-study ity of Ecospace. Ecological Modelling, 331, 115- Broadhurst, M., and Orme, C. D. L. 2014. Spatial and 128. doi:10.1016/j.ecolmodel​.2016.01.016 https:// tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/spatial​-ecosystemmodelling-marine-renewable-energy​-installationsgauging-utility temporal benthic species assemblage responses with a deployed marine tidal energy device: A small scaled study. Marine Environmental Research, 99, 76-84. doi:10.1016/j.marenvres.2014.03.012 https://tethys.pnnl​ Arena, P. T., Jordan, L. K. B., and Spieler, R. E. 2007. .gov/publications/spatial-temporal-benthic-species​ Fish assemblages on sunken vessels and natural reefs -assemblage-responses-deployed-marine-tidal-energy in southeast Florida, USA. Hydrobiologia, 580, 157–171. Causon, P. D., and Gill, A. B. 2018. Linking ecosystem doi:10.1007/s10750-006-0456-x https://tethys.pnnl.gov​ /publications/fish-assemblages-sunken-vessels-natural​ -reefs-southeast-florida-usa services with epibenthic biodiversity change following installation of offshore wind farms. Environmental Science & Policy, 89, 340-347. doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2018.08​ Bailey, H., Brookes, K. L., and Thompson, P. M. 2014. .013 https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/linking-ecosystem​ Assessing environmental impacts of offshore wind -services-epibenthic-biodiversity-change-following​ farms: lessons learned and recommendations for the -installation future. Aquatic Biosystems, 10(1), 8. doi:10.1186/2046​ Cheung, W. W. L., Frölicher, T. L., Asch, R. G., Jones, M. -9063-10-8 https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/assessing​ -environmental-impacts-offshore-wind-farms-lessons​ -learned-recommendations C., Pinsky, M. L., Reygondeau, G., Rodgers, K. B., Rykaczewski, R. R., Sarmiento, J. L., Stock, C., and Watson, J. R. 2016. Building confidence in projections of the Bender, A., Francisco, F., and Sundberg, J. 2017. A responses of living marine resources to climate change. Review of Methods and Models for Environmental ICES Journal of Marine Science, 73(5), 1283-1296. doi:10​ Monitoring of Marine Renewable Energy. Paper pre- .1093/icesjms/fsv250 https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications​ sented at the 12th European Wave and Tidal Energy /building-confidence-projections-responses-living​ Conference, Cork, Ireland. https://tethys.pnnl.gov​ -marine-resources-climate-change /publications/review-methods-models-environmental​ Clynick, B. G., Chapman, M. G., and Underwood, A. J. -monitoring-marine-renewable-energy 2008. Fish assemblages associated with urban struc- Bicknell, A. W. J., Sheehan, E. V., Godley, B. J., Doherty, tures and natural reefs in Sydney, Australia. Aus- P. D., and Witt, M. J. 2019. Assessing the impact of tral Ecology, 33(2), 140-150. doi:10.1111/j.1442-9993​ introduced infrastructure at sea with cameras: A case .2007.01802.x https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/fish​ study for spatial scale, time and statistical power. -assemblages-associated-urban-structures-natural-reefs​ Marine Environmental Research, 147, 126-137. doi:10​ -sydney-australia .1016/j.marenvres.2019.04.007 https://tethys.pnnl.gov​ /publications/assessing-impact-introduced-infrastructure​ -sea-cameras-case-study-spatial-scale-time 118 OES-ENVIRONMENTAL 2020 STATE OF THE SCIENCE REPORT Coates, D. A., Kapasakali, D.-A., Vincx, M., and Vana- De Backer, A., Van Hoey, G., Coates, D., Vanaverbeke, verbeke, J. 2016. Short-term effects of fishery exclu- J., and Hostens, K. 2014. Similar diversity-disturbance sion in offshore wind farms on macrofaunal com- responses to different physical impacts: Three cases of munities in the Belgian part of the North Sea. Fisheries small-scale biodiversity increase in the Belgian part of Research, 179, 131-138. doi:10.1016/j.fishres.2016.02.019 the North Sea. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 84(1), 251-262. https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/short-term-effects​ doi:10.1016/j.marpolbul.2014.05.006 https://tethys.pnnl​ -fishery-exclusion-offshore-wind-farms-macrofaunal​ .gov/publications/similar-diversity-disturbance-responses​ -communities -different-physical-impacts-three-cases-small Coolen, J., Lengkeek, W., Degraer, S., Kerckhof, F., du Feu, R. J., Funke, S. W., Kramer, S. C., Hill, J., and Pig- Kirkwood, R., and Lindeboom, H. 2016. Distribution of gott, M. D. 2019. The trade-off between tidal-turbine the invasive Caprella mutica Schurin, 1935 and native array yield and environmental impact: A habitat suit- Caprella linearis (Linnaeus, 1767) on artificial hard sub- ability modelling approach. Renewable Energy, 143, strates in the North Sea: separation by habitat. Aquatic 390-403. doi:10.1016/j.renene.2019.04.141 https://tethys​ Invasions, 11(4), 437-449. doi:10.3391/ai.2016.11.4.08 .pnnl.gov/publications/trade-between-tidal-turbine-array​ https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/distribution-invasive​ -yield-environmental-impact-habitat-suitability -caprella-mutica-schurin-1935-native-caprella-linearis​ -linnaeus Dunham, A., Pegg, J. R., Carolsfeld, W., Davies, S., Murfitt, I., and Boutillier, J. 2015. Effects of submarine Coolen, J. W. P., van der Weide, B., Cuperus, J., Blom- power transmission cables on a glass sponge reef and berg, M., Van Moorsel, G. W. N. M., Faasse, M. A., Bos, associated megafaunal community. Marine Environ- O. G., Degraer, S., and Lindeboom, H. J. 2018. Benthic mental Research, 107, 50-60. doi:10.1016/j.marenvres​ biodiversity on old platforms, young wind farms, and .2015.04.003 https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/effects​ rocky reefs. ICES Journal of Marine Science. doi:10.1093​ -submarine-power-transmission-cables-glass-sponge​ /icesjms/fsy092 https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications​ -reef-associated-megafaunal /benthic-biodiversity-old-platforms-young-wind-farms​ -rocky-reefs Ellis, J. I., and Schneider, D. C. 1997. Evaluation of a gradient sampling design for environmental impact Copping, A., Sather, N., Hanna, L., Whiting, J., assessment. Environmental Monitoring and Assess- Zydlewski, G., Staines, G., Gill, A., Hutchison, I., ment, 48(2), 157-172. doi:10.1023/A:1005752603707 O’Hagan, A., Simas, T., Bald, J., Sparling, C., Wood, J., https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/evaluation-gradient​ and Masden, E. 2016. Annex IV 2016 State of the Sci- -sampling-design-environmental-impact-assessment ence Report: Environmental Effects of Marine Renewable Energy Development Around the World. Report by Pacific Northwest National Laboratory for Ocean Energy Systems. https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/state-of-the​ -science-2016 Floeter, J., van Beusekom, J. E. E., Auch, D., Callies, U., Carpenter, J., Dudeck, T., Eberle, S., Eckhardt, A., Gloe, D., Hänselmann, K., Hufnagl, M., Janßen, S., Lenhart, H., Möller, K. O., North, R. P., Pohlmann, T., Riethmüller, R., Schulz, S., Spreizenbarth, S., Temming, A., Dannheim, J., Bergström, L., Birchenough, S. N. R., Walter, B., Zielinski, O., and Möllmann, C. 2017. Pelagic Brzana, R., Boon, A. R., Coolen, J. W. P., Dauvin, J.-C., effects of offshore wind farm foundations in the strati- De Mesel, I., Derweduwen, J., Gill, A. B., Hutchison, Z. fied North Sea. Progress in Oceanography, 156, 154-173. L., Jackson, A. C., Janas, U., Martin, G., Raoux, A., Reu- doi:10.1016/j.pocean.2017.07.003 https://tethys.pnnl​ bens, J., Rostin, L., Vanaverbeke, J., Wilding, T. A., Wil- .gov/publications/pelagic-effects-offshore-wind-farm​ helmsson, D., and Degraer, S. 2019. Benthic effects of -foundations-stratified-north-sea offshore renewables: identification of knowledge gaps and urgently needed research. ICES Journal of Marine Science. doi:10.1093/icesjms/fsz018 https://tethys.pnnl​ .gov/publications/benthic-effects-offshore-renewables​ -identification-knowledge-gaps-urgently-needed SECTION B – CURRENT KNOWLEDGE OF KEY DEVICE INTERACTIONS WITH THE MARINE ENVIRONMENT 119 Fowler, A. M., Jørgensen, A.-M., Svendsen, J. C., Mac- Keenan, G., Sparling, C., Williams, H., and Fortune, readie, P. I., Jones, D. O., Boon, A. R., Booth, D. J., Bra- F. 2011. SeaGen Environmental Monitoring Pro- bant, R., Callahan, E., Claisse, J. T., Dahlgren, T. G., gramme: Final Report. Report by Royal Haskoning Degraer, S., Dokken, Q. R., Gill, A. B., Johns, D. G., Lee- for Marine Current Turbines, Edinburgh, UK. https://​ wis, R. J., Lindeboom, H. J., Linden, O., May, R., Murk, tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/seagen-environmental​ A. J., Ottersen, G., Schroeder, D. M., Shastri, S. M., Teil- -monitoring-programme-final-report mann, J., Todd, V., Van Hoey, G., Vanaverbeke, J., and Coolen, J. W. 2018. Environmental benefits of leaving offshore infrastructure in the ocean. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 16(10), 571-578. doi:10.1002/fee​ .1827 https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/environmental​ -benefits-leaving-offshore-infrastructure-ocean Kramer, S., Hamilton, C., Spencer, G., and Ogston, H. 2015. Evaluating the Potential for Marine and Hydrokinetic Devices to Act as Artificial Reefs or Fish Aggregating Devices, Based on Analysis of Surrogates in Tropical, Subtropical, and Temperate U.S. West Coast and Hawaiian Coastal Waters. Report by H. T. Har- Fraser, S., Williamson, B. J., Nikora, V., and Scott, B. vey & Associates for U.S. Department of Energy Effi- E. 2018. Fish distributions in a tidal channel indicate ciency and Renewable Energy, Golden, CO. https:// the behavioural impact of a marine renewable energy tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/evaluating-potential​-marine- installation. Energy Reports, 4, 65-69. doi:10.1016​ hydrokinetic-devices-act-artificial-reefs-or-fish /j.egyr.2018.01.008 https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications​ /fish-distributions-tidal-channel-indicate-behavioural​ -impact-marine-renewable-energy Kraus, C., and Carter, L. 2018. Seabed recovery following protective burial of subsea cables - Observations from the continental margin. Ocean Engineering, 157, 251-261. Fulton, E. A., Blanchard, J. L., Melbourne-Thomas, J., doi:10.1016/j.oceaneng.2018.03.037 https://tethys.pnnl​ Plagányi, É. E., and Tulloch, V. J. D. 2019. Where the .gov/publications/seabed-recovery-following-protective​ Ecological Gaps Remain, a Modelers’ Perspective. Fron- -burial-subsea-cables-observations-continental tiers in Ecology and Evolution, 7(424). doi:10.3389/fevo​ .2019.00424 https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/where​ -ecological-gaps-remain-modelers-perspective Kregting, L., Elsaesser, B., Kennedy, R., Smyth, D., O’Carroll, J., and Savidge, G. 2016. Do Changes in Current Flow as a Result of Arrays of Tidal Turbines Have Fulton, E. A., Boschetti, F., Sporcic, M., Jones, T., Little, an Effect on Benthic Communities? PLoS ONE, 11(8), L. R., Dambacher, J. M., Gray, R., Scott, R., and Gorton, R. e0161279. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0161279 https://tethys​ 2015. A multi-model approach to engaging stakeholder .pnnl.gov/publications/do-changes-current-flow-result​ and modellers in complex environmental problems. -arrays-tidal-turbines-have-effect-benthic-communities Environmental Science & Policy, 48, 44-56. doi:10.1016​ /j.envsci.2014.12.006 https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications​ /multi-model-approach-engaging-stakeholder-modellers​ -complex-environmental-problems Krone, R., Dederer, G., Kanstinger, P., Krämer, P., Schneider, C., and Schmalenbach, I. 2017. Mobile demersal megafauna at common offshore wind turbine foundations in the German Bight (North Sea) two years Greaves, D., and Iglesias, G. 2018. Wave and Tidal after deployment - increased production rate of Can- Energy. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons Ltd. https://​ cer pagurus. Marine Environmental Research, 123, 53-61. tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/wave-tidal-energy-0 doi:10.1016/j.marenvres.2016.11.011 https://tethys.pnnl​ Henkel, S. 2016. Assessment of Benthic Effects of Anchor Presence and Removal. Report by Northwest National Marine Renewable Energy Center for .gov/publications/mobile-demersal-megafauna-common​ -offshore-wind-turbine-foundations-german-bight​ -north Oregon Wave Energy Trust, Portland, Oregon. https:// Krone, R., Gutow, L., Joschko, T. J., and Schröder, A. tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/assessment​-benthic-effects- 2013. Epifauna dynamics at an offshore foundation – anchor-presence-removal Implications of future wind power farming in the North Sea. Marine Environmental Research, 85, 1-12. doi:10​ .1016/j.marenvres.2012.12.004 https://tethys.pnnl.gov​ /publications/epifauna-dynamics-offshore-foundation​ -implications-future-wind-power-farming-north-sea 120 OES-ENVIRONMENTAL 2020 STATE OF THE SCIENCE REPORT Langhamer, O. 2010. Effects of wave energy convert- Lindeboom, H. J., Kouwenhoven, H. J., Bergman, M. J. N., ers on the surrounding soft-bottom macrofauna (west Bouma, S., Brasseur, S., Daan, R., Fijn, R. C., de Haan, D., coast of Sweden). Marine Environmental Research, Dirksen, S., van Hal, R., Hille Ris Lambers, R., ter Hof- 69(5), 374-381. doi:10.1016/j.marenvres.2010.01.002 stede, R., Krijgsveld, K. L., Leopold, M., and Scheidat, M. https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/effects-wave-energy​ 2011. Short-term ecological effects of an offshore wind -converters-surrounding-soft-bottom-macrofauna-west​ farm in the Dutch coastal zone; a compilation. Environ- -coast-sweden mental Research Letters, 6(3). doi:10.1088/1748-9326​ Langhamer, O. 2012. Artificial Reef Effect in relation to Offshore Renewable Energy Conversion: State of the Art. The Scientific World Journal, 8. doi:10.1100/2012​ /6/3/035101 https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/short​ -term-ecological-effects-offshore-wind-farm-dutch​ -coastal-zone-compilation /386713 https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/artificial-reef​ Linder, H. L., and Horne, J. K. 2018. Evaluating statisti- -effect-relation-offshore-renewable-energy-conversion​ cal models to measure environmental change: A tidal -state-art turbine case study. Ecological Indicators, 84, 765-792. Langhamer, O. 2016. The location of offshore wave power devices structures epifaunal assemblages. International Journal of Marine Energy, 16, 174-180. doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2017.09.041 https://tethys.pnnl.gov​ /publications/evaluating-statistical-models-measure​ -environmental-change-tidal-turbine-case-study doi:10.1016/j.ijome.2016.07.007 https://tethys.pnnl.gov​ Linder, H. L., Horne, J. K., and Ward, E. J. 2017. Model- /publications/location-offshore-wave-power-devices​ ing baseline conditions of ecological indicators: Marine -structures-epifaunal-assemblages renewable energy environmental monitoring. Ecological Langhamer, O., Dahlgren, T. G., and Rosenqvist, G. 2018. Effect of an offshore wind farm on the viviparous eelpout: Biometrics, brood development and population studies in Lillgrund, Sweden. Ecological Indicators, 84, Indicators, 83, 178-191. doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2017.07.015 https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/modeling-baseline​ -conditions-ecological-indicators-marine-renewable​ -energy 1-6. doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2017.08.035 https://tethys.pnnl​ Loxton, J., Macleod, A. K., Nall, C. R., McCollin, T., .gov/publications/effect-offshore-wind-farm-viviparous​ Machado, I., Simas, T., Vance, T., Kenny, C., Want, A., -eelpout-biometrics-brood-development-population and Miller, R. G. 2017. Setting an agenda for biofoul- Langhamer, O., and Wilhelmsson, D. 2009. Colonisation of fish and crabs of wave energy foundations and the effects of manufactured holes – A field experiment. Marine Environmental Research, 68(4), 151-157. doi:10.1016/j.marenvres.2009.06.003 https://tethys.pnnl​ ing research for the marine renewable energy industry. International Journal of Marine Energy, 19, 292-303. doi:10.1016/j.ijome.2017.08.006 https://tethys.pnnl.gov​ /publications/setting-agenda-biofouling-research-marine​ -renewable-energy-industry .gov/publications/colonisation-fish-crabs-wave-energy​ Maar, M., Bolding, K., Petersen, J. K., Hansen, J. L. S., -foundations-effects-manufactured-holes-field and Timmermann, K. 2009. Local effects of blue mus- Lindeboom, H., Degraer, S., Dannheim, J., Gill, A. B., and Wilhelmsson, D. 2015. Offshore wind park monitoring programmes, lessons learned and recommendations for the future. Hydrobiologia, 756(1), 169-180. doi:10.1007​ /s10750-015-2267-4 https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications​ /offshore-wind-park-monitoring-programmes-lessons​ sels around turbine foundations in an ecosystem model of Nysted off-shore wind farm, Denmark. Journal of Sea Research, 62(2), 159-174. doi:10.1016/j.seares.2009.01​ .008 https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/local-effectsblue​-mussels-around-turbine-foundations-ecosystemmodel​-nysted-shore -learned-recommendations-future SECTION B – CURRENT KNOWLEDGE OF KEY DEVICE INTERACTIONS WITH THE MARINE ENVIRONMENT 121 Macleod, A. K., Stanley, M. S., Day, J. G., and Cook, E. J. Page, H. M., Dugan, J. E., Dugan, D. S., Richards, J. B., 2016. Biofouling community composition across a range and Hubbard, D. M. 1999. Effects of an offshore oil of environmental conditions and geographical locations platform on the distribution and abundance of com- suitable for floating marine renewable energy genera- mercially simportant crab species. Marine Ecology Prog- tion. Biofouling, 32(3), 261-276. doi:10.1080/08927014​ ress Series, 185, 47-57. doi:10.3354/meps185047 https:// .2015.1136822 https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications​ tethys​.pnnl.gov/publications/effects-offshore-oil-platform​ /biofouling-community-composition-across-range​ -distribution-abundance-commercially-important-crab -environmental-conditions-geographical Raoux, A., Lassalle, G., Pezy, J.-P., Tecchio, S., Safi, G., Mendoza, M., and Henkel, S. K. 2017. Benthic effects of Ernande, B., Mazé, C., Loc’h, F. L., Lequesne, J., Girar- artificial structures deployed in a tidal estuary. Plankton din, V., Dauvin, J.-C., and Niquil, N. 2019. Measuring and Benthos Research, 12(3), 179-189. doi:10.3800/pbr.12​ sensitivity of two OSPAR indicators for a coastal food .179 https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/benthic-effects​ web model under offshore wind farm construction. Eco- -artificial-structures-deployed-tidal-estuary logical Indicators, 96, 728-738. doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2018​ Methratta, E. T., and Dardick, W. R. 2019. Meta-Analysis of Finfish Abundance at Offshore Wind Farms. Reviews in Fisheries Science & Aquaculture, 27(2), 242-260. doi:10​ .07.014 https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/measuring​ -sensitivity-two-ospar-indicators-coastal-food-web​ -model-under-offshore-wind .1080/23308249.2019.1584601 https://tethys.pnnl.gov​ Raoux, A., Tecchio, S., Pezy, J.-P., Lassalle, G., Degraer, /publications/meta-analysis-finfish-abundance-offshore​ S., Wilhelmsson, D., Cachera, M., Ernande, B., Le Guen, -wind-farms C., Haraldsson, M., Grangeré, K., Le Loc’h, F., Dauvin, Mineur, F., Cook, E., Minchin, D., Bohn, K., Macleod, A., and Maggs, C. 2012. Changing Coasts: Marine Aliens and Artificial Structures. In R. N. Gibson, R. J. A. Atkinson, J. D. M. Gordon, and R. N. Hughes (Eds.), Oceanography and Marine Biology: An Annual Review (Vol. 50, pp. 189234). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press. https://tethys.pnnl.gov​ J.-C., and Niquil, N. 2017. Benthic and fish aggregation inside an offshore wind farm: Which effects on the trophic web functioning? Ecological Indicators, 72, 33-46. doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2016.07.037 https://tethys.pnnl.gov​ /publications/benthic-fish-aggregation-inside-offshore​ -wind-farm-which-effects-trophic-web /publications/changing-coasts-marine-aliens-artificial​ Rogers, A., Blanchard, Julia L., and Mumby, Peter J. -structures 2014. Vulnerability of Coral Reef Fisheries to a Loss of O’Carroll, J. P. J., Kennedy, R. M., Creech, A., and Savidge, G. 2017a. Tidal Energy: The benthic effects of an operational tidal stream turbine. Marine Environmental Research, 129, 277-290. doi:10.1016/j.marenvres.2017​ Structural Complexity. Current Biology, 24(9), 10001005. doi:10.1016/j.cub.2014.03.026 https://tethys.pnnl​ .gov/publications/vulnerability-coral-reef-fisheries-loss​ -structural-complexity .06.007 https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/tidal-energy​ Schuchert, P., Kregting, L., Pritchard, D., Savidge, G., -benthic-effects-operational-tidal-stream-turbine and Elsäßer, B. 2018. Using Coupled Hydrodynamic O’Carroll, J. P. J., Kennedy, R. M., and Savidge, G. 2017b. Identifying relevant scales of variability for monitoring epifaunal reef communities at a tidal energy extraction site. Ecological Indicators, 73, 388-397. doi:10.1016​ /j.ecolind.2016.10.005 https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications​ /identifying-relevant-scales-variability-monitoring​ Biogeochemical Models to Predict the Effects of Tidal Turbine Arrays on Phytoplankton Dynamics. Journal of Marine Science and Engineering, 6(2), 58. doi: 10.3390/ jmse6020058 https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/using​ -coupled-hydrodynamic-biogeochemical-models-predict​ -effects-tidal-turbine-arrays -epifaunal-reef-communities-tidal 122 OES-ENVIRONMENTAL 2020 STATE OF THE SCIENCE REPORT Sheehan, E. V., Bridger, D., Nancollas, S. J., and Pitt- van Hal, R., Griffioen, A. B., and van Keeken, O. A. 2017. man, S. J. 2020. PelagiCam: a novel underwater imag- Changes in fish communities on a small spatial scale, ing system with computer vision for semi-automated an effect of increased habitat complexity by an off- monitoring of mobile marine fauna at offshore struc- shore wind farm. Marine Environmental Research, 126, tures. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 192(1), 26-36. doi:10.1016/j.marenvres.2017.01.009 https:// 11. doi:10.1007/s10661-019-7980-4 https://tethys.pnnl​ tethys.pnnl.gov​/publications/changes-fish-communities- .gov/publications/pelagicam-novel-underwater-imaging​ small-spatial​-scale-effect-increased-habitat-complexity -system-computer-vision-semi-automated-monitoring van der Molen, J., Ruardij, P., and Greenwood, N. 2016. Sheehan, E. V., Cartwright, A. Y., Witt, M. J., Attrill, M. Potential environmental impact of tidal energy extrac- J., Vural, M., and Holmes, L. A. 2018. Development of tion in the Pentland Firth at large spatial scales: results epibenthic assemblages on artificial habitat associ- of a biogeochemical model. Biogeosciences, 13(8), 2593- ated with marine renewable infrastructure. ICES Journal 2609. doi:10.5194/bg-13-2593-2016 https://tethys.pnnl​ of Marine Science. doi:10.1093/icesjms/fsy151 https://​ .gov/publications/potential-environmental-impact-tidal​ tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/development-epibenthic​ -energy-extraction-pentland-firth-large-spatial -assemblages-artificial-habitat-associated-marine​ -renewable Vaselli, S., Bulleri, F., and Benedetti-Cecchi, L. 2008. Hard coastal-defence structures as habitats for native Slavik, K., Lemmen, C., Zhang, W., Kerimoglu, O., Kling- and exotic rocky-bottom species. Marine Environmen- beil, K., and Wirtz, K. W. 2019. The large-scale impact tal Research, 66(4), 395-403. doi:10.1016/j.marenvres​ of offshore wind farm structures on pelagic primary .2008.06.002 https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/hard​ productivity in the southern North Sea. Hydrobiologia, -coastal-defence-structures-habitats-native-exotic-rocky​ 845(1), 35-53. doi:10.1007/s10750-018-3653-5 https://​ -bottom-species tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/large-scale-impact-offshore​ -wind-farm-structures-pelagic-primary-productivity​ -southern Viola, S. M., Page, H. M., Zaleski, S. F., Miller, R. J., Doheny, B., Dugan, J. E., Schroeder, D. M., and Schroeter, S. C. 2018. Anthropogenic disturbance facili- Smokorowski, K. E., and Randall, R. G. 2017. Cautions tates a non-native species on offshore oil platforms. on using the Before-After-Control-Impact design in Journal of Applied Ecology, 55(4), 1583-1593. doi:10.1111​ environmental effects monitoring programs. FAC- /1365-2664.13104 https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications​ ETS, 2(1), 212-232. doi:10.1139/facets-2016-0058 /anthropogenic-disturbance-facilitates-non-native​ https://tethys.pnnl​.gov/publications/cautions-using- -species-offshore-oil-platforms after-control-impact​-design-environmental-effectsmonitoring-programs Vodopivec, M., J Peliz, Á., and Malej, A. 2017. Offshore marine constructions as propagators of moon jellyfish Taormina, B. 2019. Potential impacts of submarine dispersal. Environmental Research Letters, 12(8), 084003. power cables from marine renewable energy projects on doi:10.1088/1748-9326/aa75d9 https://tethys.pnnl.gov​ benthic communities. Doctoral Dissertation, University /publications/offshore-marine-constructions-propagators​ of Western Brittany, Brest, France. -moon-jellyfish-dispersal Taormina, B., Bald, J., Want, A., Thouzeau, G., Lejart, Want, A., Crawford, R., Kakkonen, J., Kiddie, G., Miller, M., Desroy, N., and Carlier, A. 2018. A review of poten- S., Harris, R. E., and Porter, J. S. 2017. Biodiversity tial impacts of submarine power cables on the marine characterisation and hydrodynamic consequences of environment: Knowledge gaps, recommendations and marine fouling communities on marine renewable future directions. Renewable and Sustainable Energy energy infrastructure in the Orkney Islands Archi- Reviews, 96, 380-391. doi:10.1016/j.rser.2018.07.026 pelago, Scotland, UK. Biofouling, 33(7), 567-579. doi:10​ https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/review-potential​ .1080/08927014.2017.1336229 https://tethys.pnnl.gov​ -impacts-submarine-power-cables-marine-environment​ /publications/biodiversity-characterisation-hydrodynamic​ -knowledge-gaps -consequences-marine-fouling-communities SECTION B – CURRENT KNOWLEDGE OF KEY DEVICE INTERACTIONS WITH THE MARINE ENVIRONMENT 123 Want, A., and Porter, J. 2018, 28-31 May 2018. BioFREE: Wilding, T. A., Gill, A. B., Boon, A., Sheehan, E., Dauvin, An International Study of Biofouling Impacts on the J. C., Pezy, J.-P., O’Beirn, F., Janas, U., Rostin, L., and Marine Renewable Energy Industry. Paper presented De Mesel, I. 2017. Turning off the DRIP (‘Data-rich, at the 2018 OCEANS - MTS/IEEE Kobe Techno-Oceans information-poor’) – rationalising monitoring with (OTO), Kobe, Japan. doi:10.1109/OCEANSKOBE.2018​ a focus on marine renewable energy developments .8559322 https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/biofree​ and the benthos. Renewable and Sustainable Energy -international-study-biofouling-impacts-marine​ Reviews, 74, 848-859. doi:10.1016/j.rser.2017.03.013 -renewable-energy-industry https://tethys.pnnl​.gov/publications/turning-drip-data- Wehkamp, S., and Fischer, P. 2013. Impact of coastal defence structures (tetrapods) on a demer- rich-information​-poor-rationalising-monitoring-focusmarine sal hard-bottom fish community in the south- Wilhelmsson, D., Malm, T., and Öhman, M. C. 2006. The ern North Sea. Marine Environmental Research, 83, influence of offshore windpower on demersal fish. ICES 82-92. doi:10.1016/j.marenvres.2012.10.013 https:// Journal of Marine Science, 63(5), 775-784. doi:10.1016​ tethys.pnnl.gov​/publications/impact-coastal-defence- /j.icesjms.2006.02.001 https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications​ structures​-tetrapods-demersal-hard-bottom-fish- /influence-offshore-windpower-demersal-fish community Williamson, B., Fraser, S., Williamson, L., Nikora, V., and Scott, B. 2019. Predictable changes in fish school characteristics due to a tidal turbine support structure. Renewable Energy, 141, 1092-1102. doi:10.1016​ /j.renene.2019.04.065 https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications​ /predictable-changes-fish-school-characteristics-due​ -tidal-turbine-support-structure NOTES 124 OES-ENVIRONMENTAL 2020 STATE OF THE SCIENCE REPORT Changes in Benthic and Pelagic Habitats Caused by Marine Renewable Energy Devices Hemery, L.G. 2020. Changes in Benthic and Pelagic Habitats Caused by Marine Renewable Energy Devices. In A.E. Copping and L.G. Hemery (Eds.), OES-Environmental 2020 State of the Science Report: Environmental Effects of Marine Renewable Energy Development Around the World. Report for Ocean Energy Systems (OES). (pp. 104-125). doi:10.2172/1633182 REPORT AND MORE INFORMATION OES-Environmental 2020 State of the Science full report and executive summary available at: https://tethys​.pnnl.gov/publications/state-of-the​-science-2020 CONTACT Andrea Copping Pacific Northwest National Laboratory andrea.copping@pnnl.gov +1 206.528.3049 Go to https://tethys​.pnnl.gov for a comprehensive collection of papers, reports, archived presentations, and other media about environmental effects of marine renewable energy development. SECTION B – CURRENT KNOWLEDGE OF KEY DEVICE INTERACTIONS WITH THE MARINE ENVIRONMENT 125 126 OES-ENVIRONMENTAL 2020 STATE OF THE SCIENCE REPORT 7.0 Chapter authors: Jonathan M. Whiting, Grace Chang Contributors: Andrea E. Copping, Lysel Garavelli, Hayley K. Farr Changes in Oceanographic Systems Associated with Marine Renewable Energy Devices Oceanographic processes define the marine environment: the flow of water determines the concentrations of dissolved gases and nutrients, transports sediments, and maintains the habitats and water quality that support marine organisms and healthy ecosystems. Important physical processes in the ocean include, but are not limited to, tidal circulation and basin flushing, wave action, local and basin-scale ocean currents, temperature and salinity gradients, sediment transport forming and shaping coastlines, and the exchange of heat and dissolved gases at the air-water interface. Harnessing energy with marine renewable energy (MRE) devices has the potential to affect these processes in both the nearfield (within a few device lengths) and the farfield (farther from the device, from the scale of multiple devices to the scale of an enclosed basin) by removing energy from the system, changing natural flow patterns around devices, and/or decreasing wave heights. SECTION B – CURRENT KNOWLEDGE OF KEY DEVICE INTERACTIONS WITH THE MARINE ENVIRONMENT 127 7.1. IMPORTANCE OF THE ISSUE Ocean currents (e.g., the Gulf Stream current in the RE devices are most commonly sited in locations M ocean current turbines may have the potential to slow that feature high-energy densities where there is or alter the direction of ocean currents (e.g., Haas et al. North Atlantic Ocean) are responsible for the transport of organisms and nutrients worldwide. Large arrays of potential to extract energy. Channels that are constricted 2014). by depth and/or width increase water velocity and flow Large-scale MRE deployments have the potential to rates and may be well suited for harnessing tidal energy. The energy and configuration of waves are dependent on the fetch over which the wind can generate waves, the configuration of the continental slope and shelf, and in some cases, the geometry of the incident coastline. Ocean currents are formed along continental boundaries, driven by the rotation of the Earth, temperature gradients, and global winds, with narrower focused currents on the western side of ocean basins (western intensification). These are the regions where MRE devices may be able to most effectively harness energy from the ocean (Yang and Copping 2017). However, some areas may be too energetic for successful deployment and operation of devices, particularly in tidal areas characterized by high levels of turbulence (Chen and Lam 2015). While the blockage of natural flow caused by tidal turbines is not as significant as hydropower dams and tidal barrages, tidal turbines will reduce the tidal range or the flushing of contaminants from an enclosed coastal system, but the effect will almost certainly be negligible until large arrays are deployed and operated (De Dominicis et al. 2017; Nash et al. 2014). Tides are a primary driver of sediment transport in enclosed basins, moving and suspending sediments that shape seabed morphol- disrupt natural processes driven by tides, waves, and ocean currents. Yet these disruptions need to be viewed within the context of the ocean as a rapidly changing system, comparing the magnitude of potential disruptions caused by MRE development to the natural variation of key parameters in the marine systems. 7.2. SUMMARY OF KNOWLEDGE THROUGH 2016 C hanges in oceanographic systems caused by single MRE devices or small MRE arrays (~20 MW or less) are likely to be small compared to the natural variability of the system (Robins et al. 2014). In the absence of large-scale arrays, insight gained into the changes in the oceanographic system has relied on numerical model simulations to estimate potential farfield effects. These models need to be validated, but the scarcity of oceanographic data about these high-energy environments and the scarcity of device deployments worldwide make model validation impossible at this time (Copping et al. 2016). ogy and support nearshore habitats. In addition, tidal As of 2016, studies that attempted to measure oceano- currents play a role in water column mixing, changing graphic conditions before and after deployment and the nutrient concentrations and plankton aggregations, operation of MRE devices were limited (Copping et and transporting fish and invertebrate larvae. al. 2016). However, many numerical models had been Wave energy converters (WECs) have the potential to alter wave propagation and under-currents, thereby affecting natural processes such as the transport of sediment in coastal waters and the shaping of coastlines. The transport of sediments supports the formation and protection of beaches and other coastal features (González-Santamaría et al. 2012), but can also lead to the erosion of shorelines and destruction of coastal infrastructure (Caldwell 1967). Waves are also responsible for vertical mixing of salinity, temperature, suspended sediments, dissolved nutrients in the water column, and plankton, further supporting marine life. 128 developed to study energy removal and changes in flow around MRE devices. Modeling investigations of the effects of tidal energy generation saw considerable advances prior to 2016, with the placement of economically and socially reasonable numbers of turbines for an estuary or coastal embayment (Martin-Short et al. 2015; Yang et al. 2014), more accurate modeling of sediment transport processes (Fairley et al. 2015; Robins et al. 2014; Smith et al. 2013), and the inclusion of waterquality constituents (Wang et al. 2015; Yang and Wang 2015). Although the complexity of wave regimes and the number of different WEC designs under development posed challenges to wave modeling, numerical modOES-ENVIRONMENTAL 2020 STATE OF THE SCIENCE REPORT els have provided insight into beach erosion profiles around floating offshore wind foundations will be valid (Abanades et al. 2014) and nearshore changes (Chang et analogs to inform MRE deployments. al. 2014). As of 2016, a small number of field and laboratory stud- 7.3.1. FIELD STUDIES ies on the changes in oceanographic systems caused by Field studies have focused on measuring changes in flow MRE devices had been conducted. Research in the Bay and turbulence near MRE development sites to provide of Fundy, Canada used natural variability as a proxy for for the calibration or validation of numerical models. As the perturbations caused by tidal devices, to look at the of 2020, few field studies have measured the effects of changes in sediment dynamics and deposition in tidal MRE devices, because potential changes are unlikely to creeks (O’Laughlin and van Proosdij 2013; O’Laughlin be measurable within a system’s natural variability for et al. 2014; van Proosdij et al. 2013). Experiments car- the current size of deployments (Petrie et al. 2014). ried out in a flume, using a small-scale turbine and an artificial sediment bed, used simulated field conditions and identified the characteristics of erosion (RamírezMendoza et al. 2015). The greatest number of MRE devices worldwide has been deployed and tested at the European Marine Energy Centre (EMEC) in the United Kingdom (UK) but only a few projects have focused on measuring changes By 2016, significant progress had been made toward in oceanographic systems. Using the Flow, Water Col- understanding and evaluating the potential effects of umn and Benthic Ecology (FLOWBEC) platform, Fraser MRE devices on natural systems, yet five specific needs et al. (2017) measured velocity in the wake of the bot- remained (Copping et al. 2016): tom-mounted foundation for a tidal turbine to quantify ◆ validation of models with more field measurements around deployed devices ◆ reduction of model uncertainty with targeted research on turbulence ◆ variation of model inputs to account for differences in device designs ◆ ◆ turbulent interactions with the seabed. Compared to nearby control measurements, observations showed a 31 percent decrease in flow velocity and a 10–15 percent increase in turbulence intensity over two days of measurements. As part of the Reliable Data Acquisition Platform for Tidal (ReDAPT) project, two instrumentation platforms were deployed to characterize the creation of better linkages between the nearfield and EMEC Fall of Warness Tidal site and monitor flow and farfield effects of MRE devices wave fields around a 1 MW Alstrom DEEPGEN IV tidal evaluation of the cumulative effects in relation to turbine (Sellar and Sutherland 2016; Sellar et al. 2017). natural variability and anthropogenic activities. Analyses of flow velocity and turbulence highlighted site-specific differences between ebb and flood tides, 7.3. KNOWLEDGE GENERATED SINCE 2016 L iterature that advances the state of the science relative to changes in oceanographic systems is sum- marized here by field, laboratory, and modeling studies. Although a substantial body of literature focuses on power extraction potential and resource characterization for wave and tidal energy, only studies that explicitly address the environmental effects of MRE devices are included. Studies of the turbulence downstream of offshore wind turbines that have monopile foundations have been conducted (Baeye and Fettweis 2015; Miles et al. 2017; Rogan et al. 2016; Schultze 2018), but a structure spanning the full water column is not representative of MRE devices. Instead, future studies conducted which can be used to optimize power production while minimizing likely environmental effects (Sellar et al. 2018). Wake recovery measurements around a deployed river turbine in Alaska, United States (U.S.), showed that the wake was persistent and did not show significant recovery downstream of the turbine (Guerra and Thomson 2019). Observations around deployments of three CETO5 point-absorber WECs off Perth, Australia, between November 2014 and December 2015, supported model predictions of reduced wave height leeward of the devices (Contardo et al. 2018). Key findings included that wave height reductions in the swell band were comparable to those in the wind-sea band, observations were greater than those simulated by the model, and some of the differences in the local wave climate were attributable to natural variability at the site. Tur- SECTION B – CURRENT KNOWLEDGE OF KEY DEVICE INTERACTIONS WITH THE MARINE ENVIRONMENT 129 bulence was also measured at potential tidal extraction understand the mechanics of reflected waves and the sites (Garcia Novo and Kyozuka 2019; Togneri et al. wave spectrum. Five cylindrical floating WECs were 2017). The results of these field studies inform numeri- tested in a wave basin with different spacing, and it was cal models that assist with device design and siting, but determined that one wavelength distance apart reduced they also have implications for how MRE devices may the changes in hydrodynamics (O’Boyle et al. 2017). affect the nearfield and farfield mixing of water and Stereo-videogrammetry has been shown to demon- entrainment of sediment within the marine ecosystem. strate accuracy similar to wave gauges when measuring 7.3.2. LABORATORY STUDIES waves reflecting from walls (Winship et al. 2018). Studies conducted in flumes to understand wake 7.3.3. MODELING STUDIES – TIDAL ENERGY recovery and turbulence due to tidal energy extraction Until large arrays are deployed in the marine environ- can provide insight into the effects of MRE extraction ment and field measurements are collected to deter- (Mycek et al. 2014a, 2014b). Acoustic instrumentation mine whether MRE devices are affecting oceanographic was used to characterize flow and sediment transport processes, numerical models provide the best insight in the wake of a scaled turbine, and the results indicated into what might occur as the MRE industry advances. an increase in suspended sediment as far as 15 rotor diameters downstream, deposition along the centerline, and a horseshoe-shaped scour pit in the near wake region (Ramírez-Mendoza et al. 2018). Wake effects characterize the environment in the immediate area of turbines but might also have more distant effects with the development of large arrays. Close lateral spacing within an array causes significantly reduced velocity recovery, suggesting that spacing could be optimized for wake recovery (Nuernberg and Tao 2018). Three distinct wake regions were identified in a flume study (Ouro et al. 2019), which allowed for more detailed examination of changes that might affect the environment (Figure 7.1). Experiments in wave tanks were also used to better Literature addressing the effects of tidal energy extraction on the hydrodynamics of oceanographic systems has reported changes in velocity and residence times, without much elaboration about the environmental implications of such changes. Gallego et al. (2017) and Side et al. (2017) summarize a large collaborative modeling project, known as TeraWatt, that uses hydrodynamic, wave, and sediment transport models to examine the effects of tidal arrays in Pentland Firth and Orkney waters, UK, thereby demonstrating the application of numerical models to assessing the oceanographic changes in a system. Li et al. (2019) assessed the theoretical effects of a single tidal device on waves in shallow waters and showed a three percent reduction in wave Figure 7.1. Schematic of the hydrodynamics of an array of tidal turbines. (From Ouro et al. 2019) 130 OES-ENVIRONMENTAL 2020 STATE OF THE SCIENCE REPORT height and a slight increase in wavelength, where the Changes in flow caused by the introduction of tidal magnitude of change was highly dependent on turbine turbines also has the potential to affect biogeochemi- size and water depth. Wang and Yang (2017) explored cal processes. A 2D model of a 1000 m idealized chan- power extraction scenarios extracting 250 kW to 1.8 MW nel with 55 turbines indicated that the operation of the from tidal inlets in Puget Sound, Washington State, U.S., turbines increased the residence time of phytoplankton and showed that system-wide environmental effects within a waterbody by five percent but resulted in a were unlikely to be a concern for small arrays. A model decrease of mean phytoplankton concentrations by 18 of a large 480-device tidal array in northeast China to 28 percent (Schuchert et al. 2018). Using the backdrop showed reduced velocities as far as 10 km downstream of Pentland Firth, coupled hydrodynamics and biogeo- (Liu et al. 2019). Guillou and Chapalain (2017) modeled chemical models were used to examine nutrient cycles a full-extraction scenario in the Passage du Fromveur, and responses by microorganisms in the presence of France that showed alterations to existing circulation large tidal extraction scenarios of 800 MW and 8 GW patterns and displaced recirculation eddies near the tidal (van der Molen et al. 2016). The results showed an initial extraction site, determined using tracer experiments, increase in particulate carbon content in the seabed as and resulted in a 5 percent decrease in residence time detrital material settled, although an equilibrium was across the Ouessant-Molène archipelago (Guillou et al. reached after the first year. 2019). Because of the natural variability in the movement and The removal of energy or alterations to water circulation constituents of seawater, exacerbated by variability patterns have the potential to change sediment transport induced by climate change, oceanographic changes processes that result in shoreline erosion, replenishment attributable to the presence of large arrays of MRE of beaches and shorelines, scour around infrastructure devices in the water may not be detectable at a level installations, and sediment accumulation nearshore. that is biologically important. A model of the two-way Sediment bed-shear stress is quadratically related to interaction between a 1 m sea level rise predicted for changes in the amplitude of tidal currents, indicating 2090 and tidal energy extraction at the entrance to the that the extraction of tidal energy could strongly affect Bay of Fundy showed that the impact of sea level rise sediment transport (Neill et al. 2017). Several models even exceeded that of a 3 GW tidal extraction scenario have assessed changes in sediment transport under large (Kresning et al. 2019). García-Oliva et al. (2017) mod- tidal energy extraction scenarios, and highlighted mor- eled three large tidal extraction scenarios (240 MW to phological change in sandbanks, including long-term 2.2 GW) to assess changes in water level within the Sol- movement and alteration that may disturb the sensitive way Firth estuary (UK). Changes in low tide were most benthic ecology (Chatzirodou et al. 2019; Fairley et al. prominent within and around the farm, while changes 2017, 2018). Localized sediment accumulation was pre- in high tide were most prominent at the inner part of dicted around a proposed 10 MW array in Ramsey Sound the estuary, potentially decreasing flood risk. Another (UK) using a 2D hydrodynamic model (Haverson et al. study modeled a high-emissions 2050 climate change 2018). Modeling of suspended sediments around two scenario to include a 3.8 GW tidal extraction across 10 large idealized energy extraction scenarios of 770 MW arrays in Scotland (De Dominicis et al. 2017, 2018). This and 5.6 GW in the upper Bay of Fundy indicated that scenario indicated that tidal velocities were reduced by suspended sediment may decrease by an average of 5.6 both climate change and tidal energy extraction locally, percent and 37 percent, respectively, across the basin although the impact of climate change was an order because of increased sedimentation, which could affect of magnitude larger, resulting in reduced mixing and habitat particularly on fine-grained intertidal areas increased stratification. However, tidal energy extrac- of the basin (Ashall et al. 2016). A dampening of the tion was shown to locally reduce extreme water levels, flood-ebb asymmetry driven by tidal energy extraction countering some impacts of sea level rise (Figure 7.2). was simulated in a channel, resulting in a reduction of the gross volume of sediment transported (Potter 2019). Finally, Nelson et al. (2018) developed a framework for optimizing tidal energy device siting while considering environmental effects such as sediment transport. Most tidal energy extraction modeling studies explore farfield effects from large arrays on the order of 1 GW or more (Ashall et al. 2016; Chatzirodou et al. 2019; De Dominicis et al. 2017, 2018; Fairley et al. 2017; Gallego SECTION B – CURRENT KNOWLEDGE OF KEY DEVICE INTERACTIONS WITH THE MARINE ENVIRONMENT 131 et al. 2017; García-Oliva et al. 2017; Guillou and Cha- a palain 2017; Guillou et al. 2019; Kresning et al. 2019; van der Molen et al. 2016), but some focus on nearfield effects from small arrays on the order of 20 MW or less (Haverson et al. 2018; Li et al. 2019; Wang and Yang 2017). There has been some technology convergence for tidal devices; the greatest number of tidal deployments to date have been horizontal-axis turbines, either mounted on the seabed or suspended in the water column (floating). 7.3.4. MODELING STUDIES – WAVE ENERGY As with tidal energy extraction, wave energy effects in the farfield physical environment cannot be measured until large arrays are deployed, but numerical models may provide estimates of potential future effects. b Array configurations significantly vary the impact on the nearshore wave climate. Three array configurations of 12 WECs—a single row, two rows, and three rows— were modeled to determine the potential effects of the Westwave array on the west coast of Ireland (Atan et al. 2019). The three-row configuration produced the least power extraction per device and led to a greater change in significant wave height, implying that array configuration can be modified to reduce impacts. Work summarized by Gallego et al. (2017) demonstrated the utility of numerical models to investigate wave arrays in Pentland Firth and Orkney waters, and showed localized effects on coastal morphology that decreased with distance. Several array designs and incident wave conditions were modeled for two hypothetical 60-device wave arrays at a test site off Newport, Oregon, U.S., to determine c the threshold for wave-induced longshore force that may affect beaches and nearshore features (O’Dea et al. 2018). This study showed that wave arrays located close to shore and spaced close together will have greater effects, especially as wave heights and periods increase. Using a probabilistic framework, Jones et al. (2018) modeled the changes in shear stress and bed elevation caused by the introduction of a hypothetical 18-device wave farm consisting of oscillating water column WECs off Newport, Oregon. From this study, a Spatial Environmental Assessment Tool risk analysis was developed to visualize the potential impacts on different habitat types along the coast. Figure 7.2. Change in spring peak tidal range, shown as the change in tidal height in meters, due to (a) tidal stream energy extraction during present conditions, (b) future climate conditions, and (c) tidalstream energy extraction and future climate conditions. (Adapted from De Dominicis et al. 2018) 132 OES-ENVIRONMENTAL 2020 STATE OF THE SCIENCE REPORT Because wave devices are often located in coastal waters, modeling studies have explored their effects on beach erosion, often analyzing the potential use of WECs for coastal protection. A staggered two-row array of overtopping devices at eight locations along an eroding gravel-dominated deltaic beach in Guidalfeo, Spain, was found to decrease the average significant wave heights by 18.3 percent, wave run-up by 10.6 percent, and beach erosion by 23.3 percent along the coast and by 44.5 percent at the central stretch of beach (Bergillos et al. 2018). In addition, a 44.6 percent decrease in longshore sediment transport and an increased amount of dry beach surface at the optimal array location were shown—significant because the array was located close to shore (Rodriguez-Delgado et al. 2018). Declines in the wave climate, caused by a floating wave array near an eroding beach-dune system in Asturias, Spain, were modeled to alleviate erosion of the dune front and support the dual use of WECs for coastal protection and 7.4. GUIDANCE ON MEASURING CHANGES IN OCEANOGRAPHIC SYSTEMS CAUSED BY MRE T he study of physical oceanographic processes is essential for assessing and ultimately quantifying the potential effects of MRE development on the physical environment, as well as for characterizing the tidal or wave resources available for extraction (Bergillos et al. 2019; González-Santamaría et al. 2013; Jones et al. 2018; Palha et al. 2010; Rusu and Guedes Soares 2009, 2013). Accurate measurements of the physical oceanographic environment before and after the deployment and operation of MRE devices can help understand potential effects on processes and resources such as water quality, sediment transport, and ecosystem processes. most open coastlines, WECs are unlikely to assist with 7.4.1. ACOUSTIC DOPPLER TECHNOLOGIES coastal protection because the devices would be locked Measurements of subsurface current velocity are typi- down during large storms that cause the most signifi- cally obtained using acoustic methods. Transducers cant erosion. transmit and receive sound signals at specific frequen- energy generation (Abanades et al. 2018). However, for Most wave models assess small arrays of 20 or fewer devices and the resulting nearfield effects (Abanades et al. 2018; Atan et al. 2019; Bergillos et al. 2018; Jones et al. 2018; Rodriguez-Delgado et al. 2018), likely because of the complexity of modeling diffracted and radiated waves around multiple devices or arrays. However, two studies looked at farfield effects around large wave arrays (O’Dea et al. 2018; Venugopal et al. 2017). There has been little technology convergence for wave devices; a plethora of WEC designs are under consideration, including attenuators, oscillating water columns, overtopping devices, and point absorbers. Each WEC cies and ocean current velocities are computed based on sound travel time and the frequency shift (Doppler shift) of the echo (e.g., Simpson 2001). Multiple transducers enable resolution of 3D current velocity and direction. Because the principles of operation for the acoustic Doppler current profilers (ADCPs) rely on sound scattering, these instruments can also provide information about particle concentrations, including total suspended sediment (Gartner 2004; Wall et al. 2006), plankton biomass (Cisewski et al. 2010; Jiang et al. 2007), and fish school swimming speeds (Lee et al. 2014; Patro et al. 2000). design captures different aspects of wave energy and ADCPs (Figure 7.3a) are available in a wide range of may affect the wave climate in different ways. Rep- acoustic frequencies, enabling measurement distances resenting these different device designs accurately in of up to hundreds of meters and at various spatial reso- numerical models adds a layer of complexity to the lutions (from centimeters to meters). Acoustic Doppler models, but several methods for parameterizations velocimeters (ADVs; Figure 7.3a), which operate based have emerged, including geometry solvers (Gallego on Doppler-based measurement principles similar to et al. 2017; Venugopal et al. 2017) and idealized power those of ADCPs, sample a small volume of water at a matrices (Chang et al. 2016; Smith et al. 2012). single point in the water column. Many ADVs are capable of sampling at a high rate of frequency (>8 Hz) to quantify forcing parameters such as shear stress, vertical sediment flux, dissipation rate of the kinetic energy of turbulence, and particle settling velocity (e.g., Fong SECTION B – CURRENT KNOWLEDGE OF KEY DEVICE INTERACTIONS WITH THE MARINE ENVIRONMENT 133 a ety of array designs and different environmental conditions (Musa et al. 2019). Laboratory results quantified local and non-local hydrodynamic and morphodynamic changes in response to different tidal turbine siting strategies to inform future turbine deployments for optimizing power production while minimizing environmental effects. Acoustic Doppler current meters are self-contained (internal power and data storage) and can be deployed on a variety of sensing platforms, including real-time systems, from fixed and profiling moorings to manned and unmanned surface and underwater vehicles. They b can be oriented with transducers pointed upward, downward (Figure 7.3b), or horizontally in the water column. Further, acoustic measurements are largely immune to the effects of biofouling (biological growth is generally acoustically transparent), making ADCPs and ADVs ideal systems for long-term (months), nearcontinuous measurements of 3D current velocities and particle concentrations. These types of sensors have been widely used for MRE environmental monitoring. Jones et al. (2014) employed ADCPs in combination with conductivity-temperature-depth (CTD) profiles and marine mammal observations to investigate the distribution of harbor porpoises (Phocoena phocoeana) in relation to fine-scale hydrodynamics in support of MRE development in Europe. Fine-scale features were identified in ADCP and CTD data and related to harbor porpoise density and distribution. Figure 7.3. (a) An ADCP (background), ADV (foreground), and waterquality sensor (middle) mounted on a bottom platform, upward looking; and (b) a downward-looking ADCP mounted in-line on a coastal mooring. (Photos courtesy of Frank Spada [a] and Grace Chang [b]) Some ADCPs are equipped with surface tracking and/ or pressure transducers to enable co-located measurements of water elevation and spectral wave parameters (e.g., height, period, and direction) when mounted et al. 2009; Fugate and Friedrichs 2002; Kim et al. 2000; with transducers pointed upward. Wave measurements Thorne and Hay 2012; Voulgaris and Throwbridge 1997). can also be obtained from bottom-mounted pressure These types of measurements are critical for sediment gauges and wave staffs (e.g., Grogg 1986), or surface transport monitoring and model parameterization (i.e., wave measurement buoys whose measurement prin- choosing appropriate parameters and values of param- ciples are based on inertial measurement units (Earle eters in models such as erosion rate) in the vicinity of 1996) or global positioning systems (Herbers et al. MRE devices and may be useful for determining MRE 2012). Although wave staffs and pressure gauges are design criteria and operational controls. A recent study depth-limited and more commonly used in wave tanks demonstrated the utility of ADVs for evaluating the for MRE applications, wave buoys may be moored or geomorphic effects of tidal turbine arrays under a vari- allowed to passively drift in virtually any body of water (Raghukumar et al. 2019) (Figure 7.4). 134 OES-ENVIRONMENTAL 2020 STATE OF THE SCIENCE REPORT Remotely sensed optical technologies such as LiDAR show great promise for near-continuous observations of oceanographic processes in support of MRE environmental monitoring. While LiDAR techniques are more traditionally used for measurement of bathymetry (used as inputs in numerical models), they can also provide accurate assessment of waves, currents, and coastal morphology. Automated terrestrial LiDAR devices are effective tools for analyzing coastal processes at a wide range of spatial and temporal scales, from detailed investigation of individual wave propagation to long-term evaluation of hydrodynamic and morphodynamic variability in coastal zones (O’Dea et al. 2019). When deployed in the vicinity of WEC or tidal turbine arrays, LiDAR systems can satisfy the ocean parameter measurement criteria for high relevance and Figure 7.4. Spotter (Sofar Ocean) real-time wave measurement buoy. (Photo courtesy of Grace Chang) impact, feasibility, and cost. 7.4.2. REMOTE SENSING TECHNIQUES 7.5. RESEARCH AND MONITORING NEEDS TO RESOLVE THE ISSUE Surface waves and currents can also be measured using remote-sensing techniques (e.g., radar altimetry, high-frequency radar, synthetic aperture radar, light detection and ranging [LiDAR]), or stereo photogrammetry. The primary advantage of remote-sensing tech- M ost regulators accept the fact that single MRE devices are unlikely to disrupt the oceanographic system into which they are deployed, and that we can- nologies is that they provide synoptic measurements not expect to gather conclusive data about the poten- over relatively large spatial extents. The disadvantages tial effects of arrays until commercial MRE develop- may include poor spatial resolution, accuracy, range of ment progresses (Jones et al. 2016). In the meantime, detection, and/or limitations in measurement param- improvements in numerical modeling capabilities and eters (e.g., some technologies provide wave height but the validation of those models can help set the stage for not direction or period). evaluating future monitoring and research needs for Marine radar techniques are increasingly being employed for assessment, evaluation, and environmental monitoring in support of MRE projects (Bourdier et al. 2014). In The Crown Estate lease areas for MeyGen Ltd. and Scottish Power Renewables in Scotland, marine radar was used to obtain maps of surface currents in support of tidal turbine array deployments (Bell et al. larger arrays. Although progress has been made, key research and monitoring needs identified in the 2016 State of the Science report (Copping et al. 2016) remain relevant. Recommendations for research and monitoring to advance the knowledge of MRE effects on oceanographic systems and move the industry forward are listed in the following sections. 2014). This technique provided synoptic and accurate, high spatial resolution measurements of tidal currents for resource characterization and array design. Marine radar can also provide information about the potential downstream effects of tidal turbines, such as sea surface roughness modulations (turbulent wakes) in relation to tidal turbine foundation structures (Bell et al. 2015). SECTION B – CURRENT KNOWLEDGE OF KEY DEVICE INTERACTIONS WITH THE MARINE ENVIRONMENT 135 7.5.1. IMPROVING MODEL VALIDATION ricanes or winter storms are also capable of causing Given the general lack of commercial-scale MRE such as the placement of offshore structures or dredg- deployments, few field data are being collected with which to validate model simulations. Oceanographic measurements collected for the purpose of characterizing the power potential at MRE sites are being used to verify model assumptions and outcomes from the UK and other regions where tidal turbines and WECs have been deployed (e.g., Sellar et al. 2017, 2018). Comprehensive monitoring was performed, mostly in the nearfield, at the sites of several single devices or small arrays located at EMEC, UK (Fraser et al. 2017; Sellar and Sutherland 2016; Sellar et al. 2017) and Perth, Australia (Contardo et al. 2018). As large arrays are deployed in the future, pre- and post-deployment farfield measurements will be needed to provide data for model validation. Numerical models are steadily improving in resolution and realism, yet these improvements increase their dependency on high-quality measurements. Many geographic locations lack high-resolution bathymetry data that drive model realism. Models often use basic bottom drag or momentum sinks for tidal turbines or basic parameterizations for WECs, so fine-tuned device parameterizations are needed to accurately represent energy removal and changes in water flow (e.g., Apsley et al. 2018). To address the need for datasets, research should target the enhanced accuracy and resolution of sensors and remote technology, more consistent methodologies for data collection, and better sharing of existing datasets. significant acute change. Other anthropogenic activities ing may also directly affect localized physical processes. Other anthropogenic pressures may be more indirect, such as a dam reducing coastal sediment supply from rivers and increasing coastal erosion. Similarly, MRE arrays may cumulatively interact with one another (Waldman et al. 2019). And all these local changes exist against the backdrop of a changing climate experiencing warming oceans and rising sea levels. Cumulative effects studies will reduce uncertainty by isolating the effects of MRE extraction from natural and anthropogenic pressures. The effects of MRE extraction must also be compared to the impact of non-renewable energy sources that are being offset. A methodology for carrying out effective cumulative impact assessment is elusive but is sorely needed as additional use of ocean spaces come online. The MRE community needs to be a partner in developing and implementing methods that address cumulative impacts. 7.5.3. UNDERSTANDING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPLICATIONS Models predict changes in physical parameters, which may cascade into changes in the environment. To be meaningful, these predictions must be linked to potential impacts on specific organisms and ecosystem processes. These types of linkages are elusive but some insight can be gathered using proxies such as changes in sediment deposition rates to indicate changes in habitat structures (e.g., O’Laughlin et al. 2014), by com- 7.5.2. ASSESSING CUMULATIVE EFFECTS: NATURAL VARIABILITY AND ANTHROPOGENIC ACTIVITIES paring potential changes to natural variability (e.g., Assessing energy removal in the context of natural vari- early insights about the environmental effects of arrays. ability and other anthropogenic activities is particularly challenging and hampers estimation of the potential effects of MRE on the environment. Ocean circulation and sediment transport patterns naturally shift seasonally and over multi-year patterns such as the North Atlantic Oscillation, Pacific Decadal Oscillation, and El Niño Southern Oscillation. Extreme events like hur- Kregting et al. 2016), or by coupling physical models to biogeochemical models (e.g., van der Molen et al. 2016). Learning from industry analogs may provide some Environmental implications are often site-specific, but trends may be identified that apply across multiple bodies of water, different MRE device designs, and specific organisms. Studies that explore these trends can provide valuable guidance for the interpretation of model results and for device developers to minimize the potential effects of MRE devices on the oceanographic system. 136 OES-ENVIRONMENTAL 2020 STATE OF THE SCIENCE REPORT 7.6. REFERENCES Bell, P. S., McCann, D. L., Crammond, S., McIlvenny, J., Abanades, J., Flor-Blanco, G., Flor, G., and Iglesias, stream turbine array in the Pentland Firth. Paper pre- G. 2018. Dual wave farms for energy production and sented at the 2nd International Conference on Envi- coastal protection. Ocean & Coastal Management, 160, ronmental Interactions of Marine Renewable Energy 18-29. doi:10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2018.03.038 https://​ tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/dual-wave-farms-energy​ Technologies, Stornoway, Scotland. https://tethys.pnnl​ -production-coastal-protection -mapping-planned-commercial-tidal-stream-turbine Abanades, J., Greaves, D., and Iglesias, G. 2014. Wave Bergillos, R. J., López-Ruiz, A., Medina-López, E., farm impact on the beach profile: A case study. Coastal Moñino, A., and Ortega-Sánchez, M. 2018. The role of Engineering, 86, 36-44. doi:10.1016/j.coastaleng.2014​ wave energy converter farms on coastal protection in .01.008 https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/wave-farm​ eroding deltas, Guadalfeo, southern Spain. Journal of -impact-beach-profile-case-study Cleaner Production, 171, 356-367. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro​ Apsley, D. D., Stallard, T., and Stansby, P. K. 2018. Actuator-line CFD modelling of tidal-stream turbines in arrays. Journal of Ocean Engineering and Marine Energy, Dufaur, J., and Archer, P. 2014. Marine radar derived current vector mapping at a planned commercial tidal .gov/publications/marine-radar-derived-current-vector​ .2017.10.018 https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/role​ -wave-energy-converter-farms-coastal-protection​ -eroding-deltas-guadalfeo-southern 4(4), 259-271. doi:10.1007/s40722-018-0120-3 https://​ tethys-engineering.pnnl.gov/publications/actuator-line​ Bergillos, R. J., Rodriguez-Delgado, C., and Igle- -cfd-modelling-tidal-stream-turbines-arrays ing under sea level rise: A case study in southern Ashall, L. M., Mulligan, R. P., and Law, B. A. 2016. Variability in suspended sediment concentration in the Minas Basin, Bay of Fundy, and implications for changes due to tidal power extraction. Coastal Engineering, 107, 102-115. sias, G. 2019. Wave farm impacts on coastal floodSpain. Science of The Total Environment, 653, 15221531. doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv​.2018.10.422 https:// tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/wave​-farm-impacts-coastalflooding-under-sea level​-rise​-case​-study​-southern​-spain doi:10.1016/j.coastaleng.2015.10.003 https://​tethys​.pnnl​.gov /publications/variability-suspended​-sediment- Bourdier, S., Dampney, K., Fernandez, H., Lopez, concentration-minas-basin-bay-fundy​-implications field measurement. (Report No. D4.05). Report by Atan, R., Finnegan, W., Nash, S., and Goggins, J. 2019. The effect of arrays of wave energy converters on the nearshore wave climate. Ocean Engineering, 172, 373-384. doi:10.1016/j.oceaneng.2018.11.043 https:// G., and Richon, J.-B. 2014. Non-intrusive wave Energy Research Centre of the Netherlands for Marine Renewables Infrastructure Network. https://​ tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/d405-non-intrusive-wave​ -field-measurement tethys.pnnl​.gov/publications/effect-arrays-wave-energy- Caldwell, J. M. 1967. Coastal Processes and Beach Ero- converters​-nearshore-wave-climate sion. U.S. Army Coastal Engineering Research Center. Baeye, M., and Fettweis, M. 2015. In situ observations of suspended particulate matter plumes at an offshore wind https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/coastal-processes​ -beach-erosion farm, southern North Sea. Geo-Marine Letters, 35(4), 247- Chang, G., Magalen, J., Jones, C., and Roberts, J. 2014. 255. doi:10.1007/s00367-015-0404-8 https://tethys.pnnl​ Wave Energy Converter Effects on Wave Fields: Evalua- .gov/publications/situ-observations-suspended-particulate​ tion of SNL-SWAN and Sensitivity Studies in Monterey -matter-plumes-offshore-wind-farm-southern Bay, CA (Report No. SAND2014-17460). Sandia National Bell, P., McCann, D., Lawrence, J., and Norris, J. 2015. Remote detection of sea surface roughness signatures related to subsurface bathymetry, structures and tidal stream turbine wakes. Paper presented at the 11th European Wave and Tidal Conference, Southampton, UK. https://tethys.pnnl.gov​ /publications/remote-detection-sea-surface-roughness​ Laboratories, Albuquerque, New Mexico. Report by SANDIA for U.S. Department of Energy. https:// tethys-engineering.pnnl​.gov/publications/wave-energyconverter-effects-wave​-fields-evaluation-snl-swansensitivity-studies -signatures-related-subsurface-bathymetry SECTION B – CURRENT KNOWLEDGE OF KEY DEVICE INTERACTIONS WITH THE MARINE ENVIRONMENT 137 Chang, G., Ruehl, K., Jones, C. A., Roberts, J., and Char- De Demonicis, M., Wolf, J., and Murray, R. 2018. Com- trand, C. 2016. Numerical modeling of the effects of parative Effects of Climate Change and Tidal Stream wave energy converter characteristics on nearshore Energy Extraction in a Shelf Sea. Journal of Geophysical wave conditions. Renewable Energy, 89, 636-648. Research, 123(7), 5041-5067. doi:10.1029/2018JC013832 doi:10.1016/j.renene.2015.12.048 https://tethys.pnnl.gov​ https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/comparative-effects​ /publications/numerical-modeling-effects-wave-energy​ -climate-change-tidal-stream-energy-extraction-shelf​ -converter-characteristics-nearshore-wave -sea Chatzirodou, A., Karunarathna, H., and Reeve, D. E. De Dominicis, M., O’Hara Murray, R., and Wolf, J. 2017. 2019. 3D modelling of the impacts of in-stream hori- Multi-scale ocean response to a large tidal stream tur- zontal-axis Tidal Energy Converters (TECs) on offshore bine array. Renewable Energy, 114, 1160-1179. doi:10.1016​ sandbank dynamics. Applied Ocean Research, 91, 101882. /j.renene.2017.07.058 https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications​ doi:10.1016/j.apor.2019.101882 https://tethys.pnnl.gov​ /multi-scale-ocean-response-large-tidal-stream-turbine​ /publications/3d-modelling-impacts-stream-horizontal​ -array -axis-tidal-energy-converters-tecs-offshore Earle, M. D. 1996. Nondirectional and directional wave Chen, L., and Lam, W.-H. 2015. A review of surviv- data analysis procedures. NDBC Technical Document ability and remedial actions of tidal current tur- 96-01. National Data Buoy Center, National Oceanic and bines. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 43, Atmospheric Administration U.S. Department of Com- 891-900. doi:10​.1016/j.rser.2014.11.071 https://tethys- merce. https://tethys-engineering.pnnl.gov/publications​ engineering.pnnl.gov​/publications/review-survivability- /nondirectional-directional-wave-data-analysis​ remedial-actions-tidal​-current-turbines -procedures Cisewski, B., Strass, V. H., Rhein, M., and Krägefsky, S. Fairley, I., Karunarathna, H., and Chatzirodou, A. 2010. Seasonal variation of diel vertical migration of 2017. Modelling the Effects of Marine Energy Extrac- zooplankton from ADCP backscatter time series data tion on Non-Cohesive Sediment Transport and in the Lazarev Sea, Antarctica. Deep Sea Research Part I: Morphological Change in the Pentland Firth and Oceanographic Research Papers, 57(1), 78-94. doi:10.1016​ Orkney Waters. Marine Scotland Science, Aberdeen, /j.dsr.2009.10.005 https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications​ United Kingdom. Report by Swansea University for /seasonal-variation-diel-vertical-migration-zooplankton​ Marine Scotland Science. doi:10.7489/1913​-1 https:// -adcp-backscatter-time-series tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/modelling-effects​-marine- Contardo, S., Hoeke, R., Hemer, M., Symonds, G., energy-extraction-non-cohesive-sediment​-transport McInnes, K., and O’Grady, J. 2018. In situ observations Fairley, I., Karunarathna, H., and Masters, I. 2018. and simulations of coastal wave field transformation by The influence of waves on morphodynamic impacts wave energy converters. Coastal Engineering, 140, 175- of energy extraction at a tidal stream turbine site in 188. doi:10.1016/j.coastaleng.2018.07.008 https://tethys​ the Pentland Firth. Renewable Energy, 125, 630-647. .pnnl.gov/publications/situ-observations-simulations​ doi:10.1016/j.renene.2018.02.035 https://tethys.pnnl.gov​ -coastal-wave-field-transformation-wave-energy​ /publications/influence-waves-morphodynamic-impacts​ -converters -energy-extraction-tidal-stream-turbine-site Copping, A., Sather, N., Hanna, L., Whiting, J., Fairley, I., Masters, I., and Karunarathna, H. 2015. Sedi- Zydlewski, G., Staines, G., Gill, A., Hutchison, I., ment Transport in the Pentland Firth and Impacts of O’Hagan, A., Simas, T., Bald, J., C., S., Wood, J., and Tidal Stream Energy Extraction. Paper presented at Masden, E. 2016. Annex IV 2016 State of the Science the 11th European Wave and Tidal Energy Conference, Report: Environmental Effects of Marine Renewable Nantes, France. https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications​ Energy Development around the World. Report by /sediment-transport-pentland-firth-impacts-tidal​ Pacific Northwest National Laboratory for Ocean Energy -stream-energy-extraction Systems. https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/state-of-the​ -science-2016 138 OES-ENVIRONMENTAL 2020 STATE OF THE SCIENCE REPORT Fong, D. A., S. G. Monismith, M. T. Stacey, and Burau, J. González-Santamaría, R., Zou, Q., and Pan, S. 2012. R. 2009. Turbulent stresses and secondary currents in Modelling of the Impact of a Wave Farm on Nearshore a tidal-forced channel with significant curvature and Sediment Transport. Proceedings of 33rd Conference asymmetric bed forms. Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, on Coastal Engineering, Santander, Spain. doi:10.9753​ 135(3): 198-208. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9429(2009)135:​ /icce.v33.sediment.66 https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications​ 3(198) https://tethys-engineering.pnnl.gov/publications​ /modelling-impact-wave-farm-nearshore-sediment​ /turbulent-stresses-secondary-currents-tidal-forced​ -transport -channel-significant-curvature Gonzalez-Santamaria, R., Zou, Q. P., and Pan, S. 2013. Fraser, S., Nikora, V., Williamson, B. J., and Scott, B. E. Impacts of a Wave Farm on Waves, Currents and Coastal 2017. Hydrodynamic Impacts of a Marine Renewable Morphology in South West England. Estuaries and Coasts, Energy Installation on the Benthic Boundary Layer in a 38(1), 159-172. doi:10.1007/s12237-013-9634-z https://​ Tidal Channel. Energy Procedia, 125, 250-259. doi:10.1016​ tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/impacts-wave-farm-waves​ /j.egypro.2017.08.169 https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications​ -currents-coastal-morphology-south-west-england /hydrodynamic-impacts-marine-renewable-energy​ -installation-benthic-boundary-layer-tidal Gotelli, C., Musa, M., Guala, M., and Escauriaza, C. 2019. Experimental and Numerical Investigation of Wake Gallego, A., Side, J., Baston, S., Waldman, S., Bell, M., Interactions of Marine Hydrokinetic Turbines. Energies, James, M., Davies, I., O’Hara Murray, R., Heath, M., Saba- 12(16), 17. doi:10.3390/en12163188 https://tethys.pnnl​ tino, A., McKee, D., McCaig, C., Karunarathna, H., Fairley, .gov/publications/experimental-numerical-investigation​ I., Chatzirodou, A., Venugopal, V., Nemalidinne, R., Yung, -wake-interactions-marine-hydrokinetic-turbines T. Z., Vögler, A., MacIver, R., and Burrows, M. 2017. Large scale three-dimensional modelling for wave and tidal energy resource and environmental impact: Methodologies for quantifying acceptable thresholds for sustainable exploitation. Ocean & Coastal Management, 147, 67-77. doi:10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2016.11.025 https://tethys.pnnl.gov​ Guerra, M., and Thomson, J. 2019. Wake measurements from a hydrokinetic river turbine. Renewable Energy, 139, 483-495. doi:10.1016/j.renene.2019.02.052 https://tethys-engineering.pnnl.gov/publications/wake​ -measurements-hydrokinetic-river-turbine /publications/large-scale-three-dimensional-modelling​ Guillou, N., and Chapalain, G. 2017. Assessing the -wave-tidal-energy-resource-environmental impact of tidal stream energy extraction on the García-Oliva, M., Djordjević, S., and Tabor, G. R. 2017. The impacts of tidal turbines on water levels in a shallow estuary. International Journal of Marine Energy, 19, 177-197. doi:10.1016/j.ijome.2017.07.006 https://tethys​ Lagrangian circulation. Applied Energy, 203, 321-332. doi:10.1016/j.apenergy.2017.06.022 https://tethys.pnnl​ .gov/publications/assessing-impact-tidal-stream-energy​ -extraction-lagrangian-circulation .pnnl.gov/publications/impacts-tidal-turbines-water​ Guillou, N., Thiébot, J., and Chapalain, G. 2019. Tur- -levels-shallow-estuary bines’ effects on water renewal within a marine tidal Garcia Novo, P., and Kyozuka, Y. 2019. Analysis of turbulence and extreme current velocity values in a tidal channel. Journal of Marine Science and Technology, 24(3), 659-672. doi:10.1007/s00773-018-0601-z https://tethys​ stream energy site. Energy, 189, 116113. doi:10.1016​ /j.energy.2019.116113 https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications​ /turbines-effects-water-renewal-within-marine-tidal​ -stream-energy-site -engineering.pnnl.gov/publications/analysis-turbulence​ Haas, K., Yang, X., and Fritz, H. 2014. Modeling -extreme-current-velocity-values-tidal-channel Impacts of Energy Extraction from the Gulf Stream Gartner, J. W. 2004. Estimating suspended solids concentrations from backscatter intensity measured by acoustic Doppler current profiler in San Francisco Bay, California. Marine Geology, 211(3), 169-187. doi:10.1016​ System. Paper presented at the Marine Energy Technology Symposium, Seattle, Washington. https:// tethys.pnnl.gov/publications​/modeling-impacts-energyextraction-gulf-stream​-system /j.margeo.2004.07.001 https://tethys-engineering.pnnl.gov​ /publications/estimating-suspended-solids-concentrations​ -backscatter-intensity-measured-acoustic SECTION B – CURRENT KNOWLEDGE OF KEY DEVICE INTERACTIONS WITH THE MARINE ENVIRONMENT 139 Haverson, D., Bacon, J., Smith, H. C. M., Venugopal, V., Kim, S.-C., Friedrichs, C. T., Maa, J. P.-Y., and Wright, and Xiao, Q. 2018. Modelling the hydrodynamic and L. D. 2000. Estimating Bottom Stress in Tidal Bound- morphological impacts of a tidal stream development ary Layer from Acoustic Doppler Velocimeter Data. in Ramsey Sound. Renewable Energy, 126, 876-887. Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, 126(6), 399-406. doi:10.1016/j.renene.2018.03.084 https://tethys.pnnl.gov​ doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9429(2000)126:6(399) https://​ /publications/modelling-hydrodynamic-morphological​ tethys-engineering.pnnl.gov/publications/estimating​ -impacts-tidal-stream-development-ramsey-sound -bottom-stress-tidal-boundary-layer-acoustic-doppler​ Herbers, T. H. C., Jessen, P. F., Janssen, T. T., Colbert, -velocimeter-data D. B., and MacMahan, J. H. 2012. Observing Ocean Sur- Kregting, L., Elsaesser, B., Kennedy, R., Smyth, D., face Waves with GPS-Tracked Buoys. Journal of Atmo- O’Carroll, J., and Savidge, G. 2016. Do Changes in spheric and Oceanic Technology, 29(7), 944-959. doi:10​ Current Flow as a Result of Arrays of Tidal Turbines .1175/jtech-d-11-00128.1 https://tethys-engineering.pnnl​ Have an Effect on Benthic Communities? PLoS ONE, .gov/publications/observing-ocean-surface-waves-gps​ 11(8): 1-14. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0161279 https:// -tracked-buoys tethys.pnnl.gov​/publications/do-changes-current-flow- Jiang, S., Dickey, T. D., Steinberg, D. K., and Madin, L. P. 2007. Temporal variability of zooplank- result-arrays​-tidal-turbines-have-effect-benthiccommunities ton biomass from ADCP backscatter time series Kresning, B., Hashemi, M. R., Neill, S. P., Green, J. A. M., data at the Bermuda Testbed Mooring site. Deep and Xue, H. 2019. The impacts of tidal energy develop- Sea Research Part I: Oceanographic Research Papers, ment and sea level rise in the Gulf of Maine. Energy, 54(4), 608-636. doi:10.1016/j.dsr​.2006.12.011 https:// 187, 115942. doi:10.1016/j.energy.2019.115942 https:// tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/temporal​-variability- tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/impacts-tidal-energy- zooplankton-biomass-adcp-backscatter​-time-series- development-sea-level-rise-gulf-maine data-bermuda Lee, K., Mukai, T., Lee, D.-J., and Iida, K. 2014. Clas- Jones, A. R., Hosegood, P., Wynn, R. B., De Boer, M. N., sification of sound-scattering layers using swimming Butler-Cowdry, S., and Embling, C. B. 2014. Fine-scale speed estimated by acoustic Doppler current profiler. hydrodynamics influence the spatio-temporal distribu- Fisheries Science, 80(1), 1-11. doi:10.1007/s12562-013​ tion of harbour porpoises at a coastal hotspot. Progress -0683-9 https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/classification​ in Oceanography, 128, 30-48. doi:10.1016/j.pocean.2014​ -sound-scattering-layers-using-swimming-speed​ .08.002 https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/fine-scale​ -estimated-acoustic-doppler -hydrodynamics-influence-spatio-temporal-distribution​ -harbour-porpoises Li, X., Li, M., Jordan, L.-B., McLelland, S., Parsons, D. R., Amoudry, L. O., Song, Q., and Comerford, L. 2019. Jones, C., Chang, G., Raghukumar, K., McWilliams, S., Modelling impacts of tidal stream turbines on surface Dallman, A., and Roberts, J. 2018. Spatial Environmental waves. Renewable Energy, 130, 725-734. doi:10.1016​ Assessment Tool (SEAT): A Modeling Tool to Evalu- /j.renene.2018.05.098 https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications​ ate Potential Environmental Risks Associated with /modelling-impacts-tidal-stream-turbines-surface​ Wave Energy Converter Deployments. Energies, 11(8), -waves 2036. doi:10.3390/en11082036 https://tethys.pnnl.gov​ /publications/spatial-environmental-assessment-tool​ -seat-modeling-tool-evaluate-potential Liu, X., Yuan, P., Wang, S., Yuan, S., Tan, J., and Si, X. 2019. Simulation Study of Potential Impacts of Tidal Farm in the Eastern Waters of Chengshan Cape, China. Jones, C., McWilliams, S., Chang, G., and Roberts, J. Journal of Ocean University of China, 18(5), 1041-1050. 2016. Wave Energy Converter Array Environmental doi:10.1007/s11802-019-3975-6 https://tethys.pnnl.gov​ Evaluation Tools. Paper presented at the 4th Marine /publications/simulation-study-potential-impacts-tidal​ Energy Technology Symposium, Washington, D.C. -farm-eastern-waters-chengshan-cape-china https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/wave-energy​ -converter-array-environmental-evaluation-tools 140 OES-ENVIRONMENTAL 2020 STATE OF THE SCIENCE REPORT Martin-Short, R., Hill, J., Kramer, S. C., Avdis, A., Alli- Neill, S., Robins, P., and Fairley, I. 2017. The Impact son, P. A., and Piggott, M. D. 2015. Tidal resource extrac- of Marine Renewable Energy Extraction on Sedi- tion in the Pentland Firth, UK: Potential impacts on ment Dynamics. In Yang, Z. and Copping, A. (Eds.), flow regime and sediment transport in the Inner Sound Marine Renewable Energy (pp. 279-304). New York, NY: of Stroma. Renewable Energy, 76, 596-607. doi:10.1016​ Springer International Publishing. https://tethys.pnnl​ /j.renene.2014.11.079 https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications​ .gov/publications/impact-marine-renewable-energy​ /tidal-resource-extraction-pentland-firth-uk-potential​ -extraction-sediment-dynamics -impacts-flow-regime-sediment Nuernberg, M., and Tao, L. 2018. Experimental study Miles, J., Martin, T., and Goddard, L. 2017. Cur- of wake characteristics in tidal turbine arrays. Renew- rent and wave effects around windfarm mono- able Energy, 127: 168-181. doi:10.1016/j.renene.2018.04​ pile foundations. Coastal Engineering, 121, 167- .053 https://tethys-engineering.pnnl.gov/publications​ 178. doi:10.1016/j.coastaleng​.2017.01.003 https:// /experimental-study-wake-characteristics-tidal-turbine​ tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/current​-wave-effects- -arrays around-windfarm-monopile-foundations Nelson, K., James, S. C., Roberts, J. D., and Jones, C. Musa, M., Hill, C., and Guala, M. 2019. Interaction 2018. A framework for determining improved place- between hydrokinetic turbine wakes and sediment ment of current energy converters subject to environ- dynamics: array performance and geomorphic effects mental constraints. International Journal of Sustainable under different siting strategies and sediment transport Energy, 37(7), 654-668. doi:10.1080/14786451.2017​ conditions. Renewable Energy, 138, 738-753. doi:10.1016​ .1334654 https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/framework​ /j.renene.2019.02.009 https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications​ -determining-improved-placement-current-energy​ /interaction-between-hydrokinetic-turbine-wakes​ -converters-subject -sediment-dynamics-array-performance O’Boyle, L., Elsäßer, B., and Whittaker, T. 2017. Experi- Mycek, P., Gaurier, B., Germain, G., Pinon, G., and mental Measurement of Wave Field Variations around Rivoalen, E. 2014a. Experimental study of the tur- Wave Energy Converter Arrays. Sustainability, 9(1), 70. bulence intensity effects on marine current turbines doi:10.3390/su9010070 https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications​ behaviour. Part I: One single turbine. Renewable /experimental-measurement-wave-field-variations​ Energy, 66, 729-746. doi:10.1016/j.renene.2013.12.036 -around-wave-energy-converter-arrays https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/experimental-study​ -turbulence-intensity-effects-marine-current-turbines​ -behaviour-part O’Dea, A., Brodie, K. L., and Hartzell, P. 2019. Continuous Coastal Monitoring with an Automated Terrestrial Lidar Scanner. Journal of Marine Science and Engineer- Mycek, P., Gaurier, B., Germain, G., Pinon, G., and ing, 7(2), 37. doi:10.3390/jmse7020037 https://tethys​ Rivoalen, E. 2014b. Experimental study of the tur- -engineering.pnnl.gov/publications/continuous-coastal​ bulence intensity effects on marine current turbines -monitoring-automated-terrestrial-lidar-scanner behaviour. Part II: Two interacting turbines. Renewable Energy, 68, 876-892. doi:10.1016/j.renene.2013.12.048 https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/experimental-study​ -turbulence-intensity-effects-marine-current-turbines​ -behaviour-0 Nash, S., O’Brien, N., Olbert, A., and Hartnett, M. 2014. Modelling the far field hydro-environmental impacts of tidal farms – A focus on tidal regime, inter-tidal zones and flushing. Computers & Geosciences, 71, 20-27. doi:10.1016/j.cageo.2014.02.001 https://tethys.pnnl.gov​ /publications/modelling-far-field-hydro-environmental​ -impacts-tidal-farms-focus-tidal-regime O’Dea, A., Haller, M. C., and Özkan-Haller, H. T. 2018. The impact of wave energy converter arrays on waveinduced forcing in the surf zone. Ocean Engineering, 161, 322-336. doi:10.1016/j.oceaneng.2018.03.077 https:// tethys​.pnnl.gov/publications/impact-wave-energyconverter​-arrays-wave-induced-forcing-surf-zone O’Laughlin, C., and van Proosdij, D. 2013. Influence of varying tidal prism on hydrodynamics and sedimentary processes in a hypertidal salt marsh creek. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms, 38(5), 534-546. doi:10.1002​ /esp.3340 https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/influence​ -varying-tidal-prism-hydrodynamics-sedimentary​ -processes-hypertidal-salt SECTION B – CURRENT KNOWLEDGE OF KEY DEVICE INTERACTIONS WITH THE MARINE ENVIRONMENT 141 O’Laughlin, C., van Proosdij, D., and Milligan, T. G. 2014. Ramírez-Mendoza, R., Amoudry, L., Thorne, P., Cooke, Flocculation and sediment deposition in a hypertidal R., Simmons, S., McLelland, S., Murphy, B., Parsons, creek. Continental Shelf Research, 82, 72-84. doi:10.1016​ D., Jordan, L., and Vybulkova, L. 2015. Impact of Scaled /j.csr.2014.02.012 https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications​ Tidal Stream Turbine over Mobile Sediment Beds. Paper /flocculation-sediment-deposition-hypertidal-creek presented at the 11th European Wave and Tidal Energy Ouro, P., Runge, S., Luo, Q., and Stoesser, T. 2019. Three-dimensionality of the wake recovery behind a vertical axis turbine. Renewable Energy, 133, 1066- Conference, Nantes, France. https://tethys.pnnl.gov​ /publications/impact-scaled-tidal-stream-turbine-over​ -mobile-sediment-beds 1077. doi:10.1016/j.renene.2018.10.111 https://tethys- Ramírez-Mendoza, R., Amoudry, L. O., Thorne, P. D., engineering​.pnnl.gov/publications/three-dimensionality- Cooke, R. D., McLelland, S. J., Jordan, L. B., Simmons, wake​-recovery-behind-vertical-axis-turbine S. M., Parsons, D. R., and Murdoch, L. 2018. Labora- Palha, A., Mendes, L., Fortes, C. J., Brito-Melo, A., and Sarmento, A. 2010. The impact of wave energy farms in the shoreline wave climate: Portuguese pilot zone case study using Pelamis energy wave devices. Renewable Energy, 35(1), 62-77. doi:10.1016/j.renene.2009.05.025 https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/impact-wave-energy​ tory study on the effects of hydro kinetic turbines on hydrodynamics and sediment dynamics. Renewable Energy, 129, 271-284. doi:10.1016/j.renene.2018.05.094 https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/laboratory-study​ -effects-hydro-kinetic-turbines-hydrodynamics-sediment​ -dynamics -farms-shoreline-wave-climate-portuguese-pilot-zone​ Robins, P. E., Neill, S. P., and Lewis, M. J. 2014. Impact of -case-study-using tidal-stream arrays in relation to the natural variability Patro, R., Zedel, L., and Spanu-Tollefsen, C. 2000. Monitoring fish movement using an ADCP. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 108(5), 2489-2489. doi:10.1121/1.4743187 https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications​ /monitoring-fish-movement-using-adcp Petrie, J., Diplas, P., Gutierrez, M., and Nam, S. 2014. Characterizing the mean flow field in rivers for resource and environmental impact assessments of hydrokinetic energy generation sites. Renewable Energy, 69, 393401. doi:10.1016/j.renene.2014.03.064 https://tethys.pnnl​ .gov/publications/characterizing-mean-flow-field-rivers​ -resource-environmental-impact-assessments Potter, D. 2019. Alteration to the shallow-water tides and tidal asymmetry by tidal-stream turbines. Doctoral Dissertation, Lancaster University, Lancashire, England. https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/alterationshallow​-water-tides-tidal-asymmetry-tidal-streamturbines Raghukumar, K., Chang, G., Spada, F., Jones, C., Janssen, T., and Gans, A. 2019. Performance Characteristics of “Spotter,” a Newly Developed Real-Time Wave Measurement Buoy. Journal of Atmospheric and Oceanic Technology, 36(6), 1127-1141. doi:10.1175/jtech-d-18​ -0151.1 https://tethys-engineering.pnnl.gov/publications​ of sedimentary processes. Renewable Energy, 72, 311321. doi:10.1016/j.renene.2014.07.037 https://tethys.pnnl​ .gov/publications/impact-tidal-stream-arrays-relation​ -natural-variability-sedimentary-processes Rodriguez-Delgado, C., Bergillos, R. J., Ortega-Sánchez, M., and Iglesias, G. 2018. Protection of graveldominated coasts through wave farms: Layout and shoreline evolution. Science of The Total Environment, 636, 1541-1552. doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.04.333 https://tethys.pnnl​.gov/publications/protection-graveldominated-coasts​-through-wave-farms-layoutshoreline-evolution Rogan, C., Miles, J., Simmonds, D., and Iglesias, G. 2016. The turbulent wake of a monopile foundation. Renewable Energy, 93, 180-187. doi:10.1016/j.renene.2016.02​ .050 https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/turbulent-wake​ -monopile-foundation Rusu, E., and Guedes Soares, C. 2009. Numerical modelling to estimate the spatial distribution of the wave energy in the Portuguese nearshore. Renewable Energy, 34(6), 1501-1516. doi:10.1016/j.renene.2008.10.027 https://​tethys-engineering.pnnl.gov/publications/numerical​ -modelling-estimate-spatial-distribution-wave-energy​ -portuguese-nearshore /performance-characteristics-spotter-newly-developed​ -real-time-wave-measurement-buoy 142 OES-ENVIRONMENTAL 2020 STATE OF THE SCIENCE REPORT Schuchert, P., Kregting, L., Pritchard, D., Savidge, G., Simpson, M. 2001. Discharge Measurements Using and Elsäßer, B. 2018. Using Coupled Hydrodynamic a Broad-Band Acoustic Doppler Current Profiler Biogeochemical Models to Predict the Effects of Tidal (OPEN-FILE REPORT 01-1). United States Geologi- Turbine Arrays on Phytoplankton Dynamics. Journal cal Survey, Sacramento, California. Report by United of Marine Science and Engineering, 6(2), 58. doi:10.3390​ States Geological Survey. https://tethys-engineering.pnnl​ /jmse6020058 https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/using​ .gov/publications/discharge-measurements-using-broad​ -coupled-hydrodynamic-biogeochemical-models-predict​ -band-acoustic-doppler-current-profiler -effects-tidal-turbine-arrays Smith, P., Bugden, G., Wu, Y., Mulligan, R., and Tao, Schultze, V. 2018. Natural variability of turbulence and J. 2013. Impacts of Tidal Energy Extraction on Sedi- stratification in a tidal shelf sea and the possible impact ment Dynamics in Minas Basin, Bay of Fundy, NS. of offshore wind farms. Doctoral Dissertation, Uni- Report by Bedford Institute of Oceanography. https:// versity of Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany. https://tethys​ tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/impacts-tidal-energy​ .pnnl.gov/publications/natural-variability-turbulence​ -extraction-sediment-dynamics-minas-basin-bay-fundy​ -stratification-tidal-shelf-sea-possible-impact-offshore -ns Sellar, B., and Sutherland, D. 2016. Tidal Energy Thorne, P. D., and Hay, A. E. 2012. Introduction to the Site Characterisation at the Fall of Warness, EMEC, Special Issue of Continental Shelf Research on ‘The UK: Energy Technologies Institute ReDAPT MA1001 application of acoustics to sediment transport pro- (MD3.8). University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, Scotland. cesses’. Continental Shelf Research, 46, 1. doi:10.1016​ https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/tidal-energy-site​ /j.csr.2012.08.005 https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications​ -characterisation-fall-warness-emec-uk /introduction-special-issue-continental-shelf-research​ Sellar, B. G., Sutherland, D. R. J., Ingram, D. M., -application-acoustics-sediment and Venugopal, V. 2017. Measuring waves and cur- Togneri, M., Lewis, M., Neill, S., and Masters, I. 2017. rents at the European marine energy centre tidal Comparison of ADCP observations and 3D model simu- energy test site: Campaign specification, measure- lations of turbulence at a tidal energy site. Renewable ment methodologies and data exploitation. Paper Energy, 114, 273-282. doi:10.1016/j.renene.2017.03.061 presented at OCEANS 2017 – Aberdeen, UK. doi: https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/comparison-adcp​ 10.1109/OCEANSE.2017.8085001 https://tethys.pnnl​ -observations-3d-model-simulations-turbulence-tidal​ .gov/publications/measuring-waves-currents-european​ -energy-site -marine-energy-centre-tidal-energy-test-site-campaign van der Molen, J., Ruardij, P., and Greenwood, N. 2016. Sellar, B. G., Wakelam, G., Sutherland, D. R. J., Ingram, Potential environmental impact of tidal energy extrac- D. M., and Venugopal, V. 2018. Characterisation of tion in the Pentland Firth at large spatial scales: results Tidal Flows at the European Marine Energy Centre in of a biogeochemical model. Biogeosciences, 13(8), 2593- the Absence of Ocean Waves. Energies, 11(1), 176. doi:10​ 2609. doi:10.5194/bg-13-2593-2016 https://tethys.pnnl​ .3390/en11010176 https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications​ .gov/publications/potential-environmental-impact-tidal​ /characterisation-tidal-flows-european-marine-energy​ -energy-extraction-pentland-firth-large-spatial -centre-absence-ocean-waves van Proosdij, D., O’Laughlin, C., Milligan, T., Law, Side, J., Gallego, A., James, M., Davies, I., Heath, M., B., and Spooner, I. 2013. Effects of Energy Extrac- Karunarathna, H., Venugopal, V., Vögler, A., and Bur- tion on Sediment Dynamics in Intertidal Ecosystems rows, M. 2017. Developing methodologies for large scale of the Minas Basin. Saint Mary’s University, Hali- wave and tidal stream marine renewable energy extrac- fax, Nova Scotia. Report by Acadia University. https:// tion and its environmental impact: An overview of the tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/effects-energy​-extraction- TeraWatt project. Ocean & Coastal Management, 147, 1-5. sediment-dynamics-intertidal-ecosystems​-minas-basin doi:10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2016.11.015 https://tethys.pnnl​ .gov/publications/developing-methodologies-large-scale​ -wave-tidal-stream-marine-renewable-energy SECTION B – CURRENT KNOWLEDGE OF KEY DEVICE INTERACTIONS WITH THE MARINE ENVIRONMENT 143 Venugopal, V., Nemalidinne, R., and Vögler, A. 2017. Wang, T., Yang, Z., and Copping, A. 2015. A Modeling Numerical modelling of wave energy resources and Study of the Potential Water Quality Impacts from In- assessment of wave energy extraction by large scale Stream Tidal Energy Extraction. Estuaries and Coasts, wave farms. Ocean & Coastal Management, 147, 37-48. 38(1), 173-186. doi:10.1007/s12237-013-9718-9 https://​ doi:10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2017.03.012 https://tethys.pnnl​ tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/modeling-study-potential​ .gov/publications/numerical-modelling-wave-energy​ -water-quality-impacts-stream-tidal-energy-extraction -resources-assessment-wave-energy-extraction-large Winship, B., Fleming, A., Penesis, I., Hemer, M., and Voulgaris, G., and Trowbridge, J. H. 1998. Evaluation Macfarlane, G. 2018. Preliminary investigation on the of the Acoustic Doppler Velocimeter (ADV) for Tur- use of tank wall reflections to model WEC array effects. bulence Measurements. Journal of Atmospheric and Ocean Engineering, 164: 388-401. doi:10.1016/j.oceaneng​ Oceanic Technology, 15(1), 272-289. doi:10.1175/1520- .2018.06.033 https://tethys-engineering.pnnl.gov​ 0426(1998)015<​0272:Eotadv>2.0.Co;2 https://tethys- /publications/preliminary-investigation-use-tank-wall​ engineering.pnnl.gov​/publications/evaluation-acoustic- -reflections-model-wec-array-effects doppler-velocimeter​-adv-turbulence-measurements Yang, Z., and Copping, A. 2017. Marine Renewable Waldman, S., Weir, S., O’Hara Murray, R. B., Woolf, D. Energy: Resource Characterization and Physical Effects. K., and Kerr, S. 2019. Future policy implications of tidal Springer International Publishing. https://tethys.pnnl​ energy array interactions. Marine Policy, 108, 103611. .gov/publications/marine-renewable-energy-resource​ doi:10.1016/j.marpol.2019.103611 https://tethys.pnnl.gov​ -characterization-physical-effects /publications/future-policy-implications-tidal-energy​ -array-interactions Yang, Z., and Wang, T. 2015. Modeling the Effects of Tidal Energy Extraction on Estuarine Hydrodynamics in Wall, G., Nystrom, E., and Litten, S. 2006. Use of an a Stratified Estuary. Estuaries and Coasts, 38(1), 187-202. ADCP to compute suspended-sediment discharge in the doi:10.1007/s12237-013-9684-2 https://tethys.pnnl.gov​ tidal Hudson River, New York. Scientific Investigations /publications/modeling-effects-tidal-energy-extraction​ Report 2006-5055. U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Vir- -estuarine-hydrodynamics-stratified-estuary ginia. Report by United States Geological Survey. https:// tethys-engineering.pnnl.gov/publications​/use-adcpcompute-suspended-sediment-discharge-tidal​-hudsonriver-new-york Yang, Z., Wang, T., Copping, A., and Geerlofs, S. 2014. Modeling of in-stream tidal energy development and its potential effects in Tacoma Narrows, Washington, USA. Ocean & Coastal Management, 99, 52-62. Wang, T., and Yang, Z. 2017. A modeling study of tidal doi:10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2014.02.010 https://tethys​ energy extraction and the associated impact on tidal .pnnl.gov/publications/modeling-stream-tidal-energy​ circulation in a multi-inlet bay system of Puget Sound. -development-its-potential-effects-tacoma-narrows Renewable Energy, 114, 204-214. doi:10.1016/j.renene​ .2017.03.049 https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/modeling​ -study-tidal-energy-extraction-associated-impact-tidal​ -circulation-multi-inlet 144 OES-ENVIRONMENTAL 2020 STATE OF THE SCIENCE REPORT NOTES Changes in Oceanographic Systems Associated with Marine Renewable Energy Devices Whiting, J.M. and G. Chang. 2020. Changes in Oceanographic Systems Associated with Marine Renewable Energy Devices. In A.E. Copping and L.G. Hemery (Eds.), OES-Environmental 2020 State of the Science Report: Environmental Effects of Marine Renewable Energy Development Around the World. Report for Ocean Energy Systems (OES). (pp. 126-145). doi:10.2172/1633183 REPORT AND MORE INFORMATION CONTACT OES-Environmental 2020 State of the Science full report and executive summary available at: https://tethys​.pnnl.gov/publications/state-of-the​-science-2020 Andrea Copping Pacific Northwest National Laboratory andrea.copping@pnnl.gov +1 206.528.3049 Go to https://tethys​.pnnl.gov for a comprehensive collection of papers, reports, archived presentations, and other media about environmental effects of marine renewable energy development. SECTION B – CURRENT KNOWLEDGE OF KEY DEVICE INTERACTIONS WITH THE MARINE ENVIRONMENT 145 146 OES-ENVIRONMENTAL 2020 STATE OF THE SCIENCE REPORT Chapter author: Lysel Garavelli Chapter author: Lysel Garavelli Encounters of Marine Animals with Marine Renewable Energy Device Mooring Systems and Subsea Cables Many marine renewable energy (MRE) technologies, including floating or midwater wave and tidal devices, require mooring systems (i.e., mooring lines and anchors) to maintain their position within the water column or on the sea surface. In the case of some devices such as tidal kites, these lines and cables can be highly dynamic. An array of non-bottom-mounted devices may also include transmission cables within the water column interconnecting devices to one another, or to offshore substations or hubs on the seabed. The potential for these lines and cables to present hazards for marine animals that may become entangled or entrapped in them, or confused by their presence remains an issue of uncertainty (Figure 8.1). The degree to which mitigation to avoid or reduce entanglement risk might be required for future MRE installations is yet to be determined, pending greater understanding of the actual nature of the risk. In this chapter, the entanglement or entrapment of a marine animal is defined as the cause to become caught in a system without possibility of escaping. SECTION B – CURRENT KNOWLEDGE OF KEY DEVICE INTERACTIONS WITH THE MARINE ENVIRONMENT 147 Wave energy converter Grey whale Draped cable Basking shark Figure 8.1. Schematic of marine animals’ encounters with wave energy devices attached at the bottom by mooring lines and interconnected with a cable. (Illustration by Rose Perry) 8.1. SUMMARY OF KNOWLEDGE M arine animal encounters with MRE device mooring systems and the associated risk of entangle- ment and entrapment are emerging topics among the potential environmental effects of MRE; these topics were not discussed in the 2016 State of the Science report (Copping et al. 2016). Key progress and growth in knowledge and understanding across this topic area are discussed in the following sections. Large migratory baleen whale species (e.g., humpback whales [Megaptera novaeangliae], minke whales [Balaenoptera acutorostrata], right whales [Eubalaena glacialis]) are typically considered to be at the greatest risk of encounters with MRE device mooring systems because of their life history traits (e.g., migration) and feeding behaviors (Benjamins et al. 2014). Large pelagic elasmobranchs (e.g., whale sharks [Rhincodon typus], basking shark whales [Cetorhinus maximus], manta rays) also have greater potential risk of entanglement because of their large body size and feeding habits, but no information To date, entanglement has not been considered a sig- about these species’ potential entanglement with MRE nificant issue of concern within consenting/permitting structures is available. While generally considered to be (hereafter consenting) processes for single devices and of lower risk, the risk to diving seabirds, sea turtles, and small arrays. However, the extensive legal protection large fish cannot be completely discounted, particularly generally afforded to those megafaunal species consid- when considering the potential effects of larger arrays. ered most at risk (e.g., the Marine Mammal Protection Act The likely consequences of marine animal encounters [1972], in the United States [U.S.]; the Habitats Directive with these structures, such as risks of injury or death, [1992], in the European Union; the Species at Risk Act remain largely unknown, but some parallels can be drawn [2002], in Canada; and the Environment Protection and from studies related to entanglement with fishing gear. Biodiversity Conservation Act [1999], in Australia) is Most of the available literature about the entanglement likely to lead to precaution in how this issue is considered by regulatory and advisory bodies within consenting processes as the scale of arrays grows. 148 of marine animals focuses on observations of injury and mortality caused by entanglement with fishing gear OES-ENVIRONMENTAL 2020 STATE OF THE SCIENCE REPORT such as nets, cables, and traps. Entanglement of large and their seasonal migration behavior. Benjamins et al. animals with fixed fishing gear can occur in a number (2014) and Harnois et al. (2015) employed qualitative of ways, including as a result of swimming through gear risk assessments, using the dynamic analysis software fixed to the bottom, or becoming entangled in a loose OrcaFlexTM, to predict the influence of different mooring end or in a loop. When entangled, large whales may be configurations under various sea states on entangle- able to pull the gear away, dragging it along with them; ment risk. The highest entanglement risk was predicted these entanglements frequently result in subsequent for catenary configurations—freely hanging mooring injury and/or mortality caused by tissue damage, infec- lines in the water column that have one part lying on tion, and mobility restrictions that prevent foraging or the seabed and a large swept water volume. Overall, the migration (Moore et al. 2006; Robbins et al. 2015). model predicted that mooring lines were a low risk for Entanglement in submarine telecommunications cables has been reported prior to 1959 (Wood and Carter 2008). Entanglements of whales (mainly sperm whales) were mostly associated with excessive slack in repaired cables and most occurred in deep waters (118 m). The marine animals, although baleen whales were found to be at greater risk because of their large size and feeding behavior (Benjamins et al. 2014). However, all the mooring configurations examined had too much tension to create a loop that could entangle a whale. absence of whale entanglement reports since 1959 The biological characteristics and sensory abilities of is likely due to new cable designs that involve cables marine animals may have a significant effect on entan- being buried below the seabed, as well as improved glement risk. Minke whales seem to visually detect repair techniques (Taormina et al. 2018; Wood and black and white line ropes more than those of other Carter 2008). Modern and improved methods to inform colors (Kot et al. 2012). North Atlantic right whales have the need for maintenance, such as the use of remotely been found to best detect vivid color ropes at longer operated vehicles to inspect cables and detect anoma- distances (Kraus et al. 2014). However, vivid colors have lies, have probably also contributed to the apparent been suggested to cause entanglement of humpback absence of entanglements. whales in Australia (How et al. 2015). The species- Derelict (i.e., lost, abandoned, discarded) fishing gear and marine debris are known causes of entanglement for elasmobranchs (sharks and rays, Parton et al. 2019) and smaller marine animals (sea turtles, Gunn et al. 2010; fur seals, sea lions, Page et al. 2004; sea turtles, Wilcox et al. 2015). Once entangled, small marine animals do not have the ability to free themselves and specific response of whales to rope colors highlights the need to further investigate this topic for the species of interest. Another important biological characteristic of whales is their ability to communicate acoustically. A mitigation strategy to reduce cetacean bycatch in fisheries is the use of acoustic deterrent devices, but their effectiveness is unclear (Hamilton and Baker 2019). the majority of them die without human intervention The likelihood of an encounter between marine animals (Duncan et al. 2017; Schrey and Vauk 1987). Although and MRE device systems depends on the line or cable no part of a mooring line or cable associated with MRE configuration and depth, as well as on the animal size technologies would be abandoned or discarded, indi- and behavior (Sparling et al. 2013). As part of the envi- rect entanglement in anthropogenic debris caught on ronmental impact assessment performed for the Deep devices is possible and could be a concern for a large Green Utility units, an encounter model was developed range of species (Taormina et al. 2018). to assess the potential of direct collision that could lead The entanglement risks associated with MRE device mooring systems and transmission cables are poorly understood, largely because of the lack of empirical data and focused studies. Using the available literature on marine mammal entanglement with fishing gear, Kropp (2013) determined that migrating whales off the coast of Oregon (U.S.) would likely be at relatively low risk of entanglement with MRE device mooring systems because of their rare occurrence in the region to entanglement between the mooring tether of the tidal kite and marine mammals (Minesto 2016). The model predicted that most marine mammals (grey seals [Halichoerus grypus], harbor porpoise [Phocoena phocoena], and bottlenose dolphins) swimming through the swept area of the device would not encounter the mooring tether when the device is operating. Even in the case of an encounter, the tether would remain taut to avoid the risk of entanglement. SECTION B – CURRENT KNOWLEDGE OF KEY DEVICE INTERACTIONS WITH THE MARINE ENVIRONMENT 149 Turbine height: 194 m Water depth: 700 m Whale: 13 m Platform spacing: 820 m Figure 8.2. Screen capture from the 3D animation on the encounter of a humpback whale with floating offshore wind mooring lines and interarray cables.1 (From Copping and Grear 2018) Overall, for single devices, the probability of encounter encounter models can help predict the number of is likely to be low because the mooring lines occupy a animals in the vicinity of MRE devices, empirical data very small cross section of the marine water column. are needed to validate these models. Identifying large In a large array of MRE devices, estimating the risk of whale breeding and feeding habitats as well as assess- encountering mooring lines and inter-array cables is ing their seasonal migration pathways will help inform less certain. A recent 3D animation developed by Cop- siting MRE installations, or determine the likelihood of ping and Grear (2018) allows the visualization of a any interactions. Similarly, the identification of crucial humpback whale female and calf swimming through habitat for other key migratory species such as turtles an offshore floating wind farm array (Figure 8.2). Such and large pelagic elasmobranchs could help manage and tools can provide perspective on the relative spatial mitigate any entanglement risk. Thoughtful approaches scales of MRE devices and associated mooring compo- to project siting can help to avoid migration corridors nents, water depth, and the size of marine animals. and important habitats. Measures to facilitate routine monitoring of moor- 8.2. RESEARCH AND MONITORING NEEDS TO RESOLVE THE ISSUE ing systems, for example with autonomous or remote A detects gear entanglements, the debris can be removed, entanglement. Combining modeling and field observa- opment of MRE arrays should be targeted to evaluate dditional studies of the habitat preferences and diving behaviors of marine animals are needed to evaluate the risk of encounters that could lead to tions will enhance the assessment of the risk. While operating vehicles, could minimize entanglement risk by detecting the malfunction of mooring systems or the presence of derelict fishing gear. If such monitoring thereby further reducing the risk of marine animal entanglement. Finally, studies focusing on the develthe probability of entanglement risk when successive mooring lines or cables are present. 1. See the animation from Copping and Grear (2018) on https://​www​ .pnnl.gov/news-media/exploring-encounters-between​-humpback-andfloating-wind-farms 150 OES-ENVIRONMENTAL 2020 STATE OF THE SCIENCE REPORT 8.3. REFERENCES Gunn, R., Hardesty, B. D., and Butler, J. 2010. Tack- Benjamins, S., Harnois, V., Smith, H. C. M., Johanning, tion, 11(2), 88-98. doi:10​.1111​/j.1442​-8903​.2010​.00525​.x L., Greenhill, L., Carter, C., and Wilson, B. 2014. Under- ling ‘ghost nets’: Local solutions to a global issue in northern Australia. Ecological Management & Restorahttps://​tethys​.pnnl​.gov​/publications​/tackling​-ghost​-nets​ standing the potential for marine megafauna entangle- -local​-solutions​-global​-issue​-northern​-australia ment risk from marine renewable energy developments Hamilton, S., and Baker, G. B. 2019. Technical mitigation (Report No. 791). Report by Scottish Natural Heritage. https://​tethys​.pnnl​.gov​/publications​/understanding​ -potential​-marine​-megafauna​-entanglement​-risk​ -marine​-renewable​-energy​-0 Copping, A., and Grear, M. 2018. Humpback Whale Encounter with Offshore Wind Mooring Lines and Inter- to reduce marine mammal bycatch and entanglement in commercial fishing gear: lessons learnt and future directions. Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries, 29(2), 223-247. doi:10​.1007​/s11160​-019​-09550​-6 https://​ tethys​.pnnl​.gov​/publications​/technical​-mitigation​-reduce​ -marine​-mammal​-bycatch​-entanglement​-commercial​ Array Cables (PNNL-27988). Pacific Northwest National -fishing​-gear Laboratory, Richland, Washington. Report by Pacific Harnois, V., Smith, H. C. M., Benjamins, S., and Johan- Northwest National Laboratory for Bureau of Ocean Energy Management. https://​tethys​.pnnl​.gov​/publications​ /humpback​-whale​-encounter​-offshore​-wind​-mooring​ -lines​-inter​-array​-cables Copping, A., Sather, N., Hanna, L., Whiting, J., Zydlewski, G., Staines, G., Gill, A., Hutchison, I., ning, L. 2015. Assessment of entanglement risk to marine megafauna due to offshore renewable energy mooring systems. International Journal of Marine Energy, 11, 27-49. doi:10​.1016​/j.ijome​.2015​.04​.001 https://​tethys​ .pnnl​.gov​/publications​/assessment​-entanglement​-risk​ -marine​-megafauna​-due​-offshore​-renewable​-energy​ O’Hagan, A., Simas, T., Bald, J., Sparling, C., Wood, J., -mooring and Masden, E. 2016. Annex IV 2016 State of the Sci- Kot, B. W., Sears, R., Anis, A., Nowacek, D. P., Gedamke, ence Report: Environmental Effects of Marine Renewable Energy Development Around the World. Report by Pacific Northwest National Laboratory for Ocean Energy Systems. https://​tethys​.pnnl​.gov​/publications​/state​-of​-the​ -science​-2016 Duncan, E. M., Botterell, Z. L. R., Broderick, A. C., Gal- J., and Marshall, C. D. 2012. Behavioral responses of minke whales (Balaenoptera acutorostrata) to experimental fishing gear in a coastal environment. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 413, 13-20. doi:10​.1016​/j.jembe​.2011​.11​.018 https://​tethys​.pnnl​.gov​ /publications​/behavioral​-responses​-minke​-whales​ loway, T. S., Lindeque, P. K., Nuno, A., and Godley, B. -balaenoptera​-acutorostrata​-experimental​-fishing​-gear J. 2017. A global review of marine turtle entanglement Kraus, S., Fasick, J., Werner, T., and McFarron, P. in anthropogenic debris: a baseline for further action. Endangered Species Research, 34, 431-448. doi:10​.3354​ /esr00865 https://​tethys​.pnnl​.gov​/publications​/global​ -review​-marine​-turtle​-entanglement​-anthropogenic​ -debris​-baseline​-further​-action Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth). [Australia]. Habitats Directive (Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora). OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7-50. [European Union]. 2014. Enhancing the Visibility of Fishing Ropes to Reduce Right Whale Entanglements. Bycatch Reduction Engineering Program 1, 67-74. https://​tethys​.pnnl​.gov​ /publications​/enhancing​-visibility​-fishing​-ropes​-reduce​ -right​-whale​-entanglements Kropp, R. K. 2013. Biological and existing data analysis to inform risk of collision and entanglement hypotheses (PNNL-22804). Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, Washington. Report by Pacific Northwest National Laboratory for U.S. Department of Energy. https://​tethys​.pnnl​.gov​/publications​/biological​-existing​ -data​-analysis​-inform​-risk​-collision​-entanglement​ -hypotheses SECTION B – CURRENT KNOWLEDGE OF KEY DEVICE INTERACTIONS WITH THE MARINE ENVIRONMENT 151 Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972. 16 U.S.C. ch 31 § Schrey, E., and Vauk, G. J. M. 1987. Records of entangled 1361 et seq. [United States]. gannets (Sula bassana) at Helgoland, German Bight. Minesto. 2016. Deep Green Holyhead Deep Project Phase I (0.5 MW) - Environmental Statement. https://​ tethys​.pnnl​.gov​/publications​/deep​-green​-holyhead​-deep​ -project​-phase​-i-05​-mw​-environmental​-statement Moore, M. J., Bogomolni, A., Bowman, R., Hamilton, P. K., Harry, C. T., Knowlton, A. R., Landry, S., Rotstein, D. S., and Touhey, K. 2006, 18-21 Sept. 2006. Fatally entangled right whales can die extremely slowly. Paper presented at OCEANS 2006, Washington, D.C. doi:10​ .1109​/OCEANS​.2006​.306792 https://​tethys​.pnnl​.gov​ /publications​/fatally​-entangled​-right​-whales​-can​-die​ Marine Pollution Bulletin, 18(6, Supplement B), 350-352. doi:10​.1016​/S0025​-326X​(​87​)​80024​-3 https://​tethys​ .pnnl​.gov​/publications​/records​-entangled​-gannets​-sula​ -bassana​-helgoland​-german​-bight Sparling, C., Coram, A., McConnell, B., Thompson, D., Hawkins, K., and Northridge, S. 2013. Wave and Tidal Consenting Position Paper Series: Marine Mammal Impacts. Report by SMRU Consulting for Natural Environment Research Council. https://​tethys​.pnnl​.gov​ /publications​/wave​-tidal​-consenting​-position​-paper​ -series​-marine​-mammal​-impacts -extremely​-slowly Species at Risk Act, S.C. 2002. c. 29. [Canada]. Page, B., McKenzie, J., McIntosh, R., Baylis, A., Mor- Taormina, B., Bald, J., Want, A., Thouzeau, G., Lejart, rissey, A., Calvert, N., Haase, T., Berris, M., Dowie, M., Desroy, N., and Carlier, A. 2018. A review of poten- D., Shaughnessy, P. D., and Goldsworthy, S. D. 2004. tial impacts of submarine power cables on the marine Entanglement of Australian sea lions and New Zealand environment: Knowledge gaps, recommendations and fur seals in lost fishing gear and other marine debris future directions. Renewable and Sustainable Energy before and after Government and industry attempts Reviews, 96, 380-391. doi:10​.1016​/j.rser​.2018​.07​.026 to reduce the problem. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 49(1), https://​tethys​.pnnl​.gov​/publications​/review​-potential​ 33-42. doi:10​.1016​/j.marpolbul​.2004​.01​.006 https://​ -impacts​-submarine​-power​-cables​-marine​-environment​ tethys​.pnnl​.gov​/publications​/entanglement​-australian​-sea​ -knowledge​-gaps -lions​-new​-zealand​-fur​-seals​-lost​-fishing​-gear​-other​ -marine Wilcox, C., Heathcote, G., Goldberg, J., Gunn, R., Peel, D., and Hardesty, B. D. 2015. Understanding the Parton, K. J., Galloway, T. S., and Godley, B. J. 2019. sources and effects of abandoned, lost, and discarded Global review of shark and ray entanglement in anthro- fishing gear on marine turtles in northern Australia. pogenic marine debris. Endangered Species Research, 39, Conservation Biology, 29(1), 198-206. doi:10​.1111​/cobi​ 173-190. doi:10​.3354​/esr00964 https://​tethys​.pnnl​.gov​ .12355 https://​tethys​.pnnl​.gov​/publications​/understanding​ /publications​/global​-review​-shark​-ray​-entanglement​ -sources​-effects​-abandoned​-lost​-discarded​-fishing​-gear​ -anthropogenic​-marine​-debris -marine​-turtles Robbins, J., Knowlton, A. R., and Landry, S. 2015. Appar- Wood, M. P., and Carter, L. 2008. Whale Entanglements ent survival of North Atlantic right whales after entan- With Submarine Telecommunication Cables. IEEE Jour- glement in fishing gear. Biological Conservation, 191, nal of Oceanic Engineering, 33(4), 445-450. doi:10​.1109​ 421-427. doi:10​.1016​/j.biocon​.2015​.07​.023 https://​tethys​ /JOE​.2008​.2001638 https://​tethys​.pnnl​.gov​/publications​ .pnnl​.gov​/publications​/apparent​-survival​-north​-atlantic​ /whale​-entanglements​-submarine​-telecommunication​ -right​-whales​-after​-entanglement​-fishing​-gear -cables 152 OES-ENVIRONMENTAL 2020 STATE OF THE SCIENCE REPORT NOTES Encounters of Marine Animals with Marine Renewable Energy Device Mooring Systems and Subsea Cables Garavelli, L. 2020. Encounters of Marine Animals with Marine Renewable Energy Device Mooring Systems and Subsea Cables. In A.E. Copping and L.G. Hemery (Eds.), OES-Environmental 2020 State of the Science Report: Environmental Effects of Marine Renewable Energy Development Around the World. Report for Ocean Energy Systems (OES). (pp. 146-153). doi:10.2172/1633184 REPORT AND MORE INFORMATION CONTACT OES-Environmental 2020 State of the Science full report and executive summary available at: https://tethys​.pnnl.gov/publications/state-of-the​-science-2020 Andrea Copping Pacific Northwest National Laboratory andrea.copping@pnnl.gov +1 206.528.3049 Go to https://tethys​.pnnl.gov for a comprehensive collection of papers, reports, archived presentations, and other media about environmental effects of marine renewable energy development. SECTION B – CURRENT KNOWLEDGE OF KEY DEVICE INTERACTIONS WITH THE MARINE ENVIRONMENT 153 154 OES-ENVIRONMENTAL 2020 STATE OF THE SCIENCE REPORT 9.0 Chapter author: Mikaela C. Freeman Contributor: Deborah J. Rose Social and Economic Data Collection for Marine Renewable Energy The social and economic effects of marine renewable energy (MRE) are a necessary consideration for the consenting/ permitting (hereafter consenting) of projects (including planning, siting, and project design) and for strategic planning processes. Social and economic effects can include impacts on people, communities, jobs, wages, and revenues (Uihlein and Magagna 2016). SECTION B – CURRENT KNOWLEDGE OF KEY DEVICE INTERACTIONS WITH THE MARINE ENVIRONMENT 155 9.1. IMPORTANCE OF THE ISSUE and values in a community and surrounding areas ully understanding the effects of MRE developments F economic impact analyses (Uihlein and Magagna 2016). includes addressing the social and economic aspects In many countries, these analyses are required as part of (e.g., coastal development, valuation of an area, popula- consent applications and are often included in environ- tion, services, cultures, and well-being). For the purpose mental impact assessments (EIAs) in Europe or envi- of this chapter, the focus is on gathering and analyz- ronmental impact statements (EISs) in North America. ing information strictly as it is needed for consenting Furthermore, many countries require the assessment of MRE. This chapter does not include an exhaustive list socioeconomic impacts in their strategic planning pro- of potential effects, indicators or data types, or assess- cesses for marine energy (see Chapter 11, Marine Spatial ment methods. Instead, it provides a general overview/ Planning and Marine Renewable Energy). description and some examples of social and economic To improve how these effects are assessed, there is a need effects and data collection in order to move toward both a better understanding of the effects of MRE and good practices for data collection. While some countries have provided common frameworks, such as the European Union (EU)’s Marine Strategy Framework Directive (Directive 2008/56/EC 2008), they are outside of the purview of this chapter. A large body of knowledge exists about social and economic effects, but not all of it is specific to MRE. As the industry advances and more MRE development occurs, understanding of the social and economics effects of MRE will increase and the information presented in this chap- (Figure 9.1). Commonly, social and economic effects are assessed through cost-benefit analyses or social and for additional focus on and the development of standardized processes, best practice examples, and guidance for social and data collection and use in MRE consenting and strategic planning. Current practices are inconsistent and could be better developed (Copping et al. 2017). Further, the degree to which social and economic data and assessments have a substantial influence on the outcome of strategic planning or license determination processes is often unclear, even when they are required in support of applications or planning processes. ter can be expanded upon. Ocean Energy Systems (OES)-Environmental has been A number of studies have shown that the MRE sector has economic effects from the perspective of data collec- the potential to create significant social and economic benefits, including benefits for rural and coastal communities and economies that other sectors cannot reach (Regeneris Consulting Ltd. 2013; Smart and Noonan 2018). The social and economic benefits of MRE projects include low visual impacts (Bailey et al. 2011; DevineWright 2011), engagement of the local population (Devine-Wright et al. 2013), and an increase in employment opportunities (Lavidas 2019). Some MRE deployments have provided insight into potential effects and their extents, and indicated the importance of social and economic effects, especially as the industry scales up to array-sized deployments (see Section 9.6). However, because the MRE industry is in the early stages of development globally, some uncertainty regarding potential social and economic benefits or adverse effects of developments remains (Bonar et al. 2015). involved in furthering understanding of the social and tion, analysis, and application for consenting, which have been addressed at two international workshops. The first workshop (Copping et al. 2017), hosted at the 2017 European Wave and Tidal Energy Conference, examined frameworks and practical aspects for collecting data that define the social and economic risks and benefits of MRE development. The second workshop (Copping et al. 2018), held in conjunction with the Environmental Interactions of the Marine Renewables 2018 conference, built on the 2017 workshop and examined case studies for social and economic impacts. This chapter builds on the outcomes from both workshops, and much of the information in this chapter comes from discussion and feedback at these workshops. This chapter provides a general overview of the definitions of social and economic effects; requirements for collecting social and economic data in several OES countries, including the responsibility for data col- Social and economic data and information are needed lection and stakeholder engagement; needs for data col- to support strategic planning for and the consenting lection; and good practices for data collection, case stud- of MRE developments, especially in relation to under- ies to showcase lessons learned, and recommendations standing the social and economic effects, dynamics, for future data collection improvements. 156 OES-ENVIRONMENTAL 2020 STATE OF THE SCIENCE REPORT Social data • Impacts on indigenous/remote communities • Impacts on local infrastructure/services • Energy security from renewable source Economic data • Impacts on local employment/business • Gross value added • Export of products/services Figure 9.1. Examples of social and economic activities for which data should be collected for consenting and understanding of the potential benefits and adverse effects of marine renewable energy development. (Illustration by Rose Perry) 9.2. DEFINITION OF SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC EFFECTS S ocial and economic effects can include benefits to or adverse effects on employment, local infrastruc- ture and services, regional businesses, and communities. Additional examples of social and economic effects tors include the effects on infrastructure and facilities, services, cost of living, health and well-being, culture, and populations (Kerr et al. 2014; Vanclay et al. 2015). It is important in any assessment of social and economic effects to include the effects on indigenous and remote communities, because they are often marginalized and may be affected differently than other communities (Kerr et al. 2015). can be found in the supplementary material (online MRE developments have the potential to provide ben- at: https://tethys.pnnl.gov/state-of-the-science-2020​ efits to local, regional, and national communities. They -supplementary-socio-economics). Social and economic can stimulate economic development and output, as issues are commonly considered together, but it is well as generate revenue and employment opportu- important to distinguish between the two because they nities, especially local job creation (including skilled differ in assessment methods, data types, and scales jobs), throughout the different project stages, including (both temporal and spatial); for instance, economic data manufacturing, transportation, installation, operation, are often quantitative while social data are often quali- and maintenance (Akar and Akdoğan 2016). MRE devel- tative. Key economic indicators include the effects on opments can provide opportunities for tourism, such gross value added , employment, wages, exports, busi- as sightseeing and fishing experiences from project nesses, and existing industries, while key social indica- structures that serve as artificial reefs/fish-aggregating 1 devices (see Chapter 6, Changes in Benthic and Pelagic 1. Gross value added is used to measure the contribution made by an industry or sector and is calculated by the output minus consumption (OECD 2001). Habitats Caused by Marine Renewable Energy Devices) (Leeney et al. 2014; van den Burg 2019). On the other SECTION B – CURRENT KNOWLEDGE OF KEY DEVICE INTERACTIONS WITH THE MARINE ENVIRONMENT 157 hand, if MRE developments are not carefully located and implemented, they could have adverse effects on communities, economies, and employment. For example, MRE developments may exclude other marine uses, such as reducing access for fisheries, if they are not sited sensitively. In addition, an MRE development could affect the perceived value of an area; for instance, visual components may be negatively perceived by a community or homeowners in the vicinity (Rand and Hoen 2017; Vanclay 2012). Furthermore, the economic effects of an MRE development can vary greatly depending on whether the installation and/or operation are staffed locally or by outside sources. For example, if an MRE development does not use the local supply chain it may fail to create much local benefit or provide direct employment. Key economic data and information for measuring changes include data about local employment (e.g., job creation potential, employment multiplier, gross wages), inward investment potential, extent of the local and regional supply chain, gross value added, exports of products and services, existing sectors (e.g., commercial fishing, tourism and recreation, shipping and navigation), and economic impacts of MRE on local communities (Copping et al. 2017, 2018; Marine Energy Wales 2020; Smart and Noonan 2018). Some key social data and information to collect include social and cultural context (e.g., social dynamics, cultures and values, traditional activities), demographics and community structure, energy security and carbon offsets (Smart 9.3. REQUIREMENTS FOR COLLECTING SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC DATA TO SUPPORT CONSENTING G overnmental/regulatory or statutory requirements for collecting social and economic data are limited and poorly defined, and regulations can vary from one country to the next as well as within countries, if they exist at all. Several countries and regulatory bodies have requirements for assessing social and economic factors when considering the development of new infrastructure projects. These requirements are primarily addressed in EIAs (also called EISs, environmental statements [ESs], impact assessments [IAs], social impact assessments [SIAs], or environment and social impact assessments [ESIAs], depending on the country). These planning documents are not unique to MRE developments; they are usually required for any full-scale infrastructure project, including device deployment, and few countries have requirements that are specific to the development of MRE projects. 9.3.1. COUNTRY-SPECIFIC SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC REQUIREMENTS FOR MRE Requirements to consider when assessing social and economic factors are described below for several OESEnvironmental countries: ◆ its scope to include climate change, population and and Noonan 2018), protected or conservation areas, human health, biodiversity, landscape, and risk other marine uses (e.g., commercial fisheries, indig- prevention (Directive 2014/52/EU 2014). Under EU enous fisheries, leisure, and recreation), and impacts on law, these requirements are transposed into member local communities (Copping et al. 2017, 2018). Some key state national EIA legislation by May 2017. metrics for measuring change include business opportunities, net job gain or loss, improvements in exist- The EU updated the EIA Directive in 2014 to broaden ◆ France requires additional analysis of project impacts ing infrastructure and services, social acceptance and on cultural heritage that includes architecture and awareness, impacts on local communities, and impacts archaeology, impacts on the visual landscape, and the on existing businesses and marine uses (Copping et al. level of nuisance created for humans by project noise, 2017, 2018). vibration, or light (Environmental Code 2018). ◆ Norway has adopted some components of the EU EIA Directive (Directive 2014/52/EU 2014) to specifically include consideration of conflicts with cultural environments or monuments, traditional reindeer husbandry practices, and other tenets of outdoor life in environmental assessments (Regulations on Impact Assessments 2017). 158 OES-ENVIRONMENTAL 2020 STATE OF THE SCIENCE REPORT ◆ In the United Kingdom (UK) there is no UK-wide ● The ES for MeyGen in Scotland included a descrip- planning process for MRE; there are different sys- tion of social and economic issues, including tems for Scotland, Northern Ireland, England, and tourism and recreation, harbor and port facili- Wales. Consideration of social and economic factors ties assessments, local jobs, and other sea uses. In is required in alignment with the EU EIA Directive addition, a full commercial fisheries navigational (Directive 2014/52/EU 2014), which is transposed risk assessment and cultural heritage impact into UK law (including at a devolved nation level ) assessment were carried out (MeyGen 2012). 2 2 through specific EIA Regulations. Each devolved ● administration within the UK has marine plan- land, the EIA included an assessment of cultural ning responsibility, which sits alongside the leas- heritage, social and economic impacts, and a ing responsibilities of The Crown Estate Scotland. navigational risk assessment. The social and eco- Marine spatial plans produced within each of the nomic impacts included land use, commercial UK devolved nations (see Chapter 11, Marine Spatial Planning and Marine Renewable Energy) generally also include policies related to socioeconom- fisheries, and tourism. ◆ “affect the welfare of people e.g., by changing living decisions. Applicants must assure that they have conditions”, impacts on vulnerable groups of people, provided sufficient information in support of their the generation of noise or light nuisance, disturbance license applications for these policies to be consid- of tourist routes or facilities, and impacts on “areas ered and permitting authorities must be able to dem- occupied by sensitive manmade land uses (hospitals, onstrate that they have taken account of socio-eco- schools, places of worship…)” (Environmental Impact nomic policies in their decision-making. A descrip- Assessment Notification 2006). In addition, India tion of impacts on populations and human health, already has a specific procedure in place for monitor- cultural heritage, and the landscape is required ing and evaluating renewable energy infrastructure across the UK. Where EIAs have been completed for projects, including MRE. The ESIA for renewable MRE developments (such as at Pentland Firth and energy requires analysis of population characteris- the Orkney Islands), they have included predictions tics, community and educational structure, political of local job creation as well as possible impacts asso- and social resources, individual and family changes, ciated with port congestion, near neighbor issues, and community resources relevant to any develop- etc. However, the guidance provided by local and ment (Dutta and Bandyopadhyay 2010). For example, national governments and agencies about social and a draft ESIA for a 200 MW wind project included an economic issues, such as local impacts, has been analysis of factors including poverty levels, demo- poorly defined and has not been adequately assessed. graphic profile, literacy, cultural values, and religious Some examples of the types of information provided below: ● The ES for the European Marine Energy Centre (EMEC) test center at Billia Croo in Scotland included a section on land use, fisheries, and socioeconomic issues, which required consideration of local economic benefits, traditional fishing regions and access, and harbor congestion (Carl Bro Group Ltd. 2002). 2. Devolution is the concept of delegating power from higher levels of government to lower levels. In the UK devolved nations include Scotland, Northern Ireland, England, and Wales, and while each has statutory powers transferred to them by the UK, some reserved powers remain with the UK. (https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk​ /government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/770709​ /DevolutionFactsheet.pdf) India has required consideration of socioeconomic factors since 2006, including anything that would ics, which must be taken into account in licensing in social and economic assessments are provided At SeaGen in Strangford Lough in Northern Ire- distribution (Voyants Solutions Pvt. Ltd. 2016). ◆ SIAs have been included in projects in China for decades, but they have faced many implementation challenges (e.g., Ip 1990). The first Environmental Impact Assessment Act of the People’s Republic of China, passed in 2003, did not explicitly address social issues (Tang et al. 2008). Over time, public participation and social impact assessment have been incorporated more informally into the EIA process (Ren 2013), and China began requiring social risk assessments for major development projects beginning in 2012 (Bradsher 2012; Price and Robinson 2015). SECTION B – CURRENT KNOWLEDGE OF KEY DEVICE INTERACTIONS WITH THE MARINE ENVIRONMENT 159 ◆ ◆ In the United States (U.S.), SIAs have been a part of Strategic assessments of social and economic effects the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 leg- generally fall to governmental and marine planning islation since its initial adoption in 1970 (Burdge and entities that can assure that data collection and analysis Taylor 2012). Several other pieces of legislation have are completed consistently using appropriate meth- also included requirements for an SIA, including the ods to define future effects (Figure 9.2). An advantage Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Manage- of public-sector-collected data is that any results, ment Act 1976, the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act findings, or reports would be readily accessible. The 1978, and others (Burdge and Taylor 2012). In addition, disadvantage of public data is that results may be out- there are coastal requirements that may vary from state dated, not regularly updated, or relevant data may not to state throughout the U.S. and may be significant. have been collected. While developer-collected data Canada approved the Impact Assessment Act and the are often not shared with the public or easy to access, Canadian Energy Regulator Act in August 2019 that it may be more contemporary than data from alterna- adds factors to reflect a more holistic assessment of tive sources. Different levels of government can col- environmental impacts, specifically in the energy laborate to provide information at a strategic level. For sector. These acts include requirements for assessing instance, higher levels of government could request or the potential negative effects on gender issues in the provide support for local authorities to collect relevant workforce, exploitation of vulnerable groups, and an social and economic information, which could then increase in cooperative indigenous partnerships and be scaled up to regional or national levels. In addition, consultations in the development of new projects strategic-level assessments carried out by governments (Government of Canada 2018, 2019). can be important to better understanding project-level 9.3.2. DATA COLLECTION RESPONSIBILITY The responsibility for collecting social and economic data falls to different levels of government, planning authorities, or other responsible parties, such as project developers, depending on the intended purpose and application of the data. However, it is difficult to determine the specifics of who should be responsible for data collection and assessments and, often, any gaps become the bur- impacts. For instance, the U.S. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management commissioned two economic impact assessments of wave energy deployments in Oregon, U.S. (Jimenez and Tegen 2014; Jimenez et al. 2015) that showed a significant impact, including an increase in jobs, and identified potential sources of economic development. Both reports are publicly available and can be used to inform future MRE developments and their project-level assessments. den of the project developer. It is especially challenging Project-level information would more likely fall to the to determine the responsibility for long-term baseline responsibility of MRE developers (Figure 9.2). Develop- data collection and continuing assessments to inform ers will need to collect data and information to support strategic planning for future developments, all of which both site-identification and project design and regula- can be costly. To collect data in a meaningful manner, it is tory requirements for consenting. Consulting with reg- important to come to a consensus on the expectations of ulators is key to defining requirements and data needs the different levels of government (strategic-level data) from an early stage of project development. This can versus the project developer (project-level data); hence, include discussions about the application of national the two relevant levels of assessments and data collection or regional data to aid project-level assessments. For to be considered are: example, if data are not available at the project-level ◆ ◆ strategic-level activities and measures that should it may be necessary to downscale strategic-level data be implemented to meet objectives in line with local, to fill in gaps and satisfy regulatory requirements. national, and regional policy by government, agen- Developer-collected data are not extensive and can be cies, and other relevant organizations, and difficult to track because such data are usually consid- project-level activities and measures that should be ered private and are often not publicly available. This implemented by the project developer to meet objectives on a local scale, such as within a municipality or community. 160 absence of developer-collected data is likely due to a lack of funds available for data collection that is not based on a regulatory requirement. However, if such information is collated within environmental assessOES-ENVIRONMENTAL 2020 STATE OF THE SCIENCE REPORT Strategic-level Project-level Determine national, regional objectives Determine local objectives Assessments of social and economical impacts with consistent methods (publicly available) Site-specific baseline assessments Collection of long-term post-installation monitoring data Downscaled frameworks Collaboration between levels of government to support local data collection Collection of project-level impacts (private data) GOVERNMENT ROLE DEVELOPER ROLE Figure 9.2. Responsibilities of governments and developers in collecting social and economic data, as recommended by expert workshops (Copping et al. 2017, 2018). The arrows indicate which direction data should flow (for example, assessments with consistent methods should inform site-specific baseline assessments and downscaled frameworks). ments and consent/license applications, it may be made cern about the wave device affecting waves for surfing) available in the public domain. Trade associations, data based on intuitions that were generally not influenced portals, test sites, or universities could play an impor- by technical understanding or impact assessments tant role as intermediaries that could collate such data (Stokes et al. 2014). and publish results that may not be available directly from developers. The MRE industry can also provide collated information to reveal the potential impacts of MRE, which can then be used by developers to present the likely effects of a project. Two examples include a state of the sector report detailing the economic benefits of MRE for Wales (Marine Energy Wales 2020) and a report about the cost reduction and industrial benefits of MRE for the UK (Smart and Noonan 2018). While these highlight potential impacts, the most effective option is to deploy devices and collect data as projects progress to understand the true social and economic effects of MRE and adapt or mitigate where necessary. Communicating with stakeholders provides a range of benefits to developers. It is crucial to have the support of stakeholders and local communities, both for individual projects and for the long-term acceptance of the MRE industry. In this sense, stakeholders can include political leaders, local businesses, members of the supply chain, nongovernmental organizations, social program staff, and community members, and especially indigenous and local communities (Isaacman et al. 2012). MRE projects are often located in rural and sometimes remote areas where development pressures have not been previously experienced. MRE developments are relatively new and unproven commercially 9.3.3. STAKEHOLDER OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT and therefore they can be seen as both pioneering or To be successful at all stages of MRE project develop- munication (listening as well as information sharing), ment, there must be a well-planned process for stake- practical engagement (using local resources as a prior- holder outreach, engagement, and consultation (Equi- ity), and options for local participation (such as invest- Mar 2011; Kerr et al. 2015) that begins early in project ment once risk levels are appropriate) can help align planning (Simas et al. 2013). This is especially important local community and project-related interests. because there is relatively little public familiarity with, knowledge of, or awareness of MRE, including the different types of technologies and potential impacts of MRE developments (Dalton et al. 2015), and there may be misconceptions or misunderstandings of MRE and its impacts (Stokes et al. 2014). A study of local perceptions of the Wave Hub deployment in Cornwall, England, found that stakeholders had firm views (such as con- experimental. A partnership approach, with full com- Stakeholders will differ between communities, regions, and countries, and, while it can be difficult to define the stakeholders, identifying main groups and involving local communities is crucial. Stakeholders (especially local knowledge-holders) can supply a wealth of knowledge and information, and help assure that the data collected and the metrics used are relevant to the project and the community. They can be impor- SECTION B – CURRENT KNOWLEDGE OF KEY DEVICE INTERACTIONS WITH THE MARINE ENVIRONMENT 161 tant allies and supporters of MRE development if they Value maps (e.g., Figure 9.3) can also be a useful tool to are engaged early in the process through transparent represent the stakeholders, cultures, or jobs, and pro- and timely communication. Sharing success stories or vide important context for assessments to help deter- positive case studies from other projects or analogous mine the best approach to MRE development. industries, such as offshore wind, can be an especially useful tool to aid outreach efforts and can provide insight into best approaches and lessons learned (Box 9.1). In addition, developer awareness of prior projects (both MRE or other industries) that have not been successful or failed to deliver on promises or commitments can aid in understanding community perceptions of a new MRE project. Building trust by engaging stakeholders early in the development process and being transparent throughout project development is key to successful stakeholder engagement efforts. Involving stakeholders can be challenging and often lengthens the process, especially because all stakeholders may not initially be in favor of MRE development. In circumstances where a project or particular development 9.4.1. DATA COLLECTION CONSISTENCY AND REGULATORY GUIDANCE It can be difficult to predict or analyze the effects of MRE projects. For example, understanding local impacts is difficult for smaller projects because the associated number of jobs alone may be minimal, may not be truly indicative of the change, and will necessitate other data, information, or context to show the full effect (Copping et al. 2018), and in the end these impacts may still be small at the MRE prototype and demonstration scale. Gathering and analyzing social and economic data to capture and grasp the full spectrum of effects can be challenging because of a lack of strategy may be irreconcilable with local interests, concerns, and aspirations, it may not be appropriate for a proposed development to proceed. While difficult, such successful engagement and participatory processes can lead to consensus building, help manage conflict and build trust, and gain better cooperation (Drake 2012). 9.4. DATA COLLECTION AND NEEDS S ocial and economic information is needed to understand baseline and long-term assessments at all scales, economic changes (e.g., employment, wages, local supply chain, etc.), and social changes (e.g., social structures, schools, housing, services, etc.), as well as the success of projects that maximize benefits and limit adverse effects. For social and economic data to be useful, they must be collected (by developers, researchers, industry, etc.) consistently and comparably over time (both before and after a project), to the extent possible, so that they can be comparable (Leeney et al. 2014) and put into context to demonstrate potential impacts. Qualitative data should be used in addition to quantitative data (Vanclay 2012). Providing a cultural context, history of events, and narratives from communities can help understand include spatial and temporal factors for any assessment. Figure 9.3. A value map created from a study of social and cultural values related to climate change adaptation on Prince Edward Island, Canada. Colored dots note areas where survey participants expressed interest based on the specific values. (From Novaczek et al. 2011) 162 OES-ENVIRONMENTAL 2020 STATE OF THE SCIENCE REPORT initial attitudes and expected responses to potential developments. These social characterizations must BOX 9.1 EXAMPLES OF STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT AND OUTREACH FROM THE MARINE RENEWABLE ENERGY (MRE) AND OFFSHORE WIND INDUSTRIES MRE test centers – A review of environmental impact assessments from several MRE test centers showed that consulting stakeholders (e.g., fishers, surfers, navigation authorities, etc.) early (prior to test center design) introduced an opportunity for stakeholders to voice concerns and provide input. Through this engagement process, test centers were able to choose a location and design that addressed potential concerns, did not require further mitigation, and most important were agreed upon (Simas et al. 2013). Offshore wind on the United States (U.S.) Atlantic Coast – As Rhode Island developed the Ocean Special Area Management Plan, they conducted a comprehensive stakeholder engagement process to give stakeholders an opportunity to have a say in the process. When an application for wind development came around, stakeholders (i.e., commercial fishery representatives, environmental advocates, and members of the Narragansett Indian Tribe) were able to support the application and encourage siting and consenting because of their early involvement (Smythe et al. 2016). MRE in Orkney, United Kingdom – MRE development and its ramifications in Orkney involve many individuals and organizations such as Aquatera, European Marine Energy Centre, Heriot Watt University, Marine Scotland, and Xodus. The Orkney Renewable Energy Forum (OREF) provides an example of ongoing engagement efforts. Since 2000, OREF has brought stakeholders together and has become key to developing the industry in Orkney by focusing on the environmental, commercial, community, and research and development aspects of renewables. OREF has consistently advocated for the community, the MRE sector, and environmental interests of MRE, and has dealt with internal and external challenges to balance competing interests. OREF’s approach has helped achieve • more than 50 device deployments • an investment of about £400 million in projects in (or linked to) Orkney MRE deployments • an investment of about £150 million by the local community in MRE developments • a direct supply chain of about 300 individuals • support from the vast majority of the community and the local authorities for MRE development • monitoring of ecological effects that have not yielded indications of harm to fish, marine mammals, or seabirds • the management of leasing authority devolving from The Crown Estate to The Crown Estate Scotland, which is a new organization that has a more community-centric focus. OREF continues to work with its partners and the community to further the MRE industry and appropriately address issues that arise (OREF 2020). MRE in Oregon, U.S. – The Oregon Wave Energy Trust (OWET) started in 2007 as a non-profit, public-private partnership established by the Oregon State Legislature to “responsibly develop ocean energy by connecting stakeholders, supporting research and development, and engaging in public outreach and policy work. OWET works with stakeholders, industry, and local communities to explore the balance among existing ocean uses and ocean energy projects.” OWET has funded wave and other technology developments, community outreach and engagement, and research studies to address concerns related to regulatory, environmental, education/outreach, market development, and applied research. About 10 of these studies have addressed social and economic issues, which are major concerns for the coastal community and state government, particularly with the emphasis on the importance of fishing to Oregon coastal communities. OWET has worked with stakeholders including fisheries representatives, the military, a nearby liquefied natural gas plant, and the logging industry. While potential and perceived conflicts between fishing and wave energy were not fully resolved, the care and understanding applied to dealing with fisheries issues specifically, and coastal planning issues in general, provided exemplary models that can be exported to other jurisdictions (OWET 2020). OWET became the Pacific Ocean Energy Trust (POET) in 2017. SECTION B – CURRENT KNOWLEDGE OF KEY DEVICE INTERACTIONS WITH THE MARINE ENVIRONMENT 163 guidance or standard approaches for collecting, analyz- assess performance relative to those metrics are needed. ing, and presenting appropriate data or information The responsibility for standard methods and metrics (Copping et al. 2017). Having governments at the appro- may fall to the research community or industry to priate level provide guidance and standard approaches develop, while governments may be responsible for cre- would lead to more consistent data collection (including ating the impetus for, or requiring the use of, agreed- methods and metrics) and the ability to compare results upon assessments and methods. across projects. As data become increasingly available and are compared across projects, understanding of social and economic impacts can increase and benefit the industry as a whole. However, standardization of data is complicated because each project, context, region, and country can be unique in its culture, situation, history, demographics, and regulations, and regulatory guidance at an international level is unlikely. While such standardization can be provided through industry standards, to date the only guidance related to environmental or social and economic effects in the MRE industry is for measuring underwater noise (see Chapter 4, Risk to Marine Animals from Underwater Noise Generated by Marine Renewable Energy Devices). 9.4.2. SCALES OF DATA COLLECTION Data collection at all appropriate scales (both spatial and temporal) is important for providing a full picture of the benefits and adverse effects of MRE development. The scales at which data collection should be carried out will vary across projects and countries (and may include spatial scales ranging from the project, city, state, or regional level or temporal scales ranging from a monthly, yearly, or bi-annual basis) based on a variety of factors. Spatial effects are more likely to occur at smaller geographic scales or at the project level. As the MRE industry moves to larger arrays and/or multiple projects in a similar area, it will be important to assess This scarcity of guidance for conducting proper assess- social and economic effects over larger geographic ments can cause delays in consenting processes as reg- scales. However, most spatial data are collected over a ulators attempt to interpret impacts, which can hinder large geographic area or at a strategic level and are not strategic planning and license applications. Clarification specific to MRE developments. While such data can offer of how social and economic benefits and adverse effects a useful starting point, MRE developers must downscale substantially influence strategic- and project-level such data on a project-by-project basis or collect addi- decision-making for MRE, and guidance on associated tional project-level data, which can be costly, to gain evidence requirements, are needed. Currently, regula- an understanding of the potential effects. For example, tory requirements are driven by the need to respond regional and national data are collected at larger geo- to legislation and are often focused on numerical data, graphic scales and will need to be downscaled to inform but numerical data may not be the best way to repre- projects at smaller geographic scales. sent social effects and can involve value judgments. Economic effects may not always be straightforward to represent, but data are frequently collected to understand these effects. Social effects can be even more challenging to properly measure and analyze (Vanclay 2012), so much so that they are often dismissed, left out of assessments, or do not occur on timescales that allow for the effects to be easily understood. Defining success is difficult because there is no standard approach for assessing social and economic effects, regulatory guidance can be hard to provide, and there is not enough data to indicate whether previous efforts to maximize benefits and minimize adverse effects have been successful. To make progress in this area, clear assessment methods and metrics in all locations and the capacity to 164 Similarly, most assessments and research focus on the shorter-term impacts (Dalton et al. 2015). Having long-term data is equally important, especially as the industry develops. Because of a lack of well-established and coordinated efforts to track the social and economic effects of the MRE industry over time, the onus falls on the project developers, especially those first in the water, to show anticipated benefits and adverse effects. Another issue with temporal data is the lag between the time of data collection and actual implementation of an MRE project (Copping et al. 2018). Demonstrating the benefits of early MRE projects and collectively tracking efforts over time would help future projects plan for impacts, improve consenting processes, and aid in obtaining public acceptance of future MRE projects. OES-ENVIRONMENTAL 2020 STATE OF THE SCIENCE REPORT 9.5. GOOD PRACTICES FOR COLLECTING DATA AND FOLLOWING TRENDS lation, and operational data to be used in consenting G understating of long-term impacts and changes. ood practices for social and economic data collec- MRE projects. Improving the consistency of data collection allows for benefits and adverse effects of projects on communities to be compared, and will foster a better tion for impact assessment and monitoring of MRE OES-Environmental has developed a set of good prac- developments can contribute to planning and manage- tices for the collection of social and economic data (see ment that will maximize benefits and avoid or minimize Table 9.1). Because the industry is in the early stages of adverse effects (Vanclay et al. 2015). However, there developing frameworks, guidance, and associated good is lack of available frameworks or guidance related to (or best) practices, these good practices are based on good practices. Good practices can provide greater stan- qualitative experiences and will need to be improved as dardization in collecting and assessing baseline, instal- the industry advances. Table 9.1. Good practices for the collection of marine renewable energy (MRE) social and economic data. (From Copping et al. 2019) Practice 1: Strategic-level data collection, analysis, and assessments should be carried out by the appropriate level of local, regional, or national government (or relevant agencies) in order to understand the benefits and adverse effects of MRE projects, and the data should be collected in relation to the size of the development (for example, larger projects may necessitate more data if strategic decisions are involved). Practice 2: Specific questions should be developed by researchers and/or the MRE community and the answers to these questions should elucidate changes in social or economic conditions (either benefits or adverse effects) for the communities and regions in which MRE development is planned. These questions should drive the specific data collection efforts and analyses. Practice 3: Baseline social and economic data should be collected that address the current social and economic attributes, at the appropriate scale, prior to MRE development. For this practice, it is important to differentiate between strategic-level (3A) and project-level (3B) baseline data and who may be responsible for the collection efforts. Practice 3A: Baseline data for strategic assessments should be gathered by the appropriate level of local, regional, or national government, scaled to the closest possible geographic extent for the area of the MRE project, before development occurs. Practice 4: Social and economic data should be collected once MRE development has occurred and the devices are operational. To the greatest extent possible, data should be collected using variables/methods similar to those used for baseline data to allow for direct before/after comparison. For this practice, it is important to differentiate who is responsible for such data collection (4A or 4B). Practice 4A: Social and economic data should be collected at the same scales, using the same methodologies for strategic-level assessments, by the appropriate level of local, regional, or national government.1 Practice 5: Practice 3B: Project-level baseline data should be gathered by the project developer, assisted by existing supply chain companies and other local stakeholders as part of consenting processes, before development occurs. If multiple projects are occurring on similar time scales, the project developers should be encouraged to collaborate to help gather data to inform strategic assessments. Practice 4B: Social and economic data should be collected at the same scales, using the same methodologies for project-level assessment, by the project developer, with assistance from supply chain personnel and other local stakeholders, including local governments. Results from both social and economic assessments should be clearly communicated to the communities affected by MRE developments, with a focus on the transparency of methods, analyses, and purpose of the studies. Strategic-level assessment communication is the responsibility of the appropriate level of government, while project-level social and economic assessments should be jointly presented by the project developer and the appropriate level of government. 1. It is important to note that for good practices that rely on government data collection, resources may not be available for collecting data for all, or in some cases any, MRE projects. This will vary by country, region, and locality. SECTION B – CURRENT KNOWLEDGE OF KEY DEVICE INTERACTIONS WITH THE MARINE ENVIRONMENT 165 9.6. CASE STUDIES ize data collection and assessment as key indicators nalyzing case studies related to deployed MRE proj- A carried out by researchers or the MRE community. ects can help further the understanding of social 9.7.2. GUIDE DATA COLLECTION EFFORTS and economic effects and provide lessons learned for future projects. The case studies can also be used as reference points for the effects of MRE developments and offer a reliable comparison upon which to base estimates for future projects. Box 9.2 highlights social and economic data that have been collected around three MRE developments and test centers. become agreed upon throughout the MRE industry and across governmental bodies. This recommendation is best Once key indicators of the social and economic impacts of MRE development are better understood, the next step would be to develop a template that establishes the questions that need to be asked and answered and the key data needed to understand impacts that may arise from a specific MRE development. Such a template would guide data collection efforts by developers as well 9.7. RECOMMENDATIONS T o fully understand the effects of an MRE deployment, social and economic data must be collected and assessed. The good practice examples presented in this chapter provide guidance about collecting data consistently throughout the industry and enabling greater standardization of assessments to support strategic planning for and consenting of MRE projects. These practices will lead to an overall increase in the understanding of the social and economic benefits and adverse effects of MRE developments, improved social acceptance, and could be linked to more favorable regulatory outcomes for the MRE industry. There are many ways in which data collection could be improved upon. Some recommendations are listed in the following sections. 9.7.1. REVIEW OR DEVELOP TOOLS AND DATABASES Identifying potential social and economic indicators at both the project- and strategic-level will improve data collection efforts and be useful for developers or other stakeholders. Available tools and databases from MRE and other analogous industries (such as offshore wind, oil and gas, etc.) should be reviewed. If the necessary tools or databases do not exist, there may be a need to develop new tools or a database that could identify key indicators. Doing so would help to understand what data are relevant for a project and should be collected based on the size and potential impact of a project, and would show regulators and governments which data may be important. Review- as data collection requirements from governments and regulators (ABPMer 2012). This recommendation is best carried out by researchers or the MRE community. 9.7.3. CONDUCT MEANINGFUL STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT As described in Section 9.3.3, stakeholder engagement is necessary for successful MRE project development and operation. In addition, stakeholders and groups familiar with the area surrounding a project can provide a wealth of information on key social and economic data to collect. Stakeholders should be engaged in a meaningful manner by listening and learning from important groups to identify evidence needs and key sources of data. These groups will likely include local companies in the MRE supply chain, the fishing industry, the tourism industry, communities that are often marginalized especially indigenous or native populations, and representatives from local and regional groups that are likely to be impacted. This engagement is best carried out by MRE project developers. 9.7.4. PROVIDE AN INCENTIVE TO COLLECT AND PUBLICIZE MRE DATA To move the industry forward, data and information should be shared between MRE projects so that lessons can be learned from past deployments (see Chapter 13, Risk Retirement and Data Transferability for Marine Renewable Energy). The collection of social and economic data should be included in funding and deployment conditions when possible. Government entities and/or investors who provide funding or test sites who provide funding or deployment opportunities can ing or developing tools and databases can help standard- incentivize (or even require) developers to collect spe- 166 OES-ENVIRONMENTAL 2020 STATE OF THE SCIENCE REPORT BOX 9.2 CASE STUDIES OF SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC DATA COLLECTION EFFORTS FROM MARINE RENEWABLE ENERGY (MRE) DEVELOPMENTS OR TEST CENTERS (COPPING ET AL. 2018) MeyGen Prior to the MeyGen tidal energy deployment at Pentland Firth, United Kingdom (UK), an extensive assessment of social and economic impacts as part of the environmental statement (ES) was undertaken (MeyGen 2012). In addition, a comparison of economic development estimates and data was carried out. Metrics from the gross value added report were used and the information gathered is now regarded as the baseline. The ES included data collected about employment sectors, fisheries, cultural heritage, and shipping and navigation, as well as the mapping of constraints to development such as other marine uses (MeyGen 2012). Outreach to the fishing community resulted in comments and data collected that allowed for the ES to report that impacts on the fishing community would not be significant (MeyGen 2012). In addition, MeyGen took note of potential impacts and made a commitment to have a number of apprenticeships and to use a percentage of local workers (Copping et al. 2018). The developer, DP Energy, also collected social and economic information in two ways that should be noted. They tracked apprenticeships in anticipation of construction and monitoring and also talked to the fishing community in the area; both practices allowed them to gather data that could not have been gained otherwise (Copping et al. 2018). European Marine Energy Centre (EMEC) Social and economic data have been collected around Orkney’s EMEC (established in 2003), to elucidate the potential social and economic impacts of MRE development. One of the main tangible benefits of MRE development is the employment opportunities that EMEC and MRE developments bring to Orkney (Figure 9.4) and beyond. EMEC employs 22 staff, and the average equivalent of 119 jobs in Orkney and 262 jobs across the UK were supported by EMEC activity from 2003 to 2011 (Renewable UK 2014). The local government, understanding the opportunities present, funded the development of ports and additional infrastructure to support the MRE industry, which in turn benefited other marine industries and produced additional job opportunities (EMEC 2019). Orkney residents developed a greater understanding of MRE and how MRE can contribute to the community by investing in energy projects (Copping et al. 2018). It is worth noting that EMEC’s development was shown to have boosted the UK economy by over £200M (EMEC 2019). On a local scale, population growth related to increased employment, the increase in average earnings, and job diversification have also been attributed to EMEC (EMEC 2019). An important lessons learned through data collection efforts related to EMEC was to assure that the metrics used are valid. For example, a comparison of jobs in London to jobs in Orkney was not meaningful for understanding the impacts in a small community such as Orkney. It is key to use the proper metrics so that useful data can be collected for meaningful assessments. Date Overall total jobs (number) Annual income from jobs (£000s) Monthly salary bill (£000s) Cumulative jobs (job years) Cumulative income from jobs (£000s) 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 26 27 32 40 48 57 69 77 93 124 163 189 229 286 300 250 220 650 675 800 1,000 1,200 1,425 1,725 1,925 2,325 3,100 4,075 4,725 5,725 7,150 7,500 6,250 5,750 54 56 67 83 100 119 144 160 194 258 340 394 477 596 625 520 460 26 53 85 125 173 230 299 376 469 593 756 945 1,174 1,460 1760 2010 2240 650 1,325 2,125 3,125 4,325 5,750 7,475 9,400 11,725 14,825 18,900 23,625 29,350 36,500 44,000 50,250 56,000 Figure 9.4. This graph shows the MRE job trend in Orkney over time from 2000 to 2016. The first MRE deployment at EMEC was in 2004 and the number of deployments peaked at 14 in 2014. (From Copping et al. 2018) Fundy Ocean Research Center for Energy (FORCE) Some social and economic data have also been collected in Nova Scotia (Canada), especially related to the construction of the Fundy Ocean Research Center for Energy (FORCE), which was established in 2009. A value proposition for tidal energy developed in the region showed the economic benefits to include 22000 new full-time equivalent jobs and more than $1.5 billion of additional gross domestic product (Gardner et al. 2015). These figures were due in part to the fact that much of the pre-construction, construction, installation, operation, and maintenance work was sourced locally and that more than 300 companies were involved in the supply chain. FORCE has also become a part of the tourism industry and attracts visitors to its Visitor Center from Nova Scotia and worldwide (Howell and Drake 2012). However, FORCE has run into pushback, mainly in the form of ongoing opposition from the fishing community and concerns about the cumulative effects and potential harm to marine life caused by tidal deployments (CBC News 2017). While it was ruled that FORCE has carefully monitored and is following the precautionary principle, this conflict speaks to the importance of social acceptance and the need for early and transparent outreach and engagement with key stakeholders to understand and address community concerns. SECTION B – CURRENT KNOWLEDGE OF KEY DEVICE INTERACTIONS WITH THE MARINE ENVIRONMENT 167 cific social and economic data following the good prac- and learning, including understanding of potential tices above. In addition, government entities, investors, social and economic impacts, increases. This recom- and test sites can also incentivize or require that data, mendation is best carried out by governments allowing information, and analyses be shared and provided for a flexible approach to be used and developers using such public use. For example, the U.S. Department of Energy approaches for their developments. stipulates that MRE projects that have received government funding have to upload their data to an online data portal (Marine and Hydrokinetic Data Repository 2020). Not only does this help fund and create an impetus for data collection and sharing, but it allows these entities to ask for data collected about key indicators and impacts, thereby further adding to the ability to standardize methods and available data. This recommendation is best carried out by governments, investors, and/ or MRE test sites. 9.7.6. CORRELATE IMPACTS, DATA COLLECTION, AND PROCESSES TO APPROPRIATE SIZES With many barriers for the MRE industry to overcome as it advances, one potential barrier is unnecessary requirements. In the case of social and economic data collection, the requirements may be overly burdensome. Instead, when collecting data, the associated impacts need to be strongly correlated to the sensitivity of the receptor. For example, if fishing jobs are lost because 9.7.5. USE A FLEXIBLE PLANNING APPROACH of an MRE deployment, the loss would have a smaller With uncertainty around not only the environmental the fishing industry than it would have on a community effects of MRE, but also its social and economic effects, that relies significantly on this industry. In addition, it is important to allow for learning to develop over time consenting processes can create challenges related to and for adjustments to be made as a project is deployed. long timelines and associated costs. While consenting Considering a flexible approach to planning, such as a processes can help limit adverse effects, such processes design envelope approach (also known as the “Roch- and the associated evidence burden placed on devel- dale Envelope”) (The Planning Inspectorate 2018; Caine opers should be proportional to the project size. For 2018), or an adaptive management approach (see Chap- example, for a smaller MRE development, adversarial ter 12, Adaptive Management Related to Marine Renew- effects will be small and requirements for benefits to able Energy), is necessary. A design envelope approach offset those should be proportionally smaller too. This gives developers flexibility during the consenting and recommendation is relevant for regulators who set development stages of projects because they can pro- requirements for data collection and governments who vide a range of project parameters (BOEM 2018). These set requirements for consenting processes. impact on a community that does not heavily rely on approaches allow for uncertainty to be addressed and adjustments to be made as the project moves forward, 9.8. CONCLUSION O ne of the most important areas for future MRE research is the social and economic effects, espe- cially because the social effects are not well understood (Uihlein and Magagna 2016). Improving the collection, collation, and dissemination of data about social and economic effects would greatly aid this developing industry. As more information becomes available, producing social and economic assessments will become easier thanks to lessons learned from previous projects, more existing and accessible data to compare between projects, and data and information that may be used from one project for a future project (see Chapter 13, Risk Retirement and Data Transferability for Marine Renewable Energy). 168 OES-ENVIRONMENTAL 2020 STATE OF THE SCIENCE REPORT 9.9. REFERENCES Caine, C. A. 2018. The place of the Rochdale envelope ABPMer. 2012. A Socio-economic Methodology and https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/place-rochdale​ approach in offshore renewable energy. Environmental Law Review, 20(2), 74-88. doi:10.1177/1461452918777835 Baseline for Pentland Firth and Orkney Waters Round 1 -envelope-approach-offshore-renewable-energy Wave and Tidal Developments. Available by request. Carl Bro Group Ltd. 2002. Marine Energy Test Centre Akar, Z., and Akdoğan, D. A. 2016. Environmental and Environmental Statement (REP141-01-03 20071115). Economic Impacts of Wave Energy: Some Public Policy Glasgow, UK. https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/billia​ Recommendations from Implementation in Turkey. In -croo-environmental-statement M. M. Erdoğdu, T. Arun, and I. H. Ahmad (Eds.), Hand- CBC News. 2017. Fundy fishermen lose bid to stop tidal book of Research on Green Economic Development Initiatives and Strategies (pp. 285-309). Hershey, PA: IGI Global. https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/handbook​ -research-green-economic-development-initiatives​ -strategies Bailey, I., West, J., and Whitehead, I. 2011. Out of Sight but Not out of Mind? Public Perceptions of Wave Energy. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 13(2), 139157. doi:10.1080/1523908X.2011.573632 https://tethys​ .pnnl.gov/publications/out-sight-not-out-mind-public​ -perceptions-wave-energy Bonar, P. A. J., Bryden, I. G., and Borthwick, A. G. L. 2015. Social and ecological impacts of marine energy development. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 47, 486-495. doi:10.1016/j.rser.2015.03.068 https://tethys​ .pnnl.gov/publications/social-ecological-impacts-marine​ -energy-development Bradsher, K. 2012. ‘Social Risk’ Test Ordered by China for Big Projects. The New York Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/13/world/asia/china​ -mandates-social-risk-reviews-for-big-projects.html Burdge, R. J., and Taylor, C. N. 2012. When and Where is Social Impact Assessment Required? Paper presented at the International Association for Impact Assessment Annual Meeting, Porto, Portugal. https://tethys.pnnl.gov​ /publications/when-where-social-impact-assessment​ -required Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM). 2018. Draft Guidance Regarding the Use of a Project Design Envelope in a Construction and Operations Plan. Office of Renewable Energy Programs, U.S. Department of the Interior. https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/draft​ -guidance-regarding-use-project-design-envelope​ -construction-operations-plan turbine in Minas Basin. CBC News. Retrieved from https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/tidal​ -turbine-fundy-fishermen-court-decision-1.4064346 Code de l’Environnement. 2018. Article L112-1. Copping, A., Freeman, M., Hutchinson, I., and Fox, J. 2019. Good Management Practices for Social and Economic Data Collection for Marine Renewable Energy. Ocean Energy Systems. https://tethys.pnnl​ .gov/publications/good-management-practices-social​ -economic-data-collection-marine-renewable-energy Copping, A., Hutchinson, I., and Fox, J. 2017. Exploring the State of Understanding and Practice Used to Assess Social and Economic Risks and Benefits of Marine Renewable Energy Development. Workshop conducted at the European Wave and Tidal Energy Conference, Cork, Ireland. https://tethys.pnnl.gov/events/exploring​ -state-understanding-practice-used-assess-social​ -economic-risks-benefits-marine Copping, A., Hutchinson, I., Fox, J., and Freeman, M. 2018. Case Studies on Social and Economic Effects around MRE Development. Workshop conducted at the Environmental Impacts of Marine Renewables Conference, Kirkwall, UK. https://tethys.pnnl.gov/events​ /case-studies-social-economic-effects-around-mre​ -development Dalton, G., Allan, G., Beaumont, N., Georgakaki, A., Hacking, N., Hooper, T., Kerr, S., O’Hagan, A. M., Reilly, K., Ricci, P., Sheng, W., and Stallard, T. 2015. Economic and socio-economic assessment methods for ocean renewable energy: Public and private perspectives. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 45, 850878. doi:10.1016/j.rser.2015.01.068 https://tethys.pnnl​ .gov/publications/economic-socio-economic-assessment​ -methods-ocean-renewable-energy-public-private SECTION B – CURRENT KNOWLEDGE OF KEY DEVICE INTERACTIONS WITH THE MARINE ENVIRONMENT 169 Devine-Wright, P. 2011. Enhancing local distinctive- Gardner, M., MacDougall, S., Taylor, J., Karsten, R., ness fosters public acceptance of tidal energy: A UK Johnson, K., Kerr, S., Fitzharris, J. 2015. Value Propo- case study. Energy Policy, 39(1), 83-93. doi:10.1016​ sition for Tidal Energy Development in Nova Scotia, /j.enpol.2010.09.012 https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications​ Atlantic Canada and Canada. Offshore Energy Research /enhancing-local-distinctiveness-fosters-public​ Association (OERA), Halifax, Nova Scotia. Report -acceptance-tidal-energy-uk-case-study for OERA. https://tethys​.pnnl.gov/publications/value- Devine-Wright, P., Burningham, K., Barnett, J., DevineWright, H., Walker, G., Infield, D., Evans, B., Howes, proposition-tidal-energy​-development-nova-scotiaatlantic-canada-canada Y., Evans, F., Cass, N., Theobald, K., Parks, J., Barton, Government of Canada. 2018. The Proposed Impact J., Thrush, D., and Speller, G. 2013. Beyond Nimbyism: Assessment System: A Technical Guide. https://tethys​ Project Summary Report. School of Environment and .pnnl.gov/publications/proposed-impact-assessment​ Development, University of Manchester, Manchester, -system UK. https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/beyond-nimbyism​ -project-summary-report Directive 2008/56/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 establishing a framework for community action in the field of marine environmental policy (Marine Strategy Framework Directive). OJ L 164, 25.6.2008, p. 19–40 Government of Canada. 2019. Impact Assessment Agency of Canada. Retrieved from https://www.canada.ca​ /en/impact-assessment-agency.html Howell, A., and Drake, C. 2012. Scoping Study on SocioEconomic Impacts of Tidal Energy Development in Nova Scotia: A Research Synthesis & Priorities for Future Action. FERN Technical Report # 2012 – 01. Fundy Directive 2014/52/EU of the European Parliament and Energy Research Network (FERN), Wolfville, Nova of the Council of 16 April 2014 amending Directive Scotia. Report by FERN for Nova Scotia Department of 2011/92/EU on the assessment of the effects of certain Energy. https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/scoping-study​ public and private projects on the environment. OJ L -socio-economic-impacts-tidal-energy-development​ 124, 25.4.2014, p. 1–18 -nova-scotia-research Drake, C. 2012. Understanding socioeconomic issues Ip, D. F. 1990. Difficulties in implementing social impact and opportunities of an emerging tidal energy industry assessment in China: Methodological considerations. in Nova Scotia. Master’s Thesis, University Centre of Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 10(1), 113-122. the Westfjords, Ísafjörður, Iceland. https://tethys.pnnl​ doi:10.1016/0195-9255(90)90011-N https://tethys.pnnl​ .gov/publications/understanding-socioeconomic-issues​ .gov/publications/difficulties-implementing-social-impact​ -opportunities-emerging-tidal-energy-industry-nova -assessment-china-methodological-considerations Dutta, B., and Bandyopadhyay, S. 2010. Environmen- Isaacman, L., Daborn, G., and Redden, A. 2012. A tal Impact Assessment and Social Impact Assessment Framework for Environmental Risk Assessment and - Decision Making Tools for Project Appraisal in India Decision-Making for Tidal Energy Development in World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technol- Canada (Report No. 106). Acadia Centre for Estuarine ogy, 39, 1116-1121. https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications​ Research (ACER), Acadia University, Wolfville, Nova /environmental-impact-assessment-social-impact​ Scotia. https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/framework​ -assessment-decision-making-tools-project -environmental-risk-assessment-decision-making-tidal​ EquiMar. 2011. Deliverable D5.8: Impacts upon marine -energy-development energy stakeholders. https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications​ Jimenez, T., and Tegen, S. 2014. Economic Impact /equitable-testing-evaluation-marine-energy-extraction​ of Large-Scale Deployment of Offshore Marine and -devices-terms-performance-cost Hydrokinetic Technology in Oregon (NREL/TP-5000- European Marine Energy Centre (EMEC). 2019. EMEC Socio-Economic Report. Stromness, Orkney. https://​ tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/emec-socio-economic-report 170 61727). National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, Colorado. https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/economic​ -impact-large-scale-deployment-offshore-marine​ -hydrokinetic-technology-0 OES-ENVIRONMENTAL 2020 STATE OF THE SCIENCE REPORT Jimenez, T., Tegen, S., and Beiter, P. 2015. Economic MeyGen. 2012. MeyGen Tidal Energy Project Phase Impact from Large-Scale Deployment of Offshore 1: Environmental Statement. https://tethys.pnnl.gov​ Marine and Hydrokinetic Technology in Oregon /publications/meygen-tidal-energy-project-phase​ Coastal Counties (NREL/TP-5000-63506). National -1-environmental-statement Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, Colorado. Report by National Renewable Energy Laboratory for Bureau of Ocean Energy Management. https://tethys​ National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. 42 U.S.C. §§4321-4370h. .pnnl.gov/publications/economic-impact-large-scale​ Novaczek, I., MacFadyen, J., Bardati, D., and MacEach- -deployment-offshore-marine-hydrokinetic-technology​ ern, K. 2011. Social and Cultural Values Mapping as a -oregon decision-support tool for climate change adaptation. Kerr, S., Colton, J., Johnson, K., and Wright, G. 2015. Rights and ownership in sea country: implications of marine renewable energy for indigenous and local communities. Marine Policy, 52, 108-115. doi:10.1016/j.marpol​ .2014.11.002 https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/rights​ -ownership-sea-country-implications-marine-renewable​ Institute of Island Studies, University of Prince Edward Island, Charlottetown, Canada. https://tethys.pnnl.gov​ /publications/social-cultural-values-mapping-decision​ -support-tool-climate-change-adaptation Oregon Wave Energy Trust (OWET). 2020. OWET Research. Retrieved from https://pacificoceanenergy.org​ -energy-indigenous-local /research/owet-research/ Kerr, S., Watts, L., Colton, J., Conway, F., Hull, A., John- Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Devel- son, K., Jude, S., Kannen, A., MacDougall, S., McLach- opment (OECD). 2001. Glossary of Statistics Terms: lan, C., Potts, T., and Vergunst, J. 2014. Establishing an Gross Value Added. Retrieved from https://stats.oecd.org​ agenda for social studies research in marine renew- /glossary/detail.asp?ID=1184 able energy. Energy Policy, 67, 694-702. doi:10.1016​ Orkney Renewable Energy Forum (OREF). 2020. Orkney /j.enpol.2013.11.063 https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications​ /establishing-agenda-social-studies-research-marine​ -renewable-energy Lavidas, G. 2019. Energy and socio-economic benefits from the development of wave energy in Greece. Renewable Energy, 132, 1290-1300. doi:10.1016/j.renene.2018​ .09.007 https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/energy-socio​ Renewable Energy Forum. Retrieved from http://www​ .oref.co.uk/ The Planning Inspectorate. 2018. Using the Rochdale Envelope. Advice Note Nine: Rochdale Envelope. https://​ tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/using-rochdale-envelope Price, S., and Robinson, K. 2015. Making a Difference?: -economic-benefits-development-wave-energy-greece Social Assessment Policy and Praxis and Its Emergence Leeney, R. H., Greaves, D., Conley, D., and O’Hagan, A. tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/making-difference-social​ M. 2014. Environmental Impact Assessments for wave energy developments – Learning from existing activities and informing future research priorities. Ocean & Coastal Management, 99, 14-22. doi:10.1016/j.ocecoaman​ .2014.05.025 https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications​ /environmental-impact-assessments-wave-energy​ -developments-learning-existing-activities Marine Energy Wales. 2020. State of the Sector Report: Economic Benefits for Wales. https://tethys.pnnl.gov/ publications/state-sector-report-2020-economicbenefits-wales Marine and Hydrokinetic Data Repository. 2020. About DOE’s Marine and Hydrokinetic Data Repository. Retrieved from https://mhkdr.openei.org/about in China (Vol. 6). Brooklyn, NY: Berghahn Books. https://​ -assessment-policy-praxis-its-emergence-china Rand, J., and Hoen, B. 2017. Thirty years of North American wind energy acceptance research: What have we learned? Energy Research & Social Science, 29, 135148. doi:10.1016/j.erss.2017.05.019 https://tethys.pnnl.gov​ /publications/thirty-years-north-american-wind-energy​ -acceptance-research-what-have-we-learned Regeneris Consulting Ltd. 2013. The Economic Impact of the Development of Marine Energy in Wales. https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/economic-impact​ -development-marine-energy-wales Regulations on Impact Assessments. Kgl. Res. 21. June 2017. nr. 71. SECTION B – CURRENT KNOWLEDGE OF KEY DEVICE INTERACTIONS WITH THE MARINE ENVIRONMENT 171 Ren, X. I. N. 2013. Implementation of environmental Tang, B., Wong, S., and Lau, M. C. 2008. Social impact assessment in China. Journal of Environmental impact assessment and public participation in Assessment Policy and Management, 15(3), 1350009. China: A case study of land requisition in Guang- doi:10.1142/S1464333213500099 https://tethys.pnnl.gov​ zhou. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, /publications/implementation-environmental-impact​ 28(1), 57-72. doi:10.1016/j.eiar​.2007.03.004 https:// -assessment-china tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/social​-impact-assessment- Renewable UK. 2014. Maximising the Value of Marine public-participation-china-case​-study-land-requisition Energy to the United Kingdom. Marine Energy Program Uihlein, A., and Magagna, D. 2016. Wave and tidal cur- Board. https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/maximising​ rent energy – A review of the current state of research -value-marine-energy-united-kingdom beyond technology. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Simas, T., Magagna, D., Bailey, I., Conley, D., Greaves, D., O’Callaghan, J., Marina, D., Saulnier, J., Sundberg, J., Embling, C. 2013. SOWFIA Deliverable D.4.4 Interim Report: Critical Environmental Impacts for Relevant Socio-economic Reviews, 58, 1070-1081. doi:10.1016/j.rser.2015.12​ .284 https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/wave-tidalcurrent​-energy-review-current-state-research-beyond​ -technology Activities and Mitigation Measures Including Main Conclu- van den Burg, S. W. K., Aguilar-Manjarrez, J., Jenness, sions and Feedback Analysis from Workshop B and Analysis J., and Torrie, M. 2019. Assessment of the geographical of the Stakeholder Survey. Report by WavEC - Offshore potential for co-use of marine space, based on opera- Renewables. https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/sowfia​ tional boundaries for Blue Growth sectors. Marine Policy, -deliverable-d44-interim-report-critical-environmental​ 100, 43-57. doi:10.1016/j.marpol.2018.10.050 https:// -impacts-relevant-socio tethys​.pnnl.gov/publications/assessment-geographical- Smart, G., and Noonan, M. 2018. Tidal Stream and Wave Energy Cost Reduction and Industrial Benefit: Sum- potential​-co-use-marine-space-based-operationalboundaries mary Analysis. Offshore Renewables Energy Catapult. Vanclay, F. 2012. The potential application of social https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/tidal-stream-wave​ impact assessment in integrated coastal zone man- -energy-cost-reduction-industrial-benefit-summary​ agement. Ocean & Coastal Management, 68, 149-156. -analysis doi:10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2012.05.016 https://tethys.pnnl​ Smythe, T., Andrescavage, N., and Fox, C. 2016. The Rhode Island Ocean Special Area Management Plan, .gov/publications/potential-application-social-impact​ -assessment-integrated-coastal-zone-management 2008 – 2015: From Inception through Implementation. Vanclay, F., Esteves, A. M., Aucamp, I., and Franks, D. Coastal Resources Center and Rhode Island Sea Grant 2015. Social Impact Assessment: Guidance for assessing College Program, URI Graduate School of Oceanogra- and managing the social impacts of projects. Interna- phy, Narragansett, Rhode Island. Report by University tional Association for Impact Assessment, Fargo, North of Rhode Island for Gordon and Betty Moore Founda- Dakota. https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/social-impact​ tion. https://tethys​.pnnl.gov/publications/rhode-island- -assessment-guidance-assessing-managing-social​ ocean-special-area​-management-plan-2008-2015- -impacts-projects inception-through Voyants Solutions Pvt. Ltd. 2016. Environmental and S.O. 1533, Environmental Impact Assessment Notifica- Social Impact Assessment of 200 MW Wind Project tion, 2006, Ministry of Environment and Forests, GAZ. at Village Aspari, District Kurnool, Andhra Pradesh. INDIA, New Delhi, 14 Sep 2006. Mytrah Energy India. https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications​ Stokes, C., Beaumont, E., Russell, P., and Greaves, D. 2014. Anticipated coastal impacts: What water-users /environmental-social-impact-assessment-200-mw​ -wind-project-village-aspari-district think of marine renewables and why. Ocean & Coastal Management, 99, 63-71. doi:10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2014​ .04.003 https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/anticipated​ -coastal-impacts-what-water-users-think-marine​ -renewables-why 172 OES-ENVIRONMENTAL 2020 STATE OF THE SCIENCE REPORT NOTES SECTION B – CURRENT KNOWLEDGE OF KEY DEVICE INTERACTIONS WITH THE MARINE ENVIRONMENT 173 NOTES Social and Economic Data Collection for Marine Renewable Energy Freeman, M.C. 2020. Social and Economic Data Collection for Marine Renewable Energy. In A.E. Copping and L.G. Hemery (Eds.), OES-Environmental 2020 State of the Science Report: Environmental Effects of Marine Renewable Energy Development Around the World. Report for Ocean Energy Systems (OES). (pp. 154-174). doi:10.2172/1633195 Go to https://tethys​.pnnl.gov for a comprehensive collection of papers, reports, archived presentations, and other media about environmental effects of marine renewable energy development. REPORT AND MORE INFORMATION CONTACT OES-Environmental 2020 State of the Science full report and executive summary available at: https://tethys​.pnnl.gov/publications/state-of-the​-science-2020 Andrea Copping Pacific Northwest National Laboratory andrea.copping@pnnl.gov +1 206.528.3049 174 OES-ENVIRONMENTAL 2020 STATE OF THE SCIENCE REPORT Section C Environmental Monitoring Chapter 10.0 Environmental Monitoring Technologies and Techniques for Detecting Interactions of Marine Animals with Turbines..............177 Section C 176 OES-ENVIRONMENTAL 2020 STATE OF THE SCIENCE REPORT 10.0 Chapter authors: Daniel J. Hasselman, David R. Barclay, Robert Cavagnaro, Craig Chandler, Emma Cotter, Douglas M. Gillespie, Gordon D. Hastie, John K. Horne, James Joslin, Caitlin Long, Louise P. McGarry, Robert P. Mueller, Carol E. Sparling, and Benjamin J. Williamson Contributor: Garrett J. Staines Environmental Monitoring Technologies and Techniques for Detecting Interactions of Marine Animals with Turbines The greatest potential risk from turbine operation continues to be perceived by regulators and other stakeholders to be that of marine animals colliding with turbine blades. These potential interactions are the most difficult to observe using common oceanographic instruments and must be undertaken in parts of the ocean where fast moving water and high waves make studies challenging. However, our collective understanding of the effects of marine renewable energy (MRE) devices on marine animals and their habitats has improved through monitoring and research since the publication of the 2016 State of the Science report (Copping et al. 2016). SECTION C – ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING 177 10.2. 10.1. INSTRUMENT CLASSES USED FOR BACKGROUND TO ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING TECHNOLOGIES AROUND MONITORING MRE DEVICES TURBINES suite of environmental monitoring instruments has T echnological advancements in different instrument classes, the integration of instruments on subsea monitoring platforms, and improvements of methodologies have increased our understanding of the effects that tidal energy turbines and wave energy converters (WECs) have on marine organisms. Despite these advances, monitoring challenges remain with respect to the durability of monitoring equipment in harsh marine environments, power availability/management of integrated monitor- A been used to monitor the potential environmental effects of MRE devices. The most common instrumentation used to document interactions of marine animals and habitats with MRE devices include passive acoustic instruments, active acoustic instruments, and optical cameras, while other instrumentation is used to help define the physical environment in which these interactions may occur. Here, we provide an overview of the different classes of instrumentation used for monitor- ing systems, and continuous data collection, storage, ing marine animal interactions with MRE devices. and analysis. This chapter focuses on the state of the 10.2.1. PASSIVE ACOUSTICS science in environmental monitoring technologies and techniques, in particular (1) the instrument classes used Within the context of monitoring MRE devices, passive for monitoring MRE devices (Section 10.2) , (2) the chal- acoustic monitoring (PAM) instruments have primarily lenges of monitoring around MRE devices (Section 10.3), been used to (1) characterize the soundscape of ener- and (3) integrated monitoring platforms that are cur- getic marine environments (e.g., ambient sound and rently used to monitor MRE devices (Section 10.4). This MRE device-associated noise; for details, see Chap- chapter also provides an overview of lessons learned from ter 4, Risk to Marine Animals from Underwater Noise monitoring activities (Section 10.5) and recommendations Generated by Marine Renewable Energy Devices), and for quality data collection, management, and analysis (2) monitor for echolocating marine mammals (e.g., (Section 10.6). detection and localization; for details, see Chapter 3, An additional challenge to developing and operating envi- Collision Risk for Animals around Turbines). PAM of 1 ronmental monitoring instruments and platforms around MRE devices is the need to have available instrumentation packages that can be safely and effectively used by MRE developers around active wave or tidal projects. MRE developers invest time and resources to design against device failure; the same investments are likely needed for monitoring instruments. There is a need to design and implement simple, robust environmental monitoring packages because many consenting/permitting (hereafter consenting) decisions are contingent upon the operation and provision of data streams from the instruments. Many of the instruments described here were developed for research purposes; additional effort will be needed to further marinize and harden the platforms and instruments to assure that the engineering designs are capable of withstanding the purpose for which they may be used in the high-energy waters where the harvesting of tidal and wave energy is planned. MRE devices is important because these devices may generate underwater noise (e.g., cavitation and motor/ mechanical noise [Wang et al. 2007]) that could affect animal navigation, communication, predation, and life cycles (Lombardi 2016; Pine et al. 2012). Despite a growing body of PAM effort around MRE devices, no commercially available acoustic monitoring systems have been designed specifically for monitoring in the highly energetic marine environments that are sought for MRE extraction. Instead, various PAM technologies designed for more benign marine environments have been experimentally deployed in high-flow environments to assess their suitability for monitoring in these conditions. These technologies include conventional cabled or autonomous hydrophone and analog-to-digital instrument packages, internally recording hydrophones with digital interfaces, cabled and autonomous hydrophones or vector instrument arrays, and integrated hydrophone and data processing systems for marine 1. Mention of commercial instruments or other equipment and software throughout this chapter is meant to illustrate the gear in use and does not constitute endorsement of any commercial products. mammal detection. In this section, we first consider the 178 OES-ENVIRONMENTAL 2020 STATE OF THE SCIENCE REPORT challenges faced by PAM in high-flow environments, Marine Sound Monitoring and then provide an overview of the state of the science Copping et al. (2013) and Robinson and Lepper (2013) with respect to the use of PAM technologies for monitoring marine sound and marine mammals. Challenges A variety of factors (e.g., flow noise, natural ambient sound, instrument size and geometry, and deployment method) influence the detection efficiency of PAM instruments. However, the primary challenge for PAM in highly energetic marine environments is the identification and mitigation of flow noise (Bassett et al. 2014; Lombardi 2016; Thomson et al. 2012) generated by pressure fluctuations caused by turbulent flow on the surface of the hydrophone, or the noise made by water moving rapidly across the surface of the hydrophone. In energetic marine environments, flow noise can mask true propagating sound over a large bandwidth (i.e., 0–1 kHz), with increasing intensity and decreasing frequency, while sediment movement can generate noise in the 10s of kilohertz, depending on grain size and material (Bassett 2013; Raghukumar et al. 2019). This complicates the accurate characterization of ambient sound and the quantification of anthropogenic noise provided comprehensive reviews of all published acoustic environmental monitoring activity for MRE devices up to 2013. Online supplementary Table S10.1 (online at: https://tethys.pnnl.gov/state-of-the-science​-2020-supplementary-environmental-monitoring) provides an update and expansion of the two previously mentioned 2013 reports and summarizes the various PAM efforts used to characterize (1) ambient noise baseline measurements, (2) operational noise, (3) construction and installation associated noise, and (4) planned transmissions, and includes selected publications describing the results. Monitoring for marine noise around MRE sites should follow the protocol of the International Electrotechnical Commission Technical Specification (IEC TS) 62600-40:2019, which provides uniform methodologies for consistently characterizing the sound produced by the operation of marine energy converters that generate electricity from wave, current, and thermal energy conversion (IEC 2019; for details, see Chapter 4, Risk to Marine Animals from Underwater Noise Generated by Marine Renewable Energy Devices). and reduces the effective detection range for echolocat- Marine noise at MRE sites has been characterized ing marine mammals. most often using a combination of drifting buoy or A suite of mechanical solutions to mitigate flow noise have been proposed. For instance, linear arrays of hydrophones have been used to reduce flow noise when monitoring tidal energy turbines in open channel turbulent flow (Auvinen and Barclay 2019; Worthington 2014). Because the flow noise is generated locally on each instrument, it is independent from one instrument to the next, but true propagating sound will appear to be coherent across the array. By coherently averaging the signals across the array, the flow noise may be suppressed while the true sound is amplified. Another commonly used option is the deployment of instrumentation on Lagrangian drifting floats in place of fixed moorings, and the use of flow shields, baffles, and vibration isolation mounts to minimize flow noise. However, none of these approaches are entirely effec- boat-based measurements; moored/bottom-mounted systems and directional arrays or paired hydrophones have been used less frequently. However, many of the early studies that used drifting boat-based measurements suffered from significant contamination of the acoustic recordings by noise generated by surface motion, including waves lapping against the boat hull and topside activity. Subsequent studies deployed hydrophones under floating buoys using isolation and suspension systems, drogues, or catenary sections to reduce noise contamination (Figure 10.1). These hydrophone deployments are described as having the highest fidelity relative to the true sound field—a claim that is frequently substantiated by the reduction of flow noise and motion-induced noise levels in subsequently collected datasets. tive at removing flow noise, and some options (e.g., Operationally, moored/bottom-mounted systems flow shields) can degrade the detection of propagating provide the ability to monitor a single point in space sound if they are not designed appropriately. for extended periods of time, whereas drifting systems measure a snapshot (typically on the order of minutes) of the noise field over a wider geographic area. There are advantages and disadvantages to each SECTION C – ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING 179 monitoring campaigns, but these techniques are yet to be demonstrated. The use of a station-keeping autonomous hovercraft with a deployable acoustic instrument has also been proposed (Barclay 2019), and both of these technologies could provide duty-cycled longterm monitoring of MRE sites without interference from flow noise. Marine Mammal Monitoring A variety of PAM technologies are used for monitoring the presence of vocalizing marine mammals and their interactions with MRE devices. Most marine mammal monitoring programs that employ PAM technologies use porpoise and dolphin echolocation clicks to detect, classify, and localize the various species. These shortduration signals have reasonably wide bands (10–50 Figure 10.1. Schematic of the components of the “drifting ears” autonomous recording drifter specifically developed for use in tidal streams. This system was designed to keep the hydrophone in a fixed position relative to the body of moving water and is placed in a submerged underwater drogue. (From Wilson et al. 2014) approach, depending on the context of the monitoring program being considered. For instance, for quantifying MRE device-generated noise, flow noise detected by a moored/bottom-mounted system typically masks the frequencies of interest (10s–100s of hertz), necessitating a labor-intensive and carefully executed driftbased measurement campaign. However, in the case of continuous real-time monitoring, a moored/bottommounted system is the only realistic option at this time, and methods of flow noise suppression (e.g., a flow shield) must be used if the objective includes quantifying MRE device-generated noise. However, there is no standard flow shield design available. Results from flow shield experiments have provided mixed results; some studies confirm a reduction in flow noise (Bassett 2013; Raghukumar et al. 2019), and others demonstrate a reduction in system sensitivity with no effect on flow noise in the band of interest (Malinka et al. 2015; Porskamp et al. 2015). kHz) and are centered at relatively high frequencies (90–130 kHz). However, the detection efficiency of PAM instruments for monitoring marine mammals is affected by a variety of factors, including the vocalization bandwidth for the species being monitored and the potential masking of these sounds by flow noise and ambient noise (e.g., sediment transport on the seafloor), as well as by the propagation environment, reverberation, instrument placement, and instrument deployment methodology (Bassett et al. 2013; Porskamp et al. 2015; Tollit and Redden 2013). By understanding the relative effects of these factors, the performance of PAM technologies for monitoring marine mammals around MRE devices can be assessed. For instance, some frequently observed baleen whales in the Bay of Fundy, Nova Scotia, Canada, (e.g., humpback, fin, and minke whales) produce low-frequency sounds (below 1 kHz), and masking by flow and sediment transport noise may contribute to the absence of their detections using PAM technologies. In addition, a modeling exercise found that the passive acoustic detection range for southern resident killer whale (Orcinus orca) frequently observed in Admiralty Inlet, in Washington State, United States (U.S.) (Snohomish Public Utility District 2012), was Digital hydrophones are widely available from a suite reduced by 90 percent during flood and ebb tides suit- of manufacturers, are relatively compact in form, and able for turbine operation in a tidal channel because of are preferable for long-term deployments of moored/ flow noise (Bassett 2013). bottom-mounted observation systems because of their ability to transfer data at high speeds with little signal attenuation. The future automation of drifting PAM systems using unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) to take underwater noise measurements (Lloyd et al. 2017) may alleviate the laborious nature of previous drift-based 180 Because the primary signal of interest for monitoring marine mammals around MRE devices is echolocation clicks, the data recording packages suitable for detection must have high sampling rates (>250 kHz) and large memory capacities for storing the raw pressure OES-ENVIRONMENTAL 2020 STATE OF THE SCIENCE REPORT time series. The resulting data must then be processed and stand-alone PAM instruments cannot be directly for detection, classification, and localization using compared, because there is large spread in the detection either commercially available software or custom- ratio of these systems and no consistent linear relation- designed detection algorithms. A popular choice for this ship between the detection rates for these instruments task is PAMGuard (Gillespie et al. 2008a) — an open- (Sarnocinska et al. 2016). Alternative metrics such as source software that automates detection and classifi- “detection positive minutes per unit time” (Roberts cation of sounds in the time series and permits localiza- and Read 2015) and “echolocation clicks per hour” tion. While “conventional” PAM instruments (Figure (Jacobson et al. 2017) have revealed greater agreement 10.2a) frequently require separate hardware (recording) (i.e., higher accuracy and lower spread in detection and software (detection and classification) systems, ratio) between classes of PAM instruments. However, alternative “stand-alone” instruments (Figure 10.2b) prior studies have shown that co-located conventional allow the pressure time series to be analyzed in real instruments record five to ten times more detection time (following some prescribed criteria for detection minutes per day than stand-alone instruments (Adams and classification), thereby permitting the raw data to 2018; Porskamp et al. 2015; Tollit and Redden 2013), be discarded while storing the associated metadata. and the differences are attributed to the detection algorithm employed and the greater impact of flow-induced a noise (i.e., sediment transport) when using stand-alone instruments. One concern with the use of stand-alone PAM instruments in high-flow environments centers around the issue of “lost time” (or time when the system is not operational) and the potential for under-reported click b trains. Flow-induced noise can cause the maximum number of recordable clicks per minute to be exceeded on a stand-alone instrument, resulting in saturation of the detection buffer, and generating lost time (Tollit and Redden 2013). Comparative studies in high-flow Figure 10.2. Examples of a “conventional” PAM instrument (Ocean Instruments NZ SoundTrap ST300 HF) (a) and a “stand-alone” PAM instrument (b). (Photos courtesy of Daniel Hasselman) These two classes of PAM instruments (i.e., “conventional” and “stand-alone”) have been deployed in drifting, moored, bottom-mounted, and MRE devicemounted configurations to detect, classify, and localize various echolocating marine mammals, but have been shown to have different performance depending on a variety of factors, including the metric being assessed. For instance, a study in the Baltic Sea found that a stand-alone instrument detected 21 to 94 percent of the click trains detected by PAMGuard when applied to the recordings made with a co-located conventional instrument (Sarnocinska et al. 2016). The reduced rate of detections (i.e., clicks per minute) was due to several factors, but primarily the fact that PAMGuard detected individual clicks, whereas the proprietary software on the stand-alone instrument detected click trains. However, data collected as clicks per minute by conventional SECTION C – ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING environments have shown the effect of lost time from flow-induced noise for bottom-mounted and moored stand-alone instruments (Porskamp et al. 2015; Wilson et al. 2013). Bottom-mounted stand-alone instruments generally have more detection minutes per day than moored systems, during which noise generated by the mooring system being “blown down” against the seabed during periods of high flow may have saturated the detection buffer of the instrument (Porskamp et al. 2015). Alternatively, drifting stand-alone instruments suspended from Lagrangian drogues or floats do not appear to suffer from lost time, suggesting that flowinduced noise has less of an impact on the detection buffer in this configuration (Adams 2018; Benjamins et al. 2016; Wilson et al. 2013). Detection efficiency also differs between PAM technologies; conventional instruments generally have greater detection ranges (0–500 m) than stand-alone instruments (0–300 m), depending on the conditions under which the tests are conducted (Benjamins et al. 2017; 181 Kyhn et al. 2008, 2012; Polagye et al. 2012; Porskamp et al. 2015; Roberts and Read 2015; Tollit and Redden 2013). Three three-dimensional (3D) localization studies have been conducted to date. The first involved a vertical array of eight large-aperture hydrophones combined with a small quad array. This system was deployed from a drifting ship to localize echolocating marine mammals, and provided a detection range of 200 m (Macaulay et al. 2017). The second study involved a 3D distribution of seven hydrophones mounted on a tidal turbine in Ramsey Sound, Wales, and was used to detect and localize dolphins and porpoises (Malinka et al. 2018). The estimated detection range of this system was 20 to 200 m for sound sources with source levels of 178 to 208 dB re 1 µPa, respectively. However, there was an estimated 50 percent probability of detection and localization for ranges >20 m, and only an estimated 10 percent probability at 50 m. The third study involved a PAM array for the commissioning of a tidal kite in the Holyhead Deep, Wales, to detect porpoises and dolphins. It was composed of an 8-channel system containing two clusters of four hydrophones that would together localise cetacean echolocation clicks in 3D and strategies could aid marine mammal monitoring with PAM instruments from bottom-mounted systems and reduce the confounding effects of noise in high-flow environments. 10.2.2. ACTIVE ACOUSTICS – IMAGING SONARS Active acoustics, as opposed to passive acoustics, generate a sound that is received as a return from the object of interest. For environmental monitoring at MRE sites, imaging sonars provide the advantage of high-resolution imagery in turbid waters without the need for artificial illumination (Hastie et al. 2019b). Although imaging sonars have several advantages over optical imagery, classification of targets is generally more difficult, and data processing methods to allow real-time target detection, tracking, and classification relative to current flows are currently under development. Because the environmental conditions and instrument configurations vary among monitoring projects, target-detection algorithms require “tuning” relative to current flow, and the final target classification step generally requires information from a secondary instrument, such as an optical camera, an echosounder, or an acoustic Doppler current profiler (ADCP), for validation. monitor near-field movement and evasion around the There are currently more than a dozen commercially kite. A second array of six single channel SoundTraps available imaging sonars that have been developed for (Ocean Instruments) surrounded the kite to detect mid- use in high-energy marine environments (each differ- field activity that may inform avoidance. Recorders for ing in functional range, resolution, field of view, and the 8-channel array included long-endurance batter- mechanical configuration), but the typical application ies and 4 TB of removable data storage which resulted is for underwater vehicle navigation and situational in a predicted recording duration of approximately 56d awareness. Further, not all imaging sonars have been while sampling at 312 kHz. designed for long-term deployments without regular Although conventional PAM instruments record the entire pressure time series and provide advantages over stand-alone systems for the detection, classification, and localization of echolocating marine mammals in high-flow environments, important factors to consider when pairing PAM technology with monitoring objectives are the deployment configuration and associated costs. While signal masking by flow noise, sediment noise, and mooring noise can limit the utility of moored maintenance. Most uses do not require the sonar control software to be integrated on a multi-instrument platform with other active acoustics. Thus, many of the commercially available imaging sonars are not well suited for monitoring MRE devices, but several have been demonstrated on previous projects. This section provides an overview of the most frequently used and commercially available imaging sonars for monitoring MRE devices. or bottom-mounted PAM instruments, PAM instru- The use of imaging sonars for environmental monitor- ments suspended below floats or drogues limit flow ing in high-flow environments has been documented noise. Although deploying floating PAM instruments in approximately 20 journal publications and project requires a large field effort upfront, data collection can reports, and is spread across a range of applications occur over a protracted timeframe (days) to reduce that may be categorized by deployment type (i.e., overall costs. The development of flow noise reduction downward looking from a surface vessel, mounted on 182 OES-ENVIRONMENTAL 2020 STATE OF THE SCIENCE REPORT a subsea platform, or integrated into turbine substruc- Sea Surface ture), deployment duration (i.e., from less than one day to several months), target monitoring goals (i.e., as defined by regulatory requirements, or project developer’s interest in retiring perceived risks), and method of data acquisition (i.e., often continuous collection) and processing (i.e., a combination of manual review and automated approaches). Given that every monitoring project has distinct requirements, which may Figure 10.3. Example of a vessel-based sonar configuration. (From Parsons et al. 2017) change over the course of the project, the most appropriate sonar for each application will also vary. The technical specifications for different sonars affect their suitability for monitoring MRE devices. The specifications that have the greatest impact on the capabilities of imaging sonars for monitoring include (1) the operating frequency, (2) the field of view or swath angles, (3) the functional range, (4) the input/output (I/O) trigger option, and (5) the software development kit (SDK). In general, the sonar functional range is determined by the operational frequency, while the field of view and resolution are functions of the number of beams. The option for an input trigger or SDK is crucial for integration on a multi-instrument platform. A summary of the technical specifications for the six most common imaging sonars used for monitoring MRE devices and examples of specific applications are provided in online supplementary Table S10.2 (online at: https://tethys.pnnl.gov/state​ -of-the-science-2020-supplementary-environmental​ -monitoring). Applications Imaging sonars have been used in a variety of configurations and applications relevant to monitoring MRE devices (Hastie et al. 2019a, 2019b). Several studies have mounted imaging sonars on a pole and deployed the sonar over the side of a vessel to conduct mobile surveys (Grippo et al. 2017; Melvin and Cochrane 2015; ORPC Maine 2014; Parsons et al. 2014, 2017). Parsons et al. (2017) conducted a vessel survey using a Tritech Gemini and used the native software for data collection and processing. The sonar configuration and vertical field of view (Figure 10.3) and sample data from Parsons et al. (2014, 2017) (Figure 10.4) are provided below. While the Figure 10.4. Example data from a vessel-based survey using Tritech Gemini. (From Parsons et al. 2014) maintenance and allows for continuous data collection; eliminating the need for real-time target-detection and -tracking algorithms. When vessel surveys with imaging sonars are conducted in conjunction with fisheries echosounders, the combination of techniques allows for fish classification (echosounders) and tracking (imaging sonars) when targets can be co-registered between the data streams. relatively short duration of vessel surveys and the con- Imaging sonars have also been integrated into a variety stantly changing field of view complicate background of subsea platforms that have been deployed near MRE subtraction for automated data processing, vessel sur- devices. The Flow, Water Column and Benthic Ecology veys can cover large areas and the motion of the sonar (FLOWBEC)-4D platform (Section 10.4.3) integrates an can be used for 3D reconstruction. Further, the rela- Imagenex 837B Delta T imaging sonar with a suite of tively short duration of deployments simplifies sonar instruments and a large battery bank to facilitate con- SECTION C – ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING 183 Figure 10.5. Example data from the Flow, Water Column, and Benthic Ecology (FLOWBEC)-4D deployment at the European Marine Energy Centre. (From Williamson et al. 2016a) tinuous data collection during two-week autonomous platform have included a Tritech Gemini and a Teledyne deployments. The Imagenex 837B Delta T sonar was BlueView imaging sonar to take advantage of the long chosen for this platform because of previous experi- and short relative ranges of these instruments. Because ence with the instrument and its relatively low cost, of the high bandwidth of the instruments on the AMP, low power consumption, and low data bandwidth. imaging sonar data are processed in real time to detect Experience with this sonar simplified integration with targets and trigger the optical camera lights and data- the platform and synchronization with a Simrad EK60 archiving process. This approach avoids data mortgages echosounder, and the low power consumption and low (Section 10.3.2) and simplifies any post-processing bandwidth requirements made this imaging sonar bet- steps required. ter suited for autonomous deployments. The sonar is Beyond their inclusion on integrated monitoring plat- mounted on the FLOWBEC-4D platform so that the field of view allows for target co-registration with the echosounder and tracking capabilities. Although the narrow beam angle for both the imaging sonar and the echosounder results in only a narrow horizontal region being monitored concurrently, deployments to date have facilitated the development of target-detection and -tracking algorithms to simplify data post-processing. Figure 10.5 provides an example of a processed data sequence with the imaging sonar and echosounder tracking biological targets on their approach to a turbine structure. forms, imaging sonars have also been deployed as stand-alone instruments. For instance, a Sound Metrics Dual-Frequency Identification Sonar (DIDSON) imaging sonar was deployed on a cabled platform approximately 12 m from the base of the tidal turbine used for the Verdant Roosevelt Island Tidal Energy project (Bevelhimer et al. 2016). The platform was equipped with a pan-andtilt system to allow dynamic positioning of the sonar so that the field of view could be adjusted as required. The monitoring objective of the sonar was to observe fish behavior relative to the turbine and look for evidence of avoidance. Although the turbine failed soon after its The Adaptable Monitoring Package (AMP) (Section deployment, the sonar collected data continuously for 10.4.1) is an integrated instrumentation platform devel- 19 days. oped by the University of Washington for monitoring Imaging sonars have also been mounted directly on tidal energy devices (Cotter et al. 2017, Polagye et al. 2020), but it has also been used for monitoring at wave energy test sites, although without WECs (i.e., PacWave site in Oregon, U.S., and Wave Energy Test Site [WETS] in Hawaii, U.S.). Imaging sonars that have higher frequencies have shorter ranges, while lower frequencies extend the range of target detection. While an earlier version of the AMP included a Kongsberg M3 imaging sonar (Cotter et al. 2017), subsequent generations of the 184 turbine structures for monitoring purposes. The SeaGen project in Strangford Lough used imaging sonars for monitoring the interactions of marine mammals with tidal energy turbines for the greatest length of time. This project used the Tritech Gemini imaging sonar for monitoring harbor porpoises (Phocoena phocoena) and harbor seals (Phoca vitulina) (Hastie 2013), and allowed Tritech International Ltd. to implement autonomous OES-ENVIRONMENTAL 2020 STATE OF THE SCIENCE REPORT real-time target detection and tracking in their soft- Lessons Learned ware. Two Sound Metrics DIDSON imaging sonars were Many of the key considerations for the successful use mounted on the Ocean Renewable Power Company (ORPC) vessel-based turbine test platform deployed in Cobscook Bay, Maine, U.S., in 2012 to monitor fish (Viehman and Zydlewski 2014). Data were collected continuously for 22 hours and included manual postprocessing. Although these sonars have the highest resolution of all commercially available imaging sonars, they have a short range and narrow field of view. Key Considerations of imaging sonars and their integration with multiinstrument platforms come from previous failures that often remain undocumented by the teams who have deployed them. The most common challenges stem from the durability of the imaging sonar for lengthy deployments, or from the software for data collection and processing. Long-term deployments of instruments in the marine environment will result in biofouling that can inhibit The successful use of imaging sonars and their integra- data collection (see Chapter 6, Changes in Benthic and tion with multi-instrument platforms for monitoring Pelagic Habitats Caused by Marine Renewable Energy MRE devices will depend on a variety of factors (i.e., Devices). Although biofouling of an imaging sonar’s mounting and orientation, electrical and communica- transducer does not always degrade the imagery, it can tion connections, software for instrument control and damage sensitive components over time. While insti- data acquisition, and software for data processing). tuting a regular maintenance schedule that prevents Here, we provide an overview of some of these key con- the biofouling of sensitive components from becoming siderations. established is the best solution, it may not always be The ideal orientation for an imaging sonar depends on the location and size of the MRE device and the monitoring objectives. The sonar swath may be oriented to look across, in front of, or behind a device, with a vertical or horizontal orientation, and either from a bottom or surface platform. Each of these configurations has its own challenges and benefits that are difficult to predict possible. Alternatives for sensitive components include using biofouling wipers (e.g., ZibraTech Inc.) for optical view ports, ultraviolet lights, antifouling paint, or highly concentrated zinc oxide paste (exception: stainless-steel surfaces). For less sensitive components, copper or vinyl tape may be used to coat surfaces to inhibit growth or easily remove biofouling. prior to testing. If the monitoring objective includes The integration of imaging sonars on multi-instrument individual fish passage, then a high-resolution sonar platforms can reveal interference with other active will need to be deployed close to (or mounted on) the acoustic sources and electrical noise. For instance, thin MRE device. If the monitoring objective is to cover the radial lines appeared on the BlueView imaging sonar full area of an MRE device, then the deployment of one when strobe lights for an optical camera on the AMP were (or more) sonars with suitable range and resolution may activated (Figure 10.6). This kind of interference is typi- need to be deployed on a cabled or autonomous subsea cally due to direct current (DC) power converters that platform. operate at frequencies similar to the imaging sonar and Custom software for controlling the imaging sonar and acquiring data are provided by instrument manufactur- produce noise in the sonar imagery. This can be remedied by isolating and filtering the power supplied to the imag- ers. Customization beyond the native software capabilities is required for integration of multiple instruments into monitoring platforms, and when data are processed in real time or acquired on a duty cycle. For these reasons, sonars with manufacturer-supported SDKs are more suitable for platform integration. For instance, instrument control and data acquisition software for the AMP was developed using National Instruments LabView for both the Teledyne BlueView and Tritech Gemini imaging sonars. SECTION C – ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING Figure 10.6. Example of electrical interference in data from a BlueView imaging sonar on the Adaptable Monitoring Package (AMP). Thin radial lines are observed when strobe lights for optical cameras are active. (From Joslin 2019) 185 ing sonar. To avoid “cross-talk” between active acoustic tific community, (2) those that can be calibrated, and instruments, synchronization of instrument controls (3) those that have digital output; these echosounders is necessary to interweave pings, and doing so typically constitute instruments that have the desired features requires the imaging sonar to have an input trigger option for quantitative monitoring (Demer et al. 2017; Horne that can be synched with a central controller. 2019). These characteristics combined with packaging The presence of non-biological targets (e.g., debris) and environmental artifacts (e.g., turbulent vortices, entrained air in the water column) that typify MRE sites presents challenges for environmental monitoring, because these conditions can mask actual targets of interest and impede automatic target-detection algorithms. Similarly, moving targets in the sonar field of view (e.g., turbine blades, water surface) or a sonar mounted on a moving platform can result in large changing acoustic artifacts in the sonar image (Urban et al. 2017). For these reasons, integration of imaging sonars mounted on subsea platforms, and deployed to the side of MRE devices, are most likely to yield the highest quality sonar imagery. flexibility, transmission pulse types, and processing software options, all vetted by the international community, make the current generation of commercial scientific echosounders the instruments of choice for monitoring fish at MRE sites (Horne 2019). Some manufacturers also offer a line of scientific echosounders that have common architecture and design features, and include a series of instruments that can actively transmit in narrowband, single-frequency, continuous wave or wide-bandwidth, frequency-modulated mode. When equipped with split-beam transducers, individual targets can be tracked, and their scattering strength compensated for based on their location in the beam. These echosounders can be used in traditional vessel deployments for mobile surveys, with transduc- Another consideration for use of imaging sonars for ers mounted on the hull of a ship, on a pole, or in a tow- monitoring is the response of marine animals to the body, deployed autonomously on moorings and subsea noise produced by the sonar. While the operating fre- platforms, integrated into autonomous or cabled subsea quencies of most imaging sonars are well above the monitoring packages, or used on remotely operated hearing levels of marine mammals, they can produce underwater vehicles (ROVs) and autonomous underwa- sound at lower frequencies, and it is possible that ter vehicles with an external power supply. marine animal behavior may be affected (Cotter et al. 2019; Hastie 2013). Although the sound levels are not high enough to be of concern, additional research is needed to fully characterize behavioral changes that are detected by imaging sonars (and echosounders). 10.2.3. ACTIVE ACOUSTICS – ECHOSOUNDERS High-fidelity echosounders are a standard tool in fisheries science and are routinely used to quantify fish abundance and distribution (Simmonds and MacLennan 2007). They are also valuable for monitoring the interactions of fish with MRE devices and have been used in a variety of configurations, including mobile hydroacoustic surveys (McGarry and Zydlewski 2019; Melvin and Cochrane 2014, 2015) and stationary deployments both at the sea surface (Viehman et al. 2015) and on the seabed (Viehman and Zydlewski 2017; Viehman et al. 2017; Challenges and Mitigation Techniques The primary challenge for using scientific echosounders to monitor fish interactions with MRE devices in highflow environments is acoustic signal scattering from air entrained in the water column — a physical feature common to MRE sites. Because sound energy emitted from a transducer will be reflected when the acoustic impedance (product of sound speed and density) differs from the surrounding water, scattering from entrained air affects the ability to detect targets of interest and subsequently discriminate between the targets that are biological and those that are non-biological. In addition, when volume scattering from physical sources such as bubbles is sufficiently high, the presence of biological and other non-biological targets of interest can be masked (Figure 10.7). Williamson et al. 2016a). Generally, the probability of detecting a target can The suite of scientific echosounders that are com- source level (i.e., power of the signal emitted from mercially available can be categorized by (1) those that have been used and found to be effective by the scien- 186 be maximized by a combination of (1) increasing the the transducer), (2) reducing the range to targets, (3) matching the transmit frequency to the intended target OES-ENVIRONMENTAL 2020 STATE OF THE SCIENCE REPORT (Simmonds and MacLennan 2005), (4) increasing the spectra. If the bubble field is sufficiently large and the signal-to-noise ratio (e.g., using matched filter and backscatter sufficiently strong, the backscatter from pulse compression techniques for broadband echo- biological targets within the bubble field will be indis- sounders [Ehrenberg and Torkelson 2000; Chu and tinguishable from the bubble backscatter. Stanton 1998] or increasing the pulse length for narrow band), and (5) processing raw data to remove noise. While these techniques can improve the detection of targets that have weak scattering properties, or targets at such great distance from the transducer that the returned echo is not sufficiently greater than the level of the background ambient noise present in the sea, other techniques are required to classify echo returns from the targets of interest (fish) and the returns from other unwanted targets in the water column (bubbles). Work has been ongoing to develop methodologies for reducing the ambiguity in the classification of acoustic signal scatterers, whether among species or size classes (De Robertis et al. 2010; Horne 2000; Korneliussen 2018), or distinguishing biological sound scatterers (fish, zooplankton) from physical sources of scattering (entrained air, microstructure) (Lavery et al. 2007, 2010; Ross and Lueck 2003; Warren and Wiebe 2008). The echo amplitude of energy backscattered from biological and physical sources is a complex, frequency- The challenge of the presence of bubbles in the water dependent function of the material properties (e.g., gas column fundamentally complicates the interpretation [bubbles] or gas-inclusions [swim bladders], fluid-like, of hydroacoustic data. Hydroacoustic methods work or hard parts [bony skeleton or shell]), shape, and ori- well when the medium (seawater) is fairly uniform, entation; a complete list is available in Table 4.1 of Kor- but they can be severely challenged at MRE sites in the neliussen (2018). Exploiting the frequency-dependent presence of the confounding or masking factor of air response of scatterers has the potential to reduce ambi- bubbles (Melvin and Cochrane 2015; Trevorrow 2003; guities in the interpretation of scattering data. To that Vagle and Farmer 1992). The ability to discriminate end, instrumentation and techniques have been under between targets depends on a combination of factors. development for collecting and interpreting backscat- The most important are the scattering intensity and the tering data across a wide band of frequencies, whether frequency response. Bubbles, turbulent microstructure the acoustic signal consists of a single continuous band (if present), suspended sediments, zooplankton, and (i.e., broadband), multiple broadband signals, multiple fish have scattering spectra that can be modeled and narrow bandwidth signals, or a combination of broad- used to distinguish between them. However, it can be band and narrowband signals (Bassett et al. 2018; Jech difficult to distinguish bubbles and fish, based on the et al. 2017; Stanton et al. 2012). frequency content alone, because they have similar Figure 10.7. Echogram from a single transect during a mobile hydroacoustic survey in Minas Passage, Nova Scotia, Canada, showing the extent and variability of air entrainment during peak flow conditions. (Image courtesy of FORCE) SECTION C – ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING 187 However, acoustically distinguishing swim-bladdered 2017). However, observations from stationary deploy- fish from air bubbles is an ongoing area of research ments are spatially limited as a set of point measure- because of the similarity in echo amplitudes caused by ments, and understanding how to set interpolation dis- the presence of gas in both (Melvin and Cochrane 2015). tances between replicated stationary instruments (e.g., With continued development of commercially avail- representative range) is important for collecting mean- able software packages (e.g., Echoview, ESP3, LSSS, ingful spatiotemporal data across equivalent spatial and Macheto, SonarX), a variety of filtering techniques are temporal scales (Horne and Jacques 2018). available for removing unwanted targets. A diversity of techniques have been developed to remove noise (De Robertis and Higginbottom 2007; Korneliussen 2000) and isolate target groups (De Robertis et al. 2010; Fernandes 2009; Kloser et al. 2002; Sato et al. 2015). To address the analytical challenges that arise when the background acoustic characteristics are extremely variable, multifrequency methodologies capable of target detection within some of the challenging conditions at MRE sites have been developed. They include the application of a bitmap to isolate targets of interest from backscatter data and automating the use of multifrequency acoustic data to delineate turbulent regions and then extract biological targets from within those regions (Fraser et al. 2017a; Williamson et al. 2017). A downward-looking single-beam Simrad ES60 echosounder (operating at 38 and 200 kHz simultaneously) was deployed from the side of a moored vessel and used to characterize patterns of fish presence and distribution at the ORPC tidal energy site in Cobscook Bay, Maine, U.S. (Shen et al. 2016; Staines et al. 2019; Viehman et al. 2015). The density of fish was found to vary seasonally; the greatest densities were observed in the spring and late fall (consistent with migratory periods), and the greatest densities were consistently detected near the sea floor (Viehman et al. 2015). These stationary data were combined with mobile survey data collected at the ORPC site using a Simrad EK60 splitbeam echosounder to understand fish behavior around MRE devices and generate an encounter probability Applications model (Shen et al. 2016). The study suggested that Although scientific echosounders have been mounted fish can avoid tidal turbines from 140 m away, and the on vessels and used for mobile hydroacoustic surveys encounter probability varied depending on month, diel around MRE sites (McGarry and Zydlewski 2019; Melvin condition, and tidal stage (Shen et al. 2016). and Cochrane 2014, 2015; Shen et al. 2016), these surveys are subject to a suite of inherent challenges associated with strong currents and turbulent water that affect their efficacy (e.g., vessel control and positioning, ship noise, intermittent signal loss, and the influence of surface conditions on the extent of entrained air in the water column) (Melvin and Cochrane 2015). Nonetheless, this approach is valuable for generating metrics of fish density from the acoustic backscatter of fish in the water column and understanding fish distribution near MRE devices (Staines et al. 2019). An alternative configuration for monitoring MRE devices is stationary deployment of echosounders—both on the surface (Viehman et al. 2015), and on the seabed (Fraser et al. 2018; Viehman et al. 2017; Viehman & Zydlewski 2017; Williamson et al. 2016b). The advantage of a stationary deployment is the potential for persistent monitoring throughout the duration of the deployment. This approach is useful for generating long-term, high-resolution sampling for understanding biological processes at MRE sites where large changes may occur over mul- Viehman and Zydlewski (2017) examined data collected by a bottom-mounted, horizontally oriented Simard EK60 split-beam echosounder deployed near a tidal energy turbine (TidGen® Power System) at the ORPC site in Cobscook Bay. Two years of continuously collected data were used to characterize patterns in fish presence at the tidal energy site, and revealed that the abundance of fish near the device varied greatly with tidal and diel cycles in a seasonally changing relationship that was likely linked to the seasonally changing fish community in the region. Contrary to observations at other tidal energy sites, the number of fish detected was not associated with current speed and did not decline with increasing current speed (Viehman and Zydlewski 2017). An upward-facing ASL Environmental Sciences Acoustic Zooplankton and Fish Profiler (AZFP) with a singlebeam transducer was mounted on a subsea platform (FAST-1) and deployed at the Fundy Ocean Research Center for Energy (FORCE) test site in Nova Scotia, Canada, to characterize the density and distribution tiple, wide-ranging time scales (Viehman & Zydlewski of fish prior to the deployment of the Cape Sharp Tidal 188 OES-ENVIRONMENTAL 2020 STATE OF THE SCIENCE REPORT Venture (OpenHydro) open-center tidal turbine in 2016 counting and/or speciating animals, behavior classifica- (Viehman et al. 2017). This study found that fish density tion, interactions with underwater objects). Numerous was higher and less variable in winter than in summer parameters (e.g., lighting, frame rate, instrument reso- (likely due to the presence of migratory vs. overwinter- lution, field of view) must be considered when using VC ing fish), and that fish vertical distribution varied with to observe animals underwater. The objectives of the VC the sample period, diel stage, and tidal stage (Viehman application must be planned to assure that the observa- et al. 2017). tion or measurement goal is achieved. VCs are often used Multifrequency data (38, 120, and 200 kHz) were collected using an upward-facing Simrad EK60 scientific echosounder mounted on the FLOWBEC platform (see Section 10.4.3) and deployed at the European Marine to validate objects and marine life when used in conjunction with active acoustics. Examples include validation of fish species during acoustic surveys using an ROV (Campanella and Taylor 2016). Energy Centre (EMEC) on multiple occasions (William- Numerous vendors specialize in and provide commer- son et al. 2016a, 2019; Fraser et al. 2018). Hydroacous- cial off-the-shelf (COTS) VC systems for research and tic data were processed using an adaptive processing still imagery, the majority of which are tailored for ROV method (Fraser et al. 2017a) and demonstrated that fish applications. A wide range of options are available from were attracted to a bottom-mounted tidal turbine and low resolution (300 to 400 lines of horizontal resolu- its support structure (Williamson et al. 2019). The study tion) to ultra-high resolution (2000 lines of horizontal also revealed that aggregation and vertical distribution resolution). Recording resolution is variable and typi- of fish in the modified flow conditions of the turbine cally consists of 4K, ultra-high definition, 720, 960, was dependent on tidal and diel phase, and provided and 1080 pixels with variable frame rates. The price can evidence of some avoidance of turbine depth range dur- range from inexpensive action VCs (<$1000; Struthers ing peak flow (Fraser et al. 2018). et al. 2015) to very expensive 4K ultra-high definition 10.2.4. VIDEO CAMERAS Video cameras (VCs) can be used to monitor marine animals’ distribution and behavior, and determine the species and size of individuals (Box 10.1). Use of VCs is cameras in high-pressure–rated housings (>$4000). An overview of standard types of optical cameras is provided in online supplementary Table S10.3 (online at: https://​tethys​.pnnl​.gov​/state​-of​-the​-science​-2020​ -supplementary​-environmental​-monitoring). often needed to assess marine mammal, fish, and div- Wide-angle field-of-view cameras are best suited for ing bird observations as they approach turbine systems; mounting close to structures to capture the largest record blade interactions; determine species affected; viewing region. The field of view is mostly controlled by or to assess the operation of the turbine system. Equip- the choice of lens for the VC, specifically the focal length ment configurations include single, multiple, or paired (the shorter the focal length, the wider the field of stereo cameras; paired lasers for measurement refer- view). The camera lens size is dependent on the type of ence; artificial lighting; and autonomous, stationary survey to be conducted. A wide-angle (2 to 3 mm) lens or traversing data collection platforms. Remotely con- can be used for fish detection close to the camera, and a trolled positioners (pan and tilt) can be incorporated to 5 to 8 mm fixed or zoom lens is often used for imaging aid in the collection of data. objects at greater distances. VC systems are an important tool for collecting data at all Monochrome VCs (Figure 10.8) are best suited for oper- MRE locations. VCs have the ability to document animal ating under low-light conditions and accrue smaller behavior and animal interactions with various man- data files than color video. In certain conditions, color made structures and their natural environment (Booth cameras can be used to help distinguish species. Some and Beretta 2002; Mueller et al. 2006). Providing high- systems, such as Sony® Super HAD CCD imagers, sup- resolution imagery that is easily recognizable to a human port automatically switching to monochrome under viewer is advantageous for interpreting and processing low-light conditions, have auto white-balance, or allow data. Even with an easily recognized format, data quality users to manually adjust the images. can be a challenge for the measurement objectives (e.g., SECTION C – ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING 189 beamed strobe light (Williams et al. 2014). When objects move through both cameras’ fields of view, locations in 3D space as well as object sizes can be determined. Camera spacing varies for each application. The stereo camera calibrations may provide in situ challenges in high-energy locations. Images can also be synchronized by hardware triggering of each camera using specialized software. Performing calibrations in a laboratory setting is easier, Figure 10.8. Example of a school of broad whitefish (Coregonus nasus) captured with a monochrome video camera. (Photo courtesy of Robert Mueller) but the transfer of the cameras and mounting apparatus to the field site can be challenging because the cameras must remain in the same positions they were in during Many VCs are rated for minimum scene illumination, calibration. In the field, real-time tilt instruments can be also known as the lux value; the lower the specified attached to the cameras to assure they stay at the prede- lux value, the less light is required to obtain optimal termined location. A recent application had 0.8 m spacing images. Dynamic range is a measure of the difference with a maximum range of a 5 to 6 m wide horizontal field between the brightest and darkest values an instru- of view (Hammar et al. 2013). In another study, camera ment can resolve. High dynamic range is useful for spacing was 1.4 m, which was used to image objects at 2 low-light imaging. If a high dynamic range is present, to 10 m from the cameras depending on visibility, and it then a higher quality large sensor digital single-lens was more accurate when objects were less than 50° from reflex camera with 10 or more F-stops or raw images the central axis of the cameras (Harvey and Shortis 1995, produced from the camera in video mode will produce 1998). These systems can be effective at determining better quality images. interactions with turbine blades, species composition, Most commercial-grade cameras are depth rated and are in a waterproof housing made of titanium, Delrin, polyvinyl chloride, acrylic, or aluminum. An alternative swimming speeds of fish, fish size, and distance of fish to blade interactions, and at estimating the speeds of currents (Harvey et al. 2002). to purchasing a camera already in a waterproof housing As an alternative to the use of paired cameras, paired is to purchase a COTS camera and place it in a hous- parallel-mounted lasers can be incorporated with a single ing. The benefits of doing so include the ability to select camera to determine object sizes. These systems are com- from a variety of cameras, which often have variable monly incorporated for use on ROVs. Lasers are mounted recording rates, variable lens configurations and imag- on specialized brackets, which hold them parallel to each ers, and variable control over image acquisition. One other so that the laser dot separation is consistent with the drawback is the additional connection cables needed variable range to objects. The lasers shine onto animals, to interface with the wet bulkhead connectors on the substrate, or other structures and allow for the scaling of outside of the housing. Camera housings are generally these objects during later analysis. After VC images are pressure-tested to between 60 and 100 m, more avail- taken in conjunction with the lasers, the size of the ani- able, and less expensive, while marine-grade underwa- mals and other objects can be determined using imaging ter cameras placed in titanium or stainless-steel hous- software. This system is somewhat limiting in that mea- ings are more costly and rated to much deeper depths. surements can only be made when lasers appear on the Applications Systems to Measure Object Size and Swimming Speed Fish size and swimming speed can be determined using stereo-VC systems. This method incorporates two cameras positioned side by side at a set distance. Images are synchronized via computer by using a LED light placed at a set distance and activated on/off and seen on both images (Harvey et al. 2002; Langlois et al. 2012; Lines et object in contrast to stereo imaging where more objects can be measured per image. Systems for Long-Term Recording and Storage For long-term continuous recording, cabled systems of various types with a dedicated recording location on the shore or on a stationary platform have several advantages (online supplementary Table S10.4; online at: https://tethys.pnnl.gov/state-of-the-science-2020​ al. 2001; Trudel and Boisclair 1996), or by using a narrow- -supplementary-environmental-monitoring). 190 OES-ENVIRONMENTAL 2020 STATE OF THE SCIENCE REPORT BOX 10.1 EXAMPLES OF MARINE RENEWABLE ENERGY (MRE) MONITORING USING SUBSEA VIDEO CAMERAS Nova Innovation, Bluemull Sound, Shetland, Scotland (United Kingdom [UK]) – At the 30 kW demonstrator turbine installed by Nova Innovation in Bluemull Sound, subsea video is used to monitor for potential collisions and nearfield interactions of marine mammals with turbines (Smith and Simpson 2018). The video monitoring uses three cameras per turbine, attached to the nacelle (two directed toward the turbine rotor and one directed toward the seabed). The turbine is not illuminated, so video monitoring is only effective during daylight hours. The camera is connected to a standard closed-circuit television (CCTV) system with a motion trigger to record continuously, and triggered footage is retained for post-hoc analysis. Sustainable Marine Energy, Grand Passage, Bay of Fundy, Nova Scotia (Canada) – At the PLAT-I tidal energy converter in Grand Passage, Nova Scotia, Canada, four MacArtney LUXUS Compact PUR subsea cameras were installed to collect underwater video to meet requirements under the Environmental Effects Monitoring Plan developed by Sustainable Marine Energy (Canada) Ltd. Each camera was positioned facing downstream, approximately centered on its associated rotor with a field of view approximately 10 percent larger than the rotor diameter. Visibility was generally good, featuring sufficient light and limited suspended particles. A total of 14 hours of video were reviewed by an experienced third-party contractor to screen for potential animal sightings. The video quality was rated as fair to good, and inanimate materials such as seaweed and other debris were noted frequently. Aside from several observations of jellyfish, only one positive identification of marine life was made (a small fish, possibly a rainbow smelt [Osmerus mordax]). Ocean Renewable Power Company, Kvichak River, Iguigig, Alaska (United States [U.S.]) – In the Kvichak River, Alaska, optical cameras were used to understand fish behavior around a horizontal axis helical turbine (Matzner et al. 2017). In more than 42 hours of camera footage reviewed from the Kvichak River, there were only 20 potential contact interactions, of which three were classified as “Maybe” collisions after close visual examination (Matzner et al. 2017). On only one occasion was an actual contact confirmed, and this was an adult fish that contacted the camera, not the turbine itself. Development of an Ocean Energy Impact Monitoring System, Scotland (UK) – In 2017, as part of the Development of an Ocean Energy Impact Monitoring System project, the statutory advisor to the Scottish Government on nature conservation, Scottish Natural Heritage, commissioned a review of subsea video monitoring data collected around operational tidal energy projects. Further information about this review, which examined footage from three operational projects, and information about other tidal projects that have used subsea video to monitor nearfield interactions of marine wildlife with turbines is provided in Chapter 3 (Collision Risk for Animals around Turbines). SECTION C – ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING Marine Renewable Energy Installation (MREI) Development Zone (Wave Hub) and Seabed Cable Installation near Cornwall (UK) – Video monitoring studies were conducted off the north coast of Cornwall (UK) between 2011 and 2015 using baited remote underwater video. The deployed system used a weighted aluminum frame, wide-angle lens, housing, and white light-emitting diode (LED) lights, and an aluminum pole, to which bait was attached, was located near the camera. The system was effective at determining the diversity, abundance, and composition of mobile epi-benthic species in highly dynamic conditions. Other advantages included its cost-effectiveness and flexibility to provide spatial and temporal coverage that can be difficult to obtain using other methods (Bicknell et al. 2019). European Marine Energy Centre offshore tidal energy test site, Isle of Eday, Orkney Islands (UK) – A combination of optical video and acoustic Doppler current profiler (ADCP) survey techniques was used to examine the presence of Pollack (Pollachius virens) temporarily aggregating in shoals around the deployed device from 2009 and 2010. The combined use of video/still photography and ADCP sampling techniques proved useful in the offshore and extreme hydrodynamic environments. Study results indicated that the use of such systems provided preliminary ecological quantitative information, which can help regulatory bodies and developers begin to define ecological interactions with marine tidal energy developments (Broadhurst et al. 2014). U.S. Navy’s Wave Energy Test Site (WETS) in Kaneohe, Hawaii, Fred. Olsen Ltd and Sequim Bay, WA (U.S.) – Stereo-optical cameras with artificial illumination and biofouling mitigation have been a critical component of the Adaptable Monitoring Package (AMP). This optical system, which was developed by the Applied Physics Laboratory at the University of Washington uses two machine vision cameras (Allied Vision Technologies, Manta G-507B) that have 5 mm lenses (Kowa LM5JCM) and high-power LED arrays (Cree CXB-3950 and custom 710 nm red LED arrays) for illumination. Each of these components is packaged in custom waterproof housings and configured on the AMP with camera-camera and camera-light separations of approximately 0.4 m, which minimize optical backscatter (Joslin et al. 2014). Biofouling mitigation measures include a copper ring around the planar view ports of the cameras and lights and mechanical brush wipers (Zebra-Tech Ltd.) (Joslin and Polagye 2015). This system has provided high-resolution imagery of targets of interest throughout deployments of up to six months duration in Sequim Bay, Washington, and at the WETS in Hawaii. From fall 2018 to spring 2019 during a deployment at WETS on board the Fred Olsen Lifesaver wave energy converter, images were used to identify species of reef fish that congregated under the surface buoy. Co-registration of targets identified in both the sonar and optical imagery allows for a higher level of target classification and simplifies data review. 191 These include the ability to view live VC feeds, contain recognize objects of interest (that might resemble the a dedicated power supply, use more robust recording animals or other items seen in the water) and save only gear, have easy access to recording equipment, and have those frames that contain the objects, for later analysis. remote access via the Internet. Some drawbacks include Assuring that time clocks are accurately synchronized the added cost for cable, and possible cable damage across all instruments and storage devices, as well as caused by marine life or ocean conditions. Adding a enabling consistent metadata across instrument out- strength member (normally Kevlar) is often used to puts, are essential to assure that the data can be inter- increase breaking strength and durability. preted correctly. Digital video recorders (DVRs) offer many advan- Lighting tages, including greater recording resolution, extended Nighttime viewing may be required because observa- recording ability, long-term storage, video overlays, tions limited to daylight viewing when ambient light multi-camera inputs, Internet streaming ability, and levels are sufficient may not yield representative results greater image reproduction capabilities. The DVR uses of animal interactions (Hammar et al. 2013). If night- software to control external cameras and is very flex- time recording is required, cameras may be augmented ible in that cameras can be programmed to record at with various types of white, red/green, or infrared (IR) certain intervals or record only events in which motion filtered lights. The most common type of lights used for is detected (i.e., object detection). In addition, triggered underwater viewing are LEDs, whose benefits include systems (although not a common feature of most COTS a broad light spectrum, long life, and cooler operation. systems) can be incorporated such that other instru- Researchers should verify that the light source will not ments (e.g., echosounders) can be used to trigger the deter or attract animals, which could interfere with the camera recording. This can help decrease overall data video observations (most impacts would occur during accumulation for long-term deployments. Accessories nocturnal periods). IR lights operating at wavelengths to VC recording include video overlays, whether embed- longer than 800 nm can be useful for identifying fish ded with the recording interface or as an added com- because many species are unaffected by IR, which falls ponent. The video overlays can include date/time and beyond their spectral response range (Lythgoe 1988). The recording timers, graphical overlays (altimeter, com- visual pigments of freshwater fish have optimal spectral pass, depth), shapes and other superficial objects for response within the range of 510 to 545 nm, but most custom themes, and various other features. freshwater fish have trichromatic vision, and their visual Challenges pigments have absorption peaks around 455 nm (blue), Data Storage VCs produce large data files compared to other instrument packages, so they require large amounts of data storage space and create significant challenges when transmitting and analyzing the information. Several strategies can be used to decrease the amount of data 530 nm (green), and 625 nm (red); coastal marine fish are in the 490 to 510 nm range; whereas deep-sea marine fish are more blue-shifted (470 to 490 nm) (Jobling 1995; Lythgoe 1988). However, IR light has high attenuation in water and is only effective at ranges up to 1.5 m for 700 nm ( Kyhn et al. 2012; Matsuoka et al. 1997). for storage, transmission, and analysis. When pack- Power Supplies aged together with active acoustic instruments, algo- When setting up a video survey, it is important to know rithms can be developed to identify objects that may be the power consumption of each component, which of interest in the water, such as animals, and a trigger can be estimated by constructing a power consump- can be sent to the VC signaling the need for it to engage tion list (online supplementary Table S10.5; online (Underwood et al. 2014). In addition, output from the at: https://tethys.pnnl.gov/state-of-the-science-2020​ VC and other instruments can be captured on a ring -supplementary-environmental-monitoring). Access to buffer that is overwritten on a short cycle (usually less reliable alternating current (AC) power is not always than one minute) that is triggered to offload and store available in the field. For remote situations, 12 or 24 V data only when the active acoustic trigger indicates battery or portable generator power may be the only (Williamson et al. 2016a). Finally, algorithms can be option, although the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) developed and applied to process video data in order to Powering the Blue Economy initiative is working to 192 OES-ENVIRONMENTAL 2020 STATE OF THE SCIENCE REPORT address this challenge by supplying power at sea from MRE devices (LiVecchi et al. 2019). A key factor in battery selection is the consumption rated in amperehours for a given component. The ampere-hour rating is the total amount of energy that a battery can deliver for 20 hours at 26°C before the battery drops to 10.5 V before becoming fully discharged. Deep-cycle marine batteries are the preferred type because they are designed to withstand frequent cycles of deep discharge and recharge. Light sources usually require a great deal of power. The light duration can be extended by decreasing the intensity (wattage) of the lights, adding battery ampere-hours (e.g., keeping a larger battery at a higher temperature), changing the battery type (using lithium batteries instead of lead or nickel-cadmium types), or adding a generator or solar-powered battery charger. The power requirements for underwater VCs are usually 12 to 24 VDC (volts direct current) at approximately 110 mA for non-lighted models. In addition, if real-time processing is embedded in the VC the power requirement can be significantly increased (Qi et al. 2018). Conclusion 10.3. CHALLENGES OF MONITORING AROUND MRE DEVICES E nvironmental monitoring of MRE devices is made inherently challenging by the harsh conditions under which the monitoring must take place, the need to manage power for multiple instruments to assure continued monitoring, and the volume of data generated by the suite of instruments deployed. This section provides an overview of the various challenges of environmental monitoring around MRE devices. 10.3.1. SURVIVABILITY/DURABILITY AND ROBUST OPERATION Conditions at locations suitable for the development of marine energy are inherently challenging for engineering durable and robust systems. Namely, forces from high-energy waves and currents compound the customary challenges of working in marine environments including pressure, corrosion, and biofouling. In addition, deployment, maintenance, and recovery operations may be limited because of infrequent calm weather win- Optical cameras, both video and still, have many uses for dows, short periods at slack tide, short daylight windows documenting animal interactions with tidal power gen- in high latitudes, and safety concerns for personnel eration devices. The best results will be obtained when associated with swift current and large waves. camera capabilities are well matched to the conditions, the subject of observation, and the data needs. There are many commercial options for hardening systems against ocean conditions and depths, as well as for transmitting or retrieving images and video. Other types of monitoring technology, such as ADCP and acoustic imaging, can be incorporated with optical imaging to provide additional context for fish behavior and interactions. Surface observations made from shore, vessel, or aircraft (including drones) can provide information about and context for what animals may be in the area and some common behaviors in the vicinity of MRE devices, particularly for marine mammals and fish. These observations may help to distinguish and identify particular species and allow for comparisons with underwater video. Hydrodynamic Forcing Fluid-structure interactions in flowing water lead to hydrodynamic forces of lift (perpendicular to the direction of flow) and drag (parallel to the direction of flow) acting on submerged bodies. Currents tend to be stronger closer to the surface and weakest at the seabed. Monitoring systems operating in high-flow environments must be secured to prevent sliding, flipping, floating away, or structural failure caused by drag and lift. Three main methods are employed, typically in tandem, to limit these outcomes: reducing the drag and lift coefficients by streamlining exposed components, reducing exposed frontal area, and increasing the weight of the monitoring system. The former two decrease the magnitude of forcing, while the latter one assists in resisting its effects (i.e., by providing friction and leverage). Conversely, monitoring systems may be affixed to more permanent or secure features like pilings, but will likely involve increased cost and complexity. In addition to lift and drag, vibrations or strumming induced by vortex shedding can lead to hardware loos- SECTION C – ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING 193 ening and increased structural fatigue, and can affect Biological growth on submerged structures, commonly the quality of data derived from acoustic sensors. In all referred to as “biofouling” (see Chapter 6, Changes in cases, proper engineering analysis and design are critical Benthic and Pelagic Habitats Caused by Marine Renew- for system survivability. able Energy Devices), may degrade instrument per- Forces from waves manifest through several pathways. Below the surface, waves induce the circular flow or orbital motion of water, decreasing in magnitude with depth, and resulting in lift and drag forces on structures, as described above. The hydrostatic force of a wave is proportional to its height. Designers of monitoring systems built to withstand wave forcing may take several approaches: deploying the system deep enough to avoid orbital motion, designing structures to follow waves instead of absorbing energy from them, avoiding the surf zone, and/or using durable materials and structural designs. Corrosion and Biofouling formance or interfere with critical components such as recovery equipment. The fouling process begins with the formation of thin biofilms (microorganisms) on exposed surfaces, followed by the colonization or recruitment of larger macro-organisms (Bixler and Bhushan 2012). Flora and fauna vary by region and depth and may be inconsistent from season to season or year to year. Biofouling can interfere with transducer elements, cover optical ports, clog bearings, and increase drag. Considerable effort over many decades has gone into preventing or mitigating biofouling, yielding solutions including engineering for specialized surface properties, chemical-based coatings or paints, Two environmental effects limit the durability and sur- ultraviolet and gamma radiation, ultrasonic vibra- vivability of submerged structures and instrumentation: tion, electrical current, and even explosives (Bixler and corrosion and fouling. Corrosion is the degradation or Bhushan 2012). Mechanical wipers integrated on the removal of material as a result of chemical interactions AMP have been effective at preventing growth on criti- between the environment and structures, and it is typi- cal components (Figure 10.9). Regardless of the miti- cally prevalent on metals. Corrosion occurs naturally gation method selected, system designers must also in the environment and accelerates in response to the be careful not to adversely affect or interfere with the creation of galvanic circuits between coupled dissimilar environment they are attempting to study. metals in the presence of an electrolyte, where more “anodic” materials are consumed (The Electrochemical Society 2011). Corrosion rates vary based on many factors and may be hard to predict. Seawater is a particularly corrosive environment because of its high conductivity. Galvanic circuits in seawater yield corrosion rates 5 to 12 times greater than if no electrolytes were present, while rates may increase two to five times in freshwater (The Electrochemical Society 2011). Solutions to corrosion issues include using less reactive or “cathodic” materials such as titanium or certain stainless-steel alloys at increased cost, coatings and anodization, or isolating dissimilar metals using nonconducting materials. Strongly anodic materials should not be used in the presence of strongly cathodic ones. Alternatively, sacrificial anodes made of zinc or other highly reactive metals can be employed to protect more cathodic materials from natural or galvanic corrosion (The Electrochemical Society 2011). Ultimately, experience shows that under certain circumstances, even parts made of titanium can corrode, particularly when exposed to low-oxygen, high-temperature conditions (Pang and Blackwood Pressure and Sealing Commercially available instruments and instrumentation subsystems intended for submersion are rated to specific depths and sealed to prevent structural collapse caused by pressure and water ingress. Similarly, individual enclosures may be rated by the level of environmental protection. For example, ingress protection codes and standards, published by the IEC specify ratings indicating protection from splashing, water jets, or submersion (IEC 2013). Sealed enclosures containing instrumentation or electronics introduce additional challenges, including temperature management, connectivity, and maintenance. Common practices to mitigate these including filling housings with mineral oil or other inert incompressible fluids, using wetmate connectors, and using magnetic or reed switches. Experience to date with MRE monitoring instruments has shown connectors to be the most common point of failure. Many connectors used for offshore oil and gas development are designed to effectively seal at greater depths than is typical for MRE deployments. 2016). 194 OES-ENVIRONMENTAL 2020 STATE OF THE SCIENCE REPORT a 10.3.2. DATA MORTGAGES Reliable detection of rare events, such as interactions between a marine mammal and a tidal turbine, requires monitoring over long periods (on the order of days to years) to satisfy licensing conditions. However, continuous acquisition of data from medium- and high-bandwidth instruments, such as optical cameras or multibeam sonars, results in unmanageable volumes of data (colloquially referred to as a “data mortgage”). For example, a single 5-megapixel camera with a 10 Hz frame rate could accrue more than 2 TB of b uncompressed images in a single day. This challenge is compounded when multiple instruments are used in an integrated instrumentation package. While image compression can significantly reduce the data volume, post-processing or human review of the collected data still present a significant challenge. As a result, data mortgages can result in monitoring that is “data-rich, information-poor” (Wilding et al. 2017). 10.3.3. POWER AVAILABILITY AND MANAGEMENT Providing power to instrumentation is a key challenge to achieving sustained, high-fidelity environmental monitoring at MRE sites. Instruments may be deployed in deep water, far from shore, or in hard to access locations. Power delivery can be accomplished through one or Figure 10.9. The Adaptable Monitoring Package (AMP), before (a.) and after (b.) deployment for 18 weeks in Sequim Bay, Washington, United States. (Photos courtesy of Applied Physics Laboratory, University of Washington) Deployment, Maintenance, and Recovery Deployment, maintenance, and recovery of monitoring systems where marine energy resources are strong is a major challenge. Indeed, at sites where the resource is the strongest or most consistent, the access to and ultimately the availability of the systems may be most limited (O’Connor et al. 2013). Scheduling of marine operations depends on vessel and crew availability, which often requires weeks or months of advanced planning. The types of vessels required to operate in high waves or strong currents are often rare and more expensive. For tidal energy sites, the high degree of predictability of the resource aids in planning operations. However, performing tasks during short slack water windows increases risk to personnel and equipment if complications arise. Low wave weather windows are harder to predict, but favorable conditions may last for many hours or days. SECTION C – ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING a combination of the following methods: running a power cable to the deployment location, including individual instrument batteries or a centralized battery bank, and coupling to an in situ power generation source. Cabled Systems Cabled operation offers the highest level of power and typically enables the ability to stream or easily access data from shore. Cabled observatories currently provide an unprecedented ability to observe the oceans (Smith et al. 2018). The characteristics of the cable are determined by the requirements of the instruments. Depending on these requirements, the cable may conduct AC or DC electricity. Most of the instruments and systems described in this chapter accept external power over a range of 5 to 48 VDC. A higher export voltage than listed for the instruments must be run to account for voltage drop across the cable itself and during startup (inrush current) or high sampling events. Therefore, one or several DC/DC converters are required to step the voltage down to instrument level. If AC power is used, a rec- 195 tifier or AC/DC converter will be necessary. Additional still low, and their reliability has not been sufficiently converters add to system complexity and generate heat. demonstrated. Second, the presence of the converter The cable itself and operations to run and secure it rep- may interfere with the functioning of instruments or resent major project expenses. The cable is a single point diminish the quality of measurements (e.g., sound from of failure for the systems that rely solely on it for power. a WEC may dominate hydrophone recordings). Third, Ultimately, the major trade-off for employing a cable is other, more mature renewable technologies like solar or access to high-power, high-fidelity, and constant com- wind power may perform similarly or better if a surface munications at high cost. presence is possible. Finally, the costs of marine energy Battery-powered Systems systems are high or largely unknown, likely rivaling Many of the instruments mentioned in this chapter are designed to be pre-configured and run autonomously using their own internal batteries. Consequently, they have been designed to use small amounts of power and/ those of cable installations (depending on the distance from shore). National laboratories, academic universities, and industry are conducting further research and commercial ventures to meet these challenges. or have adjustable sampling rates and duty cycles. For many of them, much of their volume is occupied by batteries (e.g., ADCPs). Systems running on batteries can be designed to be deployed anywhere. The major trade-off for relying on internal batteries is broad applicability and reliability countered by limited duration, a lack of operational feedback, and no native synchronization of measurements. Integrated monitoring systems can also employ larger, centralized battery banks to power instruments. This method may extend the duration and enable centralized control of duty cycles. However, similar to cabled systems, DC/DC power converters are necessary, and they add complexity and heat generation to such systems. Other challenges of using batteries are their increased volume and weight, the safety and transportability for certain chemistries (e.g., lithiumion), and the high cost to seal large volumes. Marine Energy-powered Systems Ocean observation systems were identified as a key near-term market for the marine energy industry in the U.S. DOE Powering the Blue Economy report (LiVecchi et al. 2019). This option has the potential to provide power between a cable and a battery bank anywhere there is sufficient resource availability. This concept has been demonstrated for a WEC at the WETS in Kaneohe Bay, Hawaii, U.S. The WEC, when coupled to a battery bank and backup solar panel allowed the AMP to reach 84 percent uptime over a 108-day deployment period (Joslin et al. 2019). Other monitoring systems use marine energy for motion or to perform profiling, thereby offsetting electrical demands (Manley and Willcox 2010; Pinkel et al. 2011). Despite promising potential, challenges remain for this method. First, the maturity and technical readiness of most marine energy systems is 196 10.4. INTEGRATED MONITORING PLATFORMS CURRENTLY USED TO MONITOR MRE DEVICES A variety of integrated monitoring platforms have been developed and deployed for monitoring MRE devices. They include a series of autonomous and cabled platforms that have an array of monitoring instruments integrated for power requirements and duty cycles. This section provides an overview of the various integrated monitoring platforms that have been developed and deployed. 10.4.1. ADAPTABLE MONITORING PACKAGE The AMP (Figure 10.10) is an instrumentation platform developed to provide continuous underwater monitoring for multi-month deployments around marine energy devices using autonomous data processing and realtime target detection and tracking (Cotter et al. 2017, Polagye et al. 2020). Deployments to date have included both cabled and autonomous systems, on both bottom landers and surface buoys. More than two years of sea testing have demonstrated the systems’ monitoring capabilities in wave climates, high current channels, and onboard vessels. The backbone of the AMP hardware is a power and communications system that allows any cabled instrument to be integrated into the platform. To date, these instruments have included stereo-optical cameras with lights and wipers, acoustical cameras, multibeam sonars, echosounders, hydrophones, ADCPs, fish tag receivers, actuators, and water-clarity instruments. The combina- OES-ENVIRONMENTAL 2020 STATE OF THE SCIENCE REPORT (2) a NORTEK AWAC ADCP, (3) two Ocean Sonics Ltd. icListen high-frequency hydrophones, and (4) a sculpin subsea camera. The FAST-EMS platform (Figure 10.11) is intended to be deployed near gravity-based tidal turbines deployed at FORCE, but its deployment location is limited by the useful range of the Gemini 720is multibeam sonar (<120 m) and the operational capabilities of the marine assets at the target deployment site. The platform is cabled to shore to provide power and data Figure 10.10. The Adaptable Monitoring Package (AMP). An integrated subsea instrument package developed by the University of Washington that is used to monitor marine renewable energy devices. (Image courtesy of Applied Physics Laboratory, University of Washington) tions of these instruments can enable a wide range of monitoring and tracking capabilities depending on the objectives. The data acquisition, processing, and management for this system use custom software that integrates the operation and control of each instrument. Real-time algorithms have been implemented to perform target detection, tracking, and classification of data from the imaging sonars and hydrophones, which are used to trigger artificial illumination for the optical cameras and data acquisition from all sensors. This real-time continuous data processing allows the system to capture rare events without accruing a large data mortgage and minimizes bias on marine life related to artificial illumination. To date, instrument settings and target-detection thresholds have been tuned during the first phase of the deployment to fit the site and monitoring goals. The transferability, and the associated equipment enabling the functioning of the monitoring instruments includes a termination canister and a multiplexer linking to the subsea power cable. Onshore assets at FORCE include a suite of supporting infrastructure for data transferability that has been demonstrated to provide faster upload of multibeam data than the rate at which those data could be collected (i.e., 100 Mbps up/down capabilities). Multiple short-term trial deployments of the cabled FAST-EMS platform conducted near the FORCE tidal demonstration site to assess system performance revealed that monitoring instruments performed well under relatively benign marine conditions. However, more work with electrical connectors and data transfer with lengthier subsea cables is required to advance FASTEMS beyond the research and development stage to an integrated monitoring platform that can be used reliably for monitoring interactions of marine animals with tidal turbines at the FORCE tidal demonstration site. primary targets of interest that have been detected have been marine mammals (e.g., seals) and diving seabirds in the Puget Sound, Washington, U.S., and large individual fish, squid, and schools of small fish elsewhere. These target-detection and -tracking capabilities have been assessed with the help of cooperative targets in the form of divers, surface vessels and drifters towing targets, and underwater vehicles. 10.4.2. FUNDY ADVANCED SENSOR TECHNOLOGY– ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING SYSTEM FORCE in Nova Scotia, Canada, has been pursuing an integrated environmental monitoring platform as part of the Fundy Advanced Sensor Technology (FAST) program for environmental monitoring of tidal turbines in Minas Passage, in the Bay of Fundy. This cabled subsea Environmental Monitoring System (i.e., FAST-EMS) includes (1) a Tritech Gemini 720is multibeam imaging sonar mounted on a Kongsberg pan and tilt device, SECTION C – ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING Figure 10.11. Fundy Ocean Research Centre for Energy (FORCE)’s Fundy Advanced Sensor Technology Environmental Monitoring System (FAST-EMS) integrated and cabled monitoring platform positioned on the FORCE beach. (Photo courtesy of FORCE) 197 10.4.3. FLOW, WATER COLUMN AND BENTHIC ECOLOGY 4D camera has recently been integrated to confirm species The FLOWBEC-4D project investigated the environ- noise and detect vocalizing cetaceans. mental and ecological effects of installing and operating MRE devices. The FLOWBEC seabed platform (Figure 10.12) was developed, which integrated multiple instruments to concurrently monitor the physical and ecological environment in marine energy sites (Williamson et al. 2016a). Onboard batteries and data storage provided continuous recording of a 14-day spring/neap tidal cycle to investigate the predictable behavior of animals over tidal and diel cycles (Williamson et al. 2019). The self-contained platform allows measurements to be identification when lighting and visibility permit, and a hydrophone has been integrated to monitor ambient Crucially, these instruments operate simultaneously without interference using a modular and adaptable control system to allow the concurrent measurement of animal behavior and explanatory variables (Williamson et al. 2017), and to investigate comparisons and transferability between sites (Wiesebron et al. 2016). Co-registration between instruments also allows measurements to be validated, and ground-truthing of bird and mammal observations was provided by concurrent shore-based taken adjacent to marine energy structures and in areas observations or separate ground-truthing surveys. free of such devices to investigate ecological (Fraser A total of six battery-powered deployments have been et al. 2018) and hydrodynamic changes (Fraser et al. 2017b) around MRE structures. Developments are under way to extend the battery-powered deployments using instrument triggering (i.e., only using higher power instruments during detected periods of interest). A cabled interface providing real-time data and a continuous power supply have also been developed to extend monitoring endurance. completed at a variety of wave and tidal stream energy sites in Scotland—both EMEC (Orkney, Scotland) and MeyGen (Pentland Firth, Scotland)—including around the Atlantis and OpenHydro tidal turbine support structures and in reference areas, free of devices. 10.4.4. SEA MAMMAL RESEARCH UNIT MONITORING SYSTEM Multiple instruments measure the behavior and inter- The Sea Mammal Research Unit (SMRU) at the Univer- actions of fish, diving seabirds, and marine mammals. sity of St Andrews in Scotland developed and deployed An Imagenex 837B Delta T multibeam echosounder a 12-hydrophone PAM system on the foundation of an (vertical swath aligned with the tidal flow) was syn- operational tidal turbine at the MeyGen demonstration chronized with an upward-facing Simrad EK60 mul- array in Scotland (Figure 10.13). The hydrophones and tifrequency (38, 120, 200 kHz) scientific echosounder acquisition electronics were mounted on the structure sampling once per second. A SonTek/YSI ADVOcean 5 prior to its deployment and were connected into the MHz Acoustic Doppler Velocimeter was used to measure turbine systems for power and data export. mean flow and turbulence. A Nortek Signature 500 kHz ADCP was used to take hydrodynamic measurements of flow and turbulence throughout the water column. A The primary target species was harbor porpoise, which echolocate at 130 kHz, so hydrophones were sampled at 500 kHz, generating ~1 Tb of raw data per day. Data Figure 10.12. The FLOWBEC-4D platform during deployment at the European Marine Energy Center in the United Kingdom. (From Williamson et al. 2016a) Figure 10.13. Photograph of the MeyGen turbine support structure during installation showing the locations of the three hydrophone clusters. Insets are photographs of a tetrahedral hydrophone cluster and its protective cowling. (Photo courtesy of SIMEC Atlantis Energy) 198 OES-ENVIRONMENTAL 2020 STATE OF THE SCIENCE REPORT were sent to the shore via optical fiber in the turbine export cable and processed in real time using PAMGuard software (Gillespie et al. 2008b). The system was operational between October 2017 and October 2019. Data were manually screened offline to confirm species and to localize clicks in three dimensions. Several hundred porpoise tracks around the turbine have been acquired and are being analyzed for evidence of finescale avoidance behavior. The turbine connection system is currently being reconfigured for a new platform, the marine mammal HiCUP (High Current Underwater Platform) (Figure 10.14) to be deployed in late 2020. The new system is built into a gravity-mounted platform that also includes two Tritech Gemini 720i multibeam imaging sonars, which enable the system to also detect and track grey seals (Halichoerus grypus) and harbor seals, which rarely vocalize under water. Figure 10.14. Schematic of the marine mammal High Current Underwater Platform (HiCUP) developed by the Sea Mammal Research Unit (SMRU) at the University of St Andrews. (Image courtesy of SMRU, University of St Andrews) include hydrophones, active sonar system (provided by Ultra Electronics), underwater CCTV, ADCP, and other standard equipment to measure temperature, salinity, and density. It can be connected to the shore via a subsea cable to facilitate 24/7 real-time data collection to deliver live data feedbacks to EMEC for use by clients accessing Two sonars are used to cover the full (~20 m) height of the test site. Making the real-time data feeds available to the turbine blades, and also to extract a vertical position clients assists in device design, enabling more accurate for animals based on the relative intensity of the target on assessment of device performance and support dur- the two sonars (Hastie et al. 2019a). Automatic detection ing operations and maintenance planning. The ReDAPT and tracking reduces the need for operator screening of project was commissioned to boost public, industry, and large amounts of sonar data (Hastie et al. 2019b). The Tri- regulatory confidence in the tidal energy sector. tech system was selected because it is effective at detecting marine mammals at ranges up to ~50 m and does not elicit overt behavioral responses in seals (Hastie et al. 2019a). A single tetrahedral cluster of hydrophones is mounted close to the sonars to give horizontal and elevation angles to sounds, and provides species identification, separating clicks from porpoise and dolphin species, The IMP is set up as a plug-and-play prototype in which it is possible to install additional instruments as required. More recently in 2017, through the In Situ Turbulence Replication Evaluation and Measurement project, the pod was reinstalled with a Rockland Scientific turbulence instrument onboard. The instrument as well as helping to classify seals. Both PAMGuard and software developed for the PAM data acquisition control system are open source and freely available. 10.4.5. INTEGRATED MONITORING POD Under the Energy Technologies Institute (ETI)’s Reliable Data Acquisition Platform for Tidal (ReDAPT) project, EMEC tested its novel Integrated Monitoring Pod (IMP) at its tidal test site at the Fall of Warness, the Orkney Islands. The first of its kind pre-commercial prototype (Figure 10.15) has been designed to operate in high-velocity tidal flows. It integrates a variety of instruments to undertake comprehensive concurrent environmental measurements, supply real-time data, and provide improved characterization of high-energy marine environments. Instruments onboard the IMP SECTION C – ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING Figure 10.15. The European Marine Energy Centre (EMEC)’s Integrated Monitoring Pod (IMP) during deployment under the Energy Technologies Institute (ETI)’s Reliable Data Acquisition Platform for Tidal (ReDAPT) project. (Photo courtesy of EMEC) 199 combines standard flow measurement technology more benign marine conditions. These technologies (acoustic electromagnetic) with novel non-acoustic must be integrated, configured, tested, and validated in measurement technology (shear probes). Plymouth new ways to suit dynamic marine environments and to Marine Laboratory has used the pod to test marine detect critical interactions between marine animals and coatings designed to prevent biofouling, corrosion, and MRE devices. The electronic integration of instruments abrasion, and Heriot-Watt University has installed test on a platform is as important as their physical integra- panels to characterize biofouling assemblages typical tion, and despite establishing duty cycles, it is important of the high tidally influenced sites. The IMP builds on a to recognize that interference between instruments comprehensive monitoring system developed by EMEC, is likely, unless engineering measures are adopted to which uses marine radar, a meteorological station, VCs, prevent it, and cannot be ignored. The volume of data drifting acoustic surveys, ROV surveys, and onshore collected through monitoring activities and the cost of wildlife observations. analyzing the data remain important obstacles. The processes for onboard collection of monitoring data need to 10.5. LESSONS LEARNED FROM MONITORING ACTIVITIES B uilding on the information about collision risk to marine animals from Chapter 3 (Collision Risk for Animals around Turbines), our collective understanding of the effects of MRE devices on marine animals has improved because of advances made in methodological processes, innovations in monitoring technologies, the integration of state-of-the-art instrumentation on autonomous and cabled subsea monitoring platforms, and their subsequent deployments in harsh marine conditions. These improvements stem from the series of largely undocumented failures and setbacks experienced by those who pioneered monitoring activities for the nascent MRE industry and initially employed standard oceanographic and remote-sensing technologies in this new context. Although the knowledge gained from this process has greatly advanced monitoring capabilities, ongoing challenges remain, including the need to assure the durability of sensitive equipment; power availability and management for integrated monitoring systems; and continuous data collection, storage, and analysis. be weighed against the collection of excessive amounts of data and the concerns about missing rare events and the future potential use of those data. 10.6. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR QUALITY DATA COLLECTION, MANAGEMENT, AND ANALYSIS I nternational- and national-level agreements on the suite of instruments required for monitoring MRE devices and for documenting interactions that cannot be resolved by research studies alone are needed. Research studies should be aligned with critical questions posed by licensing requirements and dictated by the results of ongoing monitoring and research campaigns. Modeling studies remain an essential part of understanding the environmental risks of MRE devices and should be employed, as appropriate. For cases where no data currently exist (e.g., changes in oceanographic systems), models can be employed to help guide monitoring programs for when MRE arrays are established. Where few data currently exist (e.g., collision risk), models can be used to iteratively improve monitoring studies. For Integrated monitoring platforms, as well as other con- instances where data are readily available and can be figurations of remotely mounted instruments can help compared to regulatory thresholds or other measures, document the most challenging interactions between we should continue to iterate and develop models that marine animals and MRE devices, and especially move will decrease the need for measurements at every site at collision risk assessments beyond a modeling exercise to which an MRE device is deployed. the collection of empirical data for quantifying the risk. However, there are currently no commercially available “fit for purpose” instrumentation packages, and monitoring still relies on oceanographic, hydroacoustic, and other instruments that are intended for use in 200 The data mortgage challenge can be addressed through the collection of data on a sparse duty cycle (e.g., only record five minutes of data every hour). However, this approach would likely miss rare events of interest. Alter- OES-ENVIRONMENTAL 2020 STATE OF THE SCIENCE REPORT to identify periods of interest in the collected data. When 10.6.2. ACTIVE ACOUSTICS implemented during post-processing, automated data The most common approach to automatic processing of processing can be used to limit human review to periods multibeam sonar data is to detect moving targets in the of interest, reducing the significant effort required to image and track those targets through the sonar swath extract insight from large datasets. When implemented in (Cotter et al. 2017; Jepp 2017; Lieber et al. 2017; Wil- real time, automated data processing can be used to limit liamson et al. 2017). In turbulent environments, it may data acquisition to periods of interest and reduce the vol- be necessary to first isolate portions of the water column ume of data that requires archival storage. This approach that are dominated by noise (Fraser et al. 2017a). Target- has been used for the AMP (Cotter et al. 2017) and for PAM tracking data can be used to narrow down and guide the (Malinka et al. 2018). review that is carried out by humans, allowing them to natively, automated data processing can be implemented Recently, there has been a push to improve automatic data processing methods for environmental data derived from MRE sites to decrease the volume of data that must be analyzed, the rate at which the data can be analyzed, and increase the accuracy of results. Here, we provide a brief overview of recent advancements in the automated processing of passive acoustics, active acoustics, and optical camera data at marine energy sites. 10.6.1. PASSIVE ACOUSTICS Automated detection and localization of vocalizing marine mammals can be used to quantify the presence and behavior of vocalizing marine mammals. PAMGuard (www.PAMGuard.org; Gillespie et al. 2008b), an opensource software package for automated processing of passive acoustic data, has been widely used for the processing of data from marine energy sites. For example, Malinka et al. (2018) used PAMGuard to detect marine mammal clicks and tonal sounds in real time, and this information was used to limit data acquisition to periods when a vocalization was detected. These detected vocalizations were later manually reviewed for accuracy. Even though mechanical sounds from the monitored tidal turbine caused occasional false detections, the data review effort was significantly reduced compared to review of continuously acquired data. Other examples of automated detection of marine mammal vocalizations using PAMGuard can be found in publications by Fernandez-Betelu compare the size, shape, and speed of targets. Cotter et al. (2017) implemented multibeam sonar target tracking in real time and used it to limit data acquisition to periods when targets were predicted to be present. This approach recorded an estimated 99 percent of targets with a 58 percent true positive rate. Cotter and Polagye (2020) evaluated real-time classification of these target tracks and found that a random forest algorithm distinguished between the biological and non-biological targets with a 97 percent true positive rate. The processing of echosounder data typically involves the separation of pixels that are above a static minimum backscatter strength threshold (Simmonds and MacLennan 2007). However, at marine energy sites, this approach is generally not viable because of variable background backscatter strength levels and the presence of entrained air that has backscatter strength comparable to targets of interest (Fraser et al. 2017a). As a result, the processing of echosounder data at marine energy sites has relied heavily on human review and frequently excludes the top of the water column (Viehman et al. 2018; Wiesebron et al. 2016). To combat this, Fraser et al. (2017a) developed an adaptive filtering approach to suppress background noise in echosounder data using a moving median filter and morphological filtering to separate targets of interest from entrained air. This approach was found to reliably detect fish schools throughout the entire water column in echosounder data collected from a bottom platform at the Fall of Warness in Scotland. et al. (2019), Macaulay et al. (2017), and Wilson et al. (2013). SECTION C – ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING 201 10.6.3. OPTICAL CAMERAS Automated data processing for optical camera data at 10.7. REFERENCES marine energy sites is complicated by characteristically Adams, M. J. 2018. Application of a multi-hydrophone low water clarity, high water velocity, and variable ambient light. Most existing algorithms developed for target detection and classification in underwater camera imagery have focused on brightly colored coral fish or deepwater environments with constant artificial illumination, and are not suitable for data collected at marine energy sites (Xu and Matzner 2018). Xu and Matzner (2018) applied a deep neural network, YOLO v3 (Redmon and Farhadi 2018), to automate the detection of fish in optical camera data from two tidal energy sites and one conventional hydropower site. The YOLO algorithm was implemented in EyeSea (Matzner et al. 2019), an open-source application framework for manual or automated annota- drifter and porpoise detection software for monitoring Atlantic harbour porpoise (Phocoena phocoena) activity in and near Minas Passage. Bachelor’s Thesis, Acadia University, Wolfville, Nova Scotia. https://tethys.pnnl​ .gov/publications/application-multi-hydrophone-drifter​ -porpoise-detection-software-monitoring-atlantic Auvinen, M. F., Barclay, D. R., and Coffin, M. E. W. 2019. Performance of a Passive Acoustic Linear Array in a Tidal Channel. IEEE Journal of Oceanic Engineering, 1-10. doi:10.1109/JOE.2019.2944444 https://tethys.pnnl.gov​ /publications/performance-passive-acoustic-linear-array​ -tidal-channel tion of optical camera imagery that can be extended to Barclay, D. 2019. Noise in the ocean. Presented at Dal- include new processing algorithms. When the model was housie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia. trained using optical camera data from the Voith Hydro turbine deployment at EMEC, it was able to identify fish with 75 percent precision and 50 percent recall in validation data from the same test site. However, when trained using data from other sites, the model was found to not Bassett, C. 2013. Ambient noise in an urbanized tidal channel. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington. https://tethys.pnnl.gov​ /publications/ambient-noise-urbanized-tidal-channel generalize well to data collected by different cameras at Bassett, C., De Robertis, A., and Wilson, C. D. 2018. different locations. Ongoing research at the Applied Phys- Broadband echosounder measurements of the fre- ics Laboratory–University of Washington aims to expand quency response of fishes and euphausiids in the Gulf upon the work by Xu and Matzner (2018) to develop a of Alaska. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 75(3), 1131- generalized stereo camera fish segmentation algorithm 1142. doi:10.1093/icesjms/fsx204 https://tethys.pnnl.gov​ for environmental monitoring at marine energy sites. This /publications/broadband-echosounder-measurements​ work uses a stereo camera extrinsic relationship to both -frequency-response-fishes-euphausiids-gulf-alaska increase algorithm robustness and optionally ignore small fish that tend to gather near cameras on marine energy converter environmental monitoring instruments (Mitchell Scott, personal communication). Bassett, C., Thomson, J., Dahl, P. H., and Polagye, B. 2014. Flow-noise and turbulence in two tidal channels. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 135(4), 1764-1774. doi:10.1121/1.4867360 https://tethys.pnnl.gov​ /publications/flow-noise-turbulence-two-tidal-channels Bassett, C., Thomson, J., and Polagye, B. 2013. Sediment-generated noise and bed stress in a tidal channel. Journal of Geophysical Research: Oceans, 118(4), 22492265. doi:10.1002/jgrc.20169 https://tethys.pnnl.gov​ /publications/sediment-generated-noise-bed-stress-tidal​ -channel 202 OES-ENVIRONMENTAL 2020 STATE OF THE SCIENCE REPORT Benjamins, S., Dale, A., van Geel, N., and Wilson, B. 2016. Broadhurst, M., Barr, S., and Orme, C. D. L. 2014. In-situ Riding the tide: use of a moving tidal-stream habitat ecological interactions with a deployed tidal energy by harbour porpoises. Marine Ecology Progress Series, device; an observational pilot study. Ocean & Coastal 549, 275-288. doi:10.3354/meps11677 https://tethys.pnnl​ Management, 99, 31-38. doi:10.1016/j.ocecoaman​ .gov/publications/riding-tide-use-moving-tidal-stream​ .2014.06.008 https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/situ​ -habitat-harbour-porpoises -ecological-interactions-deployed-tidal-energy-device​ Benjamins, S., van Geel, N., Hastie, G., Elliott, J., and -observational-pilot-study Wilson, B. 2017. Harbour porpoise distribution can vary Campanella, F., and Taylor, J. C. 2016. Investigating acous- at small spatiotemporal scales in energetic habitats. tic diversity of fish aggregations in coral reef ecosystems Deep Sea Research Part II: Topical Studies in Oceanography, from multifrequency fishery sonar surveys. Fisheries 141, 191-202. doi:10.1016/j.dsr2.2016.07.002 https://tethys​ Research, 181, 63-76. doi:10.1016/j.fishres.2016​.03.027 .pnnl.gov/publications/harbour-porpoise-distribution-can​ https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/investigating​-acoustic- -vary-small-spatiotemporal-scales-energetic-habitats diversity-fish-aggregations-coral-reef​-ecosystems Bevelhimer, M., Colby, J., Adonizio, M., Tomichek, C., Chu, D., and Stanton, T. K. 1998. Application of pulse and Scherelis, C. 2016. Informing a Tidal Turbine Strike compression techniques to broadband acoustic scat- Probability Model through Characterization of Fish tering by live individual zooplankton. The Journal of the Behavioral Response using Multibeam Sonar Output Acoustical Society of America, 104(1), 39-55. doi:10.1121​ (ORNL/TM-2016-219). Oak Ridge National Labora- /1.424056 https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/application​ tory, Oak Ridge, TN. Report by Oak Ridge National -pulse-compression-techniques-broadband-acoustic​ Laboratory for U.S. Department of Energy. https:// -scattering-live-individual tethys.pnnl.gov/publications​/informing-tidal-turbinestrike-probability-model​-through-characterization-fish Copping, A., Hanna, L., Whiting, J., Geerlofs, S., Grear, M., Blake, K., Coffey, A., Massaua, M., Brown-Saracino, Bicknell, A. W. J., Sheehan, E. V., Godley, B. J., J., and Battey, H. 2013. Environmental Effects of Marine Doherty, P. D., and Witt, M. J. 2019. Assessing the Energy Development around the World: Annex IV impact of introduced infrastructure at sea with Final Report. Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, cameras: A case study for spatial scale, time and Richland, Washington. Report by Pacific Northwest statistical power. Marine Environmental Research, National Laboratory for Ocean Energy Systems. https:// 147, 126-137. doi:10.1016/j.marenvres​.2019.04.007 tethys.pnnl.gov/publications​/environmental-effects- https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/assessing​-impact- marine-energy-development​-around-world-annex-iv- introduced-infrastructure-sea-cameras-case​-study- final-report spatial-scale-time Copping, A., Sather, N., Hanna, L., Whiting, J., Bixler, G. D., and Bhushan, B. 2012. Biofouling: les- Zydlewski, G., Staines, G., Gill, A., Hutchison, I., sons from nature. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal O’Hagan, A., Simas, T., Bald, J., Sparling, C., Wood, J., Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sci- and Masden, E. 2016. Annex IV 2016 State of the Sci- ences, 370(1967), 2381-2417. doi:10.1098/rsta.2011.0502 ence Report: Environmental Effects of Marine Renew- https://​tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/biofouling-lessons- able Energy Development Around the World. Report by nature Pacific Northwest National Laboratory for Ocean Energy Booth, D. J., and Beretta, G. A. 2002. Changes in a fish assemblage after a coral bleaching event. Marine Ecol- Systems. https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/state-of-the​ -science-2016 ogy Progress Series, 245, 205-212. https://tethys.pnnl​ Cotter, E., Murphy, P., and Polagye, B. 2017. Benchmark- .gov/publications/changes-fish-assemblage-after-coral​ ing sensor fusion capabilities of an integrated instru- -bleaching-event mentation package. International Journal of Marine Energy, 20, 64-79. doi:10.1016/j.ijome.2017.09.003 https://tethys engineering.pnnl.gov/publications​ /benchmarking-sensor-fusion-capabilities-integrated​ -instrumentation-package SECTION C – ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING 203 Cotter, E., and Polagye, B. 2020. Automatic classification Fernandez-Betelu, O., Graham, I. M., Cornulier, T., and of biological targets in a tidal channel using a multibeam Thompson, P. M. 2019. Fine scale spatial variability in sonar. Journal of Atmospheric and Oceanic Technology. the influence of environmental cycles on the occurrence doi:10.1175/JTECH-D-19-0222.1 https://tethys.pnnl.gov​ of dolphins at coastal sites. Scientific Reports, 9(1), 2548. /publications/automatic-classification-biological-targets​ doi:10.1038/s41598-019-38900-4 https://tethys.pnnl.gov​ -tidal-channel-using-multibeam-sonar /publications/fine-scale-spatial-variability-influence​ De Robertis, A., and Higginbottom, I. 2007. A post- -environmental-cycles-occurrence-dolphins processing technique to estimate the signal-to-noise Fraser, S., Nikora, V., Williamson, B. J., and Scott, B. E. ratio and remove echosounder background noise. ICES 2017a. Automatic active acoustic target detection in Journal of Marine Science, 64(6), 1282-1291. doi:10.1093​ turbulent aquatic environments. Limnology and Ocean- /icesjms/fsm112 https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/post​ ography: Methods, 15(2), 184-199. doi:10.1002/lom3​ -processing-technique-estimate-signal-noise-ratio​ .10155 https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/automatic​ -remove-echosounder-background -active-acoustic-target-detection-turbulent-aquatic​ De Robertis, A., McKelvey, D. R., and Ressler, P. H. -environments 2010. Development and application of an empirical Fraser, S., Nikora, V., Williamson, B. J., and Scott, B. E. multifrequency method for backscatter classification. 2017b. Hydrodynamic Impacts of a Marine Renewable Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 67(9), Energy Installation on the Benthic Boundary Layer in a 1459-1474. doi:10.1139/F10-075 https://tethys.pnnl​ Tidal Channel. Energy Procedia, 125, 250-259. doi:10.1016​ .gov/publications/development-application-empirical​ /j.egypro.2017.08.169 https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications​ -multifrequency-method-backscatter-classification /hydrodynamic-impacts-marine-renewable-energy​ Demer, D. A., Andersen, L. N., Bassett, C., Berger, L., -installation-benthic-boundary-layer-tidal Chu, D., Condiotty, J., Jr., G. R. C., Hutton, B., Korne- Fraser, S., Williamson, B. J., Nikora, V., and Scott, B. liussen, R., Bouffant, N. L., Macaulay, G., Michaels, E. 2018. Fish distributions in a tidal channel indicate W. L., Murfin, D., Pobitzer, A., Renfree, J. S., Sessions, the behavioural impact of a marine renewable energy T. S., Stierhoff, K. L., and Thompson, C. H. 2017. 2016 installation. Energy Reports, 4, 65-69. doi:10.1016​ USA–Norway EK80 Workshop Report: Evaluation of a /j.egyr.2018.01.008 https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications​ wideband echosounder for fisheries and marine eco- /fish-distributions-tidal-channel-indicate-behavioural​ system science (Report No. 336). Report for Interna- -impact-marine-renewable-energy tional Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES). https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/evaluation-wideband​ -echosounder-fisheries-marine-ecosystem-science Gillespie, D., Mellinger, D. K., Gordon, J., McLaren, D., Redmond, P., McHugh, R., Trinder, P., Deng, X. Y., and Thode, A. 2009. PAMGUARD: Semiautomated, open Ehrenberg, J. E., and Torkelson, T. C. 2000. FM slide source software for real‐time acoustic detection and (chirp) signals: a technique for significantly improv- localization of cetaceans. The Journal of the Acousti- ing the signal-to-noise performance in hydroacoustic cal Society of America, 125(4), 2547-2547. doi:10.1121​ assessment systems. Fisheries Research, 47(2), 193-199. /1.4808713 https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/pamguard​ doi:10.1016/S0165-7836(00)00169-7 https://tethys​ -semiautomated-open-source-software-real-time​ .pnnl.gov/publications/fm-slide-chirp-signals-technique​ -acoustic-detection-localization -significantly-improving-signal-noise-performance Grippo, M., Shen, H., Zydlewski, G., Rao, S., and Good- Fernandes, P. G. 2009. Classification trees for species win, A. 2017. Behavioral Responses Of Fish To A Cur- identification of fish-school echotraces. ICES Journal of rent-Based Hydrokinetic Turbine Under Mutlipe Opera- Marine Science, 66(6), 1073-1080. doi:10.1093/icesjms​ tional Conditions: Final Report (ANL-/EVS-17/6129701). /fsp060 https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/classification​ Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne, Illinois. Report -trees-species-identification-fish-school-echotraces by Argonne National Laboratory for U.S. Department of Energy. https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/behavioral​ -responses-fish-current-based-hydrokinetic-turbine​ -under-multiple 204 OES-ENVIRONMENTAL 2020 STATE OF THE SCIENCE REPORT Hammar, L., Andersson, S., Eggertsen, L., Haglund, Hastie, G. D., Wu, G.-M., Moss, S., Jepp, P., MacAulay, J., Gullström, M., Ehnberg, J., and Molander, S. 2013. J., Lee, A., Sparling, C. E., Evers, C., and Gillespie, D. Hydrokinetic Turbine Effects on Fish Swimming Behav- 2019b. Automated detection and tracking of marine iour. PLoS ONE, 8(12), e84141. doi:10.1371/journal.pone​ mammals: A novel sonar tool for monitoring effects .0084141 https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/hydrokinetic​ of marine industry. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and -turbine-effects-fish-swimming-behaviour Freshwater Ecosystems, 29(S1), 119-130. doi:10.1002/aqc​ Harvey, E., Fletcher, D., and Shortis, M. 2002. Estimation of reef fish length by divers and by stereo-video A first comparison of the accuracy and precision in the .3103 https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/automated​ -detection-tracking-marine-mammals-novel-sonar-tool​ -monitoring-effects-marine field on living fish under operational conditions. Fisher- Horne, J. K. 2000. Acoustic approaches to remote species ies Research 57: 255–265. doi:10.1016/S0165-7836(01)​ identification: a review. Fisheries Oceanography, 9(4), 00356-3 https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/estimation​ 356-371. doi:10.1046/j.1365-2419.2000.00143.x https://​ -reef-fish-length-divers-stereo-video-first-comparison​ tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/acoustic-approaches-remote​ -accuracy-precision -species-identification-review Harvey, E., and Shortis, M. 1995. A system for stereo- Horne, J. K. 2019. Scientific Echosounder Review for video measurement of sub-tidal organisms. Marine In-Stream Tidal Turbines. Ocean Energy Research Technology Society Journal, 29, 10-22. https://tethys.pnnl​ Association, Halifax, Nova Scotia. https://tethys.pnnl.gov​ .gov/publications/system-stereo-video-measurement-sub​ /publications/scientific-echosounder-review-stream-tidal​ -tidal-organisms -turbines Harvey, E., and Shortis, M. 1998. Calibration Stability Horne, J. K., and Jacques, D. A. 2018. Determining rep- of an Underwater Stereo Video System: Implications resentative ranges of point sensors in distributed net- for Measurement Accuracy and Precision. Marine Tech- works. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 190(6), nology Society Journal, 32, 3-17. https://tethys.pnnl.gov​ 348. doi:10.1007/s10661-018-6689-0 https://tethys.pnnl​ /publications/calibration-stability-underwater-stereo​ .gov/publications/determining-representative-ranges​ -video-system-implications-measurement-accuracy -point-sensors-distributed-networks Hastie, G. 2013. Tracking Marine Mammals Around International Electrochemical Commission (IEC). 2013. Marine Renewable Energy Devices Using Active Degrees of protection provided by enclosures (IP Code). Sonar. Sea Mammal Research Unit, St Andrews, Scot- https://tethys-engineering.pnnl.gov/publications/degrees​ land. Report by Sea Mammal Research Unit for UK -protection-provided-enclosures-ip-code Department of Energy and Climate Change. https:// tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/tracking-marine​-mammalsaround-marine-renewable-energy-devices​-usingactive-sonar International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC). 2019. Marine energy - Wave, tidal and other water current converters - Part 40: Acoustic characterization of marine energy converters (IEC TS 62600- 40:2019). Hastie, G. D., Bivins, M., Coram, A., Gordon, J., Jepp, https://tethys-engineering​.pnnl.gov/publications/iec- P., MacAulay, J., Sparling, C., and Gillespie, D. 2019a. ts-62600-402019-part-40​-acoustic-characterization- Three-dimensional movements of harbour seals in a marine-energy-converters tidally energetic channel: Application of a novel sonar tracking system. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems, 29(4), 564-575. doi:10.1002/aqc.3017 https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/three-dimensional​ -movements-harbour-seals-tidally-energetic-channel​ -application-novel Jacobson, E. K., Forney, K. A., and Barlow, J. 2017. Using paired visual and passive acoustic surveys to estimate passive acoustic detection parameters for harbor porpoise abundance estimates. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 141(1), 219-230. doi:10.1121/1.4973415 https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/using-paired-visual​ -passive-acoustic-surveys-estimate-passive-acoustic​ -detection SECTION C – ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING 205 Jech, J. M., Lawson, G. L., and Lavery, A. C. 2017. Wide- Kloser, R. J., Ryan, T., Sakov, P., Williams, A., and band (15–260 kHz) acoustic volume backscattering Koslow, J. A. 2002. Species identification in deep water spectra of Northern krill (Meganyctiphanes norvegica) using multiple acoustic frequencies. Canadian Journal of and butterfish (Peprilus triacanthus). ICES Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 59(6), 1065-1077. doi:10​ Marine Science, 74(8), 2249-2261. doi:10.1093/icesjms​ .1139/f02-076 https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/species​ /fsx050 https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/wideband​ -identification-deep-water-using-multiple-acoustic​ -15-260-khz-acoustic-volume-backscattering-spectra​ -frequencies -northern-krill Korneliussen, R. J. 2000. Measurement and removal of Jepp, P. 2017. Target Tracking using Sonars for Marine echo integration noise. ICES Journal of Marine Science, Life Monitoring around Tidal Turbines. Paper presented 57(4), 1204-1217. doi:10.1006/jmsc.2000.0806 https://​ at the 12th European Wave and Tidal Energy Confer- tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/measurement-removal-echo​ ence, Cork, Ireland. https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications​ -integration-noise /target-tracking-using-sonars-marine-life-monitoring​ -around-tidal-turbines Korneliussen, R. J. (Ed.) 2018. Acoustic target classification. ICES Cooperative Research Report No. 344. Report Jobling, M. 1994. Environmental Biology of Fishes. for International Council for the Exploration of the Sea Springer Netherlands. https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications​ (ICES). doi:10.17895/ices.pub.4567 https://tethys.pnnl.gov​ /environmental-biology-fishes /publications/acoustic-target-classification Joslin, J. 2019. Imaging sonar review for marine envi- Kyhn, L. A., Tougaard, J., Teilmann, J., Wahlberg, M., ronmental monitoring around tidal turbines. Report Jørgensen, P. B., and Bech, N. I. 2008. Harbour porpoise by University of Washington for Offshore Energy (Phocoena phocoena) static acoustic monitoring: labo- Research Association of Nova Scotia. https://tethys.pnnl​ ratory detection thresholds of T-PODs are reflected in .gov/publications/imaging-sonar-review-marine​ field sensitivity. Journal of the Marine Biological Associa- -environmental-monitoring-around-tidal-turbines tion of the United Kingdom, 88(6), 1085-1091. doi:10.1017​ Joslin, J., Cotter, E., Murphy, P., Gibbs, P., Cavagnaro, R., Crisp, C., Stewart, A., Polagye, B., Cross, P., Hjetland, E., Rocheleau, A., and Waters, B. 2019. The wave-pow- /S0025315408000416 https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications​ /harbour-porpoise-phocoena-phocoena-static-acoustic​ -monitoring-laboratory-detection ered adaptable monitoring package: hardware design, Kyhn, L. A., Tougaard, J., Thomas, L., Duve, L. R., Sten- installation, and deployment. Paper presented at the back, J., Amundin, M., Desportes, G., and Teilmann, 12th European Wave and Tidal Energy Conference, J. 2012. From echolocation clicks to animal density— Naples, Italy. https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/wave​ Acoustic sampling of harbor porpoises with static data- -powered-adaptable-monitoring-package-hardware​ loggers. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, -design-installation-deployment 131(1), 550-560. doi:10.1121/1.3662070 https://tethys.pnnl​ Joslin, J., and Polagye, B. 2015. Demonstration of Biofouling Mitigation Methods for Long-Term Deploy- .gov/publications/echolocation-clicks-animal-density​ -acoustic-sampling-harbor-porpoises-static-0 ments of Optical Cameras. Marine Technology Society Langlois, T. J., Fitzpatrick, B. R., Fairclough, D. V., Journal, 49, 88-96. doi:10.4031/MTSJ.49.1.12 https://​ Wakefield, C. B., Hesp, S. A., McLean, D. L., Harvey, E. S., tethys-engineering.pnnl.gov/publications/demonstration​ and Meeuwig, J. J. 2012. Similarities between Line Fish- -biofouling-mitigation-methods-long-term-deployments​ ing and Baited Stereo-Video Estimations of Length- -optical-cameras Frequency: Novel Application of Kernel Density Esti- Joslin, J., Polagye, B., and Parker-Stetter, S. 2012. Development of a stereo camera system for monitoring hydrokinetic turbines. Paper presented at 2012 Oceans, Hampton Roads, VA . doi:10.1109/OCEANS.2012.6405043 mates. PLoS ONE, 7(11), e45973. doi:10.1371/journal.pone​ .0045973 https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/similarities​ -between-line-fishing-baited-stereo-video-estimations​ -length-frequency https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/development-stereo​ -camera-system-monitoring-hydrokinetic-turbines 206 OES-ENVIRONMENTAL 2020 STATE OF THE SCIENCE REPORT Lavery, A. C., Chu, D., and Moum, J. N. 2010. Measure- Lombardi, A. 2016. Soundscape characterization in Grand ments of acoustic scattering from zooplankton and Passage, Nova Scotia, a planned in-stream tidal energy oceanic microstructure using a broadband echosounder. site. Master’s Thesis, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova ICES Journal of Marine Science, 67(2), 379-394. doi:10​ Scotia. https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/soundscape​ .1093/icesjms/fsp242 https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications​ -characterization-dynamic-acoustic-environment-grand​ /measurements-acoustic-scattering-zooplankton-oceanic​ -passage-nova-scotia -microstructure-using-broadband Lythgoe, J. N. 1988. Light and Vision in the Aquatic Lavery, A. C., Wiebe, P. H., Stanton, T. K., Lawson, G. L., Environment. In Atema, J., Fay, R. R., Popper, A. N., and Benfield, M. C., and Copley, N. 2007. Determining domi- Tavolga, W. N. (Eds.), Sensory Biology of Aquatic Animals nant scatterers of sound in mixed zooplankton popu- (pp 57-82). New York, NY: Springer. https://tethys.pnnl​ lations. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, .gov/publications/light-vision-aquatic-environment 122(6), 3304-3326. doi:10.1121/1.2793613 https://tethys​ .pnnl.gov/publications/determining-dominant-scatterers​ -sound-mixed-zooplankton-populations Macaulay, J., Gordon, J., Gillespie, D., Malinka, C., and Northridge, S. 2017. Passive acoustic methods for finescale tracking of harbour porpoises in tidal rapids. Lieber, L., Nilsen, T., Zambrano, C., and Kregting, L. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 141(2), 2017. Optimising multiple multibeam sonars to assess 1120-1132. doi:10.1121/1.4976077 https://tethys.pnnl​ marine life interactions with an underwater kite. .gov/publications/passive-acoustic-methods-fine-scale​ Paper presented at the 12th European Wave and Tidal -tracking-harbour-porpoises-tidal-rapids Energy Conference, Cork, Ireland. https://tethys.pnnl​ .gov/publications/optimising-multiple-multibeam-sonars​ -assess-marine-life-interactions-underwater-kite Malinka, C., Hay, A., and Cheel, R. 2015. Towards Acoustic Monitoring of Marine Mammals at a Tidal Turbine Site: Grand Passage, NS, Canada. Paper presented at the 11th Lines, J. A., Tillett, R. D., Ross, L. G., Chan, D., Hockaday, European Wave and Tidal Energy Conference, Nantes, S., and McFarlane, N. J. B. 2001. An automatic image- France. https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/towards​ based system for estimating the mass of free-swim- -acoustic-monitoring-marine-mammals-tidal-turbine​ ming fish. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture, 31(2), -site-grand-passage-ns-canada 151-168. doi:10.1016/S0168-1699(00)00181-2 https://​ tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/automatic-image-based​ -system-estimating-mass-free-swimming-fish Malinka, C. E., Gillespie, D. M., Macaulay, J. D. J., Joy, R., and Sparling, C. E. 2018. First in situ passive acoustic monitoring for marine mammals during opera- LiVecchi, A., Copping, A., Jenne, D., Gorton, A., Preus, tion of a tidal turbine in Ramsey Sound, Wales. Marine R., Gill, G., Robichaud, R., Green, R., Geerlofs, S., Gore, Ecology Progress Series, 590, 247-266. doi:10.3354​ S., Hume, D., McShane, W., Schmaus, C., and Spence, H. /meps12467 https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/first-situ​ 2019. Powering the Blue Economy: Exploring Opportu- -passive-acoustic-monitoring-marine-mammals-during​ nities for Marine Renewable Energy in Maritime Mar- -operation-tidal-turbine kets. Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, D.C. https://​ tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/powering-blue-economy​ -exploring-opportunities-marine-renewable-energy​ -maritime-markets Lloyd, S., Lepper, P., and Pomeroy, S. 2017. Evaluation of UAVs as an underwater acoustics sensor deployment platform. International Journal of Remote Sensing, 38(8-10), 2808-2817. doi:10.1080/01431161.2016.12596 86 https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/evaluation-uavs​ -underwater-acoustics-sensor-deployment-platform Manley, J., and Willcox, S. 2010. The Wave Glider: A persistent platform for ocean science. Paper presented at OCEANS’10 IEEE SYDNEY, Sydney, Australia. doi:10.1109​/OCEANSSYD.2010.5603614 https://tethysengineering.pnnl​.gov/publications/wave-glider-persistentplatform-ocean​-science Matsuoka, T., Ishizuka, S., Anraku, K., and Nakano, M. 1997. Assessment by underwater infrared video of the selectivity of an experimental Danish seine for deepwater prawn. In D. A. Hancock, D. C. Smith, A. Grant, and J. P. Beumer (Eds.), Developing and Sustaining World Fisheries Resources (pp. 551-557). Collingwood, Victoria: CSIRO Publishing. SECTION C – ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING 207 Matzner, S., McBain, A., and Avila, A. 2019. EyeSea. Ocean Renewable Power Company (ORPC) Maine. 2014. Retrieved from https://github.com/pnnl/EyeSea. Cobscook Bay Tidal Energy Project: 2013 Environmen- Matzner, S., Trostle, C., Staines, G., Hull, R., Avila, A., and Harker-Klimes, G. 2017. Triton: Igiugig Fish Video Analysis (Report No. PNNL-26576) Pacific Northwest National tal Monitoring Report. Portland, ME. Report by ORPC. https://tethys.pnnl.gov​/publications/cobscook-bay-tidalenergy-project-2013​-environmental-monitoring-report Laboratory, Richland, Washington. Report by Pacific Pang, J., and Blackwood, D. J. 2016. Corro- Northwest National Laboratory for U.S. Department of sion of titanium alloys in high temperature near Energy. https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/triton-igiugig- anaerobic seawater. Corrosion Science, 105, 17-24. fish​-video-analysis doi:10.1016/j.corsci.2015​.12.011 https://tethys- McGarry, L. P., and Gayle B. Zydlewski. 2019. Marine Fish Monitoring at FORCE: Updated Report on Process- engineering.pnnl.gov/publications​/corrosion-titaniumalloys-high-temperature-near​-anaerobic-seawater ing and Analysis. Fundy Ocean Research Centre for Parsons, M. J. G., Fenny, E., Lucke, K., Osterrieder, S., Energy (FORCE), Halifax, Nova Scotia. Report by Uni- Jenkins, G., Saunders, B. J., Jepp, P., and Parnum, I. M. versity of Maine for Fundy Ocean Research Center for 2017. Imaging Marine Fauna with a Tritech Gemini Energy. https://tethys.pnnl​.gov/publications/marine-fish- 720i Sonar. Acoustics Australia, 45(1), 41-49. doi:10.1007​ monitoring-force-updated​-report-processing-analysis /s40857-016-0076-1 https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications​ Melvin, G. D., and Cochrane, N. A. 2014. Investigation /imaging-marine-fauna-tritech-gemini-720i-sonar of the Vertical Distribution, Movement and Abun- Parsons, M. J. G., Parnum, I. M., Allen, K., McCauley, dance of Fish in the Vicinity of Proposed Tidal Power R. D., and Erbe, C. 2014. Detection of sharks with the Energy Conversion Devices. OEER/OETR Research Gemini imaging sonar. Acoustics Australia, 42(2). https://​ Project 300-170-09-12. Offshore Energy Research tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/detection-sharks-gemini​ Association (OERA), Halifax, Nova Scotia. Report by -imaging-sonar Fisheries and Oceans Canada for Offshore Energy Research Association of Nova Scotia. https://tethys.pnnl​ .gov/publications/investigation-vertical-distribution​ -movement-abundance-fish-vicinity-proposed-tidal Pine, M. K., Jeffs, A. G., and Radford, C. A. 2012. Turbine Sound May Influence the Metamorphosis Behaviour of Estuarine Crab Megalopae. PLoS ONE, 7(12), e51790. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0051790 https://tethys​ Melvin, G. D., and Cochrane, N. A. 2015. Multibeam .pnnl.gov/publications/turbine-sound-may-influence​ Acoustic Detection of Fish and Water Column Targets -metamorphosis-behaviour-estuarine-crab-megalopae at High-Flow Sites. Estuaries and Coasts, 38(1), 227-240. doi:10.1007/s12237-014-9828-z https://tethys.pnnl.gov​ /publications/multibeam-acoustic-detection-fish-water​ -column-targets-high-flow-sites Pinkel, R., Goldin, M. A., Smith, J. A., Sun, O. M., Aja, A. A., Bui, M. N., and Hughen, T. 2010. The Wirewalker: A Vertically Profiling Instrument Carrier Powered by Ocean Waves. Journal of Atmospheric and Oceanic Tech- Mueller, R. P., Brown, R. S., Hop, H., and Moulton, L. nology, 28(3), 426-435. doi:10.1175/2010JTECHO805​ 2006. Video and acoustic camera techniques for study- .1 https://tethys-engineering.pnnl.gov/publications​ ing fish under ice: a review and comparison. Reviews in /wirewalker-vertically-profiling-instrument-carrier​ Fish Biology and Fisheries, 16(2), 213-226. doi:10.1007​ -powered-ocean-waves /s11160-006-9011-0 https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications​ /video-acoustic-camera-techniques-studying-fish-under​ -ice-review-comparison Polagye, B., Joslin, J., Murphy, P., Cotter, E., Scott, M., Gibbs, P., Bassett, C., Stewart, A. 2020. Adaptable Monitoring Package Development and Deployment: Lessons O’Connor, M., Lewis, T., and Dalton, G. 2013. Weather Learned for Integrated Instrumentation at Marine window analysis of Irish west coast wave data with Energy Sites. Journal of Marine Science and Engineering, relevance to operations & maintenance of marine 8(8), 553. doi:10.3390/jmse8080553 https://tethys.pnnl. renewables. Renewable Energy, 52, 57-66. doi:10.1016​ gov/publications/adaptable-monitoring-package-devel- /j.renene.2012.10.021 https://tethys-engineering.pnnl.gov​ opment-deployment-lessons-learned-integrated /publications/weather-window-analysis-irish-west-coast​ -wave-data-relevance-operations-maintenance 208 OES-ENVIRONMENTAL 2020 STATE OF THE SCIENCE REPORT Polagye, B., Thomson, J., Bassett, C., Wood, J., Tollit, D., Ross, T., and Lueck, R. 2003. Sound scattering from Cavagnaro, R., and Copping, A. 2012. Study of the Acoustic oceanic turbulence. Geophysical Research Letters, 30(6), Effects of Hydrokinetic Tidal Turbines in Admiralty Inlet, 6-9. doi:10.1029/2002GL016733 https://tethys.pnnl.gov​ Puget Sound (DOE/EE/0002654-1). Report by Northwest /publications/sound-scattering-oceanic-turbulence National Marine Renewable Energy Center (NNMREC) for U.S. Department of Energy. doi:10.2172/1039434 https:// tethys.pnnl.gov/publications​/study-acoustic-effectshydrokinetic-tidal-turbine​-admiralty-inlet-puget-sound Sarnocinska, J., Tougaard, J., Johnson, M., Madsen, P. T., and Wahlberg, M. 2016. Comparing the performance of C-PODs and SoundTrap/PAMGUARD in detecting the acoustic activity of harbor porpoises Porskamp, P., Broome, J, Sanderson, B., and Redden, (Phocoena phocoena). Proceedings of Meetings on Acous- A. 2015. Assessing the Performance of Passive Acous- tics, 27(1), 070013. doi:10.1121/2.0000288 https://tethys​ tic Monitoring Technologies for Porpoise Detection in .pnnl.gov/publications/comparing-performance-c-pods​ a High Flow Tidal Energy Test Site. Canadian Acous- -soundtrappamguard-detecting-acoustic-activity-harbor tics, 43(3). https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/assessing​ -performance-passive-acoustic-monitoring-technologies​ -porpoise-detection-high Sato, M., Horne, J. K., Parker-Stetter, S. L., and Keister, J. E. 2015. Acoustic classification of coexisting taxa in a coastal ecosystem. Fisheries Research, 172, 130-136. Qi, B., Shi, H., Zhuang, Y., Chen, H., and Chen, L. 2018. doi:10.1016/j.fishres.2015.06.019 https://tethys.pnnl.gov​ On-Board, Real-Time Preprocessing System for Optical /publications/acoustic-classification-coexisting-taxa​ Remote-Sensing Imagery. Sensors, 18(5), 1328. doi:10​ -coastal-ecosystem .3390/s18051328 https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications​ /board-real-time-preprocessing-system-optical-remote​ -sensing-imagery Shen, H., Zydlewski, G. B., Viehman, H. A., and Staines, G. 2016. Estimating the probability of fish encountering a marine hydrokinetic device. Renewable Energy, Raghukumar, K., Chang, G., Spada, F. W., and Jones, C. 97, 746-756. doi:10.1016/j.renene.2016.06.026 https://​ A. 2019. Performance Characteristics of the NoiseSpot- tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/estimating-probability-fish​ ter: An Acoustic Monitoring and Localization System. -encountering-marine-hydrokinetic-device Paper presented at the Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, Texas. doi:10.4043/29425-MS https://​ tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/performance-characteristics​ -noisespotter-acoustic-monitoring-localization-system Redmon, J., and Farhadi, A. 2018. YOLOv3: An Incremental Improvement. Report by University of Washington. https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications​/yolov3incremental-improvement Simmonds, J., and MacLennan, D. 2007. Fisheries Acoustics: Theory and Practice (Second ed.). Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing Ltd. doi:10.1002/9780470995303 https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/fisheries-acoustics​ -theory-practice Smith, K., and Simpson, N. 2018. Y1 Environmental Monitoring Report (Report No. EnFAITEU-0035). Report by Nova Innovation. https://tethys​ Roberts, B. L., and Read, A. J. 2015. Field assessment .pnnl.gov/publications/y1-environmental-monitoring​ of C-POD performance in detecting echolocation click -report trains of bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus). Marine Mammal Science, 31(1), 169-190. doi:10.1111/mms.12146 https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/field-assessment​ -c-pod-performance-detecting-echolocation-click-trains​ -bottlenose Robinson, S., and Lepper, P. 2013. Scoping Study: Review of Current Knowledge of Underwater Noise Emissions from Wave and Tidal Stream Energy Devices. Report by Loughborough University for The Crown Estate. https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications​/scopingstudy-review-current-knowledge-underwater​-noiseemissions-wave-tidal-stream SECTION C – ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING Smith, L. M., Barth, J. A., Kelley, D. S., Plueddemann, A., Rodero, I., Ulses, G. A., Vardaro, M. F., and Weller, R. 2018. The Ocean Observatories Initiative. Oceanography, 31(1), 16-35. doi:10.5670/oceanog.2018.105 https://tethys​ .pnnl.gov/publications/ocean-observatories-initiative Snohomish County Public Utility District No. 1. 2012. Admiralty Inlet Final License Application. FERC Project No. 12690. Report by Northwest National Marine Renewable Energy Center. https:// tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/admiralty​-inlet-finallicense-application 209 Staines, G., Zydlewski, G., and Viehman, H. 2019. Trevorrow, M. V. 2003. Measurements of near-surface Changes in Relative Fish Density Around a Deployed bubble plumes in the open ocean with implications Tidal Turbine during on-Water Activities. Sustainabil- for high-frequency sonar performance. The Journal of ity, 11(22). doi:10.3390/su11226262 https://tethys.pnnl​ the Acoustical Society of America, 114(5), 2672-2684. .gov/publications/changes-relative-fish-density-around​ doi:10.1121/1.1621008 https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications​ -deployed-tidal-turbine-during-water-activities /measurements-near-surface-bubble-plumes-open​ Stanton, T. K., Sellers, C. J., and Jech, J. M. 2012. Reso- -ocean-implications-high-frequency-sonar nance classification of mixed assemblages of fish with Trudel, M., and Boisclair, D. 1996. Estimation of fish swimbladders using a modified commercial broadband activity costs using underwater video cameras. Journal of acoustic echosounder at 1–6 kHz. Canadian Journal of Fish Biology, 48(1), 40-53. doi:10.1111/j.1095-8649.1996​ Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 69(5), 854-868. doi:10​ .tb01417.x https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/estimation​ .1139/f2012-013 https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications​ -fish-activity-costs-using-underwater-video-cameras /resonance-classification-mixed-assemblages-fish​ -swimbladders-using-modified-commercial Underwood, M., M. Sherlock, A. Marouchos, J. Cordell, R. Kloser and T. Ryan. 2014. A combined acoustic and Struthers, D. P., Danylchuk, A. J., Wilson, A. D. M., and optical instrument for industry managed fisheries Cooke, S. J. 2015. Action Cameras: Bringing Aquatic studies. 2014 Oceans - St. John’s, St. John’s, NL. doi:10​ and Fisheries Research into View. Fisheries, 40(10), .1109/OCEANS.2014.7003233 https://tethys.pnnl.gov​ 502-512. doi:10.1080/03632415.2015.1082472 https:// /publications/combined-acoustic-optical-instrument​ tethys.pnnl.gov​/publications/action-cameras-bringing- -industry-managed-fisheries-studies aquatic-fisheries​-research-view Urban, P., Köser, K., and Greinert, J. 2017. Processing The Electrochemical Society. 2011. Uhlig’s Corrosion of multibeam water column image data for automated Handbook (R. W. Revie Ed. Third ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John bubble/seep detection and repeated mapping. Limnology Wiley & Sons, Inc. doi:10.1002/9780470872864 https://​ and Oceanography: Methods, 15(1), 1-21. doi:10.1002/lom3​ tethys-engineering.pnnl.gov/publications/uhligs-corrosion​ .10138 https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/processing​ -handbook -multibeam-water-column-image-data-automated​ Thomson, J., Polagye, B., Durgesh, V., and Richmond, -bubbleseep-detection-repeated M. C. 2012. Measurements of Turbulence at Two Tidal Vagle, S., and Farmer, D. M. 1992. The Measurement Energy Sites in Puget Sound, WA. IEEE Journal of Oce- of Bubble-Size Distributions by Acoustical Backscat- anic Engineering, 37(3), 363-374. doi:10.1109/JOE.2012​ ter. Journal of Atmospheric and Oceanic Technology, 9(5), .2191656 https://tethys-engineering.pnnl.gov/publications​ 630-644. doi:10.1175/1520-0426(1992)009<0630:​ /measurements-turbulence-two-tidal-energy-sites​ TMOBSD>2.0.CO;2 https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications​ -puget-sound-wa /measurement-bubble-size-distributions-acoustical​ Tollit, D., and Redden, A. 2013. Passive Acoustic Moni- -backscatter toring of Cetacean Activity Patterns and Movements Viehman, H., Boucher, T., and Redden, A. 2018. Winter in Minas Passage: Pre-Turbine Baseline Conditions and summer differences in probability of fish encounter (2011-2012). Report by Acadia Centre for Estuarine (spatial overlap) with MHK devices. Paper presented at Research for Fundy Ocean Research Center for Energy. the 13th European Wave and Tidal Energy Conference, https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/passive​-acoustic- Napoli, Italy. https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/winter​ monitoring-cetacean-activity-patterns​-movements- -summer-differences-probability-fish-encounter-spatial​ minas-passage-pre -overlap-mhk-devices Viehman, H. A., and Zydlewski, G. B. 2014. Fish Interactions with a Commercial-Scale Tidal Energy Device in the Natural Environment. Estuaries and Coasts, 38(1), 241-252. doi:10.1007/s12237-014-9767-8 https://tethys​ .pnnl.gov/publications/fish-interactions-commercial-scale​ -tidal-energy-device-natural-environment 210 OES-ENVIRONMENTAL 2020 STATE OF THE SCIENCE REPORT Viehman, H. A., and Zydlewski, G. B. 2017. Multi-scale Williams, K., De Robertis, A., Berkowitz, Z., Rooper, C., temporal patterns in fish presence in a high-velocity and Towler, R. 2014. An underwater stereo-camera trap. tidal channel. PLoS ONE, 12(5), e0176405. doi:10.1371​ Methods in Oceanography, 11, 1-12. doi:10.1016/j.mio.2015​ /journal.pone.0176405 https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications​ .01.003 https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/underwater​ /multi-scale-temporal-patterns-fish-presence-high​ -stereo-camera-trap -velocity-tidal-channel Williamson, B., Blondel, P., Armstrong, E., Bell, P. S., Viehman, H. A., Zydlewski, G. B., McCleave, J. D., and Hall, C., Waggitt, J. J., and Scott, B. E. 2016a. A Self- Staines, G. J. 2015. Using Hydroacoustics to Under- Contained Subsea Platform for Acoustic Monitoring of stand Fish Presence and Vertical Distribution in a Tid- the Environment Around Marine Renewable Energy ally Dynamic Region Targeted for Energy Extraction. Devices–Field Deployments at Wave and Tidal Energy Estuaries and Coasts, 38(1), 215-226. doi:10.1007/s12237​ Sites in Orkney, Scotland. IEEE Journal of Oceanic Engi- -014-9776-7 https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/using​ neering, 41(1), 67-81. doi:10.1109/JOE.2015.2410851 -hydroacoustics-understand-fish-presence-vertical​ https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/self-contained-subsea​ -distribution-tidally-dynamic -platform-acoustic-monitoring-environment-around​ Wang, D., Atlar, M., and Sampson, R. 2007. An experi- -marine-renewable mental investigation on cavitation, noise, and slip- Williamson, B., Fraser, S., Blondel, P., Bell, P., Waggitt, stream characteristics of ocean stream turbines. Pro- J., and Scott, B. 2016b. Integrating a Multibeam and a ceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part Multifrequency Echosounder on the Flowbec Seabed A: Journal of Power and Energy, 221(2), 219-231. doi:10​ Platform to Track Fish and Seabird Behavior around .1243/09576509JPE310 https://tethys-engineering.pnnl​ Tidal Turbine Structures. Paper presented at the 4th .gov/publications/experimental-investigation-cavitation​ Marine Energy Technology Symposium, Washing- -noise-slipstream-characteristics-ocean-stream ton D.C. https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/integrating​ Warren, J. D., and Wiebe, P. H. 2008. Accounting for biological and physical sources of acoustic backscatter -multibeam-multifrequency-echosounder-flowbec​ -seabed-platform-track-fish improves estimates of zooplankton biomass. Canadian Williamson, B., Fraser, S., Williamson, L., Nikora, V., Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 65(7), 1321-1333. and Scott, B. 2019. Predictable changes in fish school doi:10.1139/F08-047 https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications​ characteristics due to a tidal turbine support struc- /accounting-biological-physical-sources-acoustic​ ture. Renewable Energy, 141, 1092-1102. doi:10.1016​ -backscatter-improves-estimates /j.renene.2019.04.065 https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications​ Wiesebron, L. E., Horne, J. K., Scott, B. E., and Williamson, B. J. 2016. Comparing nekton distributions at two /predictable-changes-fish-school-characteristics-due​ -tidal-turbine-support-structure tidal energy sites suggests potential for generic envi- Williamson, B., Fraser, S., Blondel, P., Bell, P. S., Wag- ronmental monitoring. International Journal of Marine gitt, J. J., and Scott, B. E. 2017. Multisensor Acoustic Energy, 16, 235-249. doi:10.1016/j.ijome.2016.07.004 Tracking of Fish and Seabird Behavior Around Tidal https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/comparing-nekton​ Turbine Structures in Scotland. IEEE Journal of Oceanic -distributions-two-tidal-energy-sites-suggests-potential​ Engineering, 42(4), 948-965. doi:10.1109/JOE.2016​ -generic .2637179 https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/multisensor​ Wilding, T. A., Gill, A. B., Boon, A., Sheehan, E., Dauvin, J. C., Pezy, J.-P., O’Beirn, F., Janas, U., Rostin, L., and De -acoustic-tracking-fish-seabird-behavior-around-tidal​ -turbine-structures Mesel, I. 2017. Turning off the DRIP (‘Data-rich, infor- Wilson, B., Benjamins, S., and Elliott, J. 2013. Using mation-poor’) – rationalising monitoring with a focus drifting passive echolocation loggers to study harbour on marine renewable energy developments and the porpoises in tidal-stream habitats. Endangered Species benthos. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 74, Research, 22(2), 125-143. doi:10.3354/esr00538 https://​ 848-859. doi:10.1016/j.rser.2017.03.013 https://tethys.pnnl​ tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/using-drifting-passive​ .gov/publications/turning-drip-data-rich-information​ -echolocation-loggers-study-harbour-porpoises-tidal​ -poor-rationalising-monitoring-focus-marine -stream SECTION C – ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING 211 Wilson, B., Lepper, P., Carter, C., and Robinson, S. 2014. Xu, W., and Matzner, S. 2018. Underwater Fish Detec- Rethinking Underwater Sound-Recording Methods tion using Deep Learning for Water Power Applications. to Work at Tidal-Stream and Wave-Energy Sites. In Paper presented at the 2018 International Conference Shields, M. and Payne, A. (Eds.), Marine Renewable on Computational Science and Computational Intel- Energy Technology and Environmental Interactions (pp. ligence, Las Vegas, NV. doi:10.1109/CSCI46756.2018​ 111-126): Springer, Dordrecht. https://tethys.pnnl.gov​ .00067 https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/underwater​ /publications/rethinking-underwater-sound-recording​ -fish-detection-using-deep-learning-water-power​ -methods-work-tidal-stream-wave-energy-sites -applications Worthington, M. 2014. Acoustic Monitoring of Beluga Whale Interactions with Cook Inlet Tidal Energy Project (Report No. DE-EE0002657). Ocean Renewable Power Company Alaska, Anchorage, Alaska. Report by Ocean Renewable Power Company for U.S. Department of Energy. https://tethys.pnnl​.gov/publications/acousticmonitoring-beluga-whale​-interactions-cook-inlet-tidalenergy-project NOTES Environmental Monitoring Technologies and Techniques for Detecting Interactions of Marine Animals with Turbines Hasselman, D.J., D.R. Barclay, R.J. Cavagnaro, C. Chandler, E. Cotter, D.M. Gillespie, G.D. Hastie, J.K. Horne, J. Joslin, C. Long, L.P. McGarry, R.P. Mueller, C.E. Sparling, and B.J. Williamson. 2020. Environmental Monitoring Technologies and Techniques for Detecting interactions of Marine Animals with Turbines. In A.E. Copping and L.G. Hemery (Eds.), OES-Environmental 2020 State of the Science Report: Environmental Effects of Marine Renewable Energy Development Around the World. Report for Ocean Energy Systems (OES). (pp. 176-212). doi:10.2172/1633202 Go to https://tethys​.pnnl.gov for a comprehensive collection of papers, reports, archived presentations, and other media about environmental effects of marine renewable energy development. REPORT AND MORE INFORMATION CONTACT OES-Environmental 2020 State of the Science full report and executive summary available at: https://tethys​.pnnl.gov/publications/state-of-the​-science-2020 Andrea Copping Pacific Northwest National Laboratory andrea.copping@pnnl.gov +1 206.528.3049 212 OES-ENVIRONMENTAL 2020 STATE OF THE SCIENCE REPORT • Section D Strategies for Accelerating Consenting/Permitting Chapter 11.0 Marine Spatial Planning and Marine Renewable Energy.................... 214 Chapter 12.0 Adaptive Management Related to Marine Renewable Energy...........242 Chapter 13.0 Risk Retirement and Data Transferability for Marine Renewable Energy..............................................................................262 Section D 214 OES-ENVIRONMENTAL 2020 STATE OF THE SCIENCE REPORT 11.0 Chapter author: Anne Marie O’Hagan Contributors: Dorian M. Overhus and Mikaela C. Freeman Marine Spatial Planning and Marine Renewable Energy Marine spatial planning (MSP) is advocated internationally as an improved approach to managing marine activities that addresses competing sectors and balances environmental, social, and economic interests (Ehler 2008; Ehler and Douvere 2009; SCBD 2012). The benefits of MSP are cited as being increased transparency and certainty for industry, improved environmental protection, reduced sectoral conflicts, and providing opportunities for synergies. Approaches to implementation of MSP vary by country and sometimes within countries. As a relatively new and novel approach to managing marine activities, it can be difficult to determine when success has occurred or what might constitute more effective and efficient management systems. The growth of marine renewable energy (MRE) will result in the increasing use of sea space and potential for conflict with existing marine uses, both of which can be addressed, in part, through implementation of MSP. SECTION D – STRATEGIES FOR ACCELERATING CONSENTING/PERMITTING 215 11.1. BACKGROUND ON MSP activities in time and space, but practical production of ll MSP systems try to reflect key principles that A consents), permissions, and licenses for specific activi- are science- or evidence-based, integrated, adap- ties. MSP does not always culminate in the allocation of marine goods and services will continue to be conducted through the granting of consents/permits (hereafter tive, strategic, and participatory (Figure 11.1). These zones for marine activities but could be used to advo- principles can present challenges for implementation cate preferred activities or priorities, reflecting national because they necessitate a departure from traditional policy objectives, for example. As a future-oriented forms of marine management, whereby activities are process, MSP enables decision-makers to plan and take managed on a sectoral basis with limited consider- management actions that should lead to some agreed- ation of other activities occurring in the same space or upon future spatial vision for marine areas and help to their potential effects on the receiving environment manage potential new uses, such as MRE. individually or cumulatively. As such, sectoral man- This chapter documents how MSP is currently being agement has resulted in a somewhat ad hoc approach to planning, that is, allocation of sea space primarily occurs on a case-by-case basis; hence, it lacks an integrated and strategic approach. While definitions of MSP are numerous, the most widely adopted is that of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, which defines MSP as “a public process of analyzing and allocating the spatial and temporal distribution of human activities in marine areas to achieve ecological, economic, and social objectives that are usually specified through a political process” (Ehler and Douvere 2009; Ehler 2014). MSP is a futureoriented process that can be used to assign space to different uses and manage the location of specific human used to plan and develop MRE in the 15 countries that are currently involved in Ocean Energy Systems (OES)-Environmental. The information presented in this chapter derives from answers to a questionnaire completed by OES-Environmental participant country representatives or their suggested contacts and, where appropriate, supplemented by relevant external sources. The questionnaire, available online as supplementary material (at https://tethys.pnnl.gov/state​ -of-the-science-2020-supplementary-marine-spatial​ -planning), requested input about the approaches to MSP in each country; if and how MRE policies link to MSP; how scientific information informs the process; Figure 11.1. Example of a decision support process for marine spatial planning, implemented in a logical sequence of steps in information synthesis: 1) Planning: talking with managers to determine priorities; 2) Data evaluation: assessing the data and identifying data gaps; 3) Ecosystem characterization: describing the ecosystem patterns and processes including human activities across the area of interest; and 4) Management applications: working with managers to support specific management applications. (Image courtesy of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration – National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science) 216 OES-ENVIRONMENTAL 2020 STATE OF THE SCIENCE REPORT how potential conflicts are managed; zoning for MRE; tools used to implement MSP; how consenting processes link to MSP; possible challenges to implementation of MSP for MRE; how the public is involved in MSP; and an option to include any further comments. Each of the questionnaire topic areas is covered thematically in the following sections, closing with a final section about key findings and conclusions derived from 11.2. APPROACHES TO MSP IN OESENVIRONMENTAL PARTICIPATING COUNTRIES A pproximately 70 countries worldwide (Marine Spatial Planning Programme 2018) are now esti- mated to have some form of MSP in varying stages of questionnaire answers. Given the strong legal basis for implementation. Some countries and regions have a MSP in the European Union (EU), findings from partici- legal basis for implementing MSP, whereas others have pating countries in the EU (Denmark, France, Ireland, conducted MSP on a less formal, non-statutory basis. In Portugal, Spain, and Sweden) are presented first fol- the EU, MSP has had a basis in law since 2014 because lowed by those from the United Kingdom (UK: England, of the adoption of a framework MSP Directive (Directive Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales), Australia, India, 2014/89/EU), which requires coastal member states to Japan, South Africa, and the United States (U.S.). The have maritime spatial plans in place for their waters by terminology used reflects that used in the country; for March 2021. As a result, all coastal member states are example, certain countries refer to offshore renew- currently at varying stages of progress in implementing able energy in their legislation and policies, covering MSP. Certain countries had MSP in place before the EU all forms of marine renewables (wave, tidal, offshore MSP Directive came into force; e.g., Belgium, Scotland, wind, etc.), whereas elsewhere explicit technology types England, the Netherlands, and a number of the Baltic are referred to in policy. In each section, information Sea countries. Other EU countries, such as France, Ire- is given for countries for which respondents provided land, and Spain, are in the initial stages of plan devel- detailed answers; therefore, not every section addresses opment. Details about the approaches to MSP for each each country. For additional details and information OES-Environmental country can be found in Table 11.1. about MSP in each of these countries, supplementary More detailed descriptions can be found at https://​tethys​ information is provided at https://​tethys​.pnnl​.gov​/state​ .pnnl​.gov​/state​-of​-the​-science​-2020​-supplementary​ -of​-the​-science​-2020​-supplementary​-marine​-spatial​ -marine​-spatial​-planning. -planning. SECTION D – STRATEGIES FOR ACCELERATING CONSENTING/PERMITTING 217 Table 11.1. Marine spatial planning (MSP)-specific approaches for the Ocean Energy Systems (OES)-Environmental (in alphabetical order by European Union [EU] countries first, then by the other countries). Country EU MSP-Specific Information Denmark ◆ ◆ France ◆ ◆ Ireland ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ Legislation mandating MSP has been in place since 2016, but there is no comprehensive plan. A range of sectoral plans covering energy infrastructure, fisheries, and nature protection will be used to inform the forthcoming national marine plan. MSP is implemented through “Strategic Façade Planning Documents,” coordinated by the Ministry for the Solidarity and Ecological Transition for each of four national sea basins1 (Décret n° 2017-724). Liaison via a national Façade Maritime Council. The first national marine spatial plan is being developed. The plan will be implemented via the National Marine Planning Framework (NMPF) (DHPLG 2019a). A draft version of the plan, the NMPF, was published for consultation in November 2019 (DHPLG 2019a). Information about the progress of the NMPF is publicly available. Portugal ◆ Mechanisms for MSP operate in a complementary manner with strategic mechanisms (such as the National Strategy for the Ocean as the planning and management policy) and operational mechanisms (the Situation Plan [DGRM 2018] and Allocation Plans). Spain ◆ No MSP currently exists; the EU MSP Directive (Directive 2014/89/EU) was transposed into Spanish law through Royal Decree 363/2017 (Real Decreto 363/2017). The Royal Decree specifies management plans for the North Atlantic, South Atlantic, Estrecho and Alboran, LevantineBalearic, and Canary Islands. Progress is being made on the development of and agreement about MSP objectives. ◆ ◆ Sweden ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ United Kingdom (UK) England ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ Scotland ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ Wales Northern Ireland The Swedish Planning and Building Act (Plan-och bygglag 2010) preceded the EU MSP Directive (Directive 2014/89/EU). Municipalities must plan throughout the Swedish territory, land, internal waters, and territorial sea out to 12 nautical miles. Three draft marine spatial plans covering the Gulf of Bothnia, the Baltic Sea, and Western Waters (Skagerrak/Kattegat) were published in 2019 (Swedish Agency for Marine and Water Management 2018; European MSP Platform 2020). The marine spatial plans being prepared currently will encompass the area one nautical mile from the baseline seaward and will include the Exclusive Economic Zone, but will not cover privately owned sea areas (private waters). MSP has been in place since 2010 with adoption of the UK Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009. The Act is complemented by legislation in Scotland and Northern Ireland. 11 marine plan regions are to be developed by the Marine Management Organisation. So far, six plans have been published: the East Marine Plan, North East Marine Plan, North West Marine Plan, South Marine Plans, South East Marine Plan, and South West Marine Plan (Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs 2014; 2018; Marine Management Organisation 2020a, 2020b; 2020c; 2020d). Each plan has vision, objectives, and policies. The Scottish National Marine Plan was published in 2015 (Marine Scotland 2015) identifying Marine Scotland as the responsible body. The key legislation driving MSP are the Marine (Scotland) Act (2010) and the UK Marine and Coastal Access Act (2009). Under the 2010 Act, Regional Marine Plans are to be developed for 11 regions. Only the plan for the Clyde and Shetland Isles region has gone forward; the Orkney plan is in development. ◆ The Welsh National Marine Plan (WNMP) was published in 2019 (Welsh Government 2019), developed based on the UK Marine and Coastal Access Act (2009), the UK Marine Policy Statement (HMG 2011), and the EU MSP Directive (Directive 2014/89/EU). ◆ The Draft Marine Plan for Northern Ireland was published in 2018 (DAERA 2018a). The Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs is the responsible authority. However, the lack of a government from 2017–2019 brought progress to a standstill.2 ◆ continued 1. For instance: the North Atlantic – West Channel (Nord Atlantic – Manche Ouest) sea basin, see http://www.dirm.nord-atlantique-manche-ouest​ .developpement-durable.gouv.fr/IMG/pdf/synthese_vf_cle6e72f2.pdf; or the Mediterranean sea basin http://www.dirm.mediterranee.developpement​ -durable.gouv.fr/la-strategie-de-facade-maritime-est-adoptee-a2892.html 2. The Northern Ireland Executive and Assembly collapsed in January 2017 owing to ongoing disagreements between the two main political parties and all attempts to restore power-sharing had failed until January 2020, when the Government was restored. Formal adoption of the MSP is therefore anticipated to occur later in 2020. 218 OES-ENVIRONMENTAL 2020 STATE OF THE SCIENCE REPORT Country MSP-Specific Information Australia ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ India ◆ ◆ ◆ Japan Japan has no formal MSP process. ◆ The Basic Act on Ocean Policy (2007) was enacted in 2007 to assist with marine development, security, scientific knowledge, and governance and to develop a comprehensive ocean policy, to be reviewed on a five-year basis. In 2018, the Third Basic Plan on Ocean Policy was approved with no specific mention of MSP with objectives for industrial ocean uses, maintenance, and conservation. ◆ ◆ ◆ United States (U.S.) No MSP is in place and there is no use of specific MSP terminology in legislation or policy. The principles of MSP and environmental impact assessments (EIAs) are required for developing marine projects in India (Dineshbabu et al. 2019). Several laws and policies for coastal zone management exist. ◆ ◆ South Africa Formal MSP processes exist across several jurisdictions. Ocean policy established in 1998 is driving marine bioregional planning (Department of the Environment and Heritage 2006). The existing policy balances social, economic, and environmental objectives, but is not implemented (Vince et al. 2015). South Australia published the Marine Planning Framework in 2006 (Department for Environment and Heritage 2006). Along with the Marine and Coastal Reforms Final Transition Plan (State of Victoria DELWP 2018), Victoria enacted the Marine and Coastal Act 2018, which requires the development of an MSP Framework. This was published in 2020 as part of a state-wide Marine and Coastal Policy (State of Victoria DELWP 2020). ◆ ◆ ◆ Implementation of the Marine Spatial Planning Act (2018) began in 2019. The purpose of the Act is to develop an MSP system for all sectors, for sustainable economic opportunities through coordinated and integrated planning and conservation of the marine environment. The National Framework for MSP provides high-level direction for MSP within other relevant policies, planning regimes, and developing Marine Area Plans (The Republic of South Africa 2017). There is no formal MSP process nationally. Some coastal states (Oregon, Massachusetts, Rhode Island and Washington) enacted MSPs to help guide conservation and use of ocean space through marine plans or MSP principles (Rhode Island State 2020; Commonwealth of Massachusetts 2020; State of Washington 2020; Department of Land Conservation and Development 2020). Executive Order 13547 (2010) called for regional MSP across the U.S. Two plans were created in 2016 the Northeast Ocean Plan (Northeast Regional Planning Body 2016) and the Mid-Atlantic Regional Ocean Action Plan (Mid-Atlantic Regional Planning Body 2016). 11.3. MRE POLICIES AND LINKS TO MSP M SP tends to be strategic in nature and often contains broad management principles and objec- tives that apply to multiple marine sectors rather than being prescriptive about what activity can occur where. As such, it is relevant to document whether countries have national MRE strategies or policies and whether the strategies and policies have been explicitly recognized in the MSP process. Beginning with the EU, and possibly as a result of legislation about renewable energy, a number of countries have dedicated policies specific to offshore wind or MRE (wave and tidal) in particular. Details about MRE policies and the link to MSP for the OES-Environmental country can be found in Table 11.2. More detailed descriptions can be found at https://tethys.pnnl.gov/state-of-the-science-2020​ -supplementary-marine-spatial-planning. SECTION D – STRATEGIES FOR ACCELERATING CONSENTING/PERMITTING 219 Table 11.2. Marine renewable energy (MRE) policies and their links to marine spatial planning (MSP) for the Ocean Energy Systems (OES)Environmental nations (arranged in alphabetical order by European Union [EU] countries first, then by the other countries). Country EU MSP-Specific Information Denmark ◆ ◆ France ◆ ◆ ◆ Ireland ◆ ◆ Portugal ◆ ◆ ◆ Spain ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ Sweden ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ A technical report was published in 2012 focusing on wave energy strategies (Nielsen et al. 2012). The Danish Wave Power Roadmap was published in 2015 (Nielsen et al. 2015) and produced by a consortium that includes nine Danish wave energy developers. France has defined targets and quantified objectives to add MRE to the national energy mix. A 2015 law on energy transition, was supplemented by the French Strategy for Energy and Climate Multi-Annual Energy Plan (PPE [Programmations Pluriannuelles de l'Énergie] in French), updated in 2019 for future contribution of bottommounted and floating offshore wind (Ministère de la Transition Écologique et Solidaire 2019a). There has been no explicit call for MRE, while acknowledging tidal development is maturing. No specific plan for MRE but the intention is there will be one (DHPLG 2017); development is guided by the Offshore Renewable Energy Development Plan (DCENR 2014; DCCAE 2018). In 2019, the Climate Action Plan (DHPLG 2019b), together with the NMPF (DHPLG 2019a) and the marine consenting system, will drive MRE development in coming years. Several strategic government documents since 2007 have highlighted MRE with the intent of optimizing use of available marine space, increasing synergies, and minimizing conflict between all marine activities. Specific targets for MRE are not included in any of the strategic documents, but the recent MRE roadmap (2017) estimates an installed capacity of 400 MW (260 MW for offshore wind and 140 MW for wave energy) by 2030 (Government of Portugal 2017). MRE development is reflected in MSP through inclusion of the Aguçadoura test site and designation of a Pilot Zone from San Pedro de Moel to Viana do Castelo. The National Renewable Energy Action Plan (NREAP) 2011–2020 (Ministerio de Industria, Turismo y Comercio 2010) has targets for 100 MW of installed power by 2020, but a feed-in tariff has been suspended since January 2012. The National Integrated Energy and Climate Plan 2021–2030 (Gobierno de España 2020) and the Draft Bill on Climate Change and Energy Transition (Ministry of the Presidency 2019) were updated in 2018 and presented to European Commission, but have not been enacted into law. The Plan aims to achieve up to 42 percent consumption of renewable energies by 2030 with land-based and offshore wind mainly, but it recognizes MRE. In 2017, the Basque Government approved an Energy Strategy for 2030 (Basque Energy Agency 2017) which includes support for MRE and a target of 60 MW for offshore wind and MRE by 2030. MRE is taken into account in the MSP process, and representatives from the sector have participated in meetings related to marine plan development. The Government intends to transition to 100 percent renewable energy by 2040 (Swedish Government 2016). MSP includes offshore wind and wave development (Swedish Agency for Marine and Water Management 2019). Use of the MSP process helped identify sites for offshore wind and testing and development zones for wave energy development. MSP states that several municipalities are planning for offshore energy development close to the coast by zoning suitable areas in their comprehensive plans under the Planning and Building Act (Plan-och bygglag 2010). continued 220 OES-ENVIRONMENTAL 2020 STATE OF THE SCIENCE REPORT Country MSP-Specific Information United Kingdom (U.K.) ◆ ◆ ◆ Scotland ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ Wales ◆ ◆ ◆ Northern Ireland ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ Australia ◆ ◆ ◆ India ◆ ◆ ◆ Japan ◆ ◆ South Africa ◆ ◆ United States (U.S.) ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ There is a 2050 target to reduce carbon emissions by 80 percent, but there are no specific targets for MRE (The Climate Change Act 2008). The UK Government in Westminster makes certain legislation and policy but there are four separate legal systems: England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland, each with legislation of their own. The Crown Estate manages lands held by the Crown and has legal authority to grant seabed or foreshore rights for uses including MRE. There is a Scottish national energy strategy (Scottish Government 2017), but no specific MRE strategy. Energy policy shows the Scottish Government’s commitment to developing MRE, including explicit statements that MRE contributes to achieving the 100 percent renewables target by 2020 (Marine Scotland 2015). Scottish MSP does not have specific targets for offshore wind, wave, and tidal energy, but indicates their importance in contributing to renewables and decarbonization targets. MRE is a specific sector in the Scottish National Marine Plan. The Scottish Government is developing plans for offshore wind, wave, and tidal energy in Scottish waters (Scottish Government 2012; 2018). The Welsh Natural Resources Policy (Welsh Government 2017a), under the Environment (Wales) Act (2016), includes growth in renewables as a priority. Natural Resources Wales has produced a Marine Area Statement (Natural Resources Wales 2020) to include MRE under the Environment (Wales) Act (2016). The draft Welsh National Marine Plan identifies MRE as a priority sector for Wales with focus on tidal stream and wave energy over the next 5–10 years. The Offshore Renewable Energy Strategic Action Plan 2012–2020 in place was developed in 2012 (DETI 2012). The initial leasing round has been completed through The Crown Estate for one offshore wind and two tidal projects. One tidal project is proceeding with the licensing process (DfE 2019). Currently, Northern Ireland waters have been excluded from further leasing round (DfE 2019). There are no specific ocean energy strategy, targets, incentives, or legislation for MRE. Some research funding exists for MRE and demonstration projects; the Australian Renewable Energy Agency funds some research into ocean energy, and several demonstrations deployments (<500 kW) have occurred in Australian waters. The only MRE incorporated into the MSP process is in the Marine and Coastal Policy (State of Victoria DELWP 2020). The Draft National Renewable Energy Act 2015 (Ministry of New and Renewable Energy 2015) promotes all forms of renewable energy including ocean energy. Ocean energy is still in demonstration stages in India, but it is now part of the non-solar Renewable Purchase Obligation promoted by the Government of India. No specific targets have been defined for MRE development. No policies or targets specific to MRE development exist. A Strategic Energy Plan is reviewed every three years. The most recent, the 5th Strategic Energy Plan, addresses the need for more research and development in ocean energy and covers measures to make wind power a major power source (Ministry of Economy, Trade, and Industry 2018). New legislation in 2019 covers use of sea areas for offshore wind. No MSP is in place, but it has strong legal and policy bases for marine renewables (Marine Spatial Planning Act, 16 of 2018). There are no targets in place for MRE development. No federal MSP system is in place and MRE is not included as a specific sector. In 2017, the Presidential Executive Order 13783 (Executive Order 13783) established a policy of promoting clean and safe development of domestic energy resources, including renewable energy. In 2018, the Presidential Executive Order 13840 heavily focused on developments of renewable energy industries, predominantly on offshore wind but also MRE and hydrokinetic technologies (Executive Order 13840). In 2019, the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) published a new regional offshore wind leasing strategy (BOEM 2019). Regional ocean partnerships, established in 2016 are heavily focused on developments in renewable energy industries, predominantly offshore wind but also MRE. These partnerships have slowed in recent years. SECTION D – STRATEGIES FOR ACCELERATING CONSENTING/PERMITTING 221 11.4. TAKING MRE INTO ACCOUNT IN MSP M RE has specific requirements from a planning process perspective. For example, MRE needs to link with other infrastructure such as grid provision and access to ports. Any development planning process must be cognizant of the receiving environment. To assure that these aspects are considered before a decision is made, many countries implement some form of environmental assessment (at the strategic or project level) that can then inform future planning processes. As part of environmental assessment requirements, and as a good practice generally, stakeholder consultation is also a fundamental part of the wider planning process. This consultation can occur with the public at large, with individual sectors, or with representative groups and ultimately should lead to a more robust and trusted planning process. These specific requirements of the MRE sector can be taken into account in the development of MSP processes in many ways. Given the implementation status of MSP across the globe, not all countries have addressed these requirements (namely India, South Africa, and the U.S.). In countries and regions where MSP is progressing, specific sectoral requirements are fed into the MSP process, primarily via consultation mechanisms either on an individual sectoral basis or through a dedicated stakeholder mechanism, and are described below. Such consultation is likely to evolve as implementation of MSP begins. The EU countries are most advanced in this respect, probably as a result of the EU MSP Directive (Directive 2014/89/EU) and over-arching climate and energy policies. Under the EU MSP Directive, all marine spatial plans must be subject to a Strategic Environmental Assessment to address environmental impacts at the earliest possible stage in decision-making. The details about each OESEnvironmental country can be found in Table 11.3. More detailed descriptions can be found at https://​tethys​.pnnl​ .gov​/state​-of​-the​-science​-2020​-supplementary​-marine​ 11.5. DEALING WITH POTENTIAL CONFLICTS BETWEEN MARINE SECTORS/USERS A n important consideration for MSP is potential conflicts between different marine sectors and/or users, especially as the demand for marine space increases and, on occasion, because certain sectors will be interested in the same spatial area. As a relatively new sector, MRE in particular has the potential to overlap with more traditional uses such as fishing and navigation. When multiple-use situations like this arise, it can be challenging to address the different interests and needs of multiple users in mutually satisfying ways. Compatibility between uses and activities depends not only on oceanographic conditions (such as sea turbulence, the nature of the seabed, or the size of the water column), but also on the size and characteristics of each project. Compatibility between activities within the same marine space can still be achieved if, for example, the activities can be carried out at different times of the year. This could be the case, for example, for dredging activities in overlying seawater columns where non-metallic resources could be exploited. One of the rationales for MSP is that it can prevent or minimize conflict, because it clarifies who/what activity can operate within particular spatial areas. Such conflicts tend to be resolved on a case-by-case basis with negotiations between the interested parties (Freeman et al. 2016) and sometimes an independent arbiter. Very few MSP systems contain specific provisions or mechanisms related to conflict resolution, despite the recognition of the potential for conflict in light of the increasing use of marine space and associated competition between uses. Details about how each OES-Environmental country deals with these conflicts can be found in Table 11.4. More detailed descriptions can be found at https://​tethys​.pnnl​ .gov​/state​-of​-the​-science​-2020​-supplementary​-marine​ -spatial​-planning. -spatial​-planning. 222 OES-ENVIRONMENTAL 2020 STATE OF THE SCIENCE REPORT Table 11.3. Consideration of marine renewable energy (MRE) development within marine spatial planning (MSP) processes for the Ocean Energy Systems (OES)-Environmental nations (arranged alphabetically by European Union [EU] countries first, then by the other countries). Country EU MSP-Specific Information France ◆ ◆ ◆ Ireland ◆ ◆ Portugal ◆ ◆ The Programmations Pluriannuelles de l'Énergie (PPE) Strategic Environmental Assessment underlines the need for coherence and compatibility between MRE projects and those from other sectors (Ministère de la Transition Écologique et Solidaire 2019a). Coordinating prefectures (maritime, regional, and departmental prefectures) provide a connection between regional and local marine sectors. Stakeholders from socioeconomic sectors (fisheries, maritime transport, tourism, etc.), environmental sectors (marine protected areas [MPAs], nongovernmental organizations), public authorities, scientific and academic sectors, etc. work together on a common regional approach for MRE development. Representatives from the MRE sector are part of the National Advisory Board for MSP. Feedback from the MRE industry helps with development of the policy. A final Situation Plan (DGRM 2018) has been developed to identify specific areas for MRE development along the coast. Input is provided by stakeholders from multiple sectors. Spain ◆ The MSP process is at too early a stage to determine how sectoral MRE interests will be included. Sweden ◆ The presence of a national planning evidence and information system allows sectors to provide input to national government agencies to identify areas of national interest, including MRE. ◆ A strong heritage of research and development exists in MRE technologies and associated infrastructure and experience in testing these devices in Scottish waters. The European Marine Energy Centre, based in Orkney, allows for testing and a pathway to commercialization for tidal and wave devices. Orkney was selected as location for a Pilot Marine Spatial Plan Case Study (Marine Scotland 2016), including stakeholder engagement to inform Marine Scotland, Council Planners, and the marine community of knowledge regarding requirements for MRE development within a planning construct (Aquatera Ltd. 2015). United Scotland Kingdom (UK) ◆ ◆ Wales ◆ During 2017 and 2018, the Welsh National Marine Plan (Welsh Government 2019) was informed by a Stakeholder Reference Group that provided an opportunity for all stakeholders to comment on development of the final plan. Australia ◆ The draft MSP framework for Victoria was developed collaboratively with stakeholders using a co-designing process. Japan ◆ Environmental Impact Assessments drive consents for MRE. The Japanese Ministry of Environment has been zoning areas for offshore wind energy development, and takes input from key energy industry players as well as stakeholders, including local fishermen. ◆ 11.6. AREAS AVAILABLE FOR MRE DEVELOPMENT M SP is often interpreted to be synonymous with ocean zoning. Ocean zoning designates a specific space to marine uses and can be used to limit an area to a single activity or to accommodate multiple uses. While zoning approaches can be used to implement MSP, it is just one tool for delivering the objectives of the MSP process. Some countries have zoned areas of their marine space for specific sectors, activities, and uses. The details about these areas of MRE development as defined for each OES-Environmental country can be found in Table 11.5 (also see Figures 11.2 and 11.3). More detailed descriptions can be found at https://​tethys​.pnnl​ .gov​/state​-of​-the​-science​-2020​-supplementary​-marine​ -spatial​-planning. SECTION D – STRATEGIES FOR ACCELERATING CONSENTING/PERMITTING 223 Table 11.4. Information about how the Ocean Energy Systems (OES)-Environmental nations deal with conflicts that often arise during the marine spatial planning (MSP) process (arranged alphabetically by European Union [EU] countries first, then by the other countries). Country EU MSP-Specific Information France ◆ ◆ ◆ Ireland ◆ Conflicts between marine users are most likely to be addressed on a case-by-case basis rather than by MSP. Portugal ◆ The Situation Plan (DGRM 2018) favors the multi-use of marine space and compatibility between uses, especially because it enables optimization of the economic potential of a space. The Direção-Geral de Recursos Naturais, Segurança e Serviços Marítimos (DGRM [Directorate-General for Natural Resources, Safety and Maritime Services]) manages use conflicts for marine activities through the consenting process. ◆ Spain ◆ Conflicts between marine users are most likely to be addressed on a case-by-case basis rather than by MSP. Sweden ◆ Activities related to defense and security have priority under Swedish legislation as part of their marine spatial plans (Swedish Agency for Marine and Water Management 2018; European MSP Platform 2020), thereby restricting development of some offshore renewables. In certain locations, nature conservation has been given priority over other activities as well, while coexistence is promoted in other areas such as some Natura 2000 sites (network of nature protection), with appropriate permits. ◆ United Kingdom Early consultation with marine users and activities in the MSP process and mapping of existing uses of space help reduce and manage potential conflicts. Strategic phases of MSP implementation rely heavily on mapping specific uses of marine space. The fisheries sector provides information about fishing areas using geographic information systems to avoid conflicts (Université de Nantes 2019). Scotland ◆ ◆ Wales ◆ ◆ The National Marine Planning system identifies potential conflicts and addresses and reduces these conflicts before they arise. With only two of several planned Marine Planning Partnerships developed (Clyde and the Shetland Isles), the default is a highly communicative system with different sectors engaging in the planning process, assuring their voices are heard, and incorporating their thoughts in the plan to help reduce conflict. The Welsh National Marine Plan (WNMP) (Welsh Government 2019) is to be accompanied by implementation guidance, which will include conflict resolution procedures. The WNMP encourages measures to reduce conflict, such as co-location of activities and sectors. Australia ◆ Victoria’s draft MSP Framework provides high-level guidance for considering conflicts between sectors when completing a MSP process. India ◆ This situation has not yet been considered Japan ◆ Stakeholder consultation is fundamental to minimizing conflict and critical to the successful zoning of marine activities. When siting MRE developments, conservation areas, shipping routes, and emergency access routes are avoided. Coexistence with fishing activity is regarded as the most important issue and accordingly, there are frequent meetings with these representatives when carrying out planning. ◆ ◆ South Africa United States (U.S.). 224 ◆ Addressing conflict between marine users is one of the main drivers of MSP. Development of marine plans is conducted specifically for the purpose of addressing known and anticipated future conflicts between sectors. ◆ This situation has not yet been considered ◆ OES-ENVIRONMENTAL 2020 STATE OF THE SCIENCE REPORT Table 11.5. Areas available for marine renewable energy (MRE) development for the Ocean Energy Systems (OES)-Environmental nations (arranged alphabetically by European Union [EU] countries first, then by the other countries). Country EU Marine Spatial Planning (MSP)-Specific Information France ◆ ◆ ◆ Ireland MRE projects are strongly excluded from military zones (for training, navigation, or security operations). Marine protected areas (MPAs) are also heavily protected. For sea basins under the supervision of the Ministry for the Ecological and Inclusive Transition, macro-zones that could potentially host MRE projects have been identified, based largely on physical environmental conditions, geomorphology, risks to maritime security, etc. Within the macro-zones, stakeholders provide input for siting specific projects. No areas have been identified as being prohibited for MRE activities. It is likely that the new consenting system in the form of the Marine Planning and Development Management Bill (DHPLG 2019c) will enable zoning for different uses in the future. ◆ ◆ Portugal ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ United Kingdom (UK) Areas are allocated in the marine spatial plan for MRE but require a Title for the Private Use of the Maritime Space. Other uses are also allowed in this space, based on their compatibility. Compatible uses are illustrated in Figure 11.2. MRE development approved outside the designated areas will be incorporated into the Situation Plan (DGRM 2018). Regulations for certain activities create exclusion areas and safety zones. Spain ◆ No areas prohibit wave or tidal energy, nor are there preferred deployment areas. Sweden ◆ No areas are fully prohibited for MRE development, but additional licensing requirements may be needed in areas designated for conservation purposes. Scotland ◆ Some areas are generally prohibited for MRE development and require consenting requirements that effectively make development impossible. MRE projects are prohibited from areas designated as firing ranges used by the Ministry of Defence. Preferred zones and locations for MRE are under development as part of the Sectoral Plans put together by Marine Scotland (Scottish Government 2020; Marine Scotland 2014). “Preferred areas” will become clearer as more Scottish Marine Regions develop their Regional Marine Plans. ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ Wales ◆ ◆ Australia ◆ ◆ ◆ India ◆ ◆ Japan ◆ ◆ ◆ South Africa ◆ ◆ United States (U.S.) ◆ ◆ MRE development is constrained in areas used by the Ministry of Defence, as shipping lanes, and designated as safety zones around existing infrastructure, and potential development is managed on a case-by-case basis. The Welsh National Marine Plan (Welsh Government 2019) identifies Strategic Resource Areas for MRE, based on available energy resources. Consultation on the plan focused on lack of clarity about intended uses. The final marine spatial plan did not include the Strategic Resource Areas but have retained an ambition to move towards spatial specify within future iterations of the plan. No preferred locations for ocean energy have been designated, even with one of the most mature examples of zoning in marine waters (Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act 1975). Several existing uses of the marine space are managed by leasing (e.g., petroleum and greenhouse gas titles, aquaculture leases). In the state of Victoria, MPAs consist of no-take and multiple-use areas. No preferred areas or zones exist for ocean energy. MRE and other ocean energy development are prohibited in protected areas around islands as well as coastal areas that feature mangroves, national parks, sanctuaries, and naval bases. MRE development is not prohibited in any area, but development is very challenging in Natural Parks, tidal flats, seaweed beds, coral reefs, and fish spawning grounds. Reversing past practice, 2016 legislation now allows for future energy developments in ports and harbors. Designated demonstration sites for MRE research and development have been selected by local governments proposing a demonstration site (see Figure 11.3). There are no prohibited areas for MRE or preferred locations for its deployment. The South African National Working Group on MSP is finalizing the Current Status Report, which will provide information about locations for MRE development and other ocean activities. No areas have been designated for MRE development, but preferred areas for offshore wind development have been designated in the Atlantic by the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management. Prohibitions are in place for National Marine Sanctuaries, National Parks, National Monuments, shipping lanes, and MPAs (National Marine Sanctuaries Act of 2000). Areas identified by the U.S. Department of Defense as critical to their activities require additional layers of consultation and review. SECTION D – STRATEGIES FOR ACCELERATING CONSENTING/PERMITTING 225 Natural heritage Cultural heritage Tourism and leisure Artificial reefs Multiuse platforms Ship sinking Cables and outfalls Marine resources Oil and Gas Mining Dredging Renewable energy Aquaculture Aquaculture Renewable energy Dredging Mining Oil and Gas Marine resources Cables and outfalls Ship sinking Multiuse platforms Artificial reefs Tourism and leisure Cultural heritage Natural heritage Synergy Legend Incompatible Possible Compatible uses Figure 11.2. Compatible, incompatible, and synergistic marine sectors, as identified in the Portuguese Situation Plan. This figure is theoretical and the fact that two activities are indicated as compatible does not mean that this happens in practice or out of necessity. (Adapted and translated from DGRM 2018) Niigata: Oceanic (Tidal), Wave, Wind (Floating) Saga: Tidal, Wind (Floating) 11.7. TOOLS THAT SUPPORT MSP IMPLEMENTATION M any tools can be used to assist in the implementa- Iwate: Wave, Wind (Floating) tion of MSP at a variety of scales. These include different spatial management tools such as designated sites and zones (see Section 11.6), as well as more technology-based tools like a dedicated marine atlas Nagasaki: Tidal Nagasaki: Wind (Floating) Nagasaki: Tidal Wakayama: Oceanic or cadastre based on geographic information systems (GISs). In the EU, marine GIS tools are an increasingly popular method of making marine-related informa- Kagoshima: Tidal Kagoshima: Oceanic Okinawa: OTEC Okinawa: Wave tion accessible to the public, and a convenient way of illustrating complex data derived from a wide variety of sources. For more details about specific OES-Environmental countries’ MSP tools, see Table 11.6 (also see Tables 11.7 and 11.8). More detailed descriptions can Figure 11.3. Selected demonstration sites for wind, wave, and tidal energy in Japan. Sites shown in red were selected in 2014; the Iwate site, in blue, in 2015; and the Kagoshima site, also in blue, in 2017 as demonstration sites. Sites shown in black text were proposed but not selected. (Image courtesy of Daisuke Kiazawa) be found at https://​tethys​.pnnl​.gov​/state​-of​-the​-science​ 226 OES-ENVIRONMENTAL 2020 STATE OF THE SCIENCE REPORT -2020​-supplementary​-marine​-spatial​-planning. Table 11.6. Tools that have been developed in the Ocean Energy Systems (OES)-Environmental nations to assist in marine spatial planning (MSP) implementation (arranged alphabetically by European Union [EU] countries first, then by the other countries). Country EU MSP-Specific Information France ◆ ◆ Implementation of MSP uses geographic information related to marine activities, land-sea interactions, and spatial demands and trends for future maritime activities. Challenges have arisen related to the appropriate scale at which to operate, how to assess and convey stakeholder perceptions, how to improve coordination on sectoral policies, and how to select available data and to deal with data gaps. ◆ To fulfill EU Marine Strategy Framework Directive (Directive 2008/56/EC) requirements, the nation’s marine atlas is being Ireland expanded to support MSP implementation, including tools and data management systems ◆ A dedicated geoportal was developed and reflects the planning of the national maritime space with a view to private use Portugal for the establishment of economic activities (DGRM 2020). Spain ◆ ◆ United Kingdom (UK) Information about the environment, maritime uses, existing aquaculture zones, anchoring areas, areas for military use, sand extraction zones, and MPAs are being collected into a GIS. The geographic information system (GIS) will support MSP, as well as the examination of cumulative impacts. Sweden ◆ Uses GIS for MSP purposes as well as the Symphony process (Swedish Agency for Marine and Water Management 2020), a model-based tool developed to support the implementation of ecosystem based maritime spatial planning, to assess cumulative impacts of the plans. England ◆ The existing Marine Information System, which contained information about plans and policies, supporting data, and information, was replaced with the Explore Marine Plans digital service (Marine Management Organisation 2020e) to improve functionality when using spatial data and information. Scotland ◆ A number of tools are used to implement MSP, as detailed in Table 11.7. Wales ◆ A Marine Planning Portal (Welsh Government 2020a) provides access to the evidence base for MSP in GIS format; an online video provides guidance on the content and its use (Welsh Government 2017b). Northern Ireland ◆ A publicly accessible Marine Mapviewer was developed to show the existing uses and activities in the Northern Ireland Marine Area (DAERA 2018b). ◆ Many spatial (GIS-based) mapping tools have been developed to support MSP, as listed in Table 11.8. Its Assessment of Victoria’s Marine Environment report (VEAC 2019) identify current environmental, economic, social, and cultural values of the marine environment and their spatial distribution. Victoria has also developed a Marine Knowledge Framework to facilitate integrated approaches to research and monitoring efforts in all marine environments across the state (State of Victoria DELWP 2018). In addition to these GIS-based resources, many other studies have been completed in Australia to assess marine values associated with industries and trends. Australia ◆ ◆ ◆ India ◆ No tools have been produced to aid ocean energy development. Japan ◆ Layers of information have been organized into a GIS to assist with the zoning that will be used to assess and identify suitable areas for MRE development. South Africa ◆ A National Ocean and Coastal Information Management System with accompanying Decision Support Tools is being developed and will be instrumental during the implementation phase of the MSP process and will aid in displaying MSP data and maps (DEFF & DSI 2020). United States (U.S.) ◆ The Marine Cadastre website compiles spatial data and information in a user-friendly format throughout U.S. waters to support MSP, MRE siting, and the siting of other ocean-related efforts on the U.S. Outer Continental Shelf (NOAA Office for Coastal Management 2020). Regional programs are able to use and incorporate data from the Marine Cadastre and apply it to their region of interest (NROC 2020; Mid-Atlantic Ocean Data Portal 2020; West Coast Ocean Partnership 2020). ◆ SECTION D – STRATEGIES FOR ACCELERATING CONSENTING/PERMITTING 227 Table 11.7. Tools that support marine spatial planning implementation in Scotland. ToolContents Marine Scotland MAPS NMPI https://marinescotland.atkinsgeospatial.com/nmpi/ National Marine Plan interactive Scotland’s Marine Atlas: Information for The National Marine Plan https://www2.gov.scot/Publications/2011/03/16182005/0 An assessment of the condition of Scotland’s seas, based on scientific evidence from data and analysis and supported by expert judgment Marine Scotland’s Regional Locational Guidance http://marine.gov.scot/information/regional-locational-guidance Information related to the search areas for future offshore wind, wave, and tidal energy plan options Regional Marine Plans https://www2.gov.scot/Topics/marine/seamanagement/regional/Boundaries Only Clyde and Shetland Marine regions have taken this forward to date. Sectoral Planning https://www2.gov.scot/Topics/marine/marineenergy/Planning Specifically for offshore wind, wave, and tidal energy Different regulations are used depending on the location of the Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations https://www2.gov.scot/Topics/marine/Licensing/marine/guidance/EIARegulations marine development and the installed capacity of the development. These determine which marine developments are required to undertake production of an Environmental Impact Assessment Report prior to obtaining planning permission and the necessary consents. Table 11.8. Tools for implementing marine spatial planning (MSP) in Australia. Mapping Tool Contents http://www.nationalmap.gov.au A spatial database of Australian data, including marine spatial layers in support of MSP at Commonwealth level. http://www.nationalmap.gov.au/renewables Spatial information specific to Australia’s energy resources and infrastructure. http://aodn.org.au Australia’s Ocean Data Network, providing Australian marine and climate science data, including spatial layers. http://www.nespmarine.edu.au/maps Maps from Australian National Environmental Science Program Marine Biodiversity hub, including maps of pressures on the marine environment and species maps amongst others. https://marine.ga.gov.au/ Geoscience Australia AusSeabed Marine Data Discovery, providing bathymetry and backscatter data access. https://www.operations.amsa.gov.au/Spatial/ Includes a spatial database for use in GIS associated with Australia’s shipping and maritime safety. http://maps.ga.gov.au/interactive-maps/#/theme/amsis The Australian Marine Spatial Information System is a web-based interactive mapping and decision support system that improves access to integrated government and non-government information in Australian marine Jurisdictions. https://data.marinemammals.gov.au/ National Marine mammal database. http://seamapaustralia.org Includes, for example, national marine habitat maps. https://research.csiro.au/atlantis/home/about-atlantis/ The Atlantis model, used internationally as a decision support tool for MSP. 228 OES-ENVIRONMENTAL 2020 STATE OF THE SCIENCE REPORT 11.8. THE CONSENTING PROCESS AND MSP SP is both strategic and anticipatory. To achieve 11.9. FACTORS LIMITING IMPLEMENTATION OF MSP FOR MRE the objectives of MSP there must be clear links cross countries, a multitude of factors lead to chal- M to the project level. All MRE projects will require some form of consent to occupy sea space and generate electricity from natural marine resources. It is therefore imperative that MSP aid decision-making for consenting processes. Every country has a different method of consenting development in their marine space, but the method should align with higher, national-level policy objectives reflected in MSP. In the EU, there is a legal requirement for MSP with a set of common minimum requirements that plans must contain, but there is no similar system for development in marine areas. This remains a member state competence, although requirements of other EU legislation must be adhered to in state practices. In the case of MRE development, for example, depending on the size, location, and nature of the proposed development, most proposed projects will require an environmental impact assessment (EIA) (Commission of the European Communities 2009) based on over-arching EU law on this topic (European Commission – Environment 2009). EU conservation legislation (Habitats and Birds Directives) must also be complied with and such compliance regularly involves the completion of an Appropriate Assessment (Council Directive 92/43/EEC; Directive 2009/147/EC). This interaction of consenting and MSP is not applicable to the current situations in India, South Africa, or the U.S., where consent is granted on a case-by-case basis because there is no over-arching MSP process in place. Details of the interactions of MSP and consenting for MRE are shown for each OES-Environmental country in Table 11.9. More detailed descriptions can be found at https://​tethys​.pnnl​.gov​/state​-of​-the​-science​-2020​ -supplementary​-marine​-spatial​-planning. A lenges in implementing MSP. It is important to understand these key challenges in order to provide lessons for other countries to learn from when developing MSP and to tackle challenges that may arise across MSP implementations. Only certain countries, primarily those in the EU that have MSP already in place or are working toward its implementation, were in a position to discuss their limiting factors and challenges. For factors limiting implementation of MSP for MRE in OESEnvironmental specific countries, see Table 11.10. More detailed descriptions can be found at https://​tethys​.pnnl​ .gov​/state​-of​-the​-science​-2020​-supplementary​-marine​ -spatial​-planning. 11.10. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT IN MSP I t is widely accepted that transparency, accountability, and openness are key principles for successful planning and decision-making processes. Therefore, to achieve the desired planning objectives, it is essential that the parties whose interests may be affected, or who have a role to play, should take part in the design and operation of the planning process. Public and stakeholder involvement can help responsible authorities carry out their responsibilities, set appropriate priorities, and balance environmental, economic, and social objectives. Having contributed to the process, the public and stakeholders are more likely to have a sense of ownership for it and thus be more committed to its successful implementation. Aside from these factors, public participation is regularly a legal requirement in policy- and decision-making processes. The EU MSP Directive (Directive 2014/89/EU) requires member states to create means of public participation by informing all interested parties and consulting with relevant stakeholders, authorities, and the public at an early stage in the development of their marine spatial plans. Public involvement in MSP for MRE in OES-Environmental countries is summarized in Table 11.11. More detailed descriptions can be found at https://​tethys​.pnnl​ .gov​/state​-of​-the​-science​-2020​-supplementary​-marine​ -spatial​-planning. SECTION D – STRATEGIES FOR ACCELERATING CONSENTING/PERMITTING 229 Table 11.9. Consenting processes that have been developed in the Ocean Energy Systems (OES)-Environmental nations to assist in marine spatial planning (MSP) implementation (arranged alphabetically by European Union [EU] countries first, then the other countries). Country EU MSP-Specific Information France ◆ ◆ Ireland ◆ ◆ Portugal ◆ ◆ Spain ◆ ◆ Sweden United Kingdom (UK) Australia All planning decisions must align with UK Government policy, specifically the Marine Policy Statement (HMG 2011), as well as applicable legislation such as the UK Marine and Coastal Access Act (2009). All licensing applications must take into account the adopted marine plan or the Marine Policy Statement. ◆ ◆ All licensing and consenting decisions need to demonstrate compliance with the policies in the Welsh National Marine Plan (Welsh Government 2019). Implementation guidance is expected from the Welsh Government. When the Marine Plan is adopted, it will be used by public authorities when making decisions that affect the marine area. ◆ Any MRE development has to comply with the federal Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act (1999) requirements. Consent is required for MRE development from the Minister responsible for the Marine and Coastal Act (2018) for Victoria. Ocean energy developments will also be subject to consent conditions, which are site-specific. In issuing a consent, the policies and MSP Framework in the Marine and Coastal Policy (State of Victoria DELWP 2020) must be taken into account, as well as other considerations included in the Marine and Coastal Act (2018). ◆ 230 A complete review of all the MRE licensing decisions in Scotland has not yet been conducted. The planning and consenting authorities will consider the objectives and planning recommendations of the Scottish National Marine Plan (Marine Scotland 2015) and the associated Sectoral and Regional Marine Plans (Marine Scotland 2014). ◆ ◆ Japan There is no strategic plan in place for MRE, and licensing is done on a case-by-case basis. Currently, a number of consents are needed to deploy an MRE device, taking into account environmental aspects, use of the sea space, and energy production. Consents need to be approved by the Ministry for Ecological Transition. ◆ ◆ Northern Ireland The Directorate-General for Natural Resources, Safety and Maritime Services oversees MSP, is responsible for allocation of marine spatial use, and granting a Title for the Private Use of the Maritime Space for licensing any activity that requires a specific spatial area at sea. The Title for the Private Use of the Maritime Space can only be issued if it is in accordance with the Situation Plan (DGRM 2018). The Environment Court is responsible for licensing decisions with guidance from the marine spatial plan, but the plan is not binding ◆ Wales The existing consenting system for MRE development is limited to licenses for site investigation, research, or testing facilities. Legislation has been proposed to modernize the consenting system, including the need to take into account objectives of the National Marine Planning Framework when developing MRE. ◆ ◆ Scotland Consenting decisions to deploy MRE devices are granted by the Coordinating Prefectures, which are also responsible for the MSP consultation for their sea basins. Consenting decisions are based on coherence between the MRE project and • macro-zones identified by the French public authority; • existing marine uses as mapped and defined in the Strategic Façade Planning Documents (Décret n° 2017-724); • the results of an environmental impact assessment clarifying environmental impacts of the project and measures to avoid, reduce, or compensate these impacts, and; • stakeholders providing input on social, economic, and cultural challenges to the MRE project. ◆ MRE consenting gives priority to the acceptability of other stakeholders, with no involvement of other regulatory authorities in individual project consents. OES-ENVIRONMENTAL 2020 STATE OF THE SCIENCE REPORT Table 11.10. Factors that limit the implementation of marine spatial planning (MSP) as it affects marine renewable energy (MRE) development in the Ocean Energy Systems (OES)-Environmental nations (arranged alphabetically by European Union [EU] countries first, then by the other countries). Country EU MSP-Specific Information France ◆ ◆ United Kingdom Data are needed to improve the knowledge of the environmental impacts of MRE technologies, MRE impacts on the economy, and on social and political interactions. MSP implementation is limited by the availability of comprehensive marine data, particularly in light of the potential impacts of climate change. Ireland ◆ No commercial-scale MRE can be consented in Irish waters until the National Marine Planning Framework is completed, which is anticipated to occur in 2021. Legislation will be needed to put the plan into effect and provide for a new consenting system. Portugal ◆ The lack of marine data poses a significant challenge to implementing MSP. Spain ◆ Implementation of MSP and its application to MRE development is limited by the lack of human resources. Sweden ◆ ◆ Lack of data for some specific aspects of the marine environment hampers implementation of MSP. A new planning system is under development that could pose challenges because new requirements for MSP and MRE development may be written. Scotland ◆ MSP implementation is limited by financial resources and the willingness of stakeholders to support it. Wales ◆ Applying the marine spatial plan to MRE consenting requires that practical measures be developed to streamline consenting with a proportionate, risk-based approach. ◆ Although Australia was an early adopter of MSP, it appears that the ocean policy was too ambitious, suffered from a lack of jurisdictional ownership, lacked sufficient clarity of objectives and integration, lacked sufficient scientific understanding, and had inadequate tools for implementation (Vince et al. 2015). The focus has turned to making progress in increasing scientific understanding and developing tools, but jurisdictional complexity remains a limitation. Australia ◆ India ◆ No strong priority is given to ocean energy in the country. Japan ◆ MSP implementation to support MSP consenting has been limited by the lack of available data. Lower technology readiness levels for MRE devices have led to a lack of planning priority, limited financial resources being made available, lack of acceptance by fishermen, and barriers to grid connection. ◆ United States ◆ The lack of a formal national MSP process, legal framework, or founding legislation limits the effectiveness of MRE consenting. SECTION D – STRATEGIES FOR ACCELERATING CONSENTING/PERMITTING 231 Table 11.11. Public involvement in marine spatial planning (MSP) processes by the Ocean Energy Systems (OES)-Environmental nations (arranged alphabetically by European Union [EU] countries first, then by the other countries). Country EU MSP-Specific Information France ◆ ◆ ◆ Ireland ◆ ◆ There is a strong focus on public engagement in the national MSP process, including formal public consultation processes and environmental assessments (DHPLG 2019d). In addition, a number of public regional workshops, seminars, and interactive web-based workshops have been held (DHPLG 2019d). Portugal ◆ Two consultation periods and a number of public meetings were held during development of the preliminary and draft versions of the Situation Plan (DGRM 2018). Spain ◆ Because of the early stage of MSP implementation, no public involvement has occurred. Sweden ◆ Four rounds of public consultation have been held, in addition to dialog at the outset of the MSP process. Although invited, the general public has only participated to a limited degree, but most coastal municipalities have participated and been represented. ◆ United Kingdom (UK) The French Code for the Environment requires public consultation on the Strategic Façade Planning Document (Décret n° 2017-724) prior to the commencement of marine renewable energy (MRE) projects. The EU MSP Directive (Directive 2014/89/EU) demands a greater degree of public consultation, which necessitates earlier public involvement. Based on these regulatory obligations, there have been two rounds of public consultation on the MSP process for the French North Atlantic sea basin area (Décret n° 2017-724; Ministère de la Transition Écologique et Solidaire 2018; 2019b). England ◆ ◆ ◆ The Marine Management Organisation is responsible for public participation, the agency’s engagement with stakeholders, and what to do with the outcomes of any views and opinions received. This involvement is detailed in a Statement of Public Participation for each marine plan area. Stakeholder responses are compiled and, where possible, integrated into the plan, provided they align with other laws and policy, and a summary is published (Marine Management Organisation 2019a; 2019b; 2019c; 2019d). Scotland ◆ Marine Scotland and the Scottish Government have a commitment to “[involve] all relevant stakeholders and members of the public in the development of policies that will impact upon them”, which is detailed in a Statement of Public Participation (Marine Scotland 2015). Wales ◆ Public consultation on the marine spatial plan, specified in a Statement of Public Participation (Welsh Government 2018), was carried out in 2017 and 2018, but it was largely limited to representatives from environmental nongovernmental organizations. The Welsh Government produces regular newsletters to provide updates on progress. ◆ Northern Ireland ◆ ◆ ◆ Australia ◆ ◆ A Statement of Public Participation lays out the public engagement process for the Marine Plan for Northern Ireland (DAERA 2018c). 12 public information events were held in coastal locations, as well as engagement with primary and secondary school students, six sectoral workshops, and continued engagement with Northern Ireland and UK departments with responsibilities in the Northern Ireland marine areas (DOENI 2012). Northern Ireland officials meet regularly with officials responsible for MSP in the Republic of Ireland, because they share a marine border. In Victoria, the draft MSP Framework was developed collaboratively using a co-designing process that involved government and partner agencies (such as the Victorian Fisheries Authority) and marine stakeholders (including fishing and boating representative bodies), the resources sector (including the ocean energy sector), environment groups, and academics. A draft Victorian policy was made available for public comment in 2019. Japan ◆ Although there is no formal MSP process, the public is generally involved at the stage of consensus building and environmental impact assessment development when licensing a project. South Africa ◆ Stakeholder engagement sessions were held during the initial stages of the MSP process and further stakeholder engagement is planned for other phases. Once the Current Status Report has been finalized, there will be stakeholder engagement to communicate the progress in the process and to fill gaps in the available information. ◆ continued 232 OES-ENVIRONMENTAL 2020 STATE OF THE SCIENCE REPORT Country MSP-Specific Information United States (U.S.) ◆ ◆ ◆ Executive Order 13840 (Executive Order 13840) supports federal agency engagement with stakeholders, including Regional Ocean Partnerships, under existing laws and regulations to address ocean-related matters that may require interagency or intergovernmental solutions. Regional Ocean Partnerships provide a public forum at which to discuss ocean planning issues in the U.S. The partnerships generally host discussions with members, stakeholders, and the public; provide a shared regional vision; identify regional goals and objectives; analyze data, uses, services, concurrent uses, potential threats, and impacts; and provide work plans and collaborative products for public comment. Engagement with stakeholders has also been incorporated at multiple points in the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM)'s MRE authorization process for leasing on the U.S. Outer Continental Shelf. Through mechanisms like BOEM’s Intergovernmental Renewable Energy Task Forces, BOEM carries out its mandate to consult with relevant federal agencies, the Governor of any affected state, the executive of any affected local government, and any affected Tribal Nation within the U.S. 11.11. KEY FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS M SP is an approach that can be used locally, regionally, and nationally as a way of improving marine governance and achieving sustainable development. It is clear from the preceding sections that almost all the countries surveyed are advancing some form of MSP. This progress varies by country and can be attributed to a wide range of factors. In the EU, for example, countries are legally mandated to have maritime spatial plans in place by March 2021 (Directive 2014/89/EU), yet some member states are still at the early stages of plan development, whereas others are already reviewing and adapting their plans. This variability in progress can be attributed to a variety of reasons such as different policy drivers, government priorities, and more operational-level challenges related to human and financial resources. Scale can also be an issue because a number of EU member states have huge maritime jurisdictional areas. existing users. Often it is more appropriate and easier to have supporting policies and financial assistance. Once MSP is further along in the implementation process, it would be interesting to look at precisely how, in what way, and at what point MRE and its related infrastructural requirements are incorporated into marine spatial plans. Currently, this seems to occur primarily via stakeholder engagement mechanisms and dedicated meetings with sectoral representatives or their organizations. Development of MSP systems appear to have driven data and information collection and collation in almost every country. This can be motivated by policy requirements, but interestingly can come about as a result of a realization that such data will support other law and policy objectives, putting the principle of “collect data once and use many times” into practice. In the EU, this is particularly the case where implementation of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (Directive 2008/56/EC) necessitates data collection and environmental monitoring. Research projects, both in terms of funded MSP research projects as well as While good practice guidance about how to implement and trial MRE demonstrations and deployments, also act as a evaluate MSP exists, it is possibly too early to successfully scientific data source that can be used in MSP design and evaluate the impacts of MSP on any one sector, because implementation. Generation of data and often the of the status of MRE in the studied countries. A number of requirement to make the data publicly accessible have also country respondents stated that marine renewables, and driven the development of various web portals and reposi- MRE specifically, are still very much a developing sector in tories, some of which have been further advanced and their country. The difference in the development of MSP refined to become tools to assist in implementing MSP. for MRE is probably a reflection of how much importance Such tools are wide-ranging in that, in some cases, their is placed on the growth of the sector in different admin- aim is to increase public knowledge about the marine istrations and countries. Few countries have allocated environment and activities that occur there. Elsewhere, zones for MRE development, despite acknowledgment these dedicated web tools are designed for use by regula- in national and regional energy policies of the poten- tory authorities when they are making decisions about tially transformative role MRE could have in their energy applications related to developments in the marine space. futures. This could be a result of the difficulties involved in In the UK, for example, advances have already been made spatially zoning areas and the need to avoid conflict with in their online data system to make it more iterative, usercentered, and streamlined. SECTION D – STRATEGIES FOR ACCELERATING CONSENTING/PERMITTING 233 In terms of moving MSP forward, there is a need to assure that planners and policy-makers are aware of the needs of MRE. This includes up-to-date information 11.13. REFERENCES from experiences with deployments and their inter- Aquatera Ltd. 2015. Marine and Coastal Tourism and actions with the marine environment, but also their Recreation in the Pentland Firth and Orkney Waters: requirements in terms of supporting infrastructure A Case Study. Stromness, Orkney, Scotland. Report such as access to ports, transport routes, energy stor- by Aquatera Ltd. for Scottish Government. https:// age options, and grid connections. As the MRE industry tethys.pnnl​.gov/publications/marine-coastal-tourism- looks to both the commercialization and development recreation​-pentland-firth-orkney-waters-case-study of large arrays as well as smaller deployments that serve remote or off-grid communities, these needs may vary and MSP will need to address differences such as the appropriate scale for planning processes. Such alignment would assure that key land-based mea- Basic Act on Ocean Policy, Act No. 33 of April 27, 2007 [Japan]. Basque Energy Agency. 2017. Basque Energy Strategy 2030. Bilbao, Spain. https://www.eve.eus/EveWeb/media​ sures to support the MRE sector could be identified at a /EVE/pdf/3E2030/EVE-3E2030-Ingles.pdf national, regional, or local scales, and targeted to align Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM). 2019. A with, and support, areas or zones of sectoral potential. If these types of needs are better understood and recognized by planners, they may help to frame MSP going forward. Developing knowledge about environmental interactions could also assist in minimizing the spatial areas where MRE is prohibited or where there are more consenting and licensing obligations. As more and more countries recognize the potentials presented by MRE in meeting renewable energy targets and reducing greenhouse gas emissions, demands on maritime space are likely to increase. To minimize impacts and maximize sustainable development opportunities, it is critical to have a forward-planning process, such as MSP, supported by an efficient and effective development consenting/licensing system and enforcement regime. Message from BOEM’s Acting Director: The Path Forward for Offshore Wind Leasing on the Outer Continental Shelf. Retrieved from www.boem.gov/newsroom/notes​ -stakeholders/message-boems-acting-director-path​ -forward-offshore-wind-leasing-outer Commission of the European Communities. 2009. Report from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions - On the application and effectiveness of the EIA Directive (Directive 85/337/EEC, as amended by Directives 97/11/ EC and 2003/35/EC). Brussels, Belgium. https://eur-lex​ .europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2009:0378:​ FIN:EN:PDF Commonwealth of Massachusetts. 2020. Massachu- 11.12. ACKNOWLEDGMENT T setts Ocean Management Plan. Retrieved from https://​ www.mass.gov/service-details/massachusetts-ocean​ -management-plan he author thanks all the international OES-Envi- Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the con- ronmental participant country representatives servation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora. for taking the time to complete the questionnaire and garner additional input from their colleagues. The support of the Sustainable Energy Authority of Ireland is also acknowledged. This contribution is based upon projects supported by the Navigate project (Grant-Aid Agreement No. 842 PBA/IPG/17/01), carried out with the support of the Marine Institute, and funded under the Marine Research Programme by the Irish Government, and by Marine and Renewable Energy Ireland: the SFI Research Centre for Energy, Climate and Marine (12/ OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7-50 [European Union]. Décret n° 2017-724 du 3 mai 2017 intégrant la planification maritime et le plan d’action pour le milieu marin dans le document stratégique de façade (Decree n° 2017-724 of 3 May 2017 integrating the maritime planning and action plan for the marine environment in the façade strategic document). https://www.legifrance​ .gouv.fr/eli/decret/2017/5/3/DEVH1632060D/jo/texte (In French). RC/2302). 234 OES-ENVIRONMENTAL 2020 STATE OF THE SCIENCE REPORT Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs Department of the Environment (DOENI). 2012. North- (DAERA). 2018a. Draft Marine Plan for Northern Ireland ern Ireland Marine Plan Statement of Public Partici- - Public Consultation. Marine and Fisheries Division, Bel- pation. Marine Plan Team, Belfast, Northern Ireland. fast, Northern Ireland. https://www.daera-ni.gov.uk/sites​ https://www.nienvironmentlink.org/cmsfiles/policy-hub​ /default/files/consultations/daera/Marine%20Plan%20for​ /files/documentation/Marine/NI-Marine-Plan.pdf %20NI%20final%2016%2004%2018.PDF Department for Environment and Heritage. 2006. Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Marine Planning Framework for South Australia. Ade- Affairs (DAERA). 2018b. Northern Ireland Marine laide, South Australia. http://www.environment.sa.gov​ Mapviewer. Retrieved from https://appsd.daera-ni.gov.uk​ .au/files/c42d2f66-2230-43b6-8945-9e3001187388/mp​ /marinemapviewer/ _framework.pdf Department of Agriculture, Environment, and Rural Department of the Environment and Heritage. 2006. Affairs (DAERA). 2018c. Statement of Public Participa- Marine Bioregional Planning: A new focus for Austra- tion – Marine Plan for Northern Ireland. April 2018. Bel- lia’s marine planning. Australian Government. https://​ fast, Northern Ireland. https://www.daera-ni.gov.uk/sites​ parksaustralia.gov.au/marine/pub/scientific-publications​ /default/files/publications/daera/marine-plan-statement​ /archive/mbp-brochure.pdf -of-public-participation-final-16-april-18.PDF Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. Department of Communications, Climate Action and 2014. East Inshore and East Offshore Marine Plans. Environment (DCCAE). 2018. Offshore Renewable London, England. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk​ Energy Development Plan (OREDP) Interim Review /government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data​ May 2018. Government of Ireland, Dublin, Ireland. /file/312496/east-plan.pdf https://www.dccae.gov.ie/documents/OREDP%20Interim​ %20Review%2020180514.pdf Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. 2018. South Inshore and South Offshore Marine Plan. Department of Communications, Energy and Natural London, England. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk​ Resources (DCENR). 2014. Offshore Renewable Energy /government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data​ Development Plan: A Framework for the Sustain- /file/726867/South_Marine_Plan_2018.pdf able Development of Ireland’s Offshore Renewable Energy Resource. Dublin, Ireland. https://tethys.pnnl.gov​ /publications/offshore-renewable-energy-development​ -plan-framework-sustainable-development-irelands Department for the Economy (DfE). 2019. Offshore Renewable Energy Strategic Action Plan (ORESAP) 2012-2020 - Progress Report 1 April 2018 to 31 March 2019. Belfast, Northern Ireland. https://www.economy-ni.gov.uk/sites​ /default/files/publications/economy/ORESAP-progress​ -report-to-March%202019.pdf Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment (DETI). 2012. Offshore Renewable Energy Strategic Action Plan (ORESAP) 2012-2020. Belfast, Northern Ireland. https://​tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/irelandoffshore-renewable​-energy-strategic-actionplan-2012-2020 Department of Environment, Forestry and Fisheries (DEFF) and Department of Science and Innovation (DSI). 2020. National Oceans and Coastal Information Management System (OCIMS). Retrieved from https://​ www.ocims.gov.za/ Department of Housing, Planning and Local Government (DHPLG). 2017. Towards a Marine Spatial Plan for Ireland – A Roadmap for the delivery of the national Marine Spatial Plan. Dublin, Ireland. https://​ www.housing.gov.ie/planning/marine-spatial-planning​ /towards-marine-spatial-plan-ireland Department of Housing, Planning and Local Government (DHPLG). 2018. National Marine Planning Framework: Baseline Report. Government of Ireland, Dublin, Ireland. https://www.housing.gov.ie/planning/marine​ -spatial-planning/national-marine-planning-framework​ -baseline-report SECTION D – STRATEGIES FOR ACCELERATING CONSENTING/PERMITTING 235 Department of Housing, Planning and Local Govern- Direção-Geral de Recursos Naturais, Segurança e ment (DHPLG). 2019a. National Marine Planning Serviços Marítimos (DGMR). 2020. Ordenamento do Framework: Consultation Draft. Government of Ire- Mar Português: Plano de Situação do Ordenamento do land. https://www.housing.gov.ie/sites/default/files/public​ Espaço Marítimo Nacional [Geoportal/Situation Plan: -consultation/files/draft_national_marine_planning​ Portuguese Sea Ordering National Maritime Spatial _framework_final.pdf Situation Plan]. www.psoem.pt/geoportal_psoem/ (In Department of Housing, Planning and Local Gov- Portuguese). ernment (DHPLG). 2019b. Climate Action Plan 2019 Directive 2008/56/EC of the European Parliament and – To tackle climate breakdown. Government of Ire- of the Council of 17 June 2008 establishing a framework land. https://www.dccae.gov.ie/en-ie/climate-action​ for community action in the field of marine environ- /publications/Pages/Climate-Action-Plan.aspx mental policy (Marine Strategy Framework Directive). Department of Housing, Planning and Local Govern- OJ L 164, 25.6.2008, p. 19-40. ment (DHPLG). 2019c. Marine Planning and Develop- Directive 2009/147/EC of the European Parliament and ment Management Bill – the General Scheme. Beau- of the Council of 30 November 2009 on the conservation champs, Dublin, Ireland. https://www.beauchamps.ie​ of wild birds. OJ L 20, 26.1.2010, p. 7–25. /sites/default/files/inline-files/Beauchamps%20Client​ %20Briefing%20note%20on%20the%20MPDM%20Bill​ .pdf Department of Housing, Planning and Local Government (DHPLG). 2019d. Public Consultation on the Draft National Marine Planning Framework. Retrieved from https://www.housing.gov.ie/planning/marine-planning​ /public-consultation-draft-national-marine-planning​ -framework Department of Land Conservation and Development. 2020. Ocean Planning. Oregon Coastal Management Program. Retrieved from https://www.oregon.gov/lcd​ /OCMP/Pages/Ocean-Planning.aspx Directive 2014/89/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 July 2014 establishing a framework for maritime spatial planning. OJ L 257, 28.8.2014, p. 135–145 Ehler, C. 2008. Conclusions: Benefits, lessons learned, and future challenges of marine spatial planning. Marine Policy, 32(5), 840-843. doi:10.1016/j.marpol.2008​ .03.014 https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/conclusions​ -benefits-lessons-learned-future-challenges-marine​ -spatial-planning Ehler, C. and Douvere, F. 2009. Marine Spatial Planning: a step-by-step approach toward ecosystembased management. Intergovernmental Oceano- Dineshbabu, A.P., Thomas, S., Rohit, P., and Maheswa- graphic Commission and Man and the Biosphere rudu, G. 2019. Marine spatial planning for resource Programme. IOC Manual and Guides No. 53, ICAM conservation, fisheries management and for ensuring Dossier No. 6. UNESCO, Paris, France. https://tethys.pnnl​ fishermen security – global perspectives and Indian .gov/publications/marine-spatial-planning-step-step​ initiatives. Current Science, 116(4), 561-567. doi:10.18520​ -approach-toward-ecosystem-based-management /cs/v116/i4/561-567 https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications​ /marine-spatial-planning-resource-conservation​ -fisheries-management-ensuring-fishermen Direção-Geral de Recursos Naturais, Segurança e Serviços Marítimos (DGMR). 2018. Ordenamento do Espaço Marítimo Nacional – Plano do Situação [National Maritime Spatial Planning – Situation Plan] (Volumes I to VI). Retrieved from http://www.psoem.pt/discussao​ _publica-2/ (In Portuguese). Ehler, C. 2014. A Guide to Evaluating Marine Spatial Plans. IOC Manuals and Guides No. 70; ICAM Dossier No. 8. UNESCO, Paris, France. https://tethys.pnnl.gov​ /publications/guide-evaluating-marine-spatial-plans Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. Act No. 91 of 1999. 16 Jul 1999. Federal Register of Legislation. Australia. Environment (Wales) Act 2016, anaw 3. Retrieved from http://www.legislation.gov.uk/anaw/2016/3/contents​ /enacted 236 OES-ENVIRONMENTAL 2020 STATE OF THE SCIENCE REPORT Estratégia Industrial para as Energias Renováveis Marine Management Organisation. 2019a. North East Oceânicas 2017. No 174/2017. (Industrial Strategy for Marine Plan – Statement of Public Participation: Ocean Renewable Energies (EI-ERO). Portugal. November 2019. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk​ European Commission – Environment. 2009. Environmental Impact Assessment – EIA. Retrieved from https://ec.europa.eu/environment/eia/eia-legalcontext.htm European MSP Platform. 2020. Overview of MSP related maritime uses. Sweden. Retrieved from https://www.msp​ -platform.eu/countries/sweden Executive Order 13547 of July 9, 2010. The Stewardship of the Ocean, Our Coasts, and the Great Lakes. 3 C.F.R. 13547 [U.S.]. /government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data​ /file/857072/Revised_SPP_NE_Clean.pdf Marine Management Organisation. 2019b. North West Marine Plan – Statement of Public Participation: November 2019. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk​ /government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data​ /file/857074/Revised_SPP_NW_Clean.pdf Marine Management Organisation. 2019c. South West Marine Plan – Statement of Public Participation: November 2019. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk​ Executive Order 13783 of March 28, 2017. Promot- /government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data​ ing Independence and Economic Growth. 82 FR 16093 /file/857078/Revised_SPP_SW_Clean.pdf [U.S.]. Marine Management Organisation. 2019d. South East Executive Order 13840 of June 19, 2018. Ocean Policy To Marine Plan – Statement of Public Participation: Advance the Economic, Security, and Environmental November 2019. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk​ Interests of the United States. 83 FR 29431 [U.S.]. /government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data​ Freeman, M. C., Whiting, L., and Kelly, R. P. 2016. /file/857092/Revised_SPP_SE_Clean.pdf Assessing potential spatial and temporal conflicts in Marine Management Organisation. 2020a. North East Washington’s marine waters. Marine Policy, 70, 137144. doi:10.1016/j.marpol.2016.04.050 https://tethys.pnnl​ .gov/publications/assessing-potential-spatial-temporal​ -conflicts-washingtons-marine-waters Inshore and North East Offshore Marine Plan – Draft for consultation. Newcastle upon Tyne, England. https://​ assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads​ /system/uploads/attachment_data/file/857247/DRAFT_NE​ Gobierno de España. 2020. Borrador Actualizado del _Marine_Plan.pdf Plan Nacional Integrado de Energía y Clima [National Marine Management Organisation. 2020b. North West Integrated Energy and Climate Plan] (PNIEC) 2021- Inshore and North West Offshore Marine Plan – Draft 2030. Retrieved from https://energia.gob.es/es-es​ /Participacion/Paginas/DetalleParticipacionPublica.aspx​ ?k=236 for consultation. Newcastle upon Tyne, England. https:// assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads​ /system/uploads/attachment_data/file/857301/DRAFT​ Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act 1975 Park Act 1975. _NW_Marine_Plan.pdf No. 85 of 1975. Federal Register of Legislation. Australia. Marine Management Organisation. 2020c. South East Her Majesty’s Government (HGM). 2011. UK Marine Inshore Marine Plan – Draft for Consultation. Newcastle Policy Statement: HM Government, Northern Ireland Executive, Scottish Government, Welsh Assembly upon Tyne, England. https://assets.publishing.service.gov​ .uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data​ Government. The Stationary Office, London, England. /file/857296/DRAFT_SE_Marine_Plan.pdf https://​tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/uk-marine-policy- Marine Management Organisation. 2020d. South West statement Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009, c.23 [UK]. Marine and Coastal Act 2018 (VIC) [Australia]. Inshore and South West Offshore Marine Plan - Draft for consultation. Newcastle upon Tyne, England. https://​ assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads​ /system/uploads/attachment_data/file/857299/DRAFT​ _SW_Marine_Plan.pdf SECTION D – STRATEGIES FOR ACCELERATING CONSENTING/PERMITTING 237 Marine Management Organisation. 2020e. Map data. Ministère de la Transition Écologique et Solidaire. Explore Marine Plans. Retrieved from https://explore​ 2019a. Stratégie Française Pour L’Énergie et le Climat: -marine-plans.marineservices.org.uk/ Programmation Pluriannuelle de L’Énergie (French Marine Scotland. 2014. Planning Scotland’s Seas: Sectoral Marine Plans for Offshore Wind, Wave and Tidal Energy in Scottish Waters: Analysis of Consultation Responses. Scottish Government, Edinburgh, Scotland. Strategy for Energy and Climate: Multi Annual Energy Plan). République Francaise, Paris, France. https://www​ .ecologique-solidaire.gouv.fr/sites/default/files/Projet​ %20PPE%20pour%20consultation.pdf (In French). https://www.gov.scot/publications/planning-scotlands​ Ministère de la Transition Écologique et Solidaire. -seas-sectoral-marine-plans-offshore-wind-wave-tidal/ 2019b. Politique Maritime Intégrée – Consultation du Marine Scotland. 2015. Scotland’s National Marine Plan– A Single Framework for Managing Our Seas. Scottish Government, Edinburgh, Scotland. https://​ tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/scotlands-national-marine​ -plan-single-framework-managing-our-seas Marine Scotland. 2016. Pilot Pentland Firth and Orkney Waters Marine Spatial Plan. Scottish Government, Edinburgh, Scotland. https://www.gov.scot/publications​ /pilot-pentland-firth-orkney-waters-marine-spatial​ -plan/ Marine (Scotland) Act 2010, asp 5. public et des instances (Integrated Marine Policy - Public and body consultation). Retrieved from http://www​ .dirm.nord-atlantique-manche-ouest.developpement​ -durable.gouv.fr/consultation-du-public-et-des-instances​ -a966.html (In French). Ministry of Economy, Trade, and Industry. 2018. 5th Strategic Energy Plan (Provisional Translation). Government of Japan, Tokyo, Japan. https://www.enecho​ .meti.go.jp/en/category/others/basic_plan/5th/pdf​ /strategic_energy_plan.pdf Ministry of New and Renewable Energy. 2015. Draft National Renewable Energy Act 2015. Gov- Marine Spatial Planning Act 2018. Act No. 16 of 2018. ernment of India, New Delhi, India. http://www​ Republic of South Africa. .indiaenvironmentportal.org.in/files/file/draft-rea-2015​.pdf Marine Spatial Planning Programme. 2018. Status of Ministry of the Presidency. 2019. Government presents MSP. Retrieved from http://msp.ioc-unesco.org/world​ -applications/status_of_msp/ Mid-Atlantic Ocean Data Portal. 2020. Mid-Atlan- Strategic Energy and Climate Framework. Government of Spain. Retrieved from https://www.lamoncloa​ .gob.es/lang/en/gobierno/councilministers/Paginas/2019​ tic Ocean Data Portal. Retrieved from https://portal​ /20190222framework.aspx .midatlanticocean.org/ National Marine Sanctuaries Act of 2000, as amended. Mid-Atlantic Regional Planning Body. 2016. Mid- 16 U.S.C. ch. 32 § 1431 et seq [U.S.]. Atlantic Regional Ocean Action Plan. https://www​ National Oceanic and Atmosphere Administration .boem.gov/sites/default/files/environmental-stewardship​ /Mid-Atlantic-Regional-Planning-Body/Mid-Atlantic​ -Regional-Ocean-Action-Plan.pdf (NOAA) Office for Coastal Management. 2020. Marine Cadastre - An Ocean of Information. Retrieved from https://marinecadastre.gov/ Ministerio de Industria, Turismo y Comercio. 2010. Natural Resources Wales. 2020. Marine Area Statement. Spain’s National Renewable Energy Action Plan 2011- Retrieved from https://naturalresources.wales/about-us​ 2020. Government of Spain. http://pvtrin.eu/assets​ /media/PDF/EU_POLICIES/National%20Renewable​ %20Energy%20Action%20Plan/202.pdf /area-statements/marine-area-statement/?lang=en Nielsen, K., Krogh, J., Kofoed, J. P., Jensen, N. E.H., FriisMadsen, E., Mikkelsen, B. V., and Jensen, A. 2012. Boel- Ministère de la Transition Écologique et Solidaire. gekraftteknologi. Strategi for forskning, udvikling og 2018. Document Stratégique de Façade: Association du demonstration 2012 [Wave energy technology. Strategy Public. République Française, Paris, France. www.dirm​ .nord-atlantique-manche-ouest.developpement-durable​ .gouv.fr/document-strategique-de-facade-association-du​ -a669.html (In French). 238 for research, development and demonstration 2012]. DCE Technical Report No. NEI-DK-5801. Aalborg University, Aalborg, Denmark. https://www.osti.gov/etdeweb​ /biblio/22005452 OES-ENVIRONMENTAL 2020 STATE OF THE SCIENCE REPORT Nielsen, K., Krogh, J., Brodersen, H. J., Steenstrup, P. R., Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity Pilgaard, H., Marquis, L., Friis-Madsen, E. and Kofoed, (SCBD). 2012. Marine Spatial Planning in the Context of J. P. 2015. Partnership for Wave Power - Roadmaps. DCE the Convention on Biological Diversity: A study carried Technical Report No. 186. Aalborg University, Aalborg, out in response to CBD COP 10 decision X/29. CBD Tech- Denmark. https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/partnership​ nical Series No. 68. Montreal, Quebec, Canada. https://​ -wave-power-roadmaps tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/marine-spatial-planning​ Northeast Regional Planning Body. 2016. Northeast -context-convention-biological-diversity Ocean Plan. https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/northeast​ State of Victoria Department of Environment, Land, -ocean-plan Water and Planning (DELWP). 2018. Victoria’s Marine Northeast Regional Ocean Council (NROC). 2020. Northeast Ocean Data Portal. Retrieved from https://​ www.northeastoceancouncil.org/quick-links/ Plan-och bygglag (Planning and Building Act) (2010:900). Retrieved from https://www.riksdagen.se/sv​ /dokument-lagar/dokument/svensk-forfattningssamling​ /plan--och-bygglag-2010900_sfs-2010-900 (In Swedish). Real Decreto 363/2017, de 8 de abril, por el que se establece un marco para la ordenación del espacio marítimo (Decree 363/2017, 8 of April, establishing a framework for the management of the maritime space), BOE 2017, 28802-28810 [Spain]. The Republic of South Africa. 2017. National Framework for Marine Spatial Planning in South Africa. https://iwlearn.net/resolveuid/21f3aa17-e74c-4f3c-8682​ -9e28af296b20 Rhode Island State. 2020. RI Coastal Resources Management Council (CRMC). Retrieved from http://www.crmc​ .ri.gov/index.html and Coastal Reforms – Final Transition Plan. Melbourne, Australia. https://www.marineandcoasts.vic.gov​ .au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0021/330519/Final-Transition​ -Plan_August-2018.pdf State of Victoria Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning (DELWP). 2020. Marine and Coastal Policy. Melbourne, Australia. https://www​ .marineandcoasts.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0027​ /456534/Marine-and-Coastal-Policy_Full.pdf State of Washington. 2020. Washington Marine Spatial Planning. Retrieved from https://www.msp.wa.gov/ Swedish Agency for Marine and Water Management. 2018. Proposal for the Marine Spatial Plan Baltic Sea: Consultation Document. Gothenburg, Sweden. https:// www.havochvatten.se/download/18​.47bf2cd7163855d8 5cae2805/1529995797805/proposal-for​-the-marinespatial-plan-baltic-sea.pdf Swedish Agency for Marine and Water Management. 2019. Proposals for Marine spatial plans for Sweden: Gulf of Bothnia, Baltic Sea, and Skagerrak/Katte- Scottish Government. 2012. Planning. Marine and gat. Gothenburg, Sweden. https://www.havochvatten​ Fisheries. Retrieved from https://www2.gov.scot/Topics​ .se/download/18.56d79bf516b232e9db573cab​ /marine/marineenergy/Planning /1560164109554/proposal-marine-spatial-plans-sweden​ Scottish Government. 2017. Scottish Energy Strategy: -revieiw.pdf The future of energy in Scotland. Edinburgh, Scot- Swedish Agency for Marine and Water Manage- land. https://www.gov.scot/publications/scottish-energy​ ment. 2020. Symphony – a tool for ecosystem-based -strategy-future-energy-scotland-9781788515276/ marine spatial planning. Retrieved from https://www​ Scottish Government. 2018. Sectoral Marine Plan Off- .havochvatten.se/en/swam/eu--international/marine​ shore Wind Scoping Consultation. Retrieved from -spatial-planning/symphony---a-tool-for-ecosystem​ https://www2.gov.scot/Topics/marine/marineenergy​ -based-marine-spatial-planning.html /Planning/smp-scoping-consultation Swedish Government. 2016. Överenskommelse om Scottish Government. 2020. Marine Renewable Energy den svenska energipolitiken [Agreement on Swedish – Planning. Scottish Government. Retrieved from https://www2.gov.scot/Topics/marine/marineenergy​ /Planning Energy Policy]. Government Offices of Sweden, Stockholm, Sweden. Retrieved from https://www.regeringen.se​ /artiklar/2016/06/overenskommelse-om-den-svenska​ -energipolitiken/ SECTION D – STRATEGIES FOR ACCELERATING CONSENTING/PERMITTING 239 The Climate Change Act 2008 (2050 Target Amend- Welsh Government. 2017b. Wales Marine Plan- ment) Order 2019, SI 2009/1056 [UK]. ning Portal. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com​ Université de Nantes. 2019. GIS VALPENA. Retrieved /watch?v=JIigdT4J8Ec from https://valpena.univ-nantes.fr/accueil-du-gis​ Welsh Government. 2018. Statement of Public Par- -valpena-1427390.kjsp?RH=1432731407596&RF=​ ticipation for the Welsh National Marine Plan. Marine VALPENA (In French). Planning, Cardiff, Wales. https://gov.wales/sites​ Victorian Environmental Assessment Council (VEAC). 2019. Assessment of the Values of Victoria’s Marine /default/files/publications/2018-10/statement-of-public​ -participation-for-the-welsh-national-marine-plan.pdf Environment. Melbourne, Victoria. http://www.veac.vic​ Welsh Government. 2019. Welsh National Marine Plan. .gov.au/documents/VEAC%20Marine%20Environment​ Cardiff, Wales. https://gov.wales/sites/default/files​ %20REPORT.pdf /publications/2019-11/welsh-national-marine-plan​ Vince, J., Smith, A. D. M., Sainsbury, K. J., Cresswell, I. -document_0.pdf D., Smith, D. C. and Haward, M. 2015. Australia’s Oceans Welsh Government. 2020. Wales Marine Plan- Policy: Past, present and future. Marine Policy, 57, 1-8. ning Portal. Retrieved from http://lle.gov.wales/apps​ doi:10.1016/j.marpol.2015.02.014 https://tethys.pnnl.gov​ /marineportal/?_ga=2.79479700.1060360826.1565974707​ /publications/australias-oceans-policy-past-present​ -1477372174.1539188259#lat=52.5145&lon=-3.9111&z=8 -future West Coast Ocean Partnership. 2020. West Coast Ocean Welsh Government. 2017a. Natural Resources Data Portal. Retrieved from http://www.westcoastoceans​ Policy Statement. https://gov.wales/sites/default​ .org/west-coast-ocean-data-portal.html /files/publications/2019-05/natural-resources-policy​ -statement.pdf NOTES 240 OES-ENVIRONMENTAL 2020 STATE OF THE SCIENCE REPORT Marine Spatial Planning and Marine Renewable Energy O’Hagan, A.M. 2020. Marine Spatial Planning and Marine Renewable Energy. In A.E. Copping and L.G. Hemery (Eds.), OES-Environmental 2020 State of the Science Report: Environmental Effects of Marine Renewable Energy Development Around the World. Report for Ocean Energy Systems (OES). (pp. 214-241). doi:10.2172/1633204 REPORT AND MORE INFORMATION CONTACT OES-Environmental 2020 State of the Science full report and executive summary available at: https://tethys​.pnnl.gov/publications/state-of-the​-science-2020 Andrea Copping Pacific Northwest National Laboratory andrea.copping@pnnl.gov +1 206.528.3049 SECTION D – STRATEGIES FOR ACCELERATING CONSENTING/PERMITTING Go to https://tethys​.pnnl.gov for a comprehensive collection of papers, reports, archived presentations, and other media about environmental effects of marine renewable energy development. 241 242 OES-ENVIRONMENTAL 2020 STATE OF THE SCIENCE REPORT 12.0 Chapter author: Célia Le Lièvre Contributor: Deborah J. Rose Adaptive Management Related to Marine Renewable Energy As the marine renewable energy (MRE) industry scales up from single devices to commercial-scale deployments, developers and regulators will need evidence of the environmental effects of MRE to inform project development, strategic planning, and consenting/permitting (hereafter consenting) processes. Uncertainty surrounding the potential impacts of novel MRE technologies on sensitive marine animals, habitats, and ecosystem processes means that even robust baseline environmental information cannot comprehensively address all pre-deployment knowledge gaps (Copping 2018). Tools and practical approaches are needed to help with the sustainable development of the industry. Adaptive management (AM), also referred to as learning by/while doing, enables projects to be deployed incrementally, despite uncertainty, in a way that prevents unacceptable harm to the marine environment. If rigorously implemented, this approach may provide a reliable mechanism for closing knowledge gaps, thereby retiring risks (see Chapter 13, Risk Retirement and Data Transferability for Marine Renewable Energy) for future MRE developments. This chapter explores and suggests a pathway for applying a passive approach to AM for the consenting of single devices and array-scale MRE projects. Complementary information is available online at https://tethys.pnnl.gov/stateof-the-science-2020​ -supplementary-adaptivemanagement. SECTION D – STRATEGIES FOR ACCELERATING CONSENTING/PERMITTING 243 12.1. INTRODUCTION TO ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT A M is best defined as an iterative management process that seeks to reduce scientific uncertainty and improve management through rigorous monitoring and Single-loop: adjusting decisions based on technical learning 6. Adjust periodic review of management decisions in response to growing knowledge gained from monitoring data (Copping et al. 2019; Williams et al. 2009). Monitoring asso- 1. Assess Problem Double-loop: reformulating the decision architecture based on technical and institutional learning 2. Design ciated with AM is designed to address specific scientific questions and hence contribute to the wider scientific knowledge base, which can be used to amend decisions, refine policy, and improve consenting processes in light 5. Evaluate 3. Implement of new information (Le Lièvre 2019). 4. Monitor From a procedural perspective, AM is a six-step cycle (Figure 12.1) (Williams et al. 2009): 1. Assess the problem. Conduct baseline monitoring and environmental assessment to assess the problem and define measurable management objectives. 2. Design management actions. In the context of MRE, this refers to the design of the project proposals and mitigation plans, compensation, habitat enhancement measures, and monitoring - all which are informed by the environmental assessment. Figure 12.1. The adaptive management (AM) cycle. The original concept of AM concerned single loop learning, while later additions recognize the value of double loop learning, particularly to inform planning and siting for future MRE installations in a region. (Graphic by Robyn Ricks. Adapted from Williams 2011a; Williams and Brown 2018) monitoring the effects of management measures that reduce uncertainty, and determine whether adjustments are needed to achieve specific mitigation objec- 3. Implement the project. tives, even in the absence of testable hypotheses. By 4. Monitor. Conduct follow-up monitoring to collect accounting for scientific uncertainty and providing new data after the project has been deployed. 5. Evaluate. Evaluate the monitoring results. 6. Adjust. Adapt management and monitoring methods and scope in light of what has been learned from observations. observational data to learn about the effects of management and generate new approaches to MRE development and management, this approach may be particularly beneficial for increasing the global understanding of MRE effects and evaluating the effectiveness of monitoring and mitigation actions. This process follows AM learning outcomes can be applied to a particular proj- the feedback loops to promote learning for subsequent ect (changes in monitoring design, mitigation, or com- development phases of specific projects as well as for pensatory measures), and the learning should provide decision-making for future MRE development. information that supports planning policies and regulation of future MRE proposals—a learning process called testable hypotheses (Walters 1986), to reduce uncer- 12.2. IMPLEMENTING ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT IN AN MRE CONTEXT tainty and accelerate understanding of ecological pro- ot a new concept, AM has been used in other natu- “double-loop” or “institutional” learning (Figure 12.1). AM seeks to design and apply management actions as cesses, which means that certain management actions may be put at risk in order to learn about receptors’ N ral resource management situations (Copping et al. 2019; Williams 2011a, 2011b; Williams and Brown 2014) responses to particular actions. However, often this and holds promise as a useful tool to support the con- compromise is not possible and AM processes focus on senting of MRE projects when the environmental effects 244 OES-ENVIRONMENTAL 2020 STATE OF THE SCIENCE REPORT are not well understood. It can be used to avoid unaccept- the Conservation of Small Cetaceans of the Baltic, North able effects through its systematic and iterative approach East Atlantic, Irish and North Seas] by-catches reduction of learning by doing and adapting as you learn, as well target of 1 percent of the population). While threshold as assisting in determining effects uncovered during the levels might be specifically listed for sensitive species consenting process. While monitoring results collected (e.g., NOAA/Southall underwater noise thresholds, NMFS from single devices may help predict the effects of larger 2018), they do not consider cumulative effects from other arrays, most environmental interactions may not be anthropogenic activities in their implementation. properly understood until multiple devices are actually deployed and monitored in real sea conditions (Copping 2018). An AM approach is therefore likely to be needed to address the risks and uncertainties associated with larger commercial arrays and their potential incremental effects on marine ecosystems. Threshold levels for lethal and sublethal impacts are rarely prescribed in policy or regulations and, as such, must be determined on a case-by-case basis; for example, through the examination of species conservation status (Le Lièvre et al. 2016). Both lethal and sublethal effects such as changes in animal behavior, density, 12.2.1. THE USE OF IMPACT THRESHOLDS IN ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT and distribution are extremely challenging to measure AM can incorporate decision triggers such as thresholds ing and detecting the metrics of concern with the neces- to help guide implementation. Taking an AM approach sary levels of accuracy to inform management decisions based on thresholds requires the definition of acceptable is even more difficult to determine with certainty. Popu- and unacceptable risks. In consenting processes, accept- lation models that seek to translate sublethal impacts to able risks may be quantified by the definition of impact population-level consequences can be applied to MRE thresholds, which set the level of effect that is acceptable developments, but they may not always help identify with respect to the ecology, conservation objectives, and the appropriate metrics to monitor. Uncertainty and the the conservation status of the affected species or natural lack of consistent methods for detecting and estimating habitats. Project-specific thresholds can determine the acceptable impacts or thresholds are significant limita- safe operating conditions within which MRE develop- tions to the use of thresholds/triggers in AM (Johnson ments can be approved and operated, despite uncertainty, 2013). Conservative thresholds will help reconcile AM without causing unacceptable harm to valuable receptors/ with the precautionary principle (see Section 12.3) and features. Results are used to help ensure that ongoing assure that actions are taken before an unacceptable requirements are proportionate to the observed effects. impact occurs. However, at a larger development scale, If information from routine monitoring shows that the unfavorable progress toward thresholds may not be level of an effect or change is likely to cause an unac- detected in time and remedial actions may fail to effec- ceptable impact, corrective mitigation actions should be tively respond and avoid unacceptable impacts on sensi- taken. On the other hand, if the monitoring data indicate tive receptors. AM-based thresholds may be more appro- that risks have been overestimated during the consent- priate for the early (smaller) scale of the wave and tidal ing phase, monitoring and mitigation requirements may energy sector where project-led monitoring focuses on then be reduced and progressively removed in subse- understanding device-specific stressor-receptor interac- quent management decisions. The need to develop and tions such as collision risk. As the industry moves toward adapt modeling approaches and tools that can ascertain commercial deployment, taking an AM approach would be thresholds relevant to wave and tidal energy arrays has more acceptable if it were implemented through staged or been identified as a high research priority for addressing phased approach to consenting processes, whereby proj- risks associated with consenting (ORJIP Ocean Energy ects are deployed in stages, starting with small numbers 2017). In some jurisdictions, regulatory impact thresholds of devices or a small spatial area, and followed by subse- are already defined numerically for underwater noise quent expansion being dependent on monitoring findings. exposure levels and direct mortality of sensitive receptors Monitoring should provide meaningful evidence show- (e.g., National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration ing that the effects of the larger-scale deployments are [NOAA] marine mammal acoustic thresholds, Potential properly understood, prior to approving any subsequent Biological Removal [PBR], ASCOBANS [Agreement on phases. because of the difficulty in confidently measuring direct mortality and monitoring population changes. Identify- SECTION D – STRATEGIES FOR ACCELERATING CONSENTING/PERMITTING 245 AM and the mitigation hierarchy are not incom- 12.2.2. MITIGATION OF RISK patible and can be reconciled. The mitigation If an MRE development is likely to adversely affect the hierarchy offers a prescribed approach for avoid- marine environment, the mitigation hierarchy of the ing unacceptable impacts that may materialize as precautionary principle should apply. The mitigation a result of data gaps, uncertainties, or imperfect hierarchy is a cautious approach to decision-making that monitoring design in an AM process. As more data consists of taking a sequence of steps to avoid, reduce, are gathered through continuous monitoring, and minimize potential negative impacts and, as a last the iterative phase of AM provides a mechanism resort, to compensate for any residual impacts (Figure for evaluating the effectiveness of mitigation and 12.2) (Elliott et al. 2019). Although the mitigation hierar- compensatory measures, learning from experi- chy provides a prescribed approach for reducing impacts, ence, and informing a more effective mitigation it may not reduce uncertainty and facilitate learning as toolkit for future developments (Hanna et al. emphasized by AM principles (Hanna et al. 2016). In the 2016). face of data gaps and uncertainty, the mitigation hierar- Practically speaking, for single devices or small chy may instead result in the continuation or reinforcement of mitigation or compensatory measures throughout the project, thereby hampering the generation of useful science for regulatory decision-makers. Conversely, the purpose of AM is to reduce scientific uncertainty through an iterative process of environmental monitoring and adjustment of management actions. As rightly observed by Hanna et al. (2016), “striking the appropriate balance between mitigating and compensating for potential impacts versus detecting change is a dilemma with which regulators and industry must concern themselves if they are to develop AM approaches that meaningfully reduce scientific uncertainty.” arrays, mitigation takes the form of post-deployment monitoring and feedback mechanisms as integral parts of the project design. At the large development scale, mitigation measures must be considered and, in some cases, implemented from the beginning of the project and not solely when monitoring data indicate an undesirable trend toward impact thresholds. At the top of the mitigation pyramid (Figure 12.2), impacts may be avoided through technology choice and/or by using well-informed designated development areas for MRE projects within an over-arching marine spatial plan (see Chapter 11, Marine Spatial Planning and Marine Renewable Energy). This technique, also known as macro-siting, may not always be feasible where sites with MRE resources correspond to biodiversity hotspots and protected sites. In these cases, the focus of mitigation in AM Avoid Avoid Minimize Avoid siting of turbines or wave energy converters in sensitive habitats, in areas of heavy use by sensitive marine species, or known migratory corridors, particularly for marine mammals, fish, and diving seabirds. Minimize Mitigate Restore/ Compensate Restrict construction activities during marine mammal or fish migratory seasons, and minimize footprint of device and cabling. Mitigate Implement effective mitigation measures to reduce collisions, effects of underwater noise from devices, and effects of electromagnetic fields from cables. Restore/Compensate Protect or restore habitats that support sensitive species away from the project site. Figure 12.2. The mitigation hierarchy. The mitigation hierarchy is used to avoid impacts when possible, minimize remaining impacts, mitigate to diminish impacts, and provide compensation for unavoidable impacts. (Graphic by Robyn Ricks. Adapted from Elliott et al. 2019) 246 OES-ENVIRONMENTAL 2020 STATE OF THE SCIENCE REPORT should be to assure that the impacts of consented MRE At the project level, post-installation monitoring also projects are reduced and mitigated to acceptable levels. serves to verify that project effects do not exceed levels of Mitigation measures may consist of spatially arranging acceptable change and to adjust the mitigation or com- the MRE device layout, a mitigation measure also known pensatory measures initially adopted on the basis of pre- as “micro-siting” or “smart device positioning”. caution. Likewise, post-consent monitoring design should Curtailment and shutdown protocols have been tested in combination with AM to mitigate and reduce the uncertainty surrounding collision risks with marine mammals (Copping et al. 2016; Fortune 2017). Where no close provide data that can be used to refine the accuracy of both impact thresholds and detected effects, as well as to determine whether additional monitoring and mitigation are required to address predicted and unforeseen impacts. encounter events are allowed to occur, curtailment could Poor monitoring precision produces inaccurate evidence limit the ability of AM to reduce uncertainty and could be leading to inappropriate management decisions. If the poorly suited to undertaking AM. However, the approach statistical power of monitoring data is too low, regulators taken by SeaGen shows that, despite strict protection of may make decisions believing that monitoring indicates species for which zero tolerance of loss is acceptable, AM no change beyond their thresholds of tolerance (Le Lièvre may still be employed to decrease uncertainty about col- et al. 2016). Monitoring programs will yield more useful lision risks by progressively reducing the precautionary information if a question-directed approach is used and shutdown perimeter of a tidal turbine from an excessive data collection methods are designed to answer well- distance of 200 m to less than 30 m (see Section 12.4.2). defined and hypothesis-driven environmental questions Curtailment and temporary shutdowns of turbine opera- (Copping et al. 2019). A question-led approach to moni- tion may be overly restrictive in addition to being techni- toring will help design surveys that provide useful data cally difficult to implement for certain turbine designs. for validating model predictions and supporting AM pro- Likewise, these measures are arguably insufficient to cesses (Hanna et al. 2016). Question-directed monitoring address all negative impacts, especially those resulting also may help address the problem of data-rich informa- from displacement and disturbance-related habitat loss tion-poor (DRIP), i.e., an undesirable situation in which, or changes in oceanographic systems. despite extensive data collection in the field, post-consent 12.2.3. POST-INSTALLATION MONITORING Creating a successful AM scheme is highly contingent upon the design of monitoring programs that are sufficiently well designed to detect changes, as well as man- monitoring results do not provide useful information that can be used to reduce scientific uncertainty (Ward et al. 1986; Wilding et al. 2017). This is crucial because DRIP monitoring undermines the success of AM and, in turn, the confidence regulators have in the process. agement triggers that can meaningfully inform regula- To date, the application of AM has been primarily directed tors (Le Lièvre et al. 2016). AM also requires a consenting at reducing uncertainty about the nearfield effects of regime that has the flexibility to encompass such an single or limited numbers of MRE devices and their mov- approach if it is being used as a tool to enable deployments ing parts. Post-consent monitoring has mainly been in areas in which the knowledge base is incomplete. Post- implemented to determine whether collisions occur installation monitoring is generally required by regulators in tidal environments or to assess underwater noise at to validate model predictions in environmental assess- wave energy sites; hence, monitoring is not necessarily ments. In the context of AM, the primary purpose of post- designed to follow a before-after-control impact (BACI) installation monitoring is to provide an evidence base for approach. For larger array-scale deployments, the MRE reducing the scientific uncertainty associated with impact industry may benefit from applying more systematic BACI assessments and for informing decision-making related studies whereby changes in receptors of value to stake- to future MRE proposals (Bennet et al. 2016). AM is used to holders are monitored prior to installation, during con- enable deployments when the existing uncertainty causes struction, and during operation of an MRE project (Bennet significant delays in consenting. However, designing and et al. 2016; Magagna et al. 2012). Embracing a BACI or sim- implementing successful AM is contingent on the efficacy ilar monitoring design will be useful in framing relevant of monitoring and the ability to detect change, as well the monitoring questions and evaluating changes in response effectiveness of management actions. to installation and operation of multiple devices. SECTION D – STRATEGIES FOR ACCELERATING CONSENTING/PERMITTING 247 AM includes other actions beyond monitoring. For indi- in project design, operations, and/or monitoring studies. vidual projects, additional information gained through An example of this occurred during consenting with the single-loop learning may not be sufficient to reduce Reedsport Implementation Committees which had the uncertainty about population impacts, and may not ability to determine whether a change in the project was deliver the full benefit that AM has to offer to the MRE required as a result of meeting a screening criterion, and sector. Small-scale MRE projects sited in areas where whether the prescribed management practices continued marine animals are widely dispersed will significantly to be appropriate (Section 12.4.5). complicate the evaluation of impacts on populations at the individual project level (Fox et al. 2018). By adopting through, for example, strategic environmental assess- 12.3. ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT AND THE PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE ments and strategic research studies supported by gov- he precautionary principle is used as a preventive a bottom-up approach where data gained from multiple projects feed into broader marine governance processes ernment bodies, it may be possible for monitoring to yield additional information, thereby enabling greater regulator confidence and supporting risk retirement during future consenting processes. The MRE sector will particularly benefit from the double-loop learning cycle of AM (Jones 2005), in which lessons learned from past and current projects can inform collective AM for future planning of MRE projects and scientifically informed licensing decisions (Figure 12.1). In principle, double-loop learning in AM may fill many data gaps, allowing developers to save significant time when developing detailed environmental assessments to inform consenting. This will, however, only be possible if monitoring data and methods for data collection, analysis, and presentation are consistent and shared at the appropriate level (Copping 2018). Examples of MRE applications of AM processes are discussed later. The AM taken in the MeyGen tidal project (Section 12.4.1) in Scotland required phased development with monitoring requirements specifically designed to answer key scientific questions about biological impacts before receiving consents to proceed to the next phase. Similarly, the AM framework for the PacWave project (formerly Pacific Marine Energy Center South Energy Test Site) in the United States (U.S.) required that monitoring results be reviewed by designated regulatory agencies to implement predefined corrective actions, if the project effects exceed certain thresholds or mitigation criteria (Section 12.4.7). The AM approach taken for the Ocean Renewable Power Company’s RivGen, U.S. (Section 12.4.6), SeaGen, United Kingdom (UK) (Section 12.4.2), DeltaStream, UK (Section 12.4.3), and Ocean Power Technology’s Reedsport Wave Park, U.S. (Section 12.4.5), required that if specific monitoring results were found, a set of triggers could re-start consultation with the regu- T action in the face of uncertainty, shifting the bur- den of proof to the proponents of an activity, exploring a wide range of alternatives to possibly harmful actions, and increasing public participation in decision-making (Kriebel et al. 2001). The primary way the precautionary principle has been applied to MRE is through the mitigation hierarchy of avoidance, reduction, minimization, and compensation (Figure 12.2). While application of the precautionary principle provides a rational approach to avoiding irreversible harm, its implementation through the mitigation hierarchy offers reduced flexibility for addressing scientific uncertainty and promoting iterative learning for future developments. Regulators are faced with an uncertainty paradox, i.e., a paradoxical situation in which regulators take a precautionary approach, requesting an extensive amount of data and information from developers to understand the risks, but the data, in turn, cannot deliver decisive evidence to meet the requested level of certainty (Van Asselt and Vos 2006). While the monitoring of single devices may help understand the incremental effects of sizable arrays, the 2016 State of the Science report stressed that it is unlikely risk will scale in a simple linear fashion as the number of devices increase (Copping et al. 2016). Relying on the precautionary principle alone could lead to situations in which developers and regulators will never understand whether the perceived negative interactions of MRE technologies really exist and, if they do, how they can be resolved and minimized efficiently for future projects (Copping 2018; Todt and Lujan 2014). The purpose of the precautionary principle is the use of rigorous science to prevent unacceptable harm to marine life. Critical to the achievement of rigorous science is the flexibility to integrate scientific methods and data outputs into regulatory lator and/or an advisory group, in order to adopt changes decision-making (Tickner and Kriebel 2008). With this in 248 OES-ENVIRONMENTAL 2020 STATE OF THE SCIENCE REPORT mind, AM may play an important role in the application under which AM is acceptable depend on the form of AM of the precautionary principle, while working to reduce and the strength of the application of the precautionary uncertainty and provide early warnings of adverse effects principle in the jurisdiction in which the consenting is on marine receptors. taking place. A distinction has been made between pre- The interplay between AM and the precautionary principle is ambiguous. AM has sometimes been described as an alternative to the paralyzing effect of the precautionary principle (Pembina Institute for Appropriate Development v. Canada 2008). More pragmatic views see AM and the precautionary principle as complementary approaches in biodiversity conservation (Cooney 2006; Morgera 2017). Complementing the application of the precautionary principle with AM is increasingly accepted as a best practice for delivering proportionate and risk-based MRE consenting (Köppel 2014; Le Lièvre 2019). In most nations, reliance on the precautionary principle is subject to the principle of proportionality, which, in simple terms, requires that measures adopted on the basis of precaution must be proportionate to the perceived level of environmental risk. As such, it is gen- scriptive and flexible AM (Copping et al. 2019). Flexible AM has been predominantly used to address uncertainty about the interactions of single devices that have negligible adverse effects on marine features. At the scale of larger arrays, the value of using prescriptive AM lies in its capacity to incorporate new monitoring feedback into decision-making, while providing regulators with a degree of certainty that corrective mitigation measures will be taken before acceptable thresholds of change or disturbance are exceeded (Hanna et al. 2016). Hanna et al. (2016) also point out that this latter approach would provide developers with greater certainty about the costs of implementing AM. AM may still be used flexibly in larger developments to provide the regulator with a safeguard for prohibiting further deployment phases until specified corrective actions have been taken. erally accepted that precautionary measures should be Overall, the question of whether AM is consistent with of a temporary nature pending the availability of addi- the precautionary principle should be informed by a tional scientific evidence (Gillespie 2013). As new data are case-by-case evaluation of the level of scientific uncer- gathered through continuous monitoring, the intensity tainty and the gravity of the anticipated threat. AM of monitoring and mitigation requirements should be was described as "safe-fail" (Grieg and Murray 2008), proportionally responsive to the extent and probability of meaning that AM should be applied when failure is an the environmental threat (Trouwborst 2006). This is the acceptable outcome. This suggests that AM may not Achilles heel of AM. The use of AM allows for provisional be appropriate for all receptors, especially at a large decisions to be made despite uncertainty and responds deployment scale. If the overriding goal is to protect to knowledge deficits by constantly monitoring and re- features of high conservation value, the need to protect evaluating the mitigation initially considered appropriate these sensitive features may be more important than on the precautionary basis. As such, AM may be viewed the desire to address the uncertainty associated with as a good practice for applying proportionate precautions MRE projects. The conservation status of affected spe- and risk management to MRE consenting. cies or habitats should always inform the regulator and Implementing AM while adhering to the precautionary principle demands the use of rigorous procedural safeguards and a commitment to communicating uncertainty with transparency. AM cannot be used to offer unbounded discretion to decision-makers. AM should not be proposed without any degree of certainty that mitigation measures will be effective. Likewise, AM cannot substitute for demonstrating that substantive legal and regulatory conservation standards will be met throughout the lifespan of MRE projects. The conditions developers’ appetite for risk (Le Lièvre et al. 2016). The adoption of conservative thresholds and trigger levels that incorporate precautionary margins and acknowledge the extant levels of uncertainty will be key for AM to work consistently with the precautionary principle. Implementing AM in this manner offers a relevant response mechanism for reducing scientific uncertainty while assuring that no unintended adverse impacts will occur as a result of insufficient or imprecise data available during the initial approval phase. SECTION D – STRATEGIES FOR ACCELERATING CONSENTING/PERMITTING 249 12.4. EVALUATING THE SUCCESS OF ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT AT SELECTED MRE DEVELOPMENT SITES A M implementation has supported the deployment of several wave and tidal projects, thereby contrib- uting to the testing of certain monitoring technologies, and it has answered some fundamental questions about the environmental interactions of single devices and small arrays. The case studies described in the following sections demonstrate how AM has been applied to consented projects, including the MeyGen tidal project (Scotland), the SeaGen tidal turbine (Northern Ireland), the DeltaStream tidal turbine (Wales), the Roosevelt Island Tidal Energy project (U.S.), Ocean Power Technology’s Reedsport Wave Park (U.S.), and the Ocean Renewable Power Company’s TidGen and RivGen turbine power systems (U.S.). 12.4.1. MEYGEN TIDAL PROJECT The MeyGen tidal energy demonstration project in Pentland Firth (Scotland) is the world’s largest commercial tidal development and has applied an AM approach through a staged consenting process. Development consent was granted by Marine Scotland, on behalf of the Scottish Minister, for the construction and operation of 61 fully submerged turbines with a consented capacity of 86 MW. The Scottish Minister, on the advice of nature conservation bodies, consented the whole project on the condition that the first phase of development was implemented with only six turbines and those turbines were monitored before the deployment of additional turbines (Marine Scotland 2013). The conclusions derived from the environmental assessment process, prescribed under the European Union (EU) Habitats Directive (1992), were that significant adverse effects might occur as a result of predicted levels of collision with protected species, including seabirds, grey seals (Halichoerus grypus), harbor seals (Phoca vitulina), Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar), and sea lampreys (Petromyzon marinus). assure development consents are given with full knowledge of the potential impacts on protected species. AM enabled the developer to achieve the full project consent necessary for investor confidence, while delivering a phased approach following the survey-deploy-monitor licensing policy for licensing (Marine Scotland 2016). In 2017, Marine Scotland granted development consent to install Phase 1b, which comprised four more turbines of 6 MW each. Deployment of Phase 1c is intended to take place in 2021–2022 and will be highly contingent upon monitoring outcomes from Phases 1a and 1b. If deployed, Phase 1c will consist of a further 49 turbines, bringing the total capacity of Phase 1 to 86 MW. Further information about the specifics of the AM plan and results of environmental monitoring for MeyGen can be found in Chapter 3 (Collision Risk for Animals around Turbines); however, some results are commercially sensitive and not yet publicly available. 12.4.2. SEAGEN TIDAL TURBINE The Northern Ireland Environment and Heritage Service and Marine Current Turbines (MCT) installation applied an AM approach to the deployment and operation of MCT’s SeaGen turbine in Strangford Lough (Northern Ireland). Strangford Lough is designated as a Special Area of Conservation (SAC) and Special Protection Area (SPA) under the EU Habitats Directive (1992) and Birds Directive (2009). The main environmental concern was whether the turbine would have an adverse impact on the use of the Lough by harbor seals, a feature of the SAC that has an unfavorable conservation status (Keenan et al. 2011). There was also uncertainty about whether there was a risk of collision for harbor seal and harbor porpoises (Phocoena phocoena) with the turbine blades. Although not a protected species of the SAC, harbor porpoises are subject to a strict protection regime to keep them from harm, including death, physical injury, and disturbances, under the Habitats Directive (1992). In this case, the key aspects of AM focused on marine mammals. A comprehensive environmental monitoring plan was developed as a condition of the license and was complemented by an AM approach that required continuous review of monitoring data and management measures by an independently Phase 1a was limited to six turbines and subject to a com- chaired Scientific Steering Group. Monitoring objectives prehensive monitoring program designed to measure the for marine mammals included a zero-risk mortality toler- behavior of mobile species near the turbines and the find- ance for collision with the turbine blades (Savidge et al. ings were to be used to validate collision risk models. All 2014). Associated mitigation measures included a restric- subsequent project phases are subject to prior approval to tion to daylight operation and the use of Marine Mam- 250 OES-ENVIRONMENTAL 2020 STATE OF THE SCIENCE REPORT mal Observers (MMOs) onboard the tidal platform; the to an SPA designated under the EU Habitats Direc- MMOs had the ability to shut down the turbine whenever tive (1992) and Birds Directive (2009). The license for marine mammals were observed to cross the agreed-upon installation and operation was granted in 2011 by Natu- shutdown action perimeter of 200 m (Fortune 2017). The ral Resources Wales for a 12-month deployment period effectiveness of an active experimental sonar system was of a single 400 kW turbine mounted on a steel triangu- also tested as a mitigation measure to assist in the detec- lar gravity-based frame. DeltaStream was successfully tion of marine mammals (Hastie et al. 2014). deployed and connected to the grid in 2015. The great- After three years of post-installation monitoring, marine mammals appeared to be unlikely to collide with the turbine within the agreed-upon shutdown action perimeter. Monitoring activities showed that seals and harbor porpoises tend to avoid the SeaGen turbine, which reduced the likelihood of marine mammal collisions (Keenan et al. 2011). Field data provided indications that SeaGen did not create a barrier effect for harbor seals transiting through the Strangford Narrows; they continued to use haulout sites during turbine operation (Sparling et al. 2017). Monitoring data also demonstrated that active sonar was effective in mitigating collision risk in a manner comparable to MMOs (Fortune 2017). Mitigation monitoring changed from daylight only with MMOs on the turbine structure to 24-hour manual observation of active sonar, which allowed the turbine to be operated on a 24-hour basis, but with the significant requirement for trained personnel to be on duty whenever the turbine was operating. As knowledge of the environmental effects of SeaGen increased, the precautionary shutdown distance was progressively reduced from 200 m to 100 m, and then to less than 30 m (Savidge et al. 2014). Final removal of the shutdown protocol, with associated fine-scale monitoring around the turbine blades using a new multibeam sonar system, albeit authorized, was not implemented before the device stopped operating in 2015, prior to eventual decommissioning in 2019. The mitigation requirements resulted in missed opportunities to gain relevant knowledge about how marine mammals interact with the operating turbine blades. Despite this, the AM process allowed MCT to install and operate the SeaGen turbine over a period of five years, thereby increasing the developer’s confidence in the technology and its capacity to deliver power to the grid (Fortune 2017). 12.4.3. DELTASTREAM TIDAL TURBINE An AM approach was used to license Tidal Energy Limited’s grid-connected 400 kW DeltaStream tidal energy project in Ramsey Sound, off the Pembrokeshire coast in Wales. Ramsey Sound is within a SAC and adjacent est environmental concerns were for the collision with the turbine of a variety of cetacean species protected from killing or disturbance under the Habitats Directive (1992), including harbor porpoise and grey seal. The DeltaStream project relied on a threshold-based approach to AM where acceptable collision thresholds were set using a potential biological removals (PBR) approach (Copping et al. 2016.). PBR is a widely used method of determining the level of additional manmade mortality a population can sustain without adversely affecting its size and stability (Wade 1998). A detailed Collision Monitoring and Adaptive Management Plan established the approach to marine mammal monitoring to determine the real level of collision risks in the face of uncertainty (Copping et al. 2016; Sparling, personal communication). The nearfield monitoring planned for this project included a passive acoustic monitoring system with several hydrophones directly mounted on the turbine substructure together with an active acoustic monitoring system that used a multibeam sonar to detect animals approaching the device (Malinka et al. 2018). Unlike the SeaGen turbine project, the DeltaStream project had no shutdown mitigation requirements, but it applied a flexible AM approach in which the need for mitigation could be identified and required by the Environmental Management Body to reduce the risk of collision-related mortalities and ensure that thresholds were not breached (Copping et al. 2016; Sparling, personal communication). The mitigation steps outlined in the collision risk management plan included the potential for limiting turbine operation during sensitive times and the use of acoustic deterrents. By consenting the project without the need for a shutdown protocol, the deployment of the DeltaStream turbine was designed to provide information about close-range interactions between marine mammals and the operating device to work in conjunction with an acoustic strike detection system that appeared to be highly reliable to detect collisions. However, as the project progressed, the ability of the nearfield monitoring to confidently detect collisions using a strike-detec- SECTION D – STRATEGIES FOR ACCELERATING CONSENTING/PERMITTING 251 tion system became highly uncertain. The DeltaStream complete understanding of the fundamental questions project illustrates the challenges of monitoring in the to be answered under each RMEE plan. Hydroacoustic presence of thresholds in AM (as discussed in Section data enabled Verdant to suspend use of the seasonal 12.2.1), because these thresholds require the ability to Dual-Frequency Identification Sonar (DIDSON) obser- accurately monitor and detect certain metrics of con- vation plan based on the finding that further DIDSON cern to confirm whether an unacceptable impact occurs data collection would not yield additional information or a threshold/trigger has been reached. Because of about fish interactions (Verdant Power 2018). The DID- equipment failure and subsequent liquidation of Tidal SON system also was found to have achieved its objec- Energy Limited, the DeltaStream turbine and moni- tive of providing real-time observation of fish behavior toring system was never operated for any significant at the micro-scale to enable refinement of the Fish length of time. Interaction Model. With these data incorporated, the 12.4.4. ROOSEVELT ISLAND TIDAL ENERGY PROJECT In 2012, the U.S. Federal Energy Regulation Commission (FERC) issued a 10-year Pilot License (FERC No.12611) to Verdant Power for the installation of up to 30 hydrokinetic turbines to be deployed during three phases in the model suggested that there was a low probability that fish would collide with the turbine blades of the up to 30 turbines planned for installation. AM allowed Verdant to discontinue surveys that do not yield meaningful information and redirect monitoring efforts toward continually enhancing monitoring plans for species of concern. phase of Verdant Power’s Roosevelt Island Tidal Energy 12.4.5. REEDSPORT WAVE PARK (RITE) project consisted of three turbines mounted on a Ocean Power Technology (OPT)’s Reedsport Wave tri-frame with a total capacity of 105 kW (Verdant Power Park project received a full commercial-scale license in 2010a). Three additional redesigned tri-frames and nine August 2012 to operate up to 10 grid-connected Pow- turbines will be installed in 2020, with a total capacity of erBuoy wave energy converters (WECs), each of which 420 kW. The last phase will culminate with the installa- has a capacity of 1.5 MW. A preliminary consent was tion of 6 tri-frames supporting 18 additional turbines, also secured by OPT to install additional WECs during with a total capacity of 1 MW. The project represents the future phases, which could have brought the overall application of AM to support the execution of a series capacity to 50 MW. Reedsport Wave Park was proposed of seven RITE Monitoring of Environmental Effects under a phased consenting approach using AM as a cor- (RMEE) plans (Verdant Power 2010b). In this particular nerstone. Under terms of the license, Phase 1 consisted case, AM was not applied to adapt the management of of installing a single 150 kW unit largely intended to the project. Instead, AM was directed at reducing scien- test the mooring system and the WEC operation, and tific uncertainty within the RMEE plans to address key to collect data about electromagnetic fields (EMFs) and environmental questions related to the characterization the underwater noise of the device. An AM process was of species and the effects of the turbine (and gener- embedded in a Settlement Agreement, which included ated operating noise) on the presence, distribution, and following a long-term process of engagement with abundance of aquatic species. The RMEE plans consisted stakeholders and regulatory agencies (OPT 2010). The of seven focal monitoring studies addressing (1) the AM process for OPT aimed at “managing the develop- micro-scale interaction of aquatic species with the tur- ment and operation of the project in an adaptive man- bine, (2) the fish composition in the immediate vicinity ner to avoid and minimize adverse effects to aquatic of the project, (3) the occurrence of protected fish spe- resources, water quality, recreation, public safety, cies under the Endangered Species Act (1973), (4) the crabbing and fishing, terrestrial resources and cultural potential for turbine impacts on seabirds, (5) the occur- resources” (OPT 2010). Specifically, the project AM was rence of underwater noise generated by the project, intended to support the implementation of monitoring and (7) the installation’s impact on recreation (Verdant studies and to identify and adjust measures required to Power 2019). During the AM process, the usefulness of address any unanticipated effects of the project and its the data collected was reviewed to suggest adjustments potential expansion (OPT 2010). The Settlement Agree- of the RMEE plans and/or suspend their implementation ment included detailed environmental studies for pin- until the data yielded sufficient information to provide nipeds and cetaceans, EMFs, fish, and seabirds, as well 252 OES-ENVIRONMENTAL 2020 STATE OF THE SCIENCE REPORT east channel of the East River (New York, U.S.). The first as changes in waves, currents, and sediment transport. unit would have minimal effects on marine wildlife. The The requirements of the agreement relied on the screen- process resulted in a number of license modifications ing criteria that could define changes in project design, that clarified the monitoring requirements and, in some monitoring, or management practices if prescribed cases, lowered the frequency of monitoring required for by an advisory body (or Implementation Committee), specific surveys (ORPC 2017). The core objective of mon- to avoid or minimize potential adverse impacts. The itoring was to collect data about fisheries and marine life screening criteria included detailed baseline character- interactions with the turbine and to measure the effects izations of marine mammal behavior (in the absence of underwater noise on sockeye salmon (Oncorhynchus of devices) and their response to EMFs and underwater nerka), marine mammals, and seabirds (ORPC 2013). noise. Particular attention was given to whether marine Data were collected under six monitoring plans; AM mammals were likely to collide with or become entan- provided a strategy for evaluating the monitoring results gled in mooring systems. If the project had an adverse and making informed decisions about the modification effect on baseline conditions, OPT was required to pre- of monitoring plans, as needed. pare an avoidance, minimization, and mitigation plan (Response Plan) that included alternative management measures. Alternative management measures were not determined at the start but were left to the later determination of the developer and approval by the competent Implementation Committee. At this point in time, the extent to which AM contributed to reducing uncertainty and informing the future expansion of Reedsport Wave Park cannot be evaluated, because the FERC license was surrendered two years after the project was approved. The license was surrendered mainly because of difficulties related to financing Phase 1 and technical complications resulting from installation of the floating gravity-based anchor, as well as the unfortunate sinking of the subsurface buoyancy float. The project was withdrawn before the AM process could be applied to the full project timeline (O’Neil et al. 2019). 12.4.6 ORPC’S TIDGEN AND RIVGEN POWER SYSTEMS Ocean Renewable Power Company (ORPC) has a track record of implementing AM to reduce scientific uncertainty when modifying project operations and monitoring methodologies at the scale of single devices (e.g., TidGen and RivGen projects). Using conditional licensing, with AM as a basis, ORPC was granted a Pilot Project License (FERC No. 12711-005) by FERC in 2012 to install and operate TidGen, a single horizontal-axis tidal turbine, in Cobscook Bay, Maine (U.S.) (FERC No. 12711-005). An AM plan that served as the foundation for monitoring and science-based decision-making was required under the Pilot License. The AM plan was developed by ORPC’s Adaptive Management Team (AMT) in consultation with regulatory agencies, stakeholders, and local communities. Using the AM process, ORPC, with the support of the AMT, was able to demonstrate that their single tidal Initially, the Pilot License for the TidGen project imposed a seasonal restriction window on pile-driving operations because of the presence of migrating Atlantic salmon. Alleviation of seasonal restrictions under the AM plan was dependent on the results of underwater monitoring, which demonstrated that sound levels produced by pile-driving hammer techniques (outside the restriction period) did not exceed the acceptable threshold established by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS 2018). Underwater noise measurements from the installation of TidGen indicated that noise levels were below the thresholds of concern for Atlantic salmon when sound absorption measures, including the placement of plywood between the impact hammer and the follower, were used during pile driving (ORPC 2013). Using these thresholds and transferring underwater noise data from a previous project allowed ORPC to request the removal of seasonal restrictions on pile-driving for Phase 1 operations, which was granted by FERC. Monitoring for marine mammals during the installation and operational phase included incidental and dedicated observations made by trained MMOs. Incidental observations were performed over several seasons to observe marine mammal presence and behavior around the turbine prior to, during, and after key installation and maintenance activities, including pile-driving (ORPC 2013). Mitigation for the presence of marine mammals entering or approaching a 152 m marine mammal exclusion zone during pile-driving included curtailment and delay of installation activities (ORPC 2013). Cessation of pile-driving activities was required until the marine mammal had moved beyond 305 m (1000 ft) from the exclusion zone or 30 minutes had passed since the last sighting (ORPC 2013). Dedicated marine mammal observations indi- SECTION D – STRATEGIES FOR ACCELERATING CONSENTING/PERMITTING 253 cated minimal changes in animal presence and behavior (Phase 2) is planned for 2020 (FERC No. 13711-003). The as a result of generated noise levels during pile-driving project relies heavily on AM to address environmental activities (ORPC 2013). Marine mammals were not visu- unknowns and take corrective actions if monitoring indi- ally observed to enter the exclusion zone; therefore, cates any unanticipated adverse effects on aquatic ani- the shutdown and delay procedures were not triggered mals (FERC No. 13711-003, Article 403). The Pilot License during the installation period (ORPC 2013). Incidental includes requirements for real-time video monitoring and marine mammal sightings did not indicate any behavioral the immediate shutdown of the project within one hour if changes or evidence of adverse encounters or collisions injuries or mortality of outmigrating sockeye smolts are during the installation and operation of TidGen (ORPC detected as a result of turbine operation. The Emergency 2014). These findings resulted in a FERC license order that Shutdown Plan, which includes provisions for monitor- allowed ORPC to fully transition from dedicated observa- ing and reporting, will serve as a source of information for tions, whereby marine mammals are recorded by certified recommending corrective mitigation actions (FERC 2019). MMOs as part of a dedicated survey effort, to incidental If fish monitoring data provide evidence of negative inter- marine mammal observations (ORPC 2014). actions (injuries or mortality) on migrating salmon, the In a similar approach, during 2014 and 2015 AM allowed for the deployment of the RivGen demonstration project in the Kvichak River in Alaska, U.S., without requiring a FERC Pilot License. A fish monitoring plan required the use of underwater video cameras to monitor fish interactions with the device and the evaluation and mitigation of possible adverse effects on sockeye salmon. The video AMT may have to consider additional monitoring efforts and implement work timing windows to reduce and/or eliminate negative impacts on fish populations (FERC No. 13711-003, Article 403). Conversely, if no adverse effects are observed throughout the first year of operation, the AMT may submit recommendations to FERC to modify the monitoring protocol and shutdown plan. footage revealed the absence of physical injuries and no Overall, the RivGen and TidGen projects provide exam- altered behavior of the fish in the immediate vicinity of ples of how AM may be used to understand environmen- the turbine. It was determined that mitigation measures tal risks, inform best management practices, and modify were not necessary. In this way, AM was able to contrib- license requirements based on increased data collection ute to the retirement of collision risk for fish around the and understanding of environmental effects and species single RivGen tidal unit (ORPC 2016). These findings were interactions (Johnson 2016). also presented by ORPC at the Cobscook Bay Tidal Energy Project AMT meeting in 2014 and 2015 (ORPC 2015, 2016), suggesting that transfer of data is a real possibility from the industry perspective and can definitely be used to inform future developments (see Chapter 13, Risk Retirement and Data Transferability for Marine Renewable Energy). The 2015 monitoring project is referenced in the FERC license for the next stage of the Iguigig Hydrokinetic Project (FERC No. 13511-003) and the methods used previously will be implemented again, more extensively (FERC 2019). The short sampling periods in 2014 and 2015 limited broader transferability of the data. 12.4.7 PACWAVE SOUTH PROJECT Oregon State University (OSU) developed a detailed AM framework to support a license application to install and operate a grid-connected wave energy test facility: the PacWave South Project, formerly known as Pacific Marine Energy Center South Energy Test Site. The project consists of four grid-connected berths to support testing of up to 20 commercial-scale WECs with a maximum installed capacity of 20 MW. As part of their AM framework, OSU has committed to implementing monitoring programs for underwater noise, habitat Knowledge gained at the RivGen demonstration project changes, and EMFs to confirm assumptions about the facilitated the issuance of a recent Pilot License authoriz- levels and durations of potential effects, coupled with ing the installation and operation of the current phase of processes for taking corrective actions in consultation the RivGen project in the Kvichak River, near the village with competent regulatory agencies (OSU 2019a). The of Iguigig. The RivGen project consists of two in-stream AM framework for PacWave South seems to embody a turbine generator units (TGUs), each of 35 kW capacity, prescribed approach to AM, whereby monitoring results to be deployed in two distinct phases. Installation of TGU are evaluated in consultation with an Adaptive Manage- 1 (Phase 1) was completed in 2019. Installation of TGU 2 ment Committee (AMC) and agency stakeholders to 254 OES-ENVIRONMENTAL 2020 STATE OF THE SCIENCE REPORT review project effects, make changes to monitoring, and If after taking these steps, noise levels are not abated engage specific responsive actions where these effects within 14 days, the operation of WECs will be temporarily exceed certain thresholds or mitigation criteria. The AM ceased to halt noise threshold exceedances (OSU 2019a). framework will also inform decisions, including those about the need to adopt additional protection, mitigation, and enhancement measures to assure that the potential effects are within the thresholds and meet the criteria prescribed for the project. While it goes beyond the scope of this chapter to detail the catalog of measures and the AM process applied by PacWave South, the approach is relatively similar with respect to EMFs. If post-installation field measurements and modeling results detect EMF emissions greater than For example, with respect to benthic habitats, if moni- biologically relevant levels (e.g., 3 mT), OSU has the toring results indicate that WECs and their components obligation to notify the AMC and instruct testing clients have a statistically significant impact beyond the range of to adopt specific actions, including, but not limited to, seasonal/interannual variability on macrofaunal species installing additional shielding of subsea cables or other composition or abundance, OSU will be obliged to sub- components such as hubs or subsea connectors. Fur- mit a draft plan to implement the following mitigation ther in situ monitoring is prescribed to verify the abate- actions with accompanying implementation timelines ment of excess EMF levels, and if EMF levels cannot be and monitoring provisions to assess the effectiveness of minimized, a draft mitigation plan must be prepared to the measures (OSU 2019a): implement specified mitigation actions until the source of ◆ Limit use of specific anchor types in future installations. exceedance is reduced to below the acceptable threshold. ◆ Modify and manage the deployment frequency or Further information can be found in the FERC license location to enable recovery of macrofauna. application (OSU 2019a) and the accompanying AM Use permanent anchoring systems (e.g., for the life of Framework (OSU 2019b). ◆ the project). ◆ Conduct additional in situ monitoring. Similarly, if underwater noise monitoring results show persistent exceedance of published harassment thresholds (120 dB re 1 μPa) at a distance of 100 m from the WECs or their mooring systems, OSU is obliged to instruct testing clients to diagnose and repair or modify the WECs or mooring systems within 60 days, to continue monitoring activities, and to demonstrate the effectiveness of the noise abatement measures. In addition, OSU is required to notify NMFS about whether further exceedances of harassment thresholds occur after implementation of the corrective actions. If, despite repairs and modifications, the noise level is not reduced below acceptable thresholds, further actions are prescribed, including the provision of a draft plan specifying the following, among other actions: ◆ ◆ T his chapter provides an explanation of AM and how its underlying principles may be applied to develop- ing effective approaches for addressing uncertainty and knowledge gaps in consenting processes. To date, AM has contributed to risk retirement by allowing single devices or small arrays to be deployed under a structured incremental approach with embedded mitigation and monitoring, thereby providing valuable information about device-specific stressor/receptor interactions. As the industry moves toward commercial deployment, implementation guidance should be issued by responsible governmental bodies to support a common alternative or additional methods of monitoring understanding of AM and guide the design of AM plans to identify the source and cause of the noise and to at the scale of MRE arrays. The industry will particularly inform specific actions necessary to reduce the noise benefit from guidance documents that specify the cir- below the threshold cumstances under which AM is acceptable and establish modifications to the operation of the WECs (e.g., mod- clear and mandatory elements of AM plans, including ify controls to change the motion of the WECs) ◆ 12.5. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS necessary repairs and modifications to reduce noise levels. the design of and conditions for post-installation monitoring, stakeholder engagement, information sharing, and thresholds for AM intervention. SECTION D – STRATEGIES FOR ACCELERATING CONSENTING/PERMITTING 255 As the industry moves forward, MRE developers that fisheries counterparts by using clearly controlled rules 12.6. REFERENCES for monitoring and evaluating project effects relative Bennet, F., Culloch, R., and Tait, A. 2016. Guidance on use AM for marine renewables could learn from their to predefined thresholds, including the ability to adjust mitigation and monitoring as part of a formal structured AM process (McDonald et al. 2017; Sainsbury et al. 2000). Monitoring approaches must be question-driven and the questions must be directly connected to thresholds/triggers to avoid unacceptable impacts. In practice, designing monitoring that informs and works with thresholds may be extremely challenging; it requires the ability to confidently measure and monitor the appropriate metrics of concern with the required levels of accuracy and precision to inform management decisions. It is important to realize that engaging in an AM approach may not result in quick wins: AM is a long process that requires forethought and commitment, and AM comes with a degree of risk for developers. Developers must accept that the operational schemes of their projects might be altered or terminated if monitoring indicates harm is being done to sensitive species or other valuable uses. Large MRE projects consented effective adaptive management and post-consent monitoring strategies (RiCORE Project Report No. RiCORED5-2D5-4). Report by Robert Gordon University for European Commission; Aberdeen, Scotland. https://​ tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/guidance-effective-adaptive​ -management-post-consent-monitoring-strategies Birds Directive (Directive 2009/147/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 November 2009 on the conservation of wild birds). OJ L 20, 26.1.2010, p. 7-25. [European Union] Cooney, R. 2006. A long and winding road? Precaution from principle to practice in biodiversity conservation. In E. Fisher, J. Jones, and R. von Schomberg (Ed.), Implementing the Precautionary Principle; Perspectives and Prospects (pp. 223-244). Cheltenham, England: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited. https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications​ /long-winding-road-precaution-principle-practice​ -biodiversity-conservation on the basis of AM informing project phasing might Copping, A. 2018. The State of Knowledge for Envi- never achieve full build out, and regulators might ronmental Effects: Driving Consenting/Permitting require project decommissioning if the related impacts for the Marine Renewable Energy Industry. Report are deemed unacceptable. Likewise, the success of AM by Pacific Northwest National Laboratory for Ocean largely depends on the regulator’s risk acceptance and Energy Systems. https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications​ attitude about proportionality. Before engaging in an AM /state-knowledge-environmental-effects-driving​ approach, regulators and developers should undertake -consentingpermitting-marine-renewable an explicit, structured analysis of the resources they have available and consider the need for and practicality of reducing uncertainties. While AM offers some flexibility to consent and deploy MRE projects despite uncertainty, AM at larger deployment scales has the potential to become an onerous process that creates significant financial uncertainty for project developers. To date, AM is the only known method capable of dealing with Copping, A., Gartman, V., May, R., and Bennet, F. 2019. The Role of Adaptive Management in the Wind Energy Industry. In R. Bispo, J. Bernardino, H. Coelho, and J. L. Costa (Eds.), Wind Energy and Wildlife Impacts (pp. 1-25). Cham, Switzerland: Springer. https://tethys.pnnl.gov​ /publications/role-adaptive-management-wind-energy​ -industry the levels of existing uncertainty associated with MRE Copping, A., Sather, N., Hanna, L., Whiting, J., projects as well as the interaction of MRE projects with Zydlewski, G., Staines, G., Gill, A., Hutchinson, I., other industries and other challenges, including climate O’Hagan, A., Simas, T., Bald, J., Sparling, C., Wood, J., change. Advancing the use of AM for MRE will require and Masden, E. 2016. Annex IV 2016 State of the Sci- the development of mechanisms that minimize undue ence Report: Environmental Effects of Marine Renew- financial risks for developers, while assuring adequate able Energy Development Around the World. Report by protection of the marine environment and consistency Pacific Northwest National Laboratory for Ocean Energy relative to the precautionary principle. Systems. https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/state-of-the​ -science-2016 256 OES-ENVIRONMENTAL 2020 STATE OF THE SCIENCE REPORT Elliott, K., Smith, H. C. M., Moore, F., van der Weijde, A. Hanna, L., Copping, A., Geerlofs, S., Feinberg, L., H., and Lazakis, I. 2019. A systematic review of trans- Brown-Saracino, J., Bennet, F., May, R., Köpel, J., Bull- ferable solution options for the environmental impacts ing, L., and Gartman, V. 2016. Adaptive Management of tidal lagoons. Marine Policy, 99, 190-200. doi:10.1016​ White Paper. IEA Wind Task 34: Assessing Environ- /j.marpol.2018.10.021 https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications​ mental Effects (WREN) Technical Report. Report by /systematic-review-transferable-solution-options​ Berlin Institute of Technology of International Energy -environmental-impacts-tidal-lagoons Agency. https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/assessing​ Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. 16 U.S.C. ch. 35 § 1531 et seq. [U.S.] Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). 2019. Environmental Assessment for Hydropower License: Igiugig Hydrokinetic Project - FERC Project No. 13511003. Office of Energy Projects, Washington, D.C. https://​ tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/environmental-assessment​ -hydropower-license -environmental-effects-wren-adaptive-management​ -white-paper Hastie, G. D., Gillespie, D. M., Gordon, J. C. D., Macaulay, J. D. J., McConnell, B. J., and Sparling, C. E. 2014. Tracking Technologies for Quantifying Marine Mammal Interactions with Tidal Turbines: Pitfalls and Possibilities. In M. A. Shields and A. I. L. Payne (Eds.), Marine Renewable Energy Technology and Environmental Interactions (pp. 127-139). Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands. Fortune, F., Gilmore, P., and Bennet, F. 2017. Adaptive https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/tracking-technologies​ Management Systems - Don’t make the same mis- -quantifying-marine-mammal-interactions-tidal​ takes twice! Webinar conducted by European Technol- -turbines-pitfalls ogy and Innovation Platform for Ocean Energy (ETIP) Ocean. https://tethys.pnnl.gov/events/webinar-adaptive​ -management-systems-dont-make-same-mistakes​ -twice Johnson, C. J. 2013. Identifying ecological thresholds for regulating human activity: Effective conservation or wishful thinking? Biological Conservation, 168, 57-65. doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2013.09.012 https://tethys.pnnl.gov​ Fox, C. J., Benjamins, S., Masden, E. A., and Miller, R. /publications/identifying-ecological-thresholds-regulating​ 2018. Challenges and opportunities in monitoring the -human-activity-effective-conservation-or impacts of tidal-stream energy devices on marine vertebrates. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 81(2), 1926-1938. doi:10.1016/j.rser.2017.06.004 https://​ tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/challenges-opportunities​ -monitoring-impacts-tidal-stream-energy-devices​ -marine Gillespie, A. 2013. Conservation, Biodiversity and International Law. Cheltenham, England: Edward Elgar Publishing. https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/conservation​ -biodiversity-international-law Greig, L., and Murray, C. 2008. Peer Review of Rockfort Quarry Adaptive Management Plan. Jagger Hims Ltd., Collingwood, Ontario. https://www.peelregion.ca​ /planning/pdf/rockfort/rockfort2.pdf Johnson, N. 2016. Adaptive Management in the Marine Renewable Energy Industry. Webinar conducted by Ocean Energy Systems Annex IV. https://tethys.pnnl​ .gov/events/adaptive-management-marine-renewable​ -energy-industry-webinar Jones, G. 2005. Is the management plan achieving its objectives? In G. L. Worboys, M. Lockwood, and T. De Lacy (Eds. Second ed.), Protected Area Management: Principles and Practice (pp. 555-557). Melbourne, Australia: Oxford University Press. https://tethys.pnnl.gov​ /publications/management-plan-achieving-its-objectives Keenan, G., Sparling, C., Williams, H., and Fortune, F. 2011. SeaGen Environmental Monitoring Programme: Final Report. Report by Royal Haskoning for Marine Habitats Directive (Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 Current Turbines; Edinburgh, Scotland. https://tethys​ May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and .pnnl.gov/publications/seagen-environmental-monitoring​ of wild fauna and flora). OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7-50. -programme-final-report [European Union] SECTION D – STRATEGIES FOR ACCELERATING CONSENTING/PERMITTING 257 Köppel, J., Dahmen, M., Helfrich, J., Schuster, E., and Malinka, C. E., Gillespie, D. M., Macaulay, J. D. J., Joy, Bulling, L. 2014. Cautious but Committed: Moving R., and Sparling, C. E. 2018. First in situ passive acoustic Toward Adaptive Planning and Operation Strategies monitoring for marine mammals during operation of for Renewable Energy’s Wildlife Implications. Envi- a tidal turbine in Ramsey Sound, Wales. Marine Ecology ronmental Management, 54(4), 744-755. doi:10.1007​ Progress Series, 590, 247-266. doi:10.3354/meps12467 /s00267-014-0333-8 https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications​ https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/first-situ-passive​ /cautious-committed-moving-toward-adaptive-planning​ -acoustic-monitoring-marine-mammals-during​ -operation-strategies-renewable -operation-tidal-turbine Kriebel, D., Tickner, J., Epstein, P., Lemons, J., Levins, Marine Scottland. 2013. MeyGen Decision - Decision R., Loechler, E. L., Quinn, M., Rudel, R., Schettler, T., and Letter Consent and Conditions. Scottish Government. Stoto, M. 2001. The precautionary principle in environ- https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/consent-granted​ mental science. Environmental Health Perspectives, 109(9), -scottish-ministers-construct-operate-meygen-tidal​ 871-876. doi:10.1289/ehp.01109871 https://tethys.pnnl​ -energy-project .gov/publications/precautionary-principle-environmental​ -science Marine Scottland. 2016. Survey, Deploy and Monitor Licensing Policy Guidance. Scottish Government. Le Lièvre, C. 2019. Sustainably reconciling offshore https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/survey-deploy​ renewable energy with Natura 2000 sites: An interim -monitor-licensing-policy-guidance adaptive management framework. Energy Policy, 129, 491-501. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2019.02.007 https://tethys​ .pnnl.gov/publications/sustainably-reconciling-offshore​ -renewable-energy-natura-2000-sites-interim-adaptive McDonald, G., Harford, B., Arrivillaga, A., Babcock, E. A., Carcamo, R., Foley, J., Fujita, R., Gedamke, T., Gibson, J., Karr, K., Robinson, J., and Wilson, J. 2017. An indicator-based adaptive management framework and Le Lièvre, C., O’Hagan, A., Culloch, R., Bennet, F., and its development for data-limited fisheries in Belize. Broadbent, I. 2016. Legal feasibility of implementing Marine Policy, 76, 28-37. doi:10.1016/j.marpol.2016.11​ a risk-based approach to MRE consenting and com- .027 https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/indicator-based​ patibility with Natura 2000 network (RiCORE Project -adaptive-management-framework-its-development​ Report No. 2.3 & 2.4). Report by University College -data-limited-fisheries Cork for European Commission; Aberdeen, Scotland. https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/legal-feasibility​ -implementing-risk-based-approach-mre-consenting​ -compatibility-natura Morgera, E. 2017. The ecosystem approach and the precautionary principle. In M. Faure, E. Morgera, and J. Razzaque (Eds.), Elgar Encyclopedia of Environmental Law: Biodiversity and Nature Protection Law (Vol. III, pp. 70-80). Magagna, D., Greaves, D., Conley, D., O’Hagan, A. M., Cheltenham, England: Edward Elgar Publishing. Holmes, B., Witt, M., Simas, T., Olivares, C. H., Leitão, https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/ecosystem-approach​ J. C., Mouslim, H., Torre-Enciso, Y., Sundberg, J., and -precautionary-principle Rousseau, N. 2012. How Experiences of the Offshore Wind Industry Can Aid Development of the Wave Energy Sector: Lessons Learnt From EIA Studies. Paper presented at the 22nd International Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference, Rhodes, Greece. https://tethys​ .pnnl.gov/publications/how-experiences-offshore-wind​ -industry-can-aid-development-wave-energy-sector​ -lessons National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2018. 2018 Revision to: Technical Guidance for Assessing the Effects of Anthropogenic Sound on Marine Mammal Hearing (Version 2.0): Underwater Thresholds for Onset of Permanent and Temporary Threshold Shifts (NMFSOPR-59). Report by National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration for U.S. Department of Commerce; Silver Spring, Maryland. https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications​ /2018-revisions-technical-guidance-assessing-effects​ -anthropogenic-sound-marine-mammal 258 OES-ENVIRONMENTAL 2020 STATE OF THE SCIENCE REPORT Ocean Power Technologies (OPT). 2010. Reedsport O’Neil, R., Staines, G., and Freeman, M. 2019. Marine OPT Wave Park Settlement Agreement. Report by Hydrokinetics Regulatory Processes Literature Review. Ocean Power Technologies; Reedsport, Oregon. https://​ Report by Pacific Northwest National Laboratory for tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/reedsport-opt-wave-park​ U.S. Department of Energy; Richland, Washington. -settlement-agreement https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/marine-hydrokinetics​ Ocean Renewable Power Company (ORPC). 2013. Cob- -regulatory-processes-literature-review scook Bay Tidal Energy Project: 2012 Environmental Oregon State University (OSU). 2019a. Final License Monitoring Report. Report by Ocean Renewable Power Application for the PacWave South Project (FERC Proj- Company; Portland, Maine. https://tethys.pnnl.gov​ ect No. 14616). Volume III: Appendix I: Potection, Miti- /publications/cobscook-bay-tidal-energy-project-2012​ gation, and Enhancement Measures. Report by Oregon -environmental-monitoring-report State University; Corvallis, Oregon. https://tethys.pnnl​ Ocean Renewable Power Company (ORPC). 2014. Cob- .gov/publications/pacwave-south-license-application scook Bay Tidal Energy Project: 2013 Environmental Oregon State University (OSU). 2019b. Final License Monitoring Report. Report by Ocean Renewable Power Application for the PacWave South Project (FERC Company; Portland, Maine. https://tethys.pnnl.gov​ Project No. 14616). Volume III: Appendix J: Adap- /publications/cobscook-bay-tidal-energy-project-2013​ tive Management Framework. Report by Oregon State -environmental-monitoring-report University; Corvallis, Oregon. https://tethys.pnnl.gov​ Ocean Renewable Power Company (ORPC) 2015. Cob- /publications/pacwave-south-license-application scook Bay Tidal Energy Project: 2014 Environmental Pembina Institute for Appropriate Development v. Can- Monitoring Report. Report by Ocean Renewable Power ada, 2008 FC 302, para. 32. [Canada] Company; Portland, Maine. https://tethys.pnnl.gov​ /publications/cobscook-bay-tidal-energy-project-2014​ -environmental-monitoring-report Sainsbury, K. J., Punt, A. E., and Smith, A. D. M. 2000. Design of operational management strategies for achieving fishery ecosys- Ocean Renewable Power Company (ORPC). 2016. Cob- tem objectives. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 57(3), scook Bay Tidal Energy Project: 2015 Environmental 731-741. doi:10.1006/jmsc.2000.0737 https:// Monitoring Report. Report by Ocean Renewable Power tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/design-operational​ Company; Portland, Maine. https://tethys.pnnl.gov​ -management-strategies-achieving-fishery-ecosystem​ /publications/cobscook-bay-tidal-energy-project-2015​ -objectives -environmental-monitoring-report Savidge, G., Ainsworth, D., Bearhop, S., Christen, Ocean Renewable Power Company (ORPC). 2017. Cob- N., Elsaesser, B., Fortune, F., Inger, R., Kennedy, R., scook Bay Tidal Energy Project: 2016 Environmental McRobert, A., Plummer, K. E., Pritchard, D. W., Spar- Monitoring Report. Report by Ocean Renewable Power ling, C. E., and Whittaker, T. J. T. 2014. Strangford Lough Company; Portland, Maine. https://tethys.pnnl.gov​ and the SeaGen Tidal Turbine. In M. A. Shields and A. /publications/cobscook-bay-tidal-energy-project-2016​ I. L. Payne (Eds.), Marine Renewable Energy Technology -environmental-monitoring-report and Environmental Interactions (pp. 153-172). Dordrecht: Offshore Renewables Joint Industry Programme (ORJIP) Ocean Energy. 2017. The Forward Look: An Springer Netherlands. https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications​ /strangford-lough-seagen-tidal-turbine Ocean Energy Environmental Research Strategy for Sparling, C., Thompson, D., and Booth, C. 2017. Guide the UK. Report by Aquatera Ltd for The Crown Estate, to Population Models used in Marine Mammal Impact Marine Scotland Science, Welsh Assembly Government, Assessment. JNCC Report No. 605. Report by Joint Scottish Natural Heritage, Natural Resources Wales; Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC), Peterbor- Stromness, Scotland. https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications​ ough, England. https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/guide​ /forward-look-ocean-energy-environmental-research​ -population-models-used-marine-mammal-impact​ -strategy-uk -assessment SECTION D – STRATEGIES FOR ACCELERATING CONSENTING/PERMITTING 259 Tickner, J., and Kriebel, D. 2008. The role of science and Verdant Power. 2019. Roosevelt Island Tidal Energy precaution in environmental and public health policy. Project, FERC No. P-12611, Article 401 RMEE Plan In E. Fisher, J. Jones, and R. Von Schomberg (Eds.), Amendments. Report by Verdant Power LLC; New York, Implementing the Precautionary Principle: Perspectives and New York. https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/roosevelt​ Prospects (pp. 58-78). Cheltenham, England: Edward -island-tidal-energy-project-ferc-no-p-12611-article​ Elgar Publishing. https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications​ -401-rmee-plan-amendments /implementing-precautionary-principle Wade, P. R. 1998. Calculating Limits to the Allow- Todt, O., and Luján, J. L. 2014. Analyzing Precaution- able Human-Caused Mortality of Cetaceans and ary Regulation: Do Precaution, Science, and Innovation Pinnipeds. Marine Mammal Science, 14(1), 1-37. Go Together? Risk Analysis, 34(12), 2163-2173. doi:10.1111​ doi:10.1111/j.1748​-7692.1998.tb00688.x https:// /risa.12246 https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/analyzing​ tethys.pnnl.gov/publications​/calculating-limits-allowable- -precautionary-regulation-do-precaution-science​ human-caused-mortality​-cetaceans-pinnipeds -innovation-go-together Walters, C. 1986. Adaptive Management of Renewable Trouwborst, A. 2006. Precautionary Rights and Duties Resources. Basingstoke, England: MacMillan Publish- of States. Leiden, Netherlands: Martinus Nijhoff Pub- ers Ltd. https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/adaptive​ lishers. https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/precautionary​ -management-renewable-resources -rights-duties-states Ward, R. C., Loftis, J. C., and McBride, G. B. 1986. The van Asselt, M., and Vos, E. 2006. The Precautionary Prin- “data-rich but information-poor” syndrome in water ciple and the Uncertainty Paradox. Journal of Risk Research, quality monitoring. Environmental Management, 10(3), 9(4), 313-336. doi:10.1080/13669870500175063 https://​ 291-297. doi:10.1007/BF01867251 https://tethys.pnnl.gov​ tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/precautionary-principle​ /publications/data-rich-information-poor-syndrome​ -uncertainty-paradox -water-quality-monitoring van Hees, S. 2018. Large-scale Water-related Innova- Wilding, T. A., Gill, A. B., Boon, A., Sheehan, E., Dauvin, tive Renewable Energy Projects and the Habitats and J. C., Pezy, J.-P., O’Beirn, F., Janas, U., Rostin, L., and Birds Directives: Legal Issues and Solutions. European De Mesel, I. 2017. Turning off the DRIP (‘Data-rich, Energy and Environmental Law Review, 27(1), 15-36. https://​ information-poor’) – rationalising monitoring with a tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/large-scale-water-related​ focus on marine renewable energy developments and -innovative-renewable-energy-projects-habitats-birds the benthos. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Verdant Power. 2010a. Roosevelt Island Tidal Energy Project FERC No. 12611 (Volume 1 of 4). Report by Verdant Power LLC; New York, New York. https://tethys.pnnl​ .gov/publications/final-pilot-license-application-roosevelt​ -island-tidal-energy-project Verdant Power. 2010b. Roosevelt Island Tidal Energy Project FERC No. 12611 (Volume 4 of 4). Report by Verdant Power LLC; New York, New York. https://tethys.pnnl​ .gov/publications/roosevelt-island-tidal-energy-project​ -rite-proposed-monitoring-plans-rite-monitoring Verdant Power. 2018. Appendix B: P12611- Addendum to Verdant Power RITE Draft License Application. Report by Verdant Power LLC; New York, New York. https://​ tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/addendum-verdant-power​ -rite-draft-license-application 260 74, 848-859. doi:10.1016/j.rser.2017.03.013 https:// tethys.pnnl​.gov/publications/turning-drip-data-richinformation​-poor-rationalising-monitoring-focusmarine Williams, B. K. 2011a. Adaptive management of natural resources—framework and issues. Journal of Environmental Management, 92(5), 1346-1353. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman​ .2010.10.041 https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/adaptive​ -management-natural-resources-framework-issues Williams, B. K. 2011b. Passive and active adaptive management: Approaches and an example. Journal of Environmental Management, 92(5), 13711378. doi:10.1016​/j.jenvman.2010.10.039 https:// tethys.pnnl.gov/publications​/passive-active-adaptivemanagement-approaches​-example OES-ENVIRONMENTAL 2020 STATE OF THE SCIENCE REPORT Williams, B. K., and Brown, E. D. 2014. Adaptive Man- Williams, K., Szaro, R., and Shapiro, C. 2009. Adap- agement: From More Talk to Real Action. Environmental tive management: The U.S. Department of the Interior Management, 53(2), 465-479. doi:10.1007/s00267-013​ technical guide. Report by U.S. Geological Survey for U.S. -0205-7 https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/adaptive​ Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C. https:// -management-more-talk-real-action tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/adaptive​-management-us- Williams, B. K., and Brown, E. D. 2018. Double-Loop department-interior-technical-guide Learning in Adaptive Management: The Need, the Challenge, and the Opportunity. Environmental Management, 62, 995–1006. doi:10.1007/s00267-018-1107-5 https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/double-loop-learning​ -adaptive-management-need-challenge-opportunity NOTES Adaptive Management Related to Marine Renewable Energy Le Lièvre, C. 2020. Adaptive Management Related to Maritime Renewable Energy. In A.E. Copping and L.G. Hemery (Eds.), OES-Environmental 2020 State of the Science Report: Environmental Effects of Marine Renewable Energy Development Around the World. Report for Ocean Energy Systems (OES). (pp. 242-261). doi:10.2172/1633206 REPORT AND MORE INFORMATION CONTACT OES-Environmental 2020 State of the Science full report and executive summary available at: https://tethys​.pnnl.gov/publications/state-of-the​-science-2020 Andrea Copping Pacific Northwest National Laboratory andrea.copping@pnnl.gov +1 206.528.3049 SECTION D – STRATEGIES FOR ACCELERATING CONSENTING/PERMITTING Go to https://tethys​.pnnl.gov for a comprehensive collection of papers, reports, archived presentations, and other media about environmental effects of marine renewable energy development. 261 262 OES-ENVIRONMENTAL 2020 STATE OF THE SCIENCE REPORT 13.0 Chapter authors: Andrea E. Copping, Mikaela C. Freeman, Alicia M. Gorton, Lenaïg G. Hemery Risk Retirement and Data Transferability for Marine Renewable Energy WHAT DO WE MEAN BY “RISK RETIREMENT”? T his chapter discusses a process for facilitating consenting for single marine renewable energy (MRE) device deployments, demonstration projects and small arrays, whereby each potential risk need not be fully investigated for every project. Rather we recommend that MRE developers and regulators rely on what is known from already consented projects, from related research studies, or from findings from analogous offshore industries. When larger arrays of MRE devices are planned, or when new information comes to light, these risks can be revisited and new decisions about the level of risk downgrading or retirement can be made. The intent of the process is to provide assistance to regulators in their decision-making and to inform the MRE community of what is likely to be required for consenting single device deployments, demonstration projects and small arrays, as well as to help distinguish between perceived and actual risk to the marine environment. Risk retirement will not take the place of any existing regulatory processes, nor will it completely replace the need for appropriate data collection before and after MRE device deployment; baseline data that are not available for a particular site may be needed to enable an assessment of site-specific environmental sensitivities, verify risk retirement findings and add to the overall knowledge base. Large-scale marine renewable energy (MRE) developments continue to progress slowly, in part because of complicated consenting/permitting (hereafter consenting) processes that invoke the precautionary principle within environmental legislative frameworks. This can lead to broad, poorly scoped environmental assessments, lengthy and expensive environmental data collection requirements, and extended consenting timelines. Much of this delay is associated with uncertainty about the potential effects of MRE on marine animals and habitats (Copping 2018). SECTION D – STRATEGIES FOR ACCELERATING CONSENTING/PERMITTING 263 T his uncertainty may lead regulators and stakehold- systems pose little to no risk to the marine environment. ers to believe that significant risks exist, thereby For example, the risk of chemical leaching from system resulting in a more precautionary approach to consent components, including oil, is widely considered to be determination and other decision processes, and pos- negligible because few such products are used on MRE sibly lengthy and disproportionate baseline data col- devices (Copping et al. 2016). Similarly, other stressor- lection and ongoing monitoring requirements. These, receptor interactions can be informed by established in turn, slow consenting processes and increase costs industries, such as aggregation of fish and invertebrates to the emerging MRE industry and places additional around floats and anchor lines, which has no demon- pressure on regulators and their advisors. In addition to strable mechanism for harming the marine environ- being frequently associated with scientific uncertainty, ment (Copping et al. 2016; Copping 2018). These risks these perceptions of risk may result from lack of famil- might be considered to be retired, or no longer in need iarity with and access to existing scientific information of active investigation for each individual MRE project, relevant to the interactions of MRE devices with marine but the requirement will always remain at the discretion animals or habitats. This chapter documents a path for of the regulatory body. Any indirect effects of some of streamlining consenting processes by examining the these interactions observed in the future will need fur- potential for risk retirement of specific stressor-recep- ther investigation once large commercial arrays are in tor interactions, that can help to distinguish between operation. With few operational MRE arrays in the water perceived and actual risk to the marine environment. at this time, it is appropriate to focus processes for risk This process has been developed in cooperation with retirement on what is known about single devices, dem- the nations engaged in pursuing environmental effects onstration projects and small arrays. investigations under the International Energy Agency (IEA) Ocean Energy Systems (OES) task OES-Environmental (see Chapter 1, Introduction). The risk retirement approach described here follows the concept of stressors and receptors (Boehlert and Gill 2010). The stressor-receptor interactions that are collectively recognized as key issues by regulators, 13.1 DEFINITION OF RISK RETIREMENT T developers, stakeholders and researchers are associated with the following: ◆ he term “risk retirement” has been used by technology-focused development programs such as geotechnical risk management to delineate circumstances in which key stressor-receptor interactions are sufficiently understood to alleviate the need to carry out turbine blades ◆ ◆ marine species ◆ ◆ specific definition and little understanding of how risk ◆ Based on interactions with the MRE industry, regu- changes in circulation and sediment transport as a result of operational MRE devices, as well as the define the possibilities of how risk retirement might help streamline consenting processes. displacement of or barrier effect on migratory animal populations from arrays of MRE devices retirement. OES-Environmental aims to examine and be manifested and provide a pathway forward that will changes in benthic and pelagic habitats from MRE anchors, foundations, and mooring lines processes by focusing on key issues of concern (Copping might progress to a less active state of investigation or potential effects of electromagnetic fields (EMFs) from cables and energized devices on sensitive 2018). The term has also been used by the MRE commu- et al. 2016; Robertson et al. 2018). However, there is no effects of underwater noise from MRE operation on marine animal behavior and health detailed investigations for each proposed project (NAS nity to describe a means of simplifying the consenting potential collision of marine animals with tidal effects of energy removal from the system ◆ potential entanglement of marine animals in mooring lines for many wave devices and some tidal turbines. lators, researchers, and other stakeholders, and the scientific evidence set out in this report, it is clear that certain interactions with aspects of operational MRE 264 OES-ENVIRONMENTAL 2020 STATE OF THE SCIENCE REPORT The appropriate level of risk associated with each of tors. If this process is successful, the burden of evidence these stressor-receptor interactions can be resolved for projects for which risks have been retired ought to be with the application of rigorous research and monitoring reduced, and the particular stressor of interest ought to results, as well as lessons learned from other industries play a less critical role in the overall consenting process. (see previous chapters). While interactions with the MRE Legislation and regulation in each country will dictate the community of regulators, researchers, developers, and precise language that regulators must use to conclude the other stakeholders suggest that the effects of underwa- importance of a stressor-receptor interaction, but the ter noise and EMFs may be good candidates for retiring overall process of downgrading and retiring risk should risks for small numbers of MRE devices (see Section be useful in most circumstances. 13.3), other stressor-receptor interactions, like collision risk, may require further research and monitoring, while displacement or barrier effects will not be resolved until larger arrays are deployed and studied. The risk retirement steps described below and depicted in Figure 13.1 are aimed at developing criteria to minimize, downgrade, or retire the risks that are not likely to cause harm to the marine environment. Based on feedback from surveys of regulators from several countries participating in the OES-Environmental task and direct interactions with United States (U.S.) regulators, a risk retirement pathway (Figure 13.1) was developed to determine whether potential risks from an MRE project can be downgraded or retired. The intent of the process is to provide assistance to regulators in their decision-making and to inform the MRE community of what is likely to be required for the consenting of 13.2 THE RISK RETIREMENT PATHWAY A single devices, demonstration projects and small arrays. Assuring that datasets and knowledge from consented MRE projects are readily available and cataloged is a risk retirement process has been developed with key aspect of the risk retirement pathway. This acces- the intent of lowering barriers to consenting and sibility of datasets and knowledge allows a proposed licensing MRE projects for widespread and accelerated project to be compared to, and utilize evidence from, development. This approach does not advocate tak- existing consented projects so that associated lessons ing shortcuts or lowering standards for environmental learned and knowledge from the latter can be shared. protection, but rather is focused on achieving a balance This portion of the process involves the concepts of between environmental precaution and the propor- data and knowledge transferability and data collection tional risk created by MRE systems, as well as helping consistency (Freeman et al. 2018), explained in more to distinguish between perceived and actual risk to the detail in Section 13.4. Adaptive management also plays marine environment. The process begins with a system- an important role by allowing regulators and proj- atic examination and cataloging of datasets from wave ect developers to systematically view monitoring and and tidal projects that have been consented, assuring that analysis outputs, and adjust the level of mitigation and the datasets are accessible and understandable to regula- monitoring focus accordingly (Wiesebron et al. 2016). ne Mari ( ReAnim c Pro j ec t ( S t r e De s s t i on r ip ) c s rs or Habi so als t o r s ) tat ep Define Risk Examine Existing Data Collect Additional Data Apply Existing Mitigation Test Novel Mitigation No Likely/ Plausible Risk Sufficient Data Risk Acceptable Sufficient Data Risk Acceptable Risk Mitigated Risk Mitigated Figure 13.1. Risk retirement pathway. The dotted arrow lines represent the feedback loops between each stage of the pathway. The downward arrows at the bottom of each stage indicate the off ramps where a risk might be considered retired or downgraded. (Graphic by Robyn Ricks) SECTION D – STRATEGIES FOR ACCELERATING CONSENTING/PERMITTING 265 The risk retirement pathway was developed to provide a method for advancing from determining the level of risk from any stressor-receptor interaction toward a set of solutions based on the best use of available evidence and a proportionate approach to determining any additional evidence needs. The pathway aims to facilitate more streamlined consenting (Figure 13.1). The pathway also implies that a risk can be revisited by following the same process, if additional information suggests further review is needed. 13.3 APPLICATION OF THE RISK RETIREMENT PATHWAY TO MRE INTERACTIONS B ased on the understanding of interactions between MRE systems and the marine environment, OES- Environmental identified two stressors (underwater noise and EMFs) as candidates for risk retirement related to small numbers of devices. The evidence base for consider- As the risk retirement pathway indicates, the specific ing risk retirement for these two stressors is presented project details must first be defined for the project of here. Additional detail and relevant studies are found in interest, starting with a description of the project (site Chapters 4 (Risk to Marine Animals from Underwater characteristics and development type and size) and Noise Generated by Marine Renewable Energy Devices) the animals or habitats that may be affected (Figure and 5 (Risk to Animals from Electromagnetic Fields Emit- 13.1, orange and purple rings). It is essential to include ted by Electric Cables and Marine Renewable Energy information about the size of the proposed development Devices) as well as on the Tethys website2. During 2019, the because single devices are less likely to have significant evidence base was presented at three workshops to a cross effects than arrays (see previous chapters). Next in the section of experts and practitioners in the MRE commu- pathway is a series of stage gates or phases, during nity (Box 13.1). Each workshop used hypothetical, but which the project is compared to existing data, knowledge, and lessons learned from other consented proj- BOX 13.1. ects. Each stage incorporates an “off ramp” (implied by RISK RETIREMENT WORKSHOPS the downward-facing arrows in Figure 13.1) to allow the risk to be considered retired if there is sufficient information to do so. As noted, the concept of risk retirement is associated with a decreased need to examine the stressor-receptor interaction at each new project site. If at any stage there is not sufficient information to determine that the risk might be retired (via an off ramp), the risk moves to the next stage to the right. More detail about the stages can be found on the Tethys website and 1 in Copping et al. (2020a, 2020b). In moving from one stage to the next on the risk retirement pathway, available knowledge needs to be examined to determine whether a project can progress to the next stage and to provide feedback among the stages. This application of data to inform the process has been termed “data transferability” (see Section 13.4) and comes into play mainly during stages 1 and 2. In addition to applying existing data (data transfer) to inform progress from stage to stage, the generation of new data from monitoring, research studies, experiments, or development of new effective mitigation measures may require datasets to inform the process (signified by the dotted arrows on the top of the diagram; Figure 13.1). A n international workshop was held in concert with the European Wave and Tidal Energy Conference 2019 (EWTEC) in Napoli, Italy (September 1–6, 2019), attended by 34 experts from 11 nations. The workshop evaluated the risk retirement pathway using hypothetical examples for underwater noise and electromagnetic fields, mainly focusing on stages 2 (Examine Existing Data) and 3 (Collect Additional Data). A second workshop, targeted toward a largely American audience, was held at the Ocean Renewable Energy Conference 2019 (OREC) in Portland, Oregon, United States (September 10–12, 2019). The risk retirement pathway was evaluated using two hypothetical examples for underwater noise. Focusing once again on stages 2 (Examine Existing Data) and 3 (Collect Additional Data) of the risk retirement pathway, the workshop experts examined the evidence to determine whether participants felt the risk could be retired for underwater noise for wave and tidal devices. A third workshop targeted toward an Australian audience was held in Sydney, Australia (December 4, 2019). In addition to presentations to familiarize participants with the current state of the science on environmental effects of marine renewable energy, the risk retirement pathway and data transferability processes related to underwater noise and electromagnetic fields were presented. Similar to the other workshops, two hypothetical examples were used to evaluate risk retirement. 1. https://tethys.pnnl.gov/risk-retirement 2. https://tethys.pnnl.gov/events/retiring-risks-mre-environmentalinteractions-support-consentingpermitting 266 OES-ENVIRONMENTAL 2020 STATE OF THE SCIENCE REPORT realistic, MRE developments to apply the evidence base and evaluate risk retirement. The consensus among participants was to accept the evidence toward risk retirement, but consider some additional caveats and data collection requirements. 13.3.1 EFFECTS OF UNDERWATER NOISE ON MARINE ANIMALS As described in Chapter 4 (Risk to Marine Animals from Underwater Noise Generated by Marine Renewable Energy Devices), monitoring around single devices, as well as field research, indicate that underwater noise emitted from operational MRE devices can be detected by many marine animals but is unlikely to significantly alter their behavior or cause them physical harm (e.g., Baring-Gould et al. 2016). The sound levels of devices, either wave energy devices (WECs) or tidal turbines, appear to fall below existing U.S. regulatory thresholds for marine mammals and fish (NMFS 2018; Tetra Tech 2013). Operational noise from MRE devices also falls below the frequency thresholds at which most marine mammals hear (Haikonen et al. 2013) and has been shown to be of lower amplitude than other industrial activities such as commercial shipping (Lossent et al. 2017). The evidence base for underwater noise from turbines and WECs includes studies completed by Cruz et al. (2015), Farcas et al. (2016), Hafla et al. (2018), Haikonen et al. (2013), Lepper and Robinson (2016), Lossent et al. (2018), Schmitt et al. (2015, 2018), and Tougaard (2015). To investigate the effects of underwater noise during the three aforementioned workshops (Box 13.2), a selection of hypothetical, but realistic, MRE examples was used. One of the examples included a bottom-mounted axialflow tidal turbine (Figure 13.2) for which the sound generated by the rotating blades and the power take-off fell in the 118–145 dB re 1 µPa at 1 m range, over frequencies of 40 Hz to 8 kHz (see definitions in Chapter 4, Risk to Marine Animals from Underwater Noise Generated by Marine Renewable Energy Devices). BOX 13.2. FEEDBACK FROM RISK RETIREMENT WORKSHOPS FOR UNDERWATER NOISE A t the EWTEC workshop, participants found the risk retirement pathway intuitive and easy to navigate. They agreed that, in addition to the existing sound at a site, the risk associated with underwater noise from marine renewable energy (MRE) could be retired for single devices and small arrays, with the caveat that a library of standardized noise measurements produced by MRE is needed. The recommendation is to measure in situ the underwater noise from each wave or tidal device for which deployment/development consent is sought, using the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) Technical Committee (TC) 114 Level B recommendations (IEC 2019). In the United States (U.S.) context, provided that the underwater noise from a device falls below the U.S. thresholds (NMFS 2018; Tetra Tech 2013), the risk could be retired. However, it was noted that different countries have different requirements, so some additional work with regulators is needed to assure that the pathway becomes acceptable under the particular nation’s legislation. Gaps in information that would allow a similar analysis for large MRE arrays were noted, including the need to verify noise propagation models because they might apply to underwater noise from large arrays in the high-energy waters in which MRE development is targeted to occur. At the OREC workshop, participants felt that risks from underwater noise were close to retirement for single devices. In addition to supporting the concept of measuring noise outputs from operational devices and comparing those outputs to U.S. regulatory thresholds, the participants were interested in understanding how marine animals might be using the habitats immediately surrounding the device and how they might behave in response to the noise produced by the device. Acquiring further information about underwater noise from arrays was thought to be important, including the spacing of devices to minimize overall noise inputs to an area and the role that test centers could play in measuring underwater noise under operational conditions. At the Sydney workshop, participants thought the concept of risk retirement fit well in an Australian regulatory context and that both the risk retirement and data transferability processes added value by providing a systemic analysis that regulators can put into practice. It was noted that additional precautionary steps may be required in specific locations where sensitive species are present. Based on the evidence presented and the U.S. thresholds available for noise effects on marine mammals and fish, participants agreed that underwater noise could be retired for single devices or small arrays. Participants also noted that cumulative effects may become an issue in the future because many sources of anthropogenic noise are already occurring in the marine environment. SECTION D – STRATEGIES FOR ACCELERATING CONSENTING/PERMITTING 267 13.3.2. EFFECTS OF EMFS ON MARINE ANIMALS The evidence base for EMFs from submarine cables includes studies by Hutchison et al. (2018), Kavet et As described in Chapter 5 (Risk to Animals from Elec- al. (2016), Love et al. (2017), Sherwood et al. (2016), tromagnetic Fields Emitted by Electric Cables and Thomsen et al. (2015), Westerberg and Lagenfelt Marine Renewable Energy Devices), field research, (2008), Woodruff et al. (2012), and Wyman et al. (2018). laboratory studies, and modeling simulations indicate To investigate EMFs during two workshops (Box 13.3), that EMFs from cables are likely a small risk to animals, a selection of hypothetical, but realistic, examples was and one that is easily mitigated by burying the cable if used. One of the examples included a floating oscillat- needed (Copping et al. 2016). Given the more than 100- ing water column WEC placed on the sea surface with year history of deploying electrical and telecommunica- an energized vertical cable in the water column con- tions cables in the ocean, EMF signatures are not new to nected to an offshore substation and an export cable on the marine environment. Understanding the effects of the seafloor running from the offshore substation to an EMFs on marine animals can be informed by previous onshore substation (Figure 13.3). experience with subsea cables used for power and telecommunications, bridges, tunnels, and offshore wind farms that have been deployed and emit measurable EMF signatures in the ocean (Electric Power Research Institute 2013; Meißner et al. 2006). Figure 13.2. Hypothetical example of a tidal turbine emitting noise (represented by the grey semi-circles) in an area used by harbor porpoises, harbor seals, sea lions, and orca whales. Graphics similar to this figure were used at the expert workshops to denote the presence of certain animal species, or receptors, in the vicinity of the turbine, and to help visualize potential stressor-receptor interactions. The animals, turbine, and water depth are not drawn to scale. (Illustration by Rose Perry) 268 OES-ENVIRONMENTAL 2020 STATE OF THE SCIENCE REPORT BOX 13.3 FEEDBACK FROM RISK RETIREMENT WORKSHOPS FOR ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELDS A t the EWTEC workshop, participants surmised that electromagnetic fields (EMFs) are not a likely risk, because the level of power carried in marine renewable energy (MRE) cables is very small compared to that from, for instance, offshore wind farms. However, they did agree that some basic information (e.g., baseline data about species and habitats, presence of other cables in the area) would be required to retire the risk for single devices. Participants also highlighted how relatively little is known about EMF-sensitive species and how they might be affected. Some of the strategic gaps identified were the need for field measurements of EMFs to improve and validate models, increased understanding of how EMF emissions vary with power variability, and help in identifying potential risks associated with offshore substations and vertical and draped cables. Participants also expressed concerns regarding the difficulties in establishing EMF thresholds and the cumulative effects of EMFs in the benthic and pelagic environments. At the Sydney workshop, participants thought that without regulatory thresholds for EMFs it could be challenging to retire this risk, especially because regulators are likely to be risk-averse without guidance. They felt it would be important for EMF experts to put forth some plausible thresholds and work with the MRE industry to help regulators understand that risk will be minimal. Experiences related to consenting an upcoming MRE deployment in Australia demonstrated that burying the export power cable satisfied regulatory needs. Overall, participants agreed that the risk could be retired for single devices, demonstration projects and small arrays, or small arrays, but felt there were effects from EMFs that may still require measurements to be taken. Figure 13.3. Hypothetical example of a wave energy converter (WEC) with cables emitting electromagnetic fields (represented by the lightning bolts along the cable) in an environment used by sharks, skates, bony fishes, crustaceans, and other invertebrates. Graphics similar to this figure were used at the expert workshops to denote the presence of certain animal species, or receptors, in the vicinity of the WEC, and to help visualize potential stressor-receptor interactions. The animals, device, and water depth are not drawn to scale. (Illustration by Rose Perry) SECTION D – STRATEGIES FOR ACCELERATING CONSENTING/PERMITTING 269 13.4. DATA TRANSFERABILITY PROCESS and gauge their comfort in using data and information I transferability process. The international research and n an MRE context, the process of data transferability refers to applying existing learning, analyses, and monitoring datasets from one country to another, among projects, and across jurisdictional boundaries. This process could help satisfy regulatory requirements for MRE developments and subsequently reduce costs and burden to the industry over time, while also protecting the marine environment. To efficiently transfer these datasets, it is advisable for information and data of this nature in their jurisdictions. Based on the feedback received, OES-Environmental developed a data development community was then brought together at a workshop in June 2018 in conjunction with the International Conference on Ocean Energy to gather additional feedback about data transferability, to review and modify proposed best management practices, and to discuss ways to implement the process. Additional details and materials about data transferability outreach and engagement can be found on the Tethys web- to be comparably collected, analyzed, and interpreted site3. among projects. Currently, information and data are The data transferability process (described in more collected around early-stage MRE devices that use many different parameters and methods. If good management practices were applied to standardize methods of collection for baseline and post-installation monitoring around early-stage devices, the results would be more readily comparable, could lead to a decrease in scientific uncertainty, and would support a common understanding of the risk of stressor-receptor interactions. This, in turn, would facilitate more efficient and shorter consenting processes, which would decrease financial risk for MRE project developments, reduce burden and requirement for additional resources for regulators, and subsequently move deployment of wave and tidal devices forward more rapidly. Overall, detail by Copping et al. 2018, 2020c) consists of four components (Figure 13.4): (1) data transferability framework, (2) data collection consistency table, (3) monitoring datasets discoverability matrix, and (4) best management practices (BMPs). Additional details about applying the process can be found on the Tethys website4. This process is expected to be useful for regulators, developers, and other stakeholders to help with discovery and comparison of existing datasets that have potential stressor-receptor interactions that may be present in planned MRE projects, and to help provide insight into how the outcome of these interactions might be assessed. the purpose of examining the potential for achieving data transferability and data collection consistency is to shorten regulatory timelines and provide greater standardization in baseline and post-installation data requested to support the consenting of MRE projects across multiple jurisdictions. As a first step toward developing a process for transferring data, the U.S. regulatory community from state and federal jurisdictions responsible for MRE consenting was surveyed to determine the level of understanding of MRE technologies, priorities for consenting risk, and willingness to transfer data (Copping et al. 2018). The regulator engagement outcomes helped tailor materials and methods for future engagement efforts related to the proposed approach to data transferability. U.S. regulators were further engaged through a series of online Figure 13.4. The data transferability process consists of a data transferability framework, data collection consistency table, monitoring datasets discoverability matrix, and best management practices. (Graphic by Robyn Ricks) workshops. The regulators were presented with MRE data from previously consented projects or research studies to provide them with background information 3. https://tethys.pnnl.gov/data-transferability​#Outreach%20&%20 Engagement 4. https://tethys.pnnl.gov/data-transferability 270 OES-ENVIRONMENTAL 2020 STATE OF THE SCIENCE REPORT 13.4.1. DATA TRANSFERABILITY FRAMEWORK can be aggregated, requires an evaluation of the degree The data transferability framework (hereafter frame- data are applicable to similar receiving environments. work) guides the overall process of data transfer by bringing together datasets (e.g., information, raw data, reports, results) from already consented projects in an organized fashion to facilitate access and assist in the assessment of knowledge for use in consenting future projects. This process may be expedited if datasets are collected in a consistent way using preferred measurement methods or processes. to which collection methods and units are consistent and For six of the stressors, a set of processes, reporting units, and generalized analysis or reporting methods is proposed in the data collection consistency table (Table 13.1). The preferred process (measurement methods) or measurement tools are reported for each stressor, along with preferred reporting units and the most common methods of analysis or interpretation and use of the data. If applied worldwide, the use of this table may The framework can be used by regulators, developers, enable researchers and developers to effectively collect and other stakeholders to develop a common under- data in a consistent manner and standardize monitor- standing of data types and parameters to determine and ing methods, as well as allow regulators to evaluate address potential effects and set limits and consider- existing data consistently. Over time, this would result ations for how the BMPs can be applied to assist with in the increased consistency and reliability of monitor- effective and efficient siting, consenting, and post- ing data, as well as the streamlining of data transfer. installation monitoring and mitigation. site condition, and MRE technology type) to define a 13.4.3. MONITORING DATASETS DISCOVERABILITY MATRIX stressor-receptor interaction. Classifying each project The monitoring datasets discoverability matrix (here- using these four variables is the first step in determin- after matrix) classifies monitoring datasets from ing the ability to transfer knowledge from already con- already consented projects by the six stressors previ- sented projects to future projects. While the framework ously discussed. The matrix is linked to key features of is intended to help assess the transferability of infor- each dataset, including location, metadata on that site, mation and learning from one consented project to a monitoring or siting reports, links to downloadable data new project, the tenets are also applicable to knowledge when available, and a contact for discussing or access- gleaned from research studies and other investigations. ing the data. The matrix, developed as an interactive Once datasets and other knowledge have been identified tool on the Tethys website5,will allow regulators, devel- as being suitable for transferability, they can be applied opers, and others in the MRE community to discover to the assessment of new MRE projects. datasets by key characteristics (such as stressor, recep- The framework uses four variables (stressor, receptor, 13.4.2. DATA COLLECTION CONSISTENCY MRE is an international industry, whose consenting processes and research norms differ from country to country, region to region, and among research and tor, site condition, MRE technology, etc.). After datasets are identified, there is an opportunity to evaluate the consistency of information and to determine whether the data can be transferred to inform applications and decisions for new projects. to enforce the use of specific protocols or instruments 13.4.4. BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES to collect pre- or post-installation monitoring data for BMPs are defined as practices or procedures that can help projects in all jurisdictions. However, encouraging the use to guide implementation of broad guidelines. The BMPs of consistent methods and units that have been shown for data transferability underscore the process of evalu- to be effective for the collection of monitoring data can ating datasets for transfer among the projects and con- increase confidence in the transfer of data or learn- sistency in data collection methods, as well as the useful ing from already consented projects to future projects. support of numerical models and application of data Assuring that the information and data from an already collected for other purposes in the project area (for more consented project are compatible with the needs of future detail see Copping et al. 2018, 2020c). projects, and that knowledge from one or more projects 5. https://tethys.pnnl.gov/monitoring-datasets-discoverability-matrix commercial data collection efforts. It would be difficult SECTION D – STRATEGIES FOR ACCELERATING CONSENTING/PERMITTING 271 The process of implementing the BMPs for data trans- ◆ Device and project developers must recognize the ferability and collection consistency will require the value of data transferability and commit to collect- confidence and good will of all parties that play a role in ing and providing data that are consistent with the consenting MRE devices. Achieving an appropriate level collection guidelines and that will best fit the frame- of acceptance and use will require the following: work recommendations from the data collection ◆ consistency table. Regulators and other stakeholders must be willing to accept the premise of data transferability so that ◆ Researchers and consultancies should inform them- they apply the principles of data transferability and selves of the data consistency needs and potential collection consistency to evaluate and comment on use of data collected around MRE devices to assure consenting applications. that research data are usable for transfer. Table 13.1. Data collection consistency table. Stressor Process or measurement tool Reporting unit Analysis or interpretation Sensors include: Number of visible targets in field • active acoustic only of view, number of collisions. • active acoustic + video • video only • observations from vessel or shore Number of collisions and/or close interactions of animals with turbines, and probability of encounters, used to validate collision risk models. Avoidance or evasion Density of animals that may raise risk (based on subsea observations) vs. predicted densities from models or surface counts to refine collision risk models. Underwater noise Fixed or drifting hydrophones Sound spectrum (amplitude as function of frequency) with units: Amplitude: dB re 1μPa at 1 m Frequency: frequencies within marine animal hearing range Sound outputs from MRE devices compared against regulatory action levels. Generally reported as broadband noise unless guidance exists for specific frequency ranges. Development of noise propagation models for array projects from monitoring around single devices Electromagnetic fields Source: • cable - shielded or unshielded • other AC or DC Voltage Amplitude in tesla units (µT or mT) Measured EMF levels used to validate existing EMF models around cables and other energized sources. Changes in habitats Area of habitat or species distribution altered, specific for each habitat type or species. Compare potential changes in habitat and/or species distributions to maps of rare and important habitats or species to ensure that these vulnerable species and habitats are not likely to be harmed by the location of the proposed project. Collision risk Underwater mapping with: • sonar • video Habitat or species distribution characterized from: • mapping • existing maps • grabs and other benthic sampling gear Population estimates on or near Population estimates for species a project site by: under special protection. • human observers Importance of high energy areas • passive or active acoustic for key activities or transit. monitoring • video Validation of population models, estimates of jeopardy, loss of species for vulnerable populations (locally or globally). Changes in oceanographic systems Data collected around arrays should be used to validate models. Displacement / barrier effect 272 Numerical modeling, with field data validation for currents, turbulence, wave height, wave period, etc. No preferred units. Indication of datasets used for validation, if any. OES-ENVIRONMENTAL 2020 STATE OF THE SCIENCE REPORT 13.5. APPLYING DATA TRANSFERABILITY TO SUPPORT CONSENTING 5 m, the sound of seabed drilling was not audible over A proposed deployment at EMEC’s Fall of Warness test pplying the data transferability process will help address the concept of transferring knowledge and information among MRE projects, as well as collecting data consistently. 13.5.1. APPLYING THE PROCESS The data transferability process was developed to provide a background against which discussions with regulators and other stakeholders can proceed as the key principles and limits of transferability are better understood. The data transferability process will facilitate initial consenting discussions between developers and regulators to guide data collection and monitoring efforts needed for an MRE the vessel plant noise (Aquatera 2015). The outcome of this monitoring was used to inform the development of SME’s project environmental management plan for their site and, because of the results, SME was not required to implement a mitigation zone, use Marine Mammal Observers, or undertake acoustic monitoring during installation at EMEC (Marine Scotland 2015). This resulted in significant cost savings, streamlined operational planning, and reduced the number of required offshore personnel for the EMEC deployment. Voith Hydro HyTide and Brims Tidal Array (changes in habitat stressor) Pre- and post-installation underwater video data were collected at the Voith Hydro HyTide project at EMEC in 2011 to determine baseline conditions and the effect of project and determine operational monitoring needs. operation on the immediate and surrounding benthic While data transfer often occurs during the consent- assessment was provided to the regulator and advisors, ing process, these instances are rarely documented. To move the data transferability process forward, consenting licenses for which data transfer was used should be highlighted and shared with the MRE community. Through the successful development and implementation of the data transferability process, OES-Environmental will continue its efforts of outreach and engagement with relevant stakeholders to further the knowledge and understanding of the potential environmental effects of MRE devices, thereby accelerating the siting and consenting process for MRE developments. 13.5.2. DATA TRANSFERABILITY CASE STUDIES A selection of examples from the MRE industry help describe some early successes in the transfer of data and information. We expect that many more examples will become available in the next few years of MRE development. habitat (Aquatera 2011). A report about this high-level who determined that such drilling activities would have a limited footprint and therefore limited effect on the benthic habitat. These data were then transferred from the Voith Hydro project to inform the environmental impact assessment for the OpenHydro 200 MW Brims Tidal Array near Orkney, Scotland (Aquatera 2011; Brims Tidal Array 2016). Understanding of the extent (footprint) of the direct effects of drilling on benthic habitats allowed a proportionate approach to be adopted during the environmental impact assessment process, enabling developers to focus monitoring and mitigation on topics of greater scientific uncertainty. Sabella D03 and D10 (collision risk stressor) The Sabella D03 turbine was deployed in 2008 in the Odet estuary in Brittany, France. Video monitoring showed slow-moving turbine speeds that appeared to be “innocuous” to schools of fish (ETIP Ocean 2017; see the video here6). Lessons learned from the monitoring of the SME Plat-O #1 (underwater noise stressor) D03 turbine were transferred to the design and monitor- Sustainable Marine Energy (SME) installed their ing needs of the D10 model and are proposed to be con- PLAT-O #1 tidal energy device in Yarmouth, England, tinued in the scaling up of other Sabella devices (Paboeuf in preparation for later deployment at EMEC’s Fall of et al. 2016). The low impact and continued low speeds Warness test site (Orkney, Scotland). Acoustic monitor- of rotation in the D10 model are considered to also be of ing was conducted during anchor installation to mea- minimal effect on fish. The D10 model was deployed in sure the sound profile of the operation, specifically to 2015 in Passage du Fromveur, near Ouessant, France, for note potential effects on cetaceans, seals, and basking a demonstration period of one year, and delivered more sharks. Using a hydrophone at a depth of approximately than 10 MWh of electricity to the grid (Sabella 2020). SECTION D – STRATEGIES FOR ACCELERATING CONSENTING/PERMITTING 273 Voith Hydro HyTide and EMEC (marine mammal receptor) Voith Hydro installed a 23 m monopile foundation for their HyTide tidal energy device at EMEC’s Fall of Warness site in 2011, using a large offshore construction vessel with a dynamic positioning system. Marine 13.6. CONCLUSION T he concepts of risk retirement and data transferability have been developed by OES-Environmental to inform discussions between developers and regu- Mammal Observers were assigned to monitor within lators in order to reach a common understanding of a 1 km radius of the main installation vessel prior to evidence needs for consenting new MRE projects. This and during monopile drilling activities, and to count includes assuring that any identified site-specific data hauled-out seals at Seal Skerry throughout the activi- needs are proportionate and account for existing rel- ties. Acoustic monitoring was carried out using drifting evant knowledge and data, such as assuring that the hydrophone transects to characterize the ambient noise assumptions made during these processes are correct, at the project site and noise generated during monopile and including marine animals and habitats that are par- installation. Average counts of hauled-out seals on Seal ticular to the specific location. Skerry were slightly lower during and following installation operations, but this correlation was considered likely to be due to the natural diurnal haulout patterns of seals (Aquatera 2011). No evidence of disturbance by the monopile installation operations was observed, and noise levels were found to be unlikely to cause any auditory impairment to harbor seals (Aquatera 2011). Based on these findings, a recommendation was made to EMEC and the regulator that no mitigation or observation zones be established at the test site in the future by individual vessel operators, because there was no observed effect on marine mammals (Aquatera 2011). Data from this project were also used to update EMEC The groups that have convened to examine the processes and evidence bases for risk retirement of underwater noise and EMFs were generally in agreement that these stressors could be retired for small MRE projects, but that additional information needs to be added to the evidence base. The data transferability process, particularly the accessibility of datasets from consenting projects, has also received strong support from these groups. The monitoring dataset discoverability matrix will become increasingly useful as more MRE developments are consented in the future and additional datasets become available. guidance on mitigation of marine mammal disturbance While information and products developed under OES- and injury at EMEC test sites (EMEC 2019). The ability to Environmental are produced in English, there are many transfer data resulted in significant savings in terms of countries engaged in MRE development where regula- time and cost for EMEC, as well as for future developers tors work primarily in other languages. Processes such at EMEC test sites. as risk retirement and other management strategy tools need to be translated into additional languages to optimize their usefulness. Additional information about the processes, reports and/or recordings from the various workshops and webinars, and outcomes of risk retirement and data transferability can be found on the Tethys risk retirement and data transferability webpages. 6. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MNsKpddt3ew 274 OES-ENVIRONMENTAL 2020 STATE OF THE SCIENCE REPORT 13.7. REFERENCES Copping, A., Freeman, M., and Overhus, D. 2020b. Risk Aquatera. 2011. Farr Point Wave Farm Development: Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, Washing- Request for Scoping Opinion. Report by Aquatera ton. https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/risk-retirement​ for Pelamis Wave Power, Orkney, Scotland. https://​ -environmental-effects-marine-renewable-energy tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/farr-point-wave-farm​ Copping, A., Gorton, A., and Freeman, M. C. 2018. Data -development-request-scoping-opinion Retirement for Environmental Effects of Marine Renewable Energy (Report No. PNNL-29996). Report by Pacific Transferability and Collection Consistency in Marine Aquatera. 2015. SME Project Environmental Monitoring Renewable Energy (Report No. PNNL-27995). Report by Plan. Orkney, Scotland. Available by request. Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, Washing- Baring-Gould, E., Christol, C., LiVecchi, A., Kramer, S., and West, A. 2016. A Review of the Environmental ton. https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/data-transferability​ -collection-consistency-marine-renewable-energy Impacts for Marine and Hydrokinetic Projects to Inform Copping, A., Gorton, A., Freeman, M., Rose, D., and Regulatory Permitting: Summary Findings from the Farr, H. 2020c. Data Transferability and Collection 2015 Workshop on Marine and Hydrokinetic Technolo- Consistency in Marine Renewable Energy: An Update gies, Washington, D.C. (Report No. NREL/TP-5000- to the 2018 Report (Report No. PNNL-27995 Rev. 1). 66688). Report by National Renewable Energy Labora- Report by Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Rich- tory for U.S. Department of Energy, Golden, Colorado. land, Washington. https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications​ https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/review-environmental​ /data-transferability-collection-consistency-marine​ -impacts-marine-hydrokinetic-projects-inform​ -renewable-energy-update-2018-report -regulatory-permitting Copping, A., Sather, N., Hanna, L., Whiting, J., Zydlewski, Boehlert, G. W., and Gill, A. B. 2010. Environmental and G., Staines, G., Gill, A., Hutchison, I., O’Hagan, A., Simas, Ecological Effects of Ocean Renewable Energy Devel- T., Bald, J., Sparling, C., Wood, J., and Masden, E. 2016. opment: A Current Synthesis. Oceanography, 23(2), Annex IV 2016 State of the Science Report: Environmen- 68-81. https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/environmental​ tal Effects of Marine Renewable Energy Development -ecological-effects-ocean-renewable-energy​ Around the World. Report by Pacific Northwest National -development-current-synthesis Laboratory for Ocean Energy Systems. https://tethys.pnnl​ Brims Tidal Array Environmental Statement. 2016. .gov/publications/state-of-the-science-2016 https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/brims-tidal-array​ Cruz, E., Simas, T., and Kasanen, E. 2015. Discussion of the -environmental-statement Effects of the Underwater Noise Radiated by a Wave Energy Copping, A. 2018. The State of Knowledge for Environmental Effects: Driving Consenting/Permitting for the Marine Renewable Energy Industry. Report by Pacific Northwest National Laboratory for Ocean Energy Sys- Device - Portugal. Paper presented at the 11th European Wave and Tidal Energy Conference, Nantes, France. https://​ tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/discussion-effects-underwater​ -noise-radiated-wave-energy-device-portugal tems. https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/state-knowledge​ Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI). 2013. EPRI -environmental-effects-driving-consentingpermitting​ Workshop on EMF and Aquatic Life. Palo Alto, Califor- -marine-renewable nia. https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/epri-workshop​ Copping, A., Freeman, M., Gorton, A., and Hemery, -emf-aquatic-life L. 2020a. Risk Retirement—Decreasing Uncertainty and European Marine Energy Centre (EMEC). 2019. Marine Informing Consenting Processes for Marine Renew- Mammal Recording SOP074: Protocol for mitigation of able Energy Development. Journal of Marine Science and marine mammal disturbance and injury at EMEC test sites. Engineering, 8(3), 21. doi:10.3390/jmse8030172 https://​ Report by European Marine Energy Centre, Orkney, Scot- tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/risk-retirement-decreasing​ land. https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/protocol-mitigation​ -uncertainty-informing-consenting-processes-marine​ -marine-mammal-disturbance-injury-emec-test-sites -renewable SECTION D – STRATEGIES FOR ACCELERATING CONSENTING/PERMITTING 275 European Technology and Innovation Platform for International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC). 2019. Ocean Energy (ETIP Ocean). 2017. Minimising negative Marine energy - Wave, tidal and other water current environmental impacts. Webinar conducted by ETIP converters - Part 40: Acoustic characterization of marine Ocean. https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/etip-ocean​ energy converters (IEC TS 62600-40:2019). https://​tethys​ -webinar-minimising-negative-environmental-impacts .pnnl.gov/publications/acoustic-characterization-marine​ Farcas, A., Thompson, P. M., and Merchant, N. D. 2016. -energy-converters-iec-ts-62600-402019 Underwater noise modelling for environmental impact Kavet, R., Wyman, M. T., and Klimley, A. P. 2016. Mod- assessment. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, eling Magnetic Fields from a DC Power Cable Bur- 57, 114-122. doi:10.1016/j.eiar.2015.11.012 https://tethys​ ied Beneath San Francisco Bay Based on Empirical .pnnl.gov/publications/underwater-noise-modelling​ Measurements. PLoS ONE, 11(2), e0148543. doi:10.1371​ -environmental-impact-assessment /journal.pone.0148543 https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications​ Freeman, M., Copping, A., Gorton, A., and Dreyer, S. 2018. Managing Environmental Effects of Marine /modeling-magnetic-fields-dc-power-cable-buried​ -beneath-san-francisco-bay-based Renewable Energy Development through Regulator Korpinen, S., and Andersen, J. H. 2016. A Global Review Engagement, Data Transferability. Paper presented at of Cumulative Pressure and Impact Assessments in the Marine Energy Technology Symposium, Washing- Marine Environments. Frontiers in Marine Science, 3(153). ton, D.C. https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/managing​ doi:10.3389/fmars.2016.00153 https://tethys.pnnl.gov​ -environmental-effects-marine-renewable-energy​ /publications/global-review-cumulative-pressure-impact​ -development-through-regulator -assessments-marine-environments Hafla, E., Johnson, E., Johnson, C. N., Preston, L., Lepper, P. A., and Robinson, S. P. 2016. Measurement of Under- Aldridge, D., and Roberts, J. D. 2018. Modeling underwa- water Operational Noise Emitted by Wave and Tidal Stream ter noise propagation from marine hydrokinetic power Energy Devices. In A. N. Popper and A. Hawkins (Eds.), The devices through a time-domain, velocity-pressure Effects of Noise on Aquatic Life II (pp. 615-622), Springer: solution. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, New York, New York. https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications​ 143(6), 3242-3253. doi:10.1121/1.5039839 https://tethys​ /measurement-underwater-operational-noise-emitted-wave​ .pnnl.gov/publications/modeling-underwater-noise​ -tidal-stream-energy-devices -propagation-marine-hydrokinetic-power-devices​ -through-time Lossent, J., Gervaise, C., Iorio, L. D., Folegot, T., Clorennec, D., and Lejart, M. 2017. Underwater operational Haikonen, K., Sundberg, J., and Leijon, M. 2013. Charac- noise level emitted by a tidal current turbine and its teristics of the Operational Noise from Full Scale Wave potential impact on marine fauna. The Journal of the Energy Converters in the Lysekil Project: Estimation of Acoustical Society of America, 141(5), 3923-3923. doi:10​ Potential Environmental Impacts. Energies, 6(5), 2562- .1121/1.4988869 https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications​ 2582. doi:10.3390/en6052562 https://tethys.pnnl.gov​ /underwater-operational-noise-level-emitted-tidal​ /publications/characteristics-operational-noise-full-scale​ -current-turbine-its-potential-impact -wave-energy-converters-lysekil-project Lossent, J., Lejart, M., Folegot, T., Clorennec, D., Di Iorio, L., Hutchison, Z., Sigray, P., He, H., Gill, A., King, J., and and Gervaise, C. 2018. Underwater operational noise level Gibson, C. 2018. Electromagnetic Field (EMF) Impacts on emitted by a tidal current turbine and its potential impact Elasmobranch (shark, rays, and skates) and American on marine fauna. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 131, 323-334. Lobster Movement and Migration from Direct Current doi:10.1016/j.marpolbul.2018.03.024 https://tethys.pnnl.gov​ Cables (OCS Study BOEM 2018-003). Report by Univer- /publications/underwater-operational-noise-level-emitted​ sity of Rhode Island for Bureau of Ocean Energy Man- -tidal-current-turbine-its-potential-impact agement, U.S. Department of the Interior, Sterling, Virginia. https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/electromagnetic​ -field-emf-impacts-elasmobranch-shark-rays-skates​ -american-lobster 276 OES-ENVIRONMENTAL 2020 STATE OF THE SCIENCE REPORT Love, M. S., Nishimoto, M. M., Clark, S., McCrea, M., and Robertson, F., Wood, J., Joslin, J., Joy, R., and Polagye, Bull, A. S. 2017. Assessing potential impacts of energized B. 2018. Marine Mammal Behavioral Response to Tidal submarine power cables on crab harvests. Continental Shelf Turbine Sound. (Report No. DOE-UW-06385). Report by Research, 151, 23-29. doi:10.1016/j.csr.2017.10.002 https://​ University of Washington for U.S. Department of Energy tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/assessing-potential-impacts​ Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, -energized-submarine-power-cables-crab-harvests Washington D.C. doi:10.2172/1458457 https://tethys.pnnl​ Marine Scotland. 2015. SME Marine Licence Number 05684/15/0. Aberdeen, Scotland. https://www2.gov.scot​ /Resource/0049/00493389.pdf Meißner, K., Schabelon, H., Bellebaum, J., and Sordyl, .gov/publications/marine-mammal-behavioral-response​ -tidal-turbine-sound Sabella. 2020. Sabella. Retrieved from http://www.sabella​ -d10.bzh/ H. 2006. Impacts of Submarine Cables on the Marine Schmitt, P., Elsaesser, B., Coffin, M., Hood, J., and Star- Environment - A Literature Review. Institute of Applied zmann, R. 2015. Field Testing a Full-Scale Tidal Turbine Ecology, Broderstorf, Germany. https://tethys.pnnl​ Part 3: Acoustic Characteristics. Paper presented at the .gov/publications/impacts-submarine-cables-marine​ 11th European Wave and Tidal Energy Conference, Nantes, -environment-literature-review France. https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/field-testing-full​ National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Med- -scale-tidal-turbine-part-3-acoustic-characteristics icine (NAS). 2018. Guidelines for Managing Geotechni- Schmitt, P., Pine, M. K., Culloch, R. M., Lieber, L., and cal Risks in Design–Build Projects. Research Report Kregting, L. T. 2018. Noise characterization of a subsea 884. The National Academies Press, Washington, D.C. tidal kite. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/guidelines-managing​ 144(5), EL441-EL446. doi:10.1121/1.5080268 https://​ -geotechnical-risks-design-build-projects tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/noise-characterization​ National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2018. 2018 -subsea-tidal-kite Revisions to: Technical Guidance for Assessing the Effects Sherwood, J., Chidgey, S., Crockett, P., Gwyther, D., Ho, of Anthropogenic Sound on Marine Mammal Hearing P., Stewart, S., Strong, D., Whitely, B., and Williams, A. (Version 2.0): Underwater Thresholds for Onset of Per- 2016. Installation and operational effects of a HVDC sub- manent and Temporary Threshold Shifts. NOAA Technical marine cable in a continental shelf setting: Bass Strait, Memorandum NMFS-OPR-59. Report by National Oce- Australia. Journal of Ocean Engineering and Science, 1(4), anic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department 337-353. doi:10.1016/j.joes.2016.10.001 https://tethys.pnnl​ of Commerce, Silver Spring, MD. https://tethys.pnnl.gov​ .gov/publications/installation-operational-effects-hvdc​ /publications/2018-revisions-technical-guidance-assessing​ -submarine-cable-continental-shelf-setting-bass -effects-anthropogenic-sound-marine-mammal Tetra Tech. 2013. Underwater Acoustic Modeling Report Nemeth, M., Priest, J., and Patterson, H. 2014. Assess- - Virginia Offshore Wind Technology Advancement ment of Fish and Wildlife Presence Near Two River Project (VOWTAP). Report by Tetra Tech Inc. for Domin- Instream Energy Conversion Devices in the Kvichak ion Energy, Glen Allen, Virginia. https://tethys.pnnl.gov​ River, Alaska in 2014. Report by LGL Alaska Research /publications/underwater-acoustic-modeling-report​ Associates for Gray Stassel Engineering, Inc., Anchorage, -virginia-offshore-wind-technology-advancement Alaska. https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/assessment​ -fish-wildlife-presence-near-two-river-instream-energy​ -conversion-devices Thomsen, F., Gill, A., Kosecka, M., Andersson, M., André, M., Degraer, S., Folegot, T., Gabriel, J., Judd, A., Neumann, T., Norro, A., Risch, D., Sigray, P., Wood, D., and Wilson, B. 2015. Paboeuf, S., Macadré, L.-M., and Yen Kai Sun, P. 2016. A MaRVEN - Environmental Impacts of Noise, Vibrations French Application Case of Tidal Turbine Certification. and Electromagnetic Emissions from Marine Renewable Paper presented at the 35th International Conference on Energy (Report No. RTD-K3-2012-MRE). Report by Danish Ocean, Offshore and Arctic Engineering, Busan, South Hydraulic Institute for European Union, Brussels, Belgium. Korea. doi:10.1115/OMAE2016-54834 https://tethys.pnnl​ https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/marven-environmental​ .gov/publications/french-application-case-tidal-turbine​ -impacts-noise-vibrations-electromagnetic-emissions​ -certification -marine SECTION D – STRATEGIES FOR ACCELERATING CONSENTING/PERMITTING 277 Tougaard, J. 2015. Underwater Noise from a Wave Energy Wiesebron, L. E., Horne, J. K., and Hendrix, A. N. 2016. Converter Is Unlikely to Affect Marine Mammals. PLoS Characterizing biological impacts at marine renewable ONE, 10(7), e0132391. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0132391 energy sites. International Journal of Marine Energy, 14, https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/underwater-noise-wave​ 27-40. doi:10.1016/j.ijome.2016.04.002 https://tethys​ -energy-converter-unlikely-affect-marine-mammals .pnnl.gov/publications/characterizing-biological-impacts​ Vandendriessche, S., Derweduwen, J., and Hostens, -marine-renewable-energy-sites K. 2015. Equivocal effects of offshore wind farms in Woodruff, D., Schultz, I., Marshall, K., Ward, J., and Belgium on soft substrate epibenthos and fish assem- Cullinan, V. 2012. Effects of Electromagnetic Fields on blages. Hydrobiologia, 756(1), 19-35. doi:10.1007​ Fish and Invertebrates Task 2.1.3: Effects on Aquatic /s10750-014-1997-z https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications​ Organisms Fiscal Year 2011 Progress Report (Report No. /equivocal-effects-offshore-wind-farms-belgium-soft​ PNNL-20813). Report by Pacific Northwest National -substrate-epibenthos-fish Laboratory for U.S. Department of Energy, Wash- Westerberg, H., and Langenfelt, I. 2008. Sub-sea power cables and the migration behaviour of the European eel. Fisheries Management and Ecology, 15(5-6), 369- ington D.C. https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/effects​ -electromagnetic-fields-fish-invertebrates-task-213​ -effects-aquatic-organisms 375. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2400.2008.00630.x https://tethys​ Wyman, M. T., Peter Klimley, A., Battleson, R. D., .pnnl.gov/publications/sub-sea-power-cables-migration​ Agosta, T. V., Chapman, E. D., Haverkamp, P. J., Pagel, -behaviour-european-eel M. D., and Kavet, R. 2018. Behavioral responses by migrating juvenile salmonids to a subsea high-voltage DC power cable. Marine Biology, 165(8), 134. doi:10.1007​ /s00227-018-3385-0 https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications​ /behavioral-responses-migrating-juvenile-salmonids​ NOTES -subsea-high-voltage-dc-power-cable Risk Retirement and Data Transferability for Marine Renewable Energy Copping, A.E., M.C. Freeman, A.M Gorton, and L.G. Hemery. 2020. Risk Retirement and Data Transferability for Marine Renewable Energy. In A.E. Copping and L.G. Hemery (Eds.), OES-Environmental 2020 State of the Science Report: Environmental Effects of Marine Renewable Energy Development Around the World. Report for Ocean Energy Systems (OES). (pp. 262-278). doi:10.2172/1633208 Go to https://tethys​.pnnl.gov for a comprehensive collection of papers, reports, archived presentations, and other media about environmental effects of marine renewable energy development. REPORT AND MORE INFORMATION CONTACT OES-Environmental 2020 State of the Science full report and executive summary available at: https://tethys​.pnnl.gov/publications/state-of-the​-science-2020 Andrea Copping Pacific Northwest National Laboratory andrea.copping@pnnl.gov +1 206.528.3049 278 OES-ENVIRONMENTAL 2020 STATE OF THE SCIENCE REPORT • Section E Looking Ahead Chapter 14.0 Summary and Path Forward.............................................................. 280 Section E 280 OES-ENVIRONMENTAL 2020 STATE OF THE SCIENCE REPORT 14.0 Chapter author: Andrea E. Copping Summary and Path Forward The 2020 State of the Science report collates and presents the current understanding of interactions between marine renewable energy (MRE) systems and the marine environment, with an emphasis on their effects on marine animals, habitats, and oceanographic systems, using publicly available information. The report places this information in context through lessons learned from research studies in the laboratory and in the field, modeling simulations, and deployments; monitoring around demonstration, pilot, and small commercial MRE projects; identifies gaps in knowledge and makes recommendations for filling those gaps. In addition, strategies for moving toward a consistent and effective consenting or permitting (hereafter consenting) process and management of the potential effects of MRE development are highlighted. The value of the evidence presented in this report will be realized through its application to consenting processes to accelerate the responsible deployment of further MRE devices and arrays. The status and recommendations from each of the priority interactions between MRE devices and the environment are summarized here, and the management strategies for facilitating development are discussed. Finally, a path forward toward commercial MRE development is explored. SECTION E – LOOKING AHEAD 281 14.1. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS I n addition to the detailed reporting and analyses of each set of stressor-receptor interactions, we have attempted to document the continuing level of perceived risk for each interaction. For simplicity, we define risk as the interaction of the likelihood (probability) of an event occurring with the consequences of that event. This documentation takes the form of a simple dashboard and guide for how the level of risk for each interaction might be further understood and lowered. The dashboard consists of an old-fashioned odometer-type dial that uses green to indicate a well understood and relatively low risk from a stressor to yellow and red that indicate increased levels of risk. The dashboard also features a bar graph to indicate what avenues of investigation and sharing are needed to further understand and lower the risk from that stressor (Figure 14.1). These avenues include ◆ increased sharing of available information ◆ improved modeling of the interaction ◆ monitoring data needed to validate models ◆ new research needed. Increased sharing of existing information Improved modeling of interaction Monitoring data needed to verify findings New research needed Figure 14.1. Generic version of a dashboard (dial on the top) that demonstrates the broadly understood level of risk for specific stressors, as of 2020, with indication of a pathway forward to further understand and lower the perceived risk of the stressor (bar graph on the bottom). These dashboards were drawn in the style of Copping and Kramer (2017), and updated with information from this report. (Graphic by Robyn Ricks) The major findings from each of the chapters and topics Each dashboard represents our estimate of the risk in this report are summarized in the following sections. using the best available information collated in this 14.1.1. COLLISION RISK FOR ANIMALS AROUND TURBINES report for each stressor and is broadly proportional to the other stressors. However, it is important to understand that certain risks may be perceived to be high, but may be found to be lower, as more knowledge is acquired. We hope the dashboards will prove valuable as a simple means of visualizing the perceived level of risk, and that they may be updated over time as new information becomes available. Only a limited number of operational devices are in the water, ranging from single turbines to small arrays. Because of the current level of MRE development, the levels of perceived risk reported here are associated with small numbers of devices. As commercial-size arrays are developed and occupy larger areas of the sea, the perceptions of risk for certain stressor-receptor interactions may change. As detailed in Chapter 3 about collision risk, the risk of marine animals colliding with moving parts of tidal and river turbines continues to be the greatest concern for regulators and stakeholders. Among other interactions of concern, this risk has proved to be the most resistant to progressing toward a solution. Considerable effort and resources have gone into modeling, measuring, and observing the potential interactions of marine mammals, fish, and seabirds around turbines; however, fundamental questions remain. One of the greatest barriers to better understanding collision risk stems from the technical challenges related to making observations in the vicinity of turbines in high-energy waters. These observations are particularly challenging because the probability of sightings of marine animals, particularly marine mammals and diving seabirds, is expected to be rare. 282 OES-ENVIRONMENTAL 2020 STATE OF THE SCIENCE REPORT Key gaps in knowledge and uncertainty about the potential risk of collision to marine animals remain to be investigated. These gaps include the need for the following: ◆ determine the probability of a marine animal being struck by a turbine blade while traversing a channel with MRE devices ◆ determine the likelihood of a collision, based on the characteristics of the turbine blades, the channel morphology, and oceanographic features of the flow ◆ characterize the seriousness of a blade strike, if it occurs ◆ understand the impacts on a marine population if individuals are lost as a result of blade strike ◆ identify sublethal effects of blade strike that may result in significant injury or death at a later time ◆ Collision Risk assess the ability to scale rates of collision from a single turbine to an array of turbines. A substantial number of modeling efforts have been carried out to estimate the risk of collision of marine mammals, fish, and birds around turbines. The models have been based on a variety of approaches and geom- Increased sharing of existing information Improved modeling of interaction Monitoring data needed to verify findings New research needed Figure 14.2. Dashboard (dial on the top) that summarizes the broadly understood level of risk that collisions will occur between marine animals and turbines, as of 2020, for small numbers of devices. Risk may vary with larger arrays. The bar graph on the bottom demonstrates a pathway to better understanding and lowering the perceived risk of collision. (Graphic by Robyn Ricks) fied with sufficient post-installation monitoring data 14.1.2. UNDERWATER NOISE to determine which of them best emulate the real world Chapter 4, concerning underwater noise, detailed what and should be used to estimate potential risk of colli- is known about characterizing underwater noise from sion, or whether this is a sensible avenue to pursue for MRE devices and estimating how these levels of sound characterizing and quantifying risk. This lack of data might affect marine animals, especially marine mam- continues to hamper estimates of likely collision risk, mals and fishes. Based on the levels of sound that have leading regulators to act conservatively. Models for been measured to date from turbines and wave energy translating risk to populations based on losses of indi- converters (WECs), it appears that sound levels are viduals are commonly used to set regulatory thresh- considerably below those that might be expected to olds, but these models have been created to estimate cause physical harm to animal tissues, including those the effects of very different types of risks (such as the associated with hearing. MRE-generated underwater risk of entanglement in fishing gear) and have not been noise is considered most likely to affect the behavior applied to potential turbine collisions. of marine animals; acoustic pressure is most likely to etries, and none of them have been challenged and veri- This risk remains relatively high because of the significant uncertainties as well as the very high consequences if a collision occurs (Figure 14.2). SECTION E – LOOKING AHEAD affect marine mammals and seabirds and perhaps sea turtles (Holt et al. 2009; Jensen et al. 2009; Lesage et al. 1999); while fish are more sensitive to acoustic particle velocities (Popper and Hawkins 2018). 283 These effects, however, are extremely difficult and costly to investigate, particularly because these intelligent animals adapt and become acclimated to ongoing stimuli (NRC 2003). Research on underwater noise from MRE devices has focused on improving the measurement of MRE device sound emissions and placing those emissions in the context of the ambient soundscapes at existing and planned MRE deployment sites. Measuring sound emissions from MRE devices is challenging because of the high energy of the waters in which devices are deployed; however, the International Electrotechnical Commission Technical Committee 114 Underwater Noise standard (IEC TC 114 2019) can be applied to produce accurate measurements. Although few MRE devices have been characterized using this standard, to date all sound emissions have peaked under or near the underwater sound action thresholds for marine mammals (NMFS 2018) or fish (Tetra Tech 2013). The thresholds for underwater noise examined to date consider the likelihood of injury or death to marine mammals; additional thresholds have been developed that also consider lower levels of noise that may disturb or harass marine mammals. The most critical needs for better understanding the potential effects of underwater noise from MRE devices include the following: ◆ ◆ ◆ Chapter 5, about electromagnetic field (EMF) effects on animals, summarized research on the potential effects of MRE power cables and other electrical infrastructure quencies within the hearing range of marine animals on sensitive marine species. Investigations focused on differentiating between MRE device sounds and behavioral, physiological, and developmental/genetic ambient sound in the marine environment at MRE effects. Behavioral investigations have taken place in sites the laboratory and in the field. While some changes have comparing MRE sound emissions to the standards been noted in sensitive species, none have indicated that thresholds are approached or exceeded by particular MRE devices and systems observing marine animals around MRE devices when possible, if regulatory thresholds are exceeded developing a database of noise signatures from different devices ◆ 14.1.3. ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELDS and models of turbines and WECs across sound fre- accepted in other nations) to determine whether the ◆ Figure 14.3. Dashboard (dial on the top) that summarizes the broadly understood level of risk from underwater noise from marine renewable energy devices to marine animals, as of 2020, for small numbers of devices. Risk may vary with larger arrays. The bar graph on the bottom demonstrates a pathway to better understanding and lowering the perceived risk of underwater noise. (Graphic by Robyn Ricks) measuring sound emissions from additional types in place in the United States (and any variations ◆ Increased sharing of existing information Improved modeling of interaction Monitoring data needed to verify findings New research needed crossing EMF at levels typical of MRE-level power cables will significantly alter behavior in a manner likely to be harmful to the individual or the population. Laboratory studies of physiological and developmental changes have been carried out for a wide range of species, many of which are unlikely to encounter MRE cables, but these results are not easily applied in the environment. While it would be easy to dismiss the potential effects of EMFs from cables based on the many cables carrying power developing dose response metrics for behavioral in the ocean over many decades, the cumulative effects response of marine animals. remain unknown, particularly because future large This risk is low but some questions remain (Figure 14.3). 284 arrays of MRE devices may be operated in areas already significantly occupied by other EMF sources. OES-ENVIRONMENTAL 2020 STATE OF THE SCIENCE REPORT Research and monitoring investigations that will continue to inform this risk include the following: ◆ developing a reference database that relates power cable configuration, size, and power transmission levels common to MRE cables, to provide EMF output levels ◆ examining EMF outputs from other underwater infrastructure, such as substations, that will be needed as multiple devices and arrays are deployed in the future ◆ additional examination of potentially sensitive marine species that are found in the vicinity of MRE project sites for which little research has been done to determine their level of sensitivity to EMF ◆ 14.1.4. CHANGES IN HABITATS Chapter 6, concerning changes in habitat, provided insight into the potential effects on benthic and pelagic habitats from the installation and operation of MRE devices, including foundations, anchors, mooring lines, and cables. In addition to changes in habitats, introducing new hard habitats in the form of MRE devices and gear may change the behavior of certain species, especially fishes that are likely to reef around the installations. The footprints of MRE devices and systems, as well as the tendency of marine animals to aggregate around them, does not differ from the effects of other marine installations ranging from navigation and observation buoys, platforms, docks, oil and gas better characterizing and modeling of the exact rigs, and piers. These other installations and industries nature of the EMF surrounding cables and other inform us of the potential effects of habitat changes, electrical infrastructure as new equipment types are including the potential for biofouling organisms to give included in MRE development. entrée to non-native invasive species in an area. Based on research studies, and, in comparison to EMF Research and monitoring investigations that could help levels emitted from existing power cables and those resolve the relatively small risks around habitat changes associated with offshore wind, this risk can be consid- include the following: ered to be relatively low (Figure 14.4). ◆ establishing a baseline for the biodiversity and habitat types for each region where MRE devices will be deployed in order to improve the siting of devices and to understand whether changes are taking place over the life of an MRE project ◆ determining the degree of non-native invasive species penetration into waters and habitats surrounding MRE projects to gauge what possible effect the introduction of new hard habitats might have on the area. Based on information from analogous offshore industries and the relatively small footprint of MRE foun- Electromagnetic Fields dations, anchors, and mooring lines, this risk can be considered to be low (Figure 14.5). However, the most critical aspect of minimizing harm to habitats is the appropriate siting of MRE projects to avoid all rare or Increased sharing of existing information Improved modeling of interaction Monitoring data needed to verify findings New research needed Figure 14.4. Dashboard (dial on the top) that summarizes the broadly understood level of risk from electromagnetic fields (EMFs) from marine renewable energy devices to marine animals, as of 2020 for small numbers of devices. Risk may vary with larger arrays. The bar graph on the bottom demonstrates a pathway to better understanding and lowering the perceived risk of EMFs. (Graphic by Robyn Ricks) SECTION E – LOOKING AHEAD fragile habitat types. With future expansion of large arrays of MRE devices, the potential to affect common habitats should be revisited. 285 Research and monitoring that will further resolve the estimates from numerical models include ◆ collecting monitoring data around operating MRE devices to validate the existing numerical models and to determine that the assumptions are accurate ◆ improving numerical models to focus on realistic conditions for locations into which MRE devices will be deployed, as well as providing realistic representations of turbines or WECs that include the position Changes in Habitats in the water column where devices will be deployed ◆ representing in numerical models the linkages from the potential effects of small numbers of MRE devices to large arrays improving these understanding for long-term base- Increased sharing of existing information Improved modeling of interaction Monitoring data needed to verify findings New research needed ◆ Figure 14.5. Dashboard (dial on the top) that summarizes the broadly understood level of risk from changes in habitats from marine renewable energy devices on marine animals, as of 2020 for small numbers of devices. Risk may vary with larger arrays. The bar graph on the bottom demonstrates a pathway to better understanding and lowering the perceived risk of changes in habitats. (Graphic by Robyn Ricks) to be low (Figure 14.6). line shifts in oceanographic processes, for example caused by climate change. Based on modeling studies, this risk can be considered 14.1.5. CHANGES IN OCEANOGRAPHIC SYSTEMS Chapter 7 described the state of knowledge about potential changes in oceanographic systems that could occur as a result of MRE development. Changes in circulation, wave height, and subsequent changes to sediment transport patterns, water quality, and marine food webs are certain to be small for one or Oceanographic Systems two MRE devices, well within the natural variability of the oceanographic systems. Once very large arrays are put in place, the ability to measure these changes and understand their potential ecological consequences will need to be revisited. In the meantime, numerical models allow us to estimate the changes that might occur as large numbers of devices are deployed and operated. To date, the changes estimated using models indicate that they are likely to be localized and revert to background levels within short distances from the devices. The number of devices used in these models to demonstrate Increased sharing of existing information Improved modeling of interaction Monitoring data needed to verify findings New research needed Figure 14.6. Dashboard (dial on the top) that summarizes the broadly understood level of risk from changes in oceanographic systems caused by marine renewable energy devices, as of 2020 for small numbers of devices. Risk may vary with larger arrays. The bar graph on the bottom demonstrates a pathway to better understanding and lowering the perceived risk of changes in oceanographic systems. (Graphic by Robyn Ricks) change in the environment often exceeds the realistic number that are likely to be consented, based on other concerns such as underwater noise and collision risk. 286 OES-ENVIRONMENTAL 2020 STATE OF THE SCIENCE REPORT 14.1.6. MOORING LINES AND SUBSEA CABLES Chapter 8 described concerns about potential entrapment or entanglement of large marine species such as marine mammals, sharks and other large fishes, and sea turtles, in mooring lines and cables along the seafloor and in the water column. These concerns are largely based on decades-old issues related to submarine cables laid loosely on the seafloor, entangling great whales (a practice that was soon corrected), and the ongoing risk to animals from abandoned and lost Entanglement Risks fishing gear and lines. MRE mooring lines have no loose ends, nor is there sufficient slack in the lines to create an ensnaring loop. The overall risk from this stressor is likely very low for MRE, but some stakeholders remain concerned that direct interaction, or secondary collection of derelict fishing gear, could cause harm to large animals. Research and monitoring that could help further elucidate this risk include ◆ establishing routine maintenance that includes monitoring of mooring lines for derelict gear and Increased sharing of existing information Improved modeling of interaction Monitoring data needed to verify findings New research needed Figure 14.7. Dashboard (dial on the top) that summarizes the broadly understood level of risk to marine animals from mooring lines and cables related to marine renewable energy devices, as of 2020 for small numbers of devices. Risk may vary with larger arrays. The bar graph on the bottom demonstrates a pathway to better understanding and lowering the perceived risk of mooring lines and cables. (Graphic by Robyn Ricks) their removal in order to reduce potential secondary entanglement ◆ better understanding of the diving and swimming behavior of animals that might be at risk to help with siting of MRE development away from dense migratory routes and to determine the depths for placement of draped cables in the water column ◆ describing the relative scales and interactions of marine animals with lines and cables using field measurements and numerical models, which can form the basis for outreach materials to help stakeholders understand this risk. Based on studies that examine the scale and mechanisms for entanglement, this risk can be considered to be low (Figure 14.7). 14.1.7. SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC INTERACTIONS Preparation of environmental assessment documents in most nations requires analysis of the social and economic effects that a proposed MRE project may have on a local area or region. Chapter 9, on social and economic data needs, described the data collection and analysis efforts needed to inform these documents, and also considered the need to track these data throughout the life of the project, to determine whether the estimates are accurate, and to inform future projects. Social and economic effects should be examined at the local level as well as at a larger strategic scale. Efforts that can assist with standardizing social and economic data collection and analysis efforts, making them more transparent and useful, include ◆ determining what data are available at the local, regional, and national level to support the performance of both project-specific and strategic analyses ◆ assessing, through agreements with governments at all levels, what data should be collected and tracked by the MRE project developer and what data should be the purview of governments to better understand the strategic implications of MRE development. SECTION E – LOOKING AHEAD 287 14.1.8. ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING TECHNOLOGIES AND TECHNIQUES FOR DETECTING INTERACTIONS OF MARINE ANIMALS WITH TURBINES 14.1.9. MARINE SPATIAL PLANNING Chapter 10 of the report delved into the technologies that governance of ocean areas for their sustainable use and have been used to detect interactions between marine animals and MRE devices, with an emphasis on the use of existing and emerging technologies to observe and quantify collision risk around turbines. Key instruments that have been used to observe the interactions of marine animals with turbines include passive and active acoustics, as well as optical cameras. Many of these instruments have been mounted and integrated together on platforms, often with data acquisition systems. Challenges in deploying and operating instrument packages to Chapter 11 described the application of marine spatial planning (MSP) as it relates to and assists with MRE development. The purpose of MSP is to improve the to provide equity for all users, while affording environmental protection. Responses to surveys of the OESEnvironmental nations described the wide range of MSP programs and applications as they apply to MRE. Important studies and information are needed to continue improving our understanding of how MSP can support and move forward with MRE development. Needed efforts include ◆ creating materials for and building contacts with measure animal interactions in the high-energy waters government policy-makers and managers to assure in which tidal and river turbines are deployed include: the that those tasked with creating national and regional need to secure the instrumentation in place either on the marine spatial plans are aware of the needs of MRE seafloor or in the water column; difficulties in operating ◆ making data and information that support MSP pro- optical cameras in turbid waters; challenges of control- cesses publicly available and accessible to assure that ling biofouling on instrument sensors (particularly opti- processes are transparent, including the role that cal sensors and lenses); large data mortgages that can MRE can play in ocean development, ocean space be acquired with the use of high-frequency acoustic and allocations, and governance. optical data collection; the need to operate lights that may change animal behavior for optical image capture in most environments; power management of autonomous integrated packages that rely on batteries, the relatively low densities of animals in fast-moving water; and the cost for developers. 14.1.10. ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT Chapter 12 explored the value and application of adaptive management (AM) to MRE siting, development, and management. Using a structured incremental approach to project build-out with embedded monitoring, AM has Research and monitoring efforts needed to continue to helped move many consenting processes forward for progress in observing marine animals around turbines single MRE devices and small arrays of tidal turbines. include ◆ establishing collaborative projects among investigators from many nations to develop data collection and analysis methods, particularly for active acoustic Expanding the value that AM can bring to MRE will require ◆ the consenting process, prepared and issued by the data that are prone to interference from ambient appropriate regulatory body conditions at high-energy sites ◆ pursuing ongoing investigations and trials leading ◆ acceptable, and to include requirements for post-instal- instrument packages that have proven to be effective lation monitoring, stakeholder engagement, informa- continuing the development of strategies to deal with tion sharing, and thresholds for AM intervention the large quantities of data that are collected and must be analyzed to determine animal interactions ◆ to automate analyses. applying AM measures as mechanisms for decreasing financial risk to the industry through the management of data collection, selective storage of sightings, and development of algorithms producing implementation guidance for the MRE industry to clarify the circumstances under which AM is to the standardization of a suite of instruments and ◆ publishing guidance on AM implementation within ◆ assuring comfort amongst regulators that an AM approach can be fully compliant with regulatory requirements and environmental legislation. 288 OES-ENVIRONMENTAL 2020 STATE OF THE SCIENCE REPORT 14.1.11. RISK RETIREMENT AND DATA TRANSFERABILITY Chapter 13 presented the concepts and initial implementation of risk retirement and data transferability as a means ◆ gathering evidence of additional stressors and augmenting the existing evidence base for underwater noise and EMFs as new data become available ◆ translating into regulatory language the evidence base for each stressor for each participating nation, of facilitating and accelerating consenting for small num- working closely with regulators. bers of MRE devices (one or two most likely), whereby each potential risk need not be fully investigated for every studies, or from findings of analogous offshore indus- 14.2. CHARTING A PATH FORWARD FOR MRE CONSENTING tries. When larger arrays of MRE devices are planned, or y bringing together the information about the project. Rather, we recommend that MRE developers and regulators rely on what is already known from already consented and deployed projects, from related research when new information comes to light, these risks may need to be revisited and new decisions about the level of risk retirement could be made. The intent of the process is to provide assistance to regulators in their decision-making and to inform the MRE community of what is likely to be required for consenting small developments, as well as helping to distinguish between perceived and actual risk to the marine environment. Risk retirement will not take the place of any existing regulatory processes, nor will it completely replace the need for all data collection before and after MRE device deployment; these data are needed to verify the risk retirement findings and add to the overall knowledge base. A process for assuring that appropriate datasets and information are readily available (data transferability) is also discussed. Inherent in the risk retirement and data transferability processes is the B potential interactions of marine animals, habitats, and ecosystem processes with MRE devices and systems, this report provides a snapshot of the knowledge in 2020 derived from multiple field, laboratory, and modeling studies conducted around the world. The value of this information is realized as we apply it to consenting processes, and may be informed by applying some of the strategies discussed in the latter chapters of this report: MSP, AM, and risk retirement. Collectively, we might consider this body of information as supporting responsible development of MRE through continued streamlining of consenting processes. In addition, we need to consider how these management strategies support consenting and management of MRE projects through the following lenses: ◆ proportionate consenting requirements of the areas into which MRE devices will be deployed and ◆ sufficiency of evidence working within all existing regulatory frameworks. ◆ transferability of evidence The concepts of risk retirement and data transferability ◆ retirement of specific issues and downgrading of necessary protection of the environment and inhabitants are relatively new. Considerable work is needed to test others that may be retired in the future. can succeed in simplifying these pathways. Necessary 14.2.1. PROPORTIONATE CONSENTING REQUIREMENTS activities to further risk retirement include In many parts of the world, the MRE industry has been whether these concepts have value in MRE development and marine environmental protection, and to see if they ◆ increasing outreach and engagement with regulators in many nations to further explain the process and understand their potential for applying risk retirement to consenting processes ◆ engaging with MRE device and project developers, researchers, consultants, and other stakeholders to gain their trust in the process and to assure they understand what regulators will require of them if risk retirement is applied SECTION E – LOOKING AHEAD required to collect significant baseline and post-installation monitoring data for each proposed demonstration, pilot, or commercial project. At times, the requirements for data collection appear to be out of proportion relative to the size of the project and the likely risk to marine receptors. The purpose of the strategies and planning concepts highlighted here (MSP, AM, risk retirement) is to assist in converging on proportionate data collection, analysis, and reporting for consenting. Some site-specific data collection will be required at 289 each proposed MRE project site to assure that models and information collected far from the site are applicable. However, relying on the knowledge of stressorreceptor relationships and likely risk from already consented projects, analogous industries, and research studies can bring these efforts closer to the proportion- 14.2.4. RETIRING SPECIFIC ISSUES Some stressor-receptor interactions may be of greater importance in certain countries, based on local sensitivities or other needs. These issues are likely to be given greater attention and inquiry through research ate consenting that will move the industry forward. investigations or post-installation monitoring require- 14.2.2. SUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE MRE structures, the developers opt to use sacrificial For each MRE project, it is the duty of regulators to assure that sufficient evidence that is proportionate to the risk is gathered to evaluate the risk to critical marine species and habitats, and the responsibility of stakeholders to question whether the regulatory process is fair and sufficiently protective of the marine environment while not being overly precautionary. At this early stage of MRE development, validating whether the evidence base is sufficient is not a clear and simple ments. For example, in France, to prevent corrosion of anodes. The use of these metal-based anodes has raised concerns about the potential contamination of nearby waters and habitats, which have resulted in an extensive study of potential concentrations of the metals that might be shed into nearshore waters. The preliminary results of this study show a very limited environmental risk due to metals concentration in nearshore waters, which might result in the risk being retired for France (De Roeck, pers. comm). process. The process of MSP enables governments and As the MRE industry develops and more deployments all sectors to come together to identify optimal loca- yield monitoring data and studies, the accurate nature tions for MRE development, which will allow for the of specific stressor-receptor interactions will become creation of this secure low-carbon energy source, while clearer. At this early stage, efforts such as the risk protecting the marine environment. AM can also play a retirement process suggested in this report will help key role in allowing feedback loops and learning from determine for which of these interactions sufficient evi- each subsequent project, granting regulatory bodies and dence exists, and where there are still significant uncer- advisors leeway to adjust requirements based on post- tainties. By decreasing the need to study each stressor- installation monitoring data and outcomes from the receptor interaction at each new project site, the focus initial operation of MRE devices. of project developer funds and scientific expertise can 14.2.3. TRANSFERABILITY OF EVIDENCE Inherent in determining under what conditions sufficient evidence exists for consenting purposes is the need to examine information collected at other MRE development locations, and to apply lessons learned from analogous offshore industries and targeted research projects. Evaluating and understanding what data and information are valid for application to con- be on the interactions for which not enough is known to clearly judge the associated levels of risk. Understanding of some of the more challenging stressor-receptor relationships, such as collision risk for marine animals around turbines, will progress much faster with this focus. By retiring specific issues for small numbers of devices and planning to re-examine these same interactions with larger arrays, we will move toward a simpler but proportionate protective process for consenting. senting new MRE sites is challenging. This process will become more transparent as more deployments and evaluations take place worldwide. The data transferability process proposed in this report, as part of the risk retirement pathway, is intended to organize and begin the process of making routine transfer of evidence more efficient. 290 OES-ENVIRONMENTAL 2020 STATE OF THE SCIENCE REPORT 14.3. REFERENCES National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2018. 2018 Copping, A. and Kramer, S. 2017. A snapshot of risk Hearing (Version 2.0): Underwater Thresholds for for environmental effects of marine renewable energy Onset of Permanent and Temporary Threshold Shifts. development. 6th Annual Marine Energy Technol- NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-OPR-59. U.S. ogy Symposium. Washington DC. April 30 – May 2, Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and 2017. https://​tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/snapshot- Atmospheric Administration, Silver Spring, MD. https://​ risk-environmental​-effects-marine-renewable-energy- tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/2018-revisions-technical​ development -guidance-assessing-effects-anthropogenic-sound​ Holt, M. M., Noren, D. P., Veirs, V., Emmons, C. K. and Revisions to: Technical Guidance for Assessing the Effects of Anthropogenic Sound on Marine Mammal -marine-mammal Veirs, S. 2009. Speaking up: Killer whales (Orcinus orca) National Research Council (NRC). 2003. Ocean Noise increase their call amplitude in response to vessel noise. and Marine Mammals. Washington, DC: The National The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 125(1): Academies Press. https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications​ EL27-EL32. doi:10.1121/1.3040028 https://tethys.pnnl​ /ocean-noise-marine-mammals .gov/publications/speaking-killer-whales-orcinus-orca​ Popper, A. N. and Hawkins, A. D. 2018. The importance -increase-their-call-amplitude-response-vessel of particle motions to fishes and invertebrates. The Jour- International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC). nal of the Acoustical Society of America, 143(1), 470-488. 2019. Marine energy - Wave, tidal and other water doi:10.1121/1.5021594 https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications​ current converters - Part 40: Acoustic characteriza- /importance-particle-motion-fishes-invertebrates tion of marine energy converters (IEC TS 62600- Tetra Tech. 2013. Underwater Acoustic Modeling 40:2019). https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/acoustic​ -characterization-marine-energy-converters-iec-ts​ -62600-402019 Report - Virginia Offshore Wind Technology Advancement Project (VOWTAP). Report by Tetra Tech Inc. for Dominion Energy, Glen Allen, Virginia. https://​ Jensen, F. H., Bejder, L., Wahlberg, M., Soto, N. A., tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/underwater-acoustic​ Johnson, M. and Madsen, P. T. 2009. Vessel noise -modeling-report-virginia-offshore-wind-technology​ effects on delphinid communication. Marine Ecology -advancement Progress Series, 395: 161-175. doi:10.3354/meps08204 https://tethys​.pnnl.gov/publications/vessel-noise-effectsdelphinid​-communication Lesage, V., Barrette, C., Kingsley, M.C. and Sjare, B., 1999. The effect of vessel noise on the vocal behavior of belugas in the St. Lawrence River estuary, Canada. Marine Mammal Science, 15(1): 65-84. doi:10.1111/j.1748​ -7692.1999.tb00782.x https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications​ /effect-vessel-noise-vocal-behavior-belugas-st-lawrence​ -river-estuary-canada SECTION E – LOOKING AHEAD 291 NOTES Summary and Path Forward Copping, A.E. 2020. Summary and Path forward. In A.E. Copping and L.G. Hemery (Eds.), OES-Environmental 2020 State of the Science Report: Environmental Effects of Marine Renewable Energy Development Around the World. Report for Ocean Energy Systems (OES). (pp. 280-292). doi:10.2172/1633209 REPORT AND MORE INFORMATION CONTACT OES-Environmental 2020 State of the Science full report and executive summary available at: https://tethys​.pnnl.gov/publications/state-of-the​-science-2020 Andrea Copping Pacific Northwest National Laboratory andrea.copping@pnnl.gov Go to https://tethys​.pnnl.gov for a comprehensive collection of papers, reports, archived presentations, and other media about environmental effects of marine renewable energy development. +1 206.528.3049 292 OES-ENVIRONMENTAL 2020 STATE OF THE SCIENCE REPORT Technical Glossary Active acoustic measurements: Technique of purposefully producing sound underwater to receive signals (reflections) from multiple sources in the water column. Includes sonar, multi-beam and single-beam echosounders, acoustic cameras. Direct current (DC): Electric current that flows in a single direction. Ecosystem processes: The physical, chemical, and biological connections that sustain and link the distribution and health of organisms within an environment. Adaptive management (AM): Process that seeks to reduce scientific uncertainty and improve management through rigorous monitoring and periodic review of decisions in response to growing knowledge gained from monitoring data. Electromagnetic field (EMF): Force field of electrical and magnetic components that results from the motion of an electrical charge that carries a specific amount of electromagnetic energy. Alternating current (AC): Electric current that periodically reverses direction. Entanglement/Entrapment: Result of an animal that became caught or trapped in a device’s mooring system without the possibility of escaping. Ambient noise: Background noise in the environment from multiple sources, and distinct from the noise emitted by a marine renewable energy device or other signals to be measured. Farfield: The area of ocean or bay around a marine renewable energy device, generally defined as more than five device diameters from the device or array of devices. Backscatter: Reflection of a signal (e.g., sound, light) back to its origin. Frequency: Number of vibrations, sound waves, or light waves emitted over a set timeframe. Benthic: Related to the seafloor habitat; also refers to the animals that inhabit the seafloor. Light detection and ranging (LiDAR): Technique used to measure distances by illuminating the target with laser light and measuring the time the light takes to return to its source. Biofouling: Accumulation of microorganisms, plants, algae, sessile animals or small mobile animals on underwater structures, generally from pelagic larvae that settle on hard surfaces as part of their life cycle. Biofouling organisms becomes a problem for human structures placed in the ocean (including marine renewable energy devices) as it adds significant weight and can cover and mask important systems or moving parts of a device. Collision: Direct contact between an animal and a moving device component (blades and rotors). Consenting/permitting: Providing legal permission for a development, including marine renewable energy projects, based on an existing regulatory pathway that includes analysis and reporting on a range of environmental states and trends that may be affected by the proposed project. Cumulative impacts: Changes to the environment that are assumed to be damaging, as a result of the combination of past, present, and future human activities and natural processes. Data transferability: The process of applying datasets and information from established projects or studies that can inform new project applications for regulatory approval. The process will facilitate the discovery and application of existing information and datasets to improve the efficiency and efficacy of transferring the information. TECHNICAL GLOSSARY Marine Spatial Planning (MSP): An approach to managing multiple marine uses and users within a geographic space, informed by geospatial data on marine resources, human activities, and ecosystem services. MSP seeks to optimize the use of marine resources and space while balancing environmental, social, and economic interests. Nearfield: The localized area of sea occupied by and in very close proximity to a marine renewable energy, generally considered to be within one to five device diameters. Passive acoustic measurements: Use of underwater microphones (generally hydrophones) to characterize the soundscape, including vocalization of marine animals. Pelagic: Related to the water column of the ocean; also refers to the animals that inhabit the water column. Receptor: Animal, habitat, or ecosystem processes susceptible to stress from an anthropogenic device or process (stressor) that may result in changes in behavior, injury or death of an animal, or removal or deterioration of a habitat. Stressor: An anthropogenic force or object that can produce stress or injury on marine animals, habitats, or ecosystem processes (receptor). Marine renewable energy systems and subsystems can be stressors in the marine environment. 293 REPORT AND MORE INFORMATION CONTACT OES-Environmental 2020 State of the Science full report and executive summary available at: https://tethys​.pnnl.gov/publications/state-of-the​-science-2020 Andrea Copping Pacific Northwest National Laboratory andrea.copping@pnnl.gov +1 206.528.3049 SECTION E – LOOKING AHEAD Go to https://tethys​.pnnl.gov for a comprehensive collection of papers, reports, archived presentations, and other media about environmental effects of marine renewable energy development. 295