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 partici-
pating nations under the International Energy Agency (IEA) Ocean Energy Systems
initiative (OES).

SUGGESTED CITATION DISCLAIMER

The suggested citation for this report is: Copping, A.E. and
The OES, also known as the Implementing Agreement on Ocean
Hemery, L.G., editors. 2020. OES-Environmental 2020 State of
Energy Systems, functions within a framework created by the
the Science Report: Environmental Effects of Marine Renewable
International Energy Agency (IEA). Views, findings, and publica-
Energy Development Around the World. Report for Ocean
tions of the OES do not necessarily represent the views or policies
Energy Systems (OES). doi:10.2172/1632878
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 con-
tained in this report, or assume any liabilities with respect to use
of or for damages resulting from the use of any information dis-
closed in this document.

REPORT AND MORE INFORMATION CONTACT Go to https://tethys​.pnnl.gov for a

OES-Environmental 2020 State of the Science full report and Andrea Copping comprehensive collection of
executive summary available at: Pacific Northwest National papers, reports, archived presen-
https://tethys​.pnnl.gov/publications/state-of-the​-science-2020 Laboratory tations, and other media about
[email protected] environmental effects of marine
renewable energy development.
+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 University of Alaska Fairbanks (United States)
(United States) Andrew C. Seitz, Ph.D.
Andrea E. Copping, Ph.D.
Lenaïg G. Hemery, Ph.D. University of the Highland and Islands (United Kingdom)
Jonathan M. Whiting, PE Elizabeth Masden, Ph.D.
Lysel Garavelli, Ph.D. Benjamin J. Williamson, Ph.D.
Mikaela C. Freeman
Robert J. Cavagnaro, Ph.D. University Of St. Andrews (United Kingdom)
Robert P. Mueller Carol E. Sparling, Ph.D.
Alicia M. Gorton, Ph.D. Douglas M. Gillespie, Ph.D.
Gordon D. Hastie, Ph.D.
Aquatera Limited and Nova Innovation Limited
(United Kingdom) University of Washington (United States)
Kate Smith, Ph.D. Brian Polagye, Ph.D.
Christopher Bassett, Ph.D.
Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Emma Cotter, Ph.D.
Aquaculture Science (United Kingdom) John K. Horne, Ph.D.
Andrew B. Gill, Ph.D. James Joslin, Ph.D.
Marieke Desender, Ph.D.

Dalhousie University (Canada)

David R. Barclay, Ph.D.
Contributors
European Marine Energy Centre (United Kingdom)
U.S. Department of Energy
Caitlin Long
Samantha Eaves, Ph.D.
Fundy Ocean Research Center for Energy (Canada)
Pacific Northwest National Laboratory
Daniel J. Hasselman, Ph.D.
Deborah J. Rose
Hayley K. Farr
Independent Researcher (United States)
Dorian M. Overhus
Louise P. McGarry Levy G. Tugade
Garrett J. Staines
Integral Consulting Inc. (United States) Susan Ennor
Grace Chang, Ph.D.
Aquatera Limited
MaREI, University of College Cork (Ireland) Ian Hutchison
Anne Marie O’Hagan, Ph.D. Jennifer Fox
Célia Le Lièvre, Ph.D.
University of the Highland and Islands
SMRU Consulting (United Kingdom)
Natalie Isaksson
Carol E. Sparling, Ph.D.

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: Chapter 4
Risk to Marine Animals from Underwater Noise Generated by
Copping, A.E. and Hemery, L.G., editors. 2020. OES-Environmental Marine Renewable Energy Devices
2020 State of the Science Report: Environmental Effects of Marine Polagye, B. and C. Bassett. 2020. Risk to Marine Animals from
Renewable Energy Development Around the World. Report for Underwater Noise Generated by Marine Renewable Energy Devices.
Ocean Energy Systems (OES). doi:10.2172/1632878 In A.E. Copping and L.G. Hemery (Eds.), OES-Environmental 2020
State of the Science Report: Environmental Effects of Marine
When citing individual chapter, please use the individual chapter Renewable Energy Development Around the World. Report for
citations below. Ocean Energy Systems (OES). (pp. 66-85). doi:10.2172/1633082

Chapter 5
Section A –Introduction Risk to Animals from Electromagnetic Fields Emitted by
Electric Cables and Marine Renewable Energy Devices
Chapter 1
Gill, A.B. and M. Desender. 2020. Risk to Animals from Electro-
Marine Renewable Energy and Ocean Energy Systems
magnetic Fields Emitted by Electric Cables and Marine Renewable
Copping, A.E. 2020. Marine Renewable Energy and Ocean Energy Energy Devices. In A.E. Copping and L.G. Hemery (Eds.), OES-
Systems. In A.E. Copping and L.G. Hemery (Eds.), OES-Environ- Environmental 2020 State of the Science Report: Environmental
mental 2020 State of the Science Report: Environmental Effects of Effects of Marine Renewable Energy Development Around the
Marine Renewable Energy Development Around the World. Report World. Report for Ocean Energy Systems (OES). (pp. 86-103).
for Ocean Energy Systems (OES). (pp. 2-17). doi:10.2172/1632879 doi:10.2172/1633088

Chapter 2
Chapter 6
Marine Renewable Energy: Environmental Effects and
Changes in Benthic and Pelagic Habitats Caused by
Monitoring Strategies
Marine Renewable Energy Devices
Copping, A.E 2020. Marine Renewable Energy: Environmental
Hemery, L.G. 2020. Changes in Benthic and Pelagic Habitats
Effects and Monitoring Strategies. In A.E. Copping and L.G. Hemery
Caused by Marine Renewable Energy Devices. In A.E. Copping and
(Eds.), OES-Environmental 2020 State of the Science Report:
L.G. Hemery (Eds.), OES-Environmental 2020 State of the Science
Environmental Effects of Marine Renewable Energy Development
Report: Environmental Effects of Marine Renewable Energy Devel-
Around the World. Report for Ocean Energy Systems (OES). (pp.
opment Around the World. Report for Ocean Energy Systems (OES).
18-26). doi:10.2172/1632880
(pp. 104-125). doi:10.2172/1633182

Chapter 7
Section B – Current Knowledge of Key Device Changes in Oceanographic Systems Associated with
Interactions with the Marine Environment Marine Renewable Energy Devices

Chapter 3 Whiting, J.M. and G. Chang. 2020. Changes in Oceanographic Sys-

tems Associated with Marine Renewable Energy Devices. In A.E.
Collision Risk for Animals Around Turbines Copping and L.G. Hemery (Eds.), OES-Environmental 2020 State
Sparling, C.E., A.C. Seitz, E. Masden, and K. Smith. 2020. Collision of the Science Report: Environmental Effects of Marine Renewable
Risk for Animals around Turbines. In A.E. Copping and L.G. Hemery Energy Development Around the World. Report for Ocean Energy
(Eds.), OES-Environmental 2020 State of the Science Report: Systems (OES). (pp. 126-145). doi:10.2172/1633183
Environmental Effects of Marine Renewable Energy Development
Around the World. Report for Ocean Energy Systems (OES). (pp.
28-65). doi:10.2172/1632881

iv OES-ENVIRONMENTAL 2020 STATE OF THE SCIENCE REPORT

Chapter 8 Section D– Strategies for Accelerating Permitting/
Encounters of Marine Animals with Marine Renewable Energy Consenting
Device Mooring Systems and Subsea Cables
Chapter 11
Garavelli, L. 2020. Encounters of Marine Animals with Marine
Marine Spatial Planning and Marine Renewable Energy
Renewable Energy Device Mooring Systems and Subsea Cables.
In A.E. Copping and L.G. Hemery (Eds.), OES-Environmental 2020 O’Hagan, A.M. 2020. Marine Spatial Planning and Marine Renewable
State of the Science Report: Environmental Effects of Marine Energy. In A.E. Copping and L.G. Hemery (Eds.), OES-Environmental
Renewable Energy Development Around the World. Report for 2020 State of the Science Report: Environmental Effects of Marine
Ocean Energy Systems (OES). (pp. 146-153). doi:10.2172/1633184 Renewable Energy Development Around the World. Report for
Ocean Energy Systems (OES). (pp. 214-241). doi:10.2172/1633204
Chapter 9
Chapter 12
Social and Economic Data Collection for Marine Renewable
Energy Adaptive Management Related to Marine Renewable Energy
Freeman, M.C. 2020. Social and Economic Data Collection for Le Lièvre, C. 2020. Adaptive Management Related to Maritime
Marine Renewable Energy. In A.E. Copping and L.G. Hemery (Eds.), Renewable Energy. In A.E. Copping and L.G. Hemery (Eds.), OES-
OES-Environmental 2020 State of the Science Report: Environ- Environmental 2020 State of the Science Report: Environmental
mental Effects of Marine Renewable Energy Development Around Effects of Marine Renewable Energy Development Around the
the World. Report for Ocean Energy Systems (OES). (pp. 154-174). World. Report for Ocean Energy Systems (OES). (pp. 242-261).
doi:10.2172/1633195 doi:10.2172/1633206

Chapter 13
Risk Retirement and Data Transferability for Marine
Section C – Environmental Monitoring Renewable Energy
Chapter 10 Copping, A.E., M.C. Freeman, A.M Gorton, and L.G. Hemery. 2020.
Environmental Monitoring Technologies and Techniques for Risk Retirement and Data Transferability for Marine Renewable
Detecting Interactions of Marine Animals with Turbines Energy. In A.E. Copping and L.G. Hemery (Eds.), OES-Environmental
Hasselman, D.J., D.R. Barclay, R.J. Cavagnaro, C. Chandler, 2020 State of the Science Report: Environmental Effects of Marine
E. Cotter, D.M. Gillespie, G.D. Hastie, J.K. Horne, J. Joslin, C. Renewable Energy Development Around the World. Report for
Long, L.P. McGarry, R.P. Mueller, C.E. Sparling, and B.J. Wil- Ocean Energy Systems (OES). (pp. 262-278). doi:10.2172/1633208
liamson. 2020. Environmental Monitoring Technologies and
Techniques for Detecting interactions of Marine Animals with
Turbines. In A.E. Copping and L.G. Hemery (Eds.), OES-Envi-
ronmental 2020 State of the Science Report: Environmental Section E – Looking Ahead
Effects of Marine Renewable Energy Development Around the
Chapter 14
World. Report for Ocean Energy Systems (OES). (pp. 176-212).
doi:10.2172/1633202 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 Devel-
opment Around the World. Report for Ocean Energy Systems (OES).
(pp. 280-292). doi:10.2172/1633209

v
AVAILABILITY OF REPORT OES-ENVIRONMENTAL COUNTRY
A PDF file of this report is available at: REPRESENTATIVES
https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/state-of-the​-science-2020 ◆ Australia: Mark Hemer, CSIRO

◆ Canada: Anna Redden, Acadia University, Dan Hasselman,

FORCE
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ◆ China: Qiwei Zhao, National Ocean Technology Center
The U.S. Department of Energy and Ocean Energy Systems pro- ◆ Denmark: Hans Chr Soerensen, Wave Dragon
vided financial support for this effort. Partner nations contrib-
uted in-kind resources. We want to thank and acknowledge all of ◆ France: Nolwenn Quillien, Morgane Lejart, France Énergies
the researchers and developers who have contributed informa- Marines
tion to the OES-Environmental metadata collection effort.
◆ India: Purnima Jalihal, National Institute of Ocean
We would also like to acknowledge support of the OES-Envi- Technology
ronmental initiative by Mary Boatman and Erin Trager, Bureau
◆ Ireland: Anne Marie O’Hagan, MaREI, University College Cork
of Ocean Energy Management (U.S.), and Candace Nachman,
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (U.S.). ◆ Japan: Daisuke Kitazawa, Takero Yoshida,
University of tokyo
We also thank Kelly Cunningham, Ryan Hull, and Matt Sturte-
vant at Pacific Northwest National Laboratory for their work on ◆ Norway: Lars Golmen, Norwegian Institute for Water
developing and maintaining the Tethys and OES-Environmental Research
knowledge base, in addition to Mikaela Freeman, Hayley Farr,
Dorian Overhus, Deborah Rose, Levy Tugade, Amy Woodbury, ◆ Portugal: Teresa Simas, WavEC – Offshore Renewables
Cailene Gunn, Julia Indivero, Heidi Stewart, and Kailan Mackereth ◆ Spain: Juan Bald, AZTI-Tecnalia
for assisting with the Tethys knowledge base content curation.
◆ Sweden: Jan Sundberg, Uppsala University
Finally, we would like to thank those who provided the many
helpful suggestions and review comments we used to improve ◆ United Kingdom: Caitlin Long, European Marine Energy
this manuscript. Centre

Design and production: Robyn Ricks ◆ United States: Andrea Copping, Pacific Northwest National

Illustrations: Rose Perry Laboratory

vi OES-ENVIRONMENTAL 2020 STATE OF THE SCIENCE REPORT

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

°C degrees Celsius DOE U.S. Department of Energy

2D two-dimensional DOEIMS Development of an Ocean Energy Impact

Monitoring System
3D three-dimensional
DRIP Data-Rich Information Poor
µPa micropascal(s)
DVR digital video recorder
µT microtesla(s)
EERE Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
µV microvolt(s)
E-field electric field
AC alternating current
EIA environmental impact assessment
ADCP acoustic Doppler current profiler
EIS environmental impact statement
ADV Acoustic Doppler Velocimeter
EMEC European Marine Energy Centre
AM adaptive management
EM electromagnetic
AMC Adaptive Management Committee
EMF electromagnetic field
AMP Adaptive Management Plan or Adaptable
Monitoring Package 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 HVDC high-voltage direct current

Natural Resources, Northern Ireland
Hz hertz
DEFRA Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs
I/O input/output
DELWP Department of Environment, Land, Water and
IBM individual based modeling
Planning
ICES International Council for the Exploration of the Sea
DGRM Direção-Geral de Recursos Naturais, Segurança
e Serviços Marítimos (Directorate-General for ICOE International Conference on Ocean Energy
Natural Resources, Safety and Maritime Services)
IEA International Energy Agency
DIDSON Dual-Frequency Identification Sonar
IEC International Electrotechnical Commission

vii
IEC TC 114 IEC Technical Committee 114 ORJIP Offshore Renewable Joint Industry Programme
Ocean Energy for Ocean Energy
iE-field induced electric field
ORPC Ocean Renewable Power Company
IMP Integrated Monitoring Pod
OSU Oregon State University
inSTREAM in Situ Turbulence Replication Evaluation and
Measurement 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 Programmations Pluriannuelles de l’Énergie

(French Strategy for Energy and Climate Multi-
LED light-emitting diode Annual 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, ROV remotely operated vehicle
Electromagnetic Fields and Noise
s second(s)
MCT Marine Current Turbines (installation)
SAC Special Area of Conservation
MHK marine hydrokinetic
SDK software development kit
mm millimeter(s)
SEMLA Swedish Electromagnetic Low-Noise Apparatus
MMO Marine Management Organisation
SIA social impact assessment
MMO Marine Mammal Observer
SME Sustainable Marine Energy
MPA Marine Protected Area(s)
SMRU Sea Mammal Research Unit
MRE marine renewable energy
SNR signal-to-noise ratio
MSP marine spatial planning
SPL sound pressure level
mT millitesla(s)
Sv mean volume backscattering strength
mV/m millivolt(s) per meter
TB terabyte(s)
MW megawatt(s)
TGU turbine generator unit
MWh megawatt(s)-hour(s)
UAV unmanned aerial vehicle
nm nanometer(s)
UK United Kingdom
NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service
UNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural
NMPF National Marine Planning Framework 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. Benefits of Marine Renewable Energy.................................................................................................................................................... 4
1.2. Balancing Concerns with Benefits for MRE Development......................................................................................................................5
1.3. 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
1.4. Ocean Energy Systems............................................................................................................................................................................. 6
1.4.1. The OES-Environmental (formerly Annex IV) Task................................................................................................................ 12
1.4.2. OES-Environmental Phase 3.................................................................................................................................................... 12
1.5. References .............................................................................................................................................................................................. 15

2.0 Marine Renewable Energy: Environmental Effects and Monitoring Strategies.......................................... 18

2.1. Potential Effects of Marine Renewable Energy ................................................................................................................................... 20
2.2. Stressors and Receptors........................................................................................................................................................................ 20
2.3. Definitions for Measuring Environmental Effects................................................................................................................................. 21
2.4. Measuring the Effects of MRE Devices ................................................................................................................................................. 21
2.5. Key Monitoring Questions .................................................................................................................................................................... 22
2.5.1. Direct Effects of Stressor-receptor Interactions ................................................................................................................... 22
2.5.2. Monitoring within the Context or Environment of MRE Devices.......................................................................................... 22
2.6. Monitoring Strategies ............................................................................................................................................................................23
2.7. 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. Importance of the Issue......................................................................................................................................................................... 30
3.2. Summary of Knowledge Through 2016................................................................................................................................................. 31
3.3. Definitions...............................................................................................................................................................................................32
3.4. 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. Summary of Knowledge Through 2016.............................................................................................................................................................................. 71
4.3. Knowledge Generated Since 2016......................................................................................................................................................... 72
4.3.1. Tidal, Ocean, and River Current Turbines................................................................................................................................73
4.3.2. Wave Energy Converters...........................................................................................................................................................75
4.3.3. Biological Consequences of Radiated Noise........................................................................................................................... 76
4.3.4. Progress on Modeling.............................................................................................................................................................. 77
4.3.5. International Standards........................................................................................................................................................... 78
4.4. Research and Monitoring Needs to Resolve the Issue......................................................................................................................... 79
4.5. Guidance on Measuring Underwater Noise from MRE Devices........................................................................................................... 80
4.6. Recommendations................................................................................................................................................................................. 80
4.7. 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. Summary of Knowledge Through 2016................................................................................................................................................ 89
5.3. 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. Response to EMF – Invertebrates........................................................................................................................................... 92
5.3.4. Response to the Presence of Subsea Cables – Faunal Communities................................................................................... 93
5.4. Guidance on Measuring EMF from MRE Devices and Cables............................................................................................................... 94
5.5. Research and Monitoring Needs to Resolve the Issue......................................................................................................................... 95
5.6. Conclusion.............................................................................................................................................................................................. 98
5.7. 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. Summary of Knowledge Through 2016............................................................................................................................................... 107
6.3. 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
6.4. Research and Monitoring Needs to Resolve the Issue......................................................................................................................... 115
6.5. Guidance on Measuring Changes In Benthic and Pelagic Habitats Caused By MRE ........................................................................ 116
6.6. Recommendations................................................................................................................................................................................. 117
6.7. References..............................................................................................................................................................................................118

7.0 Changes in Oceanographic Systems Associated with Marine Renewable Energy Devices....................... 126
7.1. Importance of the Issue........................................................................................................................................................................ 128
7.2. Summary of Knowledge Through 2016............................................................................................................................................... 128
7.3. 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
7.4. 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
7.5. 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
7.6. References............................................................................................................................................................................................. 137

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. Definition of Social and Economic Effects .......................................................................................................................................... 157
9.3. Requirements for Collecting Social and Economic Data to Support Consenting.............................................................................. 158
9.3.1. Country-specific Social and Economic Requirements for MRE............................................................................................ 158
9.3.2. Data Collection Responsibility................................................................................................................................................160
9.3.3. Stakeholder Outreach and Engagement................................................................................................................................................... 161
9.4. 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. Case Studies ..........................................................................................................................................................................................166
9.7. Recommendations................................................................................................................................................................................166
9.7.1. Review or Develop Tools and Databases...............................................................................................................................166
9.7.2. Guide Data Collection Efforts.................................................................................................................................................166
9.7.3. Conduct Meaningful Stakeholder Engagement....................................................................................................................166
9.7.4. Provide an Incentive to Collect and Publicize MRE Data .....................................................................................................166
9.7.5. Use a Flexible Planning Approach ......................................................................................................................................... 168
9.7.6. Correlate Impacts, Data Collection, and Processes to Appropriate Sizes............................................................................168
9.8. Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 168
9.9. 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. Background to Environmental Monitoring Technologies Around Turbines ...................................................................................... 178
10.2. 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
10.2.4. Video Cameras........................................................................................................................................................................ 189
10.3. 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
10.4. 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
10.5. Lessons Learned from Monitoring Activities...................................................................................................................................... 200
10.6. 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
10.7. References ........................................................................................................................................................................................... 202

xi
Section D Strategies for Accelerating Consenting/Permitting............................................................................... 213
11.0 Marine Spatial Planning and Marine Renewable Energy........................................................................... 214
11.1. Background on MSP.............................................................................................................................................................................. 216
11.2. Approaches to MSP in OES-Environmental Participating Countries ................................................................................................ 217
11.3. Mre Policies and Links to MSP ............................................................................................................................................................. 219
11.4. Taking MRE into Account in MSP ............................................................................................................................................................................ 222
11.5. Dealing with Potential Conflicts Between Marine Sectors/Users..................................................................................................................222
11.6. Areas Available for MRE Development................................................................................................................................................223
11.7. Tools That Support MSP Implementation.......................................................................................................................................... 226
11.8. The Consenting Process and MSP ...................................................................................................................................................................................229
11.9. Factors Limiting Implementation of MSP for MRE .........................................................................................................................................229
11.10. Public Involvement in MSP.................................................................................................................................................................. 229
11.11. 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
12.2.3. Post-installation Monitoring ................................................................................................................................................ 247
12.3. Adaptive Management and the Precautionary Principle................................................................................................................... 248
12.4. 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
12.4.7 PacWave South Project ......................................................................................................................................................... 254
12.5. Conclusions and Recommendations....................................................................................................................................................255
12.6. 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. Effects of EMFs on Marine Animals...................................................................................................................................... 268
13.4. 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. Underwater Noise.................................................................................................................................................................. 283
14.1.3. Electromagnetic Fields........................................................................................................................................................... 284
14.1.4. Changes in Habitats............................................................................................................................................................... 285
14.1.5. Changes in Oceanographic Systems..................................................................................................................................... 286
14.1.6. Mooring Lines and Subsea Cables......................................................................................................................................... 287
14.1.7. Social and Economic Interactions......................................................................................................................................... 287
14.1.8. Environmental Monitoring Technologies and Techniques for Detecting Interactions
of Marine Animals with Turbines.......................................................................................................................................... 288
14.1.9. Marine Spatial Planning......................................................................................................................................................... 288
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
FIGURES offshore wind mooring lines and inter-array
Figure 1.1. Tidal, wave, river current, and offshore wind sites cables.........................................................................150
mentioned in the various chapters of the report. ..... 8 Figure 9.1. Examples of social and economic activities for
Figure 2.1. Stressor-receptor interactions potentially which data should be collected for consenting
arising from various marine renewable energy and understanding of the potential benefits
devices......................................................................... 20 and adverse effects of marine renewable energy
Figure 3.1. Interactions of a harbor seal, a school of pollack, development..............................................................157
and a European shag with a non-operating tidal Figure 9.2. Responsibilities of governments and developers
turbine.......................................................................... 31 in collecting social and economic data, as
Figure 3.2. A MeyGen tidal turbine ready for deployment recommended by expert workshops........................ 161
in the Inner Sound of Pentland Firth in Scotland..... 34 Figure 9.3. A value map created from a study of social and
Figure 3.3. Nova Innovation’s three-turbine tidal array cultural values related to climate change adaptation
in Bluemull Sound, Shetland, Scotland. ................... 35 on Prince Edward Island, Canada. ...........................162

Figure 3.4. The SeaGen tidal turbine when installed Figure 10.1. Schematic of the components of the “drifting
in Strangford Lough, Northern Ireland..................... 37 ears” autonomous recording drifter specifically
developed for use in tidal streams. ........................ 180
Figure 3.5. Minesto’s Deep Green 0.5 MW tidal kite being
deployed at Holyhead Deep, in Anglesey, Wales...... 39 Figure 10.2. Examples of a “conventional” PAM instrument
and a “stand-alone” PAM instrument..................... 181
Figure 3.6. Schematic of stimulus fields produced by a
turbine that could affect fish behavior. ................... 48 Figure 10.3. Example of a vessel-based sonar configuration.....183

Figure 4.1. Determining the impact of radiated noise from Figure 10.4. Example data from a vessel-based survey
marine energy converters is difficult and requires using Tritech Gemini. ...............................................183
physical and biological inputs...................................68 Figure 10.5. Example data from the FLOWBEC-4D
Figure 4.2. An overview of biological, natural physical, and deployment at the European Marine Energy
anthropogenic noises in marine environments Centre. ...................................................................... 184
and the hearing ranges of marine animals............... 70 Figure 10.6. Example of electrical interference in data
Figure 5.1. Diagrams summarizing the natural and from a BlueView imaging sonar on the
anthropogenic electric fields (E-fields), induced Adaptable Monitoring Package (AMP). ...................185
electric fields (iE-fields) and magnetic fields Figure 10.7. Echogram from a single transect during a
(B-fields) encountered by an electromagnetic- mobile hydroacoustic survey in Minas Passage,
sensitive fish moving across the seabed...................89 Nova Scotia, Canada, showing the extent and
Figure 5.2 The key elements that need to be considered variability of air entrainment during peak flow
when assessing the environmental impact of conditions..................................................................187
electromagnetic fields (EMF) on sensitive Figure 10.8. Example of a school of broad whitefish
receptors................................................................... 100 (Coregonus nasus) captured with a monochrome
Figure 6.1. Schematic of various wave and tidal energy video camera. .......................................................... 190
devices, and associated equipment, and their Figure 10.9. The Adaptable Monitoring Package (AMP),
potential effects on the benthic and pelagic before and after deployment for 18 weeks
habitats. ................................................................... 108 in Sequim Bay, Washington, United States. ............195
Figure 6.2. Pictures of iron shells and concrete mattresses Figure 10.10. The Adaptable Monitoring Package (AMP)..............197
used to protect an unburied cable at the Paimpol- Figure 10.11. FORCE’s Fundy Advanced Sensor Technology
Bréhat tidal turbine test site in France. ................. 109 Environmental Monitoring System (FAST-EMS)
Figure 6.3. Heavily colonized tripod of a decommissioned integrated and cabled monitoring platform
tidal turbine in the Orkney Islands, Scotland........... 111 positioned on the FORCE beach. .............................197
Figure 6.4. Functional groups used in an Ecopath with Figure 10.12. The FLOWBEC-4D platform during deployment
Ecosim model............................................................. 114 at the European Marine Energy Center in the
Figure 7.1. Schematic of the hydrodynamics of an array United Kingdom. ...................................................... 198
of tidal turbines.........................................................130 Figure 10.13. Photograph of the MeyGen turbine support
Figure 7.2. Change in spring peak tidal range............................132 structure during installation showing the
locations of the three hydrophone clusters. .......... 198
Figure 7.3. An ADCP, ADV, and water-quality sensor
mounted on a bottom platform and mounted Figure 10.14. Schematic of the marine mammal High Current
in-line on a coastal mooring....................................134 Underwater Platform (HiCUP) developed by
the Sea Mammal Research Unit (SMRU) at the
Figure 7.4. Spotter (Sofar Ocean) real-time wave University of St Andrews. ........................................ 199
measurement buoy. .................................................. 135
Figure 10.15. The European Marine Energy Centre (EMEC)’s
Figure 8.1. Schematic of marine animals’ encounters with Integrated Monitoring Pod (IMP) during
wave energy devices attached at the bottom by deployment under the Energy Technologies
mooring lines and interconnected with a cable......148 Institute (ETI)’s Reliable Data Acquisition
Platform for Tidal (ReDAPT) project. ..................... 199

xiv OES-ENVIRONMENTAL 2020 STATE OF THE SCIENCE REPORT

Figure 11.1. Example of a decision support process for marine Figure 14.3. Dashboard that summarizes the broadly
spatial planning, implemented in a logical understood level of risk from underwater noise
sequence of steps in information synthesis........... 216 from marine renewable energy devices to
Figure 11.2. Compatible, incompatible, and synergistic marine marine animals for small numbers of devices........284
sectors, as identified in the Portuguese Situation Figure 14.4. Dashboard that summarizes the broadly
Plan. .......................................................................... 226 understood level of risk from electromagnetic
Figure 11.3. Selected demonstration sites for wind, wave, fields from marine renewable energy devices to
and tidal energy in Japan. .......................................226 marine animals for small numbers of devices........ 285

Figure 12.1. The adaptive management (AM) cycle. .................244 Figure 14.5. Dashboard that summarizes the broadly under-
stood level of risk from changes in habitats from
Figure 12.2. The mitigation hierarchy. ........................................246 marine renewable energy devices to marine
Figure 13.1. Risk retirement pathway. ........................................ 265 animals for small numbers of devices.....................286
Figure 13.2. Hypothetical example of a tidal turbine emitting Figure 14.6. Dashboard that summarizes the broadly under-
noise in an area used by harbor porpoises, harbor stood level of risk from changes in oceanographic
seals, sea lions, and orca whales.............................268 systems caused by marine renewable energy
Figure 13.3. Hypothetical example of a wave energy converter devices to marine animals for small numbers of
with cables emitting electromagnetic fields in an devices.......................................................................286
environment used by sharks, skates, bony fishes, Figure 14.7. Dashboard that summarizes the broadly
crustaceans, and other invertebrates......................269 understood level of risk from from mooring
Figure 13.4. The data transferability process consists of a lines and cables related to MRE devices to
data transferability framework, data collection marine animals for small numbers of devices........ 287
consistency table, monitoring datasets discoverability
matrix, and best management practices. .............. 270
Figure 14.1. 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 Box 4.1 Acoustic terminology................................................. 72
2020 State of the Science report.................................... 9 Box 9.1 Examples of stakeholder engagement and
Table 1.2 Wave, tidal, river current, and offshore wind sites outreach from the marine renewable energy
mentioned in the various chapters of the report...... 13 (MRE) and offshore wind industries.........................163
Table 1.3 OES-Environmental task phases, timeline, and Box 9.2 Case studies of social and economic data
participating countries................................................14 collection efforts from marine renewable
Table 1.4 Workplan for OES-Environmental Phase 3 energy (MRE) developments or test centers...........167
(2016-2020)................................................................. 13 Box 10.1 Examples of marine renewable energy
Table 1.5 Workshops held by OES-Environmental (MRE) monitoring using subsea video cameras....... 191
during Phase 3.............................................................14 Box 13.1 Risk retirement workshops......................................266
Table 2.1 Definitions associated with investigations for Box 13.2 Feedback from risk retirement workshops
consenting of MRE projects and research studies. ...21 for underwater uoise................................................ 267
Table 3.1 Key terminology of relevance to collision risk Box 13.3 Feedback from risk retirement workshops
between marine animals and MRE devices............... 36 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 poten-
tial 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, includ-
ing offshore wind, oil and gas, and power and communi-
cation 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.
Most particularly, this report should help the research
The information reviewed and synthesized for this
community connect with the latest thinking about MRE
report relates to the potential risks that MRE devices
interactions, identify scientific collaborators, and assist
pose to marine animals, habitats, and the environment,
with adding to the growing body of knowledge. When
and may be of value to MRE stakeholders including
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 indus-
try 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 As the MRE industry advances, the body of knowledge
INTERACTIONS ASSOCIATED WITH THE surrounding potential environmental effects of MRE
DEVELOPMENT OF MARINE RENEWABLE development will continue to grow, informing our per-
ENERGY DEVICES ception of risk. It is possible that as additional data are

M
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.
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 sig-
nificant benefits, including positive impacts on local
communities, local infrastructure and services, local
employment and businesses, and the export of prod-
ucts 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 har-
vest and aquaculture of seafood organisms, coastal pro-
tection from storms and erosion of shorelines.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY V
COLLISION RISK FOR ANIMALS RISK TO MARINE ANIMALS FROM
AROUND TURBINES UNDERWATER NOISE GENERATED BY
Tidal and river energy devices may pose a risk of col- 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
be very rare events that will be difficult to observe in of underwater noise on marine animals has been com-
the fast-moving often murky waters. In addition, the plicated by the relatively small number of MRE devices
likely consequences of a collision are not known, with that have been deployed. Difficulties in accurately mea-
outcomes ranging from injuries from which the animal suring noise from MRE devices and the challenge of
may recover to the death of the animal. There is limited understanding how underwater noise affects the behav-
evidence and understanding of how marine animals ior of marine animals, confound our understanding.
behave in the presence of underwater structures; it is However, international technical specifications provide
difficult to determine how well marine mammals, fish, a standardized approach for measuring noise from MRE
and seabirds may be able to sense, react to, and avoid devices. The underwater noise from several MRE devices
an operating turbine. In the absence of this behavioral has been measured using this specification and found to
information, most progress in understanding collision fall below regulatory action levels and guidance devel-
risk focuses on understanding the presence of marine oped in the United States for protecting marine mam-
animals of interest in the vicinity of turbines, supported mals and fish from harm due to underwater noise.
by computer modeling that simulates nearfield behav-
iour and potential collision events. 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 reproduc-
tive 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 organ-

isms, as well as attracting fish and other animals, creat-
ing 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 ENCOUNTERS OF MARINE ANIMALS WITH
ASSOCIATED WITH MARINE RENEWABLE MARINE RENEWABLE ENERGY DEVICE
ENERGY DEVICES 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
and lines. However, MRE cables and lines do not have
Evidence of potential changes to oceanographic systems
loose ends or sufficient slack to create an entangling
comes largely from numerical models, with a small
loop, as does fishing gear. This risk is considered to be
number of laboratory flume studies and field programs.
very low.
Field data are needed to validate the numerical models
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 ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING
FOR MARINE RENEWABLE ENERGY TECHNOLOGIES AND TECHNIQUES FOR
The potential social and economic impacts of MRE DETECTING THE INTERACTIONS OF MARINE
development (including impacts on communities, 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
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 exist-
ing 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 sup-
port sustainable development of the oceans. MSP has
the potential to increase transparency and certainty for
industry, improve environmental protection, reduce sec-
toral 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 inten-
tional 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 Risk retirement is a process for
Adaptive management (AM) has the potential to sup- facilitating the consenting of small
port the sustainable development of the MRE industry numbers of MRE devices, whereby
by enabling projects to be deployed incrementally in the
each potential risk need not be fully
face of uncertainty about potential effects, and to assist
in closing knowledge gaps through rigorous monitor-
investigated for every project. Rather,
ing and review. AM is an iterative process, also referred MRE developers can rely on what
to as “learning by doing,” that seeks to reduce scientific is known from already-consented
uncertainty and improve management through periodic projects, from related research studies,
review of decisions in response to the knowledge gained
or from findings from analogous
from monitoring.
offshore industries.
AM has been used to guide the implementation of MRE
monitoring programs and has successfully allowed a
number of projects worldwide to progress. If informa-
tion 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 informa-
tion indicates that risks have been overestimated, moni-
toring and mitigation requirements may be reduced.

XII OES-ENVIRONMENTAL 2020 STATE OF THE SCIENCE REPORT

RISK RETIREMENT AND DATA TRANSFER- PATH FORWARD FOR MARINE ENERGY
ABILITY FOR MARINE RENEWABLE 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-
larly for collision of animals with turbines and for effects
By appropriately applying existing learning, analyses,
of future large arrays.
and monitoring, datasets from one country to another,
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
strategies such as marine spatial planning, adaptive man-
As a means of facilitating the consenting of a small
agement, and risk retirement. How these management
number of MRE devices, a risk retirement pathway has
strategies may support consenting and management of
been developed to evaluate the potential risks of specific
MRE project needs to be considered through these lenses:
stressor-receptor interactions. Preliminary evidence
indicate that the risk of underwater noise and EMF from ◆ Data collection, analysis, and reporting for consenting
small numbers of MRE devices could be retired. must be proportionate to the size of the MRE project
As larger MRE arrays are developed, these stressors may and the likely risk to marine animals and habitats.
need to be reassessed. ◆ Both MSP and AM can play critical roles in assess-
ing 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 uncer-
tainty 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

REPORT AND MORE INFORMATION CONTACT Go to https://tethys​.pnnl.gov for a
OES-Environmental 2020 State of the Science full report and Andrea Copping comprehensive collection of
executive summary available at: Pacific Northwest National papers, reports, archived presen-
https://tethys​.pnnl.gov/publications/state-of-the​-science-2020 Laboratory tations, and other media about
[email protected] environmental effects of marine
renewable energy development.
+1 206.528.3049

XIV OES-ENVIRONMENTAL 2020 STATE OF THE SCIENCE REPORT

Section A

Introduction

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
2 OES-ENVIRONMENTAL 2020 STATE OF THE SCIENCE REPORT
 1.0Chapter 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. Stake-
holder 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)-Environ-
mental collaboration continues to promote global technology cooperation and infor-
mation exchange to accelerate environmentally acceptable development of viable
ocean energy systems.

SECTION A – INTRODUCTION 3
 with fossil fuels, which reduces risk to waterways or
1.1.
habitats from spills during transport or power genera-
BENEFITS OF MARINE RENEWABLE tion, and does not cause air quality degradation. While
ENERGY the manufacture and other elements of the MRE life

T
cycle will generate carbon emissions, these emissions
he range of benefits that may be provided by the
are expected to be similar to those of other renewable
development and operation of MRE devices include
technologies, which are accounted for in life cycle car-
the availability of a local secure energy source, poten-
bon budgets. However, processes for studying life cycle
tial economic development for local communities and
analyses for MRE are not well developed. Power gener-
regional supply chains, as well as mitigation for climate
ated from waves and tides is more predictable, consis-
change. Additional detail on these benefits are explained
tent, and continuous than either wind or solar power.
further in Chapter 9 (Social and Economic Data Col-
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
(e.g., Doney et al. 2009; Fabry et al. 2008; Harley et al.
Significant economic benefits can accrue from MRE
2006) and ocean warming (e.g., Cheung et al. 2013; Sta-
development at a commercial scale, including the
chowicz et al. 2002; Wernberg et al. 2011), and nearshore
potential to enhance portions of coastal economies by
habitats that support many commercially important and
creating high-paying skilled jobs in areas where other
endangered species are affected by rising sea levels (e.g.,
industries are not prevalent (Marine Energy Wales 2020;
Bigford 2008; Yang et al. 2015). The potential benefits to
Smart and Noonan 2018).
marine animals and habitats of mitigating climate change
Because MRE devices must be fully marinized, they may through renewable power generation far outweigh the
require relatively less maintenance compared to offshore potential impacts of MRE development, if projects are
wind turbine parts in air, although MRE devices may be sited and scaled in an environmentally responsible man-
placed farther offshore and in less hospitable regions, ner (Copping et al. 2016). However, the scale of MRE
including in high latitudes and remote locations, which development will need to be greatly accelerated in order
may increase the difficulty of maintenanc (Copping et al. to have a measurable effect on climate change mitigation
2018; LiVecchi et al. 2019). Relatively small MRE devices and other benefits to marine life.
can be placed offshore to serve many different types of
The placement of all wave and tidal devices developed
ocean observation platforms on the sea surface and at
to date requires contact with the seabed to hold them
depth. This placement of devices alleviates the need for
in place, either by gravity foundations placed on the
a surface presence and frequent costly vessel cruises to
seafloor, or some form of anchor or holdfast driven into
replenish batteries. It may also provide energy for emerg-
the sea bottom. This placement will alter the immediate
ing offshore aquaculture farms. These offshore devices
deployment location to some extent, but may also cre-
could potentially provide a stepping stone to electrifica-
ate new habitat types that may be in short supply in the
tion of commercial shipping and passenger vessel trips
immediate region. MRE devices (particularly wave energy
(Copping et al. 2018; LiVecchi et al. 2019).
converters [WECs]) can be sited offshore in ways that
MRE has the potential to add to the renewable energy avoid rare rocky reef or deep-sea sponge/coral habitats,
portfolios of many countries to meet low-carbon and they can be preferentially placed in soft-bottom
renewable energy standards (Copping et al. 2018; habitats that are extensive on the continental shelves and
Thresher and Musial 2010) and to address the need for slopes of the world’s oceans. Adding an MRE foundation
climate change mitigation (IRENA 2019; UN General or anchor may create new hard-bottom habitat, provid-
Assembly 2012). Like solar and wind energy, MRE does ing shelter and access to food for benthic organisms (e.g.,
not require that generation technologies be replenished Callaway et al. 2017), including commercially important

4 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-
ing effort supported by the OES collaboration that oper-
Typically, environmental statutes and regulations do
ates within the International Technology Cooperation
not have mechanisms to enable consideration of benefi-
Framework of the International Energy Agency (IEA).
cial uses of MRE devices—such as habitat creation (e.g.,
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
bottom-fixed or floating offshore wind development
1.2. and discussions of similar environmental effects also are
BALANCING CONCERNS WITH included when appropriate.
BENEFITS FOR MRE DEVELOPMENT 1.3.1.

W
hen considering the benefits of marine energy, SOURCES OF INFORMATION
one must also consider its potential negative Information used for the 2020 State of the Science report is

effects. In every location where MRE development is publicly available, published work derived either from

being considered, it is important to determine potential peer-reviewed scientific literature or reports published

effects on marine animals, habitats, and the oceano- by researchers, developers, and government agen-

graphic systems that support them, and to use every cies—all of which represent the state of knowledge for

effort to minimize or mitigate such damage. Many of the industry. Report topics include monitoring, base-

the animal populations that reside in the energy-rich line assessments, and investigations of environmental

areas of the ocean are already under considerable stress effects for specific MRE projects; research studies that

from other human activities including shipping, fish- support specific MRE projects or address environmental

ing, waste disposal, and shoreline development (Crain interactions broadly; and guidance and assessments

et al. 2009). To achieve sustainable development it is commissioned by governments and regulatory bodies to

important that the MRE industry not cause additional assist with the responsible development of the industry.

environmental stress and related damage. It is the The chapter authors all have expertise in these fields

examination of these stresses, their potential risks to and have considered the available information to create

the marine environment, and how these risks might 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
The information gathered and analyzed for the 2020 State
1.3. of the Science report was compiled to help inform regula-
2020 STATE OF THE SCIENCE REPORT tory and research investigations about potential risks to
marine animals, habitats, and oceanographic processes

T
his report builds on and serves as an update and a
from tidal and wave installations. This information can
complement to the 2013 Final Report for Phase 1 of
also be used to assist MRE developers when considering
OES-Environmental (Copping et al. 2013) and the 2016
design engineering, siting, operational strategies, and
State of the Science report (Copping et al. 2016). Its con-
monitoring options for projects that minimize encounters
tent reflects the most current and pertinent published
with marine animals and/or diminish the effects if such
information about interactions of MRE devices and
encounters occur. Used in conjunction with site-specific
associated infrastructure with the animals and habi-
knowledge, the information from this report may sim-
tats that make up the marine environment. It has been
plify and shorten the time to consent/permit (hereafter

SECTION A – INTRODUCTION 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
North America.
1.3.3
REPORT PURPOSE AND SCOPE This report is limited to the in-water and nearshore

This report summarizes the current state of knowledge, aspects of MRE development and does not address the

science, and understanding related to the potential potential effects of shoreside components, including

environmental effects that MRE devices and systems 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 1.3.4.
development worldwide is mostly focused on the gen- 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-
ter 2) and continues with specific information about
This report describes the potential interactions of MRE
stressor/receptor interactions of importance (Chapters
devices with the marine environment and the methods
3–9), delves into technologies for monitoring interac-
and approaches used to evaluate the level of risk and
tions with marine animals (chapter 10), addresses a series
uncertainty associated with these potential interactions.
of management and planning measures that may assist
It provides insights into management approaches that
with responsible MRE development (Chapters 11–13), and
have the potential to facilitate the MRE industry’s abil-
concludes with a potential path forward (Chapter 14). The
ity to establish this new renewable energy source while
chapter topics are summarized in Table 1.1.
also protecting the marine environment and the people
who rely on it for their livelihoods. Throughout the report, numerous wave, tidal, and river
current projects and test sites are discussed. Offshore wind
This report summarizes and facilitates access to the
sites are also mentioned when the environmental infor-
best available scientific evidence on the environmen-
mation from those sites informs MRE issues. The physical
tal effects of MRE. The value of this information will
location of each of these projects is shown in Figure 1.1 and
be realized as it is applied to consenting processes
additional site information is provided in Table 1.2.
to enable increased and responsible deployment of
devices. For some low risk stressors, consenting of
single devices and small arrays should be possible based
1.4.
on the information provided in this report, including
information from consented or deployed projects, from OCEAN ENERGY SYSTEMS

F
related research studies or from evidence from analo- ounded in 2001, OES1 is an intergovernmental col-
gous offshore industries. For higher risk stressors, fur- laboration between countries that operates within a
ther evidence will be needed. framework established by the IEA2 in Paris, France. The

This report does not specifically address tidal bar- framework features multilateral technology initiatives

rages or tidal lagoons, which generate power from the that encourage technology-related research, develop-

change in water flow from high to low tides and back. ment, and demonstration (RD&D) to support energy

Dam-like tidal barrages generally consist of turbines security, economic growth, and environmental protec-

installed across the mouths of tidal rivers and bays that

1 https://www.ocean-energy-systems.org/
capture power as the tide ebbs and floods. This method 2 https://www.iea.org

6 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 Defining stressors and receptors, potential environmental effects, and
Monitoring Strategies 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 Research on the effects of underwater noise produced by operation of MRE
Generated by Marine Renewable Energy Devices devices on marine mammals and fish.

5 Risk to Animals from Electromagnetic Fields Emitted by Research on the effects of electromagnetic fields produced by operation of
Electric Cables and Marine Renewable Energy Devices MRE devices and transmission cables on sensitive marine species.

6 Changes in Benthic and Pelagic Habitats Caused by Research on the physical and biological changes to benthic and pelagic
Marine Renewable Energy Devices habitats caused by MRE devices.

7 Changes in Oceanographic Systems Associated with Research on the potential of MRE devices to change flow patterns, remove
Marine Renewable Energy Devices energy, and affect wave heights.

8 Encounters of Marine Animals with Marine Renewable Research on the potential of marine animals to physically encounter, get
Energy Device Mooring Systems and Subsea Cables entangled, or entrapped in mooring systems or cables from MRE devices.
9 Social and Economic Data Collection for Marine Data collection needs for addressing social and economic effects of MRE
Renewable Energy development for consenting.

10 Environmental Monitoring Technologies and Techniques Research on existing environmental monitoring technologies and lessons
for Detecting Interactions of Animals with Turbines 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 Use of adaptive management in consenting MRE devices.
Energy
13 Risk Retirement and Data Transferability for Marine Potential for risk retirement and data transfer for consenting MRE devices,
Renewable Energy 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
or scientific bodies, and academia.
Under the OES Initiative, countries, through interna-
tional cooperation and information exchange, advance The OES work program carried out by the Contracting
research, development, and deployment of conversion Parties consists of research and development analy-
technologies to convert energy from all forms of ocean sis, and information exchange related to ocean energy
renewable resources, including tides, waves, currents, systems. Work is conducted on diverse research topics
temperature gradients (ocean thermal energy conver- that are specified as tasks of the Implementing Agree-
sion), and salinity gradients for electricity generation, ment (the OES agreement among nations). Each task is
as well as for other uses, such as desalination. OES com- managed by an Operating Agent, usually the member
prises 24 member countries and the European Commis- nation that proposes the initiative and undertakes a set
sion (as of May 2020), each of which is represented by of planned activities, engaging the other participating
a Contracting Party. The Contracting Party nominates nations in all aspects of the work.

SECTION A – INTRODUCTION 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 11

1 18
19
2
3 20
Alaska

5
12
4

21 North Western Europe

Hawaii Western United States

13
14

6
7
8

22 15
9
10

23

Eastern United States and Canada 16

24

26

Australia
Western Europe

Legend
25
Tidal Wave River Offshore wind
# Abandoned or decommissioned United Kingdom

10 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 British Columbia, Tidal Clean Current’s Tidal Decommissioned
Ecological Reserve Canada Current Generator
3 Admiralty Inlet, Washington, U.S. Tidal Admiralty Inlet Abandoned
Puget Sound Pilot Tidal Project
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 Operational
Tidal Venture
7 Cobscook Bay Maine, U.S. Tidal ORPC TidGen Under
Development
8 Grand Passage, Nova Scotia, Canada Tidal PLAT-I Operational
Nova Scotia
9 Block Island Rhode Island, U.S. Offshore Rhode Island Ocean Special Operational
Wind Area Management Plan
10 East River New York, U.S. Tidal Roosevelt Island Tidal Energy Operational
(RITE)
11 Kvalsund Norway Tidal Kvalsun Tidal Turbine Prototype Decommissioned
(Hammerfest Strøm)
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 Decommissioned
Demonstration Project
15 SEENOH Test Site France Tidal Site Expérimental Estuarien National Operational
pour l’Essai et l’Optimisation
Hydrolienne (SEENOH)
16 Aguçadoura Portugal Wave Farm Wave Pelamis Wave Power Aguçadoura Decommissioned
17 Bluemull Sound, Scotland, Tidal Nova Innovation Operational
Shetland United Kingdom (UK) Shetland Tidal Array
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
19 BIllia Croo Scotland, UK Wave EMEC test sit Operational
20 Inner Sound, Scotland, UK Tidal MeyGen Operational
Pentland Firth
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
Schottel Northern Ireland, UK Tidal Queen’s University Belfast Decommissioned
Tidal Test Site
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. 1.4.2.
THE OES-ENVIRONMENTAL (FORMERLY OES-ENVIRONMENTAL PHASE 3
ANNEX IV) TASK The workplan for OES-Environmental Phase 3 (2016–
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 2, and the current status of these plans is described in
impacts of MRE, was initiated by the United States and Table 1.4.
Canada in 2006 in response to a need for information
about the environmental effects described in the sum- OES-Environmental also hosted several workshops

mary of the IEA’s meeting on ocean energy systems held during Phase 3, bringing together experts to advance

in Messina, Italy (the Messina report).4 After a meeting understanding of key interactions and to work toward

of experts in late 2007, the United States developed a consensus on how research and monitoring informa-

proposal for the formalization of OES-Environmental tion can help inform consenting processes and help to

(at that time called Annex IV), which was submitted 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-Envi-
ronmental 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 imple-
menting 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 Populate the publicly available ◆ 6262 documents (of which 2996 are peer-reviewed) that
collection knowledge management system address environmental effects of marine renewable energy (MRE)
Tethys (https://​tethys​.pnnl​.gov) with development on Tethys.
scientific information about the
◆ Documents are continually added to Tethys as they become available.
environmental effects of marine energy.

2 Outreach and Outreach and engagement with the Key activities pursued during this phase included the following:
engagement MRE community, with emphasis on
◆ A biweekly electronic newsletter, Tethys Blast, has been sent to
researchers, regulators, and device
the Ocean Energy Systems (OES)-Environmental community of
developers.
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 Compile information from ◆ 107 metadata forms related to marine energy deployments
environmental environmental data collection and
monitoring monitoring around deployed ◆ 106 metadata descriptions of research studies
MRE devices and related research studies.

4 Supporting Partner with international conferences ◆ Environmental Interactions of Marine Renewables (EIMR) 2016,
international on MRE to raise the profile of Edinburgh, United Kingdom (UK) February 2016.
conferences environmental research on MRE.
◆ European Wave and Tidal Energy Conference (EWTEC) 2017, Cork,
Ireland, September 2017.
◆ EIMR 2018, Orkney UK, April 2018.
◆ EWTEC 2019, Napoli, Italy, September 2019.
5 State of Science Develop 2020 State of the Science ◆ Research, write, and integrate extensive reviews for report.
report for environmental effects of ◆ Release report as public draft, June 2020.
MRE.
◆ Release final report, September 2020.

SECTION A – INTRODUCTION 13
Table 1.5. Workshops held by Ocean Energy Systems (OES)-Environmental during Phase 3.

Title Location Date

Management Measures Workshop Glasgow, United Kingdom (UK) May 9, 2017

https://tethys.pnnl.gov/events/management-measures

Exploring the State of Understanding and Practice used to Assess Social and Cork, Ireland Aug 31, 2017
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
Case Studies on Social and Economic Effects around MRE Developments Kirkwall, UK Apr 23, 2018
https://tethys.pnnl.gov/events/case-studies-social-economic-effects-around-mre-development
Data Transferability and Collection Consistency Workshop (ICOE) Cherbourg, France Jun 12, 2018
https://tethys.pnnl.gov/events/annex-iv-data-transferability-collection-consistency-icoe
Addressing Collision Risks from Tidal and River Turbines Edinburgh, UK Feb 26, 2019
https://tethys.pnnl.gov/events/addressing-collision-risks-tidal-and-river-turbines

Retiring Risks of MRE Environmental Interactions to Support Consenting/Permitting­ Napoli, Italy Sep 5, 2019
https://tethys.pnnl.gov/events/retiring-risks-mre-environmental-interactions-support-consentingpermitting
Retiring Risk for MRE Projects to Support Permitting Portland, Oregon, United States Sep 11, 2019
https://tethys.pnnl.gov/events/oes-environmental-workshop-retiring-risk-mre-projects-support-permitting
Environmental Effects and Risk Retirement for MRE Sydney, Australia Dec 4, 2019
https://tethys.pnnl.gov/events/oes-environmentalorjip-workshop-environmental-effects-risk-retirement-mre

14 OES-ENVIRONMENTAL 2020 STATE OF THE SCIENCE REPORT

 Copping, A., Sather, N., Hanna, L., Whiting, J.,
1.5.
Zydlewski, G., Staines, G., Gill, A., Hutchison, I.,
REFERENCES O’Hagan, A., Simas, T., Bald, J., Sparling, C., Wood, 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​
-science-2016
Callaway, R., Bertelli, C., Lock, G., Carter, T., Friis-
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​
Fabry, V. J., Seibel, B. A., Feely, R. A., and Orr, J. C. 2008.
-development-around-world-annex-iv-final-report
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​
Harley, C. D. G., Randall Hughes, A., Hultgren, K. M.,
/publications/maritime-renewable-energy-markets​
Miner, B. G., Sorte, C. J. B., Thornber, C. S., Rodriguez, L.
-power-sea
F., Tomanek, L., and Williams, S. L. 2006. The impacts of
climate change in coastal marine systems. Ecology Let-
ters, 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,
Stachowicz, J. J., Terwin, J. R., Whitlatch, R. B., and
46(6), 1145-1153. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2664.2009.01697.x
Osman, R. W. 2002. Linking climate change and biologi-
https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/marine-renewable​
cal invasions: Ocean warming facilitates nonindigenous
-energy-potential-benefits-biodiversity-urgent-call​
species invasions. Proceedings of the National Academy
-research
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​
United Nations General Assembly. 2012. Report on the
-foundations-effects-manufactured-holes-field
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 Mar-
Wernberg, T., Russell, Bayden D., Thomsen, Mads S.,
kets. U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Effi-
Gurgel, C. Frederico D., Bradshaw, Corey J. A., Poloc-
ciency and Renewable Energy, Washington, D.C. https://​
zanska, Elvira S., and Connell, Sean D. 2011. Seaweed
tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/powering-blue-economy​
Communities in Retreat from Ocean Warming. Current
-exploring-opportunities-marine-renewable-energy​
Biology, 21(21), 1828-1832. doi:10.1016/j.cub.2011.09.028
-maritime-markets
https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/seaweed-communities​
Marine Energy Wales. 2020. State of the Sector 2020: -retreat-ocean-warming
Economic Benefits for Wales. https://tethys.pnnl.gov​
Yang, Z., Wang, T., Voisin, N., and Copping, A. 2015.
/publications/state-sector-report-2020-economic​
Estuarine response to river flow and sea-level rise
-benefits-wales
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-Environ-
mental 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 Go to https://tethys​.pnnl.gov for a

OES-Environmental 2020 State of the Science full report and Andrea Copping comprehensive collection of
executive summary available at: Pacific Northwest National papers, reports, archived presen-
https://tethys​.pnnl.gov/publications/state-of-the​-science-2020 Laboratory tations, and other media about
[email protected] environmental effects of marine
renewable energy development.
+1 206.528.3049

SECTION A – INTRODUCTION 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. 2.2.
POTENTIAL EFFECTS OF MARINE STRESSORS AND RECEPTORS
RENEWABLE ENERGY
T
hroughout this report, we examine interactions

K
ey investigations to determine effects of MRE devices between MRE systems and the marine environment
include determining the presence of animals close in terms of stressors and receptors (Boehlert and Gill
enough to devices/cables/lines that are potentially at risk, 2010). Stressors are those parts of an MRE system that
measuring device and cable outputs such as underwa- may cause harm or stress to a marine animal, a habitat,
ter noise and electromagnetic fields, measuring poten- oceanographic processes, or ecosystem processes. These
tial interactions of animals with these emissions or MRE stressors include the moving blades on turbines, moor-
devices, and modeling changes in water flow and sediment ing lines, anchors or foundations, power export cables,
transport at large-scale MRE developments. and the emissions that can result from any of these
parts. The receptors include the marine animals living in
At this early stage of MRE development, few observations
and traversing the vicinity of an MRE development; the
or data collection efforts point to devices or systems that
habitats into which the devices are deployed; and ocean-
are causing population-level impacts. The emphasis of
ographic processes, such as the natural movement of
research and monitoring studies has been on examining
waters, wave heights, sediment transport, and the con-
changes in or effects on individual organisms, particularly
centrations of dissolved gases and nutrients that support
populations under stress or species of special concern. In
marine life. It is the intersection of stressors and recep-
most cases, it is difficult to determine whether such effects
tors that define the interactions that can be examined
might be sufficiently deleterious to an animal (or a habitat)
through observations, laboratory and field experiments,
to have higher level impacts on populations or the marine
and modeling studies. Section 2 of this report (Chapters
ecosystem. Throughout this report, we refer to the effects
3–8) describes the state of scientific understanding of
or potential effects of MRE development and make the con-
these stressor-receptor interactions (Figure 2.1).
nection only to the population-level impacts if established
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

 waters, into which MRE devices are placed add consider-
2.3.
able challenges to deploying and operating the oceano-
DEFINITIONS FOR MEASURING graphic gear and sensor platforms needed to characterize
ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS the stressor-receptor interactions that may be occurring.
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-
sis. Not all instrumentation and/or data collection efforts
related to conducting this type of monitoring over the last
2.4.
decade have succeeded in meeting their monitoring goals.
MEASURING THE EFFECTS OF MRE For future monitoring projects at MRE sites to be success-
DEVICES ful, lessons must be taken from previous efforts to assure

R
esponsible and sustainable development of MRE as that each subsequent effort builds on previous experience,
a renewable energy source requires that we under- 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 convert- receptor interactions can be found in Chapters 3–8;
ers (WECs) will be deployed. Regulations often require extensive detail about the challenges of and solutions
that early deployments include extensive monitoring to for measuring close interactions of animals and MRE
collect sufficient data to understand the potential inter- devices can be found in Chapter 10 (Environmental
actions of devices and systems with marine animals and Monitoring Technologies and Techniques for Detecting
habitats. The high-energy locations, and often turbid Interactions of Marine Animals with Turbines).

Table 2.1. Definitions associated with investigations for consenting of marine renewable energy projects and research studies. These defini-
tions 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.

Term Definition

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 consid-
ered to be within one to five device diameters.
Environmental monitoring associated ◆ Monitoring carried out to gather data before devices are deployed (post-consent monitoring) or moni-
with MRE projects toring of the environmental effects of deployed MRE devices (post-installation monitoring).
◆ Generally monitoring is required by regulators to validate predictions made in environmental assess-
ments or to provide an evidence base for adaptive management of effects for which there is residual
uncertainty.
Project environmental monitoring plan ◆ A document produced as a requirement of licensing/consenting processes for MRE projects setting out
(may go by various names including the objectives and methodologies of post-installation environmental monitoring.
PEMPs/EMPs/others)

SECTION A – INTRODUCTION 21
 probability and effects of entrapment or entangle-
2.5. ◆

ment of large marine animals because of the pres-

KEY MONITORING QUESTIONS ence of mooring lines, anchors, and export cables

T
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 animal behaviors in response to the presence of MRE
factors that continue to generate interest and concern devices or their acoustic or electrical signatures; these
about these interactions among stakeholders with an potential effects occur at known or expected locations
interest in MRE development are summarized here. 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.
2.5.1. MONITORING WITHIN THE CONTEXT OR
DIRECT EFFECTS OF STRESSOR-RECEPTOR ENVIRONMENT OF MRE DEVICES
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
is necessary to understand the background processes at
◆ rates of encounter and effects (injury/mortality
work at a site before designing a monitoring program that
rates) of collision with turbine blades (e.g., Bevel-
will reliably separate effects from the background natural
heimer et al. 2019; Copping and Grear 2018; Copping
variability as well as from effects of other anthropogenic
et al. 2017; Joy et al. 2018; Onoufriou et al. 2019;
activities. Topics that inform those questions include the
Schmitt et al. 2017)
following:
◆ avoidance of moving parts or acoustic fields gener-
◆ inventories of organisms that naturally occur in the
ated by the device (e.g., Grippo et al. 2017; Hastie et
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)
◆ examinations of the amplitude and other characteris-
◆ attraction to or aggregation around bottom-
tics of the MRE stressors, including underwater noise
mounted or floating structures (e.g., Fraser et al.
and EMF (e.g., Dhanak et al. 2015; Nedwell and Brooker
2018; Kramer et al. 2015; Williamson et al. 2019)
2008; Pine et al. 2019)
◆ displacement or permanent alteration of behavior
◆ modeling and validation of hydrodynamic and sedi-
patterns due to novel device presence (e.g., Long
mentation patterns, and their associated variability
2017; Sparling et al. 2018)
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 eco-
2.7.
◆
systems; although relatively little modeling has been
carried out to date, agent-based models and ecosys- REFERENCES
tem models will become useful as the industry moves Ashall, L. M., Mulligan, R. P., and Law, B. A. 2016. Vari-
toward large commercial arrays. ability in suspended sediment concentration in the Minas
This information enables us to predict device effects, with Basin, Bay of Fundy, and implications for changes due to
some degree of confidence, and can be used to design tidal power extraction. Coastal Engineering, 107, 102-115.
effective mitigation measures, if needed. For example, 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 Greenhill, L., Carter, C., and Wilson, B. 2014. Under-
of device encounter probability, thereby assisting with
standing the Potential for Marine Megafauna Entangle-
the siting of MRE developments to avoid or minimize
ment Risk from Marine Renewable Energy Devel-
the most likely adverse environmental effects. Combined
opments. Paper presented at the 2nd International
with information about what occurs when an animal
Conference on Environmental Interactions of Marine
interacts with a device, such as rates of injury or mortal-
Renewable Energy Technologies, Stornoway, Scotland.
ity from blade strike, these results may inform regula-
https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/understanding-poten​
tory needs to determine likely population-level impacts.
tial-marine-megafauna-entanglement-risk-marine-re​
A prime example of this approach can be seen in the
newable-energy
outputs from several stages of the SeaGen turbine devel-
opment and operation in Strangford Lough, Northern Bevelhimer, M. S., Pracheil, B. M., Fortner, A. M., Saylor,
Ireland (Savidge et al. 2014) that informed adaptive man- R., and Deck, K. L. 2019. Mortality and injury assessment
agement programs. These adaptive management pro- for three species of fish exposed to simulated turbine
grams helped MRE projects like TideGen in Cobscook Bay, blade strike. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sci-
Maine, United States (U.S.) develop effective monitoring ences, 76(12), 2350-2363. doi:10.1139/cjfas-2018-0386
and mitigation plans (ORPC 2013, 2014, 2017). https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/mortality-and-injury​
-assessment-three-species-fish-exposed-simulated-turbi​
ne-blade
2.6. Boehlert, G. W., and Gill, A. B. 2010. Environmental and
MONITORING STRATEGIES Ecological Effects of Ocean Renewable Energy Develop-
Answering these wide-ranging questions at the highly ment: A Current Synthesis. Oceanography, 23(2), 68-81.
energetic sites targeted for power production is a sig- https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/environmental-and​
nificant challenge. The need to understand environmen- -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 for estimating the likelihood of collision of marine mam-
the close interactions of marine animals with devices mals with tidal turbines. International Marine Energy Jour-
at wave and tidal sites around the world, some of which nal, 1(1), 27-33. doi:10.36688/imej.1.27-33. https://​te​t​h​ys​.pn​nl​.
are discussed in Chapter 10 (Environmental Monitoring gov​/pub​lications​/ap​p​ly​ing​-sim​p​le​-mo​del​-esti​ma​t​i​ng​-li​ke​l​i​ho​
Technologies and Techniques for Detecting Interac- od​-col​li​si​on​-ma​ri​ne​-mam​ma​ls​-ti​dal​-tur​bi​nes
tions of Marine Animals with Turbines). As with other
stressor-receptor interactions, the myriad and complex Copping, A., Grear, M., Jepsen, R., Chartrand, C., and Gorton,
questions that need to be answered suggest that no A. 2017. Understanding the potential risk to marine mam-
one instrument or method can provide all the answers; mals from collision with tidal turbines. International Journal
rather, a suite of methods, instruments, and study of Marine Energy, 19, 110-123. doi:10​.1016/j.ijome.2017.07.004
designs must be employed to capture the full picture of https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/understanding-potential​
how MRE devices interact with their environment. -risk-marine-mammals-collision-tidal-turbines

SECTION A – INTRODUCTION 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​
Haverson, D., Bacon, J., Smith, H. C. M., Venugopal, V.,
rine-cables-and-monitoring-potential-responses
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​
Holdman, A. K., Haxel, J. H., Klinck, H., and Torres, L. G.
delling-effects-marine-energy-extraction-non-cohesive​
2019. Acoustic monitoring reveals the times and tides
-sediment-transport
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
Research into the Environment (COWRIE). https://
Joy, R., Wood, J. D., Sparling, C. E., Tollit, D. J., Cop-
tethys.pnnl.gov/pub​lications/measurement-assessment-
ping, A. E., and McConnell, B. J. 2018. Empirical mea-
background-underwa​ter-noise-its-comparison-noise-
sures of harbor seal behavior and avoidance of an
pin-pile
operational tidal turbine. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 136,
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
Power Company; Portland, Maine. https://tethys.pnnl​
Khaled, F., Guillou, S., Hadri, F., and Méar, Y. 2019.
.gov/publications/cobscook-bay-tidal-energy-project-20​
Numerical modelling of the effect of the hydro-kinetic
12-environmental-monitoring-report
turbines on the transport of sediments - Application
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​
.gov/publications/cobscook-bay-tidal-energy-project-20​
Kramer, S. H., Hamilton, C. D., Spencer, G. C., and Ogs-
13-environmental-monitoring-report
ton, H. O. 2015. Evaluating the Potential for Marine and
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​
Onoufriou, J., Brownlow, A., Moss, S., Hastie, G.,
.gov​/pub​lications​/eva​l​u​a​ting​-po​ten​tial​-ma​ri​ne​-hy​d​r​o​ki​n​e​
and Thompson, D. 2019. Empirical determina-
tic​-de​vi​c​es​-act​-ar​ti​fi​c​i​al​-re​e​fs​-or​-fish
tion 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​
Pine, M. K., Schmitt, P., Culloch, R. M., Lieber, L., and
eding-home-ranges-pacific-coast-feeding-group-gray​
Kregting, L. T. 2019. Providing ecological context to
-whales
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:
Williamson, B., Fraser, S., Williamson, L., Nikora, V.,
Springer Netherlands. https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications​
and Scott, B. 2019. Predictable changes in fish school
/strangford-lough-seagen-tidal-turbine
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​
Yoshida, T., Kitazawa, D., and Mizukami, Y. 2017.
lating-collision-probabilities-animals-marine-renewable​
Observing Fish Using Underwater Camera at the Test
-energy-devices
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

REPORT AND MORE INFORMATION CONTACT Go to https://tethys​.pnnl.gov for

OES-Environmental 2020 State of the Science full report and Andrea Copping a comprehensive collection of
executive summary available at: Pacific Northwest National papers, reports, archived presen-
Laboratory tations, and other media about
https://tethys​.pnnl.gov/publications/state-of-the​-science-2020
[email protected] environmental effects of marine
renewable energy development.
+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

Section B
Chapter 3.0 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
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-
quency of occurrence of these events (e.g., Copping et
3.1.
al. 2016; Furness et al. 2012) and their consequences are
IMPORTANCE OF THE ISSUE unknown. Detecting encounters or collision events or

C
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
Many species of mammals, fish, and seabirds are sub-
colliding with wind turbines has been extensively stud-
ject to extensive legal protection globally: for example,
ied, offering certain lessons that can be learned and
in the United States (U.S.) they are protected by the
applied to the risk of marine animals colliding with
Marine Mammal Protection Act (1972), Endangered
underwater turbines; these lessons are noted where
Species Act (1973), and the Magnuson-Stevens Act
pertinent.
(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 fish-
ing 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, regula-
3.2.
tory processes in many jurisdictions currently follow SUMMARY OF KNOWLEDGE
the “precautionary principle” regarding the potential THROUGH 2016
impacts and their consequences (Kreibel et al. 2001).

I
n 2016, the state of the science for the risk of marine
In Europe and North America, precautionary regula-
animal collision with MRE devices was in its infancy.
tory approaches have led to conditions being placed on
Given the few deployed devices and considerable
licenses, permits, and authorizations to reduce col-
research challenges (e.g., difficulty working in dynamic
lision risk, such as through operational restrictions.
tidal habitats or fast-flowing rivers, inability to monitor
Such conditions also commonly require developers to
specific strike events, and a lack of a funding mecha-
conduct post-installation monitoring that is focused on
nisms to undertake strategic research and monitoring
collision risk (Bennett et al. 2016). The purposes of such
that might elucidate the problem), there was limited
monitoring include validating the predictions of colli-
understanding of the nature of interactions between
sion risk made in environmental impact assessments,
marine animals and MRE devices, including avoidance
and improving the knowledge about nearfield interac-
and evasion behaviors. Further, the understanding of
tions between devices and marine wildlife. Monitoring
the likely consequences of any occurrence of collision
is also commonly used to inform and enable regulators
events, if they occurred, was limited.
to adaptively manage tidal and river current projects.
No collisions had been observed around single turbines
Gaps in knowledge about collision risk and its conse-
or small arrays prior to 2016, but collision remained a
quences can therefore lead to conservative approaches
concern and it was one of the most challenging poten-
in conducting environmental impact assessments and in
tial occurrences to monitor and observe. The 2016 State
implementing tidal energy developments (Le Lièvre and
of the Science report (Copping et al. 2016) identified
O’Hagan 2015; ORJIP Ocean Energy 2019). Although no
the following key priorities related to collision risk for
evidence to date shows that direct interactions with tidal
marine mammals, fish, and seabirds:
or river current energy technologies will cause measurable
◆ development and refinement of methods to improve
harm to individual marine animals or populations, colli-
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 colli- lision for both individuals and populations; and
sion risk in relation to marine mammals and seabirds
◆ potential advancement of the science by benefiting
are considered for tidal turbines, while collisions with
from continued stakeholder engagement, adoption
fish may be applicable for freshwater river turbines
of an adaptive management approach, and standard-
or marine tidal turbines. Freshwater turbines may be
ization of the language used when describing colli-
referred to as river turbines or hydrokinetic turbines.
sion 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 • Monitoring carried out to gather data before devices are deployed (post-consent monitoring) or monitoring of the
post-consent environmental effects of deployed MRE devices (post-installation monitoring).
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.

Sublethal collisions • 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 inter-
actions 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 colli-
sion 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 Sci-
ence report, the lack of data available from monitoring
studies conducted around operational MRE devices sig-
nificantly hampered our understanding of marine mam-
mals 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; DeltaS-
tream, Ramsey Sound; Cobscook Bay, Maine). Therefore,
at that time, the potential for collisions between marine
mammals and tidal turbines remained a significant con-
cern, 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 under-
standing marine mammal use of tidal environments.
The results of these studies collectively demonstrate
variability between sites and locations, making it diffi-
cult to make generalizations about marine mammal use
3.4. of tidal sites.
COLLISION RISK TO MARINE
Recent investigations into fine-scale harbor porpoise
MAMMALS (Phocoena phocoena) density and the use of the water

M
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, Project- and Site-based Monitoring
highlighting the importance of understanding daily vari-
MeyGen, Inner Sound, Pentland Firth, Scotland
ation in species depth distribution to assure accurate pre-
The first turbines at the MeyGen tidal energy site were
diction of collision risk (Macaulay et al. 2015). Benjamins
deployed in 2016 in the Inner Sound of Pentland Firth in
et al. (2017) demonstrated that the distribution of harbor
Scotland (Figure 3.2). Four 1.5 MW turbines were installed
porpoises can vary in tidal habitats at very small spatial
during the 2016–2017 timeframe and, to date, the array
and temporal scales, such that collision risk estimated on
has generated more than 15 GWh of energy for the grid.
the basis of wide-scale average densities may not reflect
The project environmental monitoring plan (PEMP;
actual risk at any one specific site.
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 ◆ Detect and quantify potential avoidance and collision
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 accuracy of collision/encounter rate models.
that in the tidal currents of Strangford Narrows in
◆ Provide sufficient monitoring data for impact
Northern Ireland, harbor seals predominately swam
assessment to allow each subsequent stage of the
against the prevailing current during both ebb and flood
development to proceed.
tides. Similarly, as reported by Band et al. (2016), har-
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
The MeyGen project team is currently collaborating
events had 10 or more clicks. The numbers of porpoise
with SMRU to deploy an integrated monitoring plat-
clicks per event varied considerably with a mean of 220
form during the next phase of turbine installation at the
(95 percent confidence interval [CI] 31–979). Similarly,
MeyGen site (Project Stroma, previously known as Mey-
the durations of the events varied from 0.5 to more than
Gen Phase 1b, comprises an additional two turbines) to
2700 seconds (95 percent CI 21–1200). It is likely that some
add key data about seal behavior and encounter rates.
of these events involved more than one animal. Monthly
For technical details about this monitoring platform,
reports of cetacean detections and system operations
see Section 10.4.4. of this report.
were provided to MeyGen and the Scottish Government
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 high-
resolution 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 approxi-
mately 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 Figure 3.3. Nova Innovation’s three-turbine tidal array in Bluemull
Sound, Shetland, Scotland. (Photo courtesy of Nova Innovation)
the Inner Sound post-deployment compared to pre-
deployment. Furthermore, seal usage within the Inner 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
2
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.
based on the Encounter Risk Model detailed by the Scot-
Eight mammal species (including Eurasian otter, Lutra
tish Natural Heritage (2016). Because this number was
lutra) have been recorded in land-based surveys, with
less than the potential biological removal (Wade 1998)
grey seal, harbor seal and harbor porpoise the most fre-
for the relevant seal management unit (calculated to be
quently recorded (Nova Innovation 2020). Harbor por-
20 seals), regulatory and advisory bodies considered it
poise were recorded in the area immediately around the
to be acceptable, provided that appropriate monitoring
turbines in 0.71% of scans, grey seal in 0.06% of scans
was in place to validate these numbers.
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.3 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).
scales, to understand the likelihood of nearfield encoun-
SeaGen Strangford Lough, Northern Ireland
ters between marine animals and turbines, as a descriptor
There has been no new monitoring work at the SeaGen
of collision risk. Nearfield encounters are only possible
site since 2016 because the turbine (Figure 3.4) ceased to
if an animal uses the site. The likelihood increases if an
be operational in 2015 and was decommissioned in 2019.
animal uses the area immediately around the turbines
However, two scientific papers were published based on
and increases again if the animal actively swims or dives
the outcomes of the monitoring program, which added
around the turbines during turbine operation.
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/NOVA- upon these results, Joy et al. (2018) demonstrated that
AdditionalTurbine/MLApp-022018/Ext-EA-Report 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 pres-
ence 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 tur-
bines. 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 diam-
Figure 3.4. The SeaGen tidal turbine when installed in Strangford eter 2 MW Open Hydro tidal turbine at Berth D (pres-
Lough, Northern Ireland. (Photo courtesy of SIMEC Atlantis Energy) ence detected on 98.5 percent of the days monitored).
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
230 m) and increased at the site 1700 m away, suggest-
DeltaStream, Ramsey Sound, Wales
ing short-range acoustic effects on activity and spa-
At the time the 2016 State of the Science report was pub-
tial use by porpoises (Tollit et al. 2019). This suggests
lished, the DeltaStream tidal energy device had been
a reduction in potential collision risk relative to that
recently deployed in Ramsey Sound, Pembrokeshire,
assumed from baseline assessments.
in Wales. The approach to monitoring was described
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 Scotia, Bay of Fundy, Canada
encounters (71 percent of dolphin encounters and 91 In late 2018, Sustainable Marine Energy (Canada) Ltd.
percent of porpoise encounters) occurred during hours (SME) deployed a floating tidal energy converter (PLAT-
of darkness. Porpoises were detected across a wide I), in Grand Passage, Canada. The project environmental
range of flow rates, but detections were higher during effects monitoring plan is designed to provide informa-
ebb tide than during flood tide, higher during neap tides tion 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
collision probability ranging from an inevitable collision
To meet these requirements, four video cameras were
if an animal passes at the position of the mooring point
positioned facing downstream, each camera approxi-
to the probability of collision decreasing with distance
mately centered on its associated rotor. The method pro-
from the central mooring point (Schmitt et al. 2017).
vided an effective means of monitoring turbine rotors and
At the mean flight depth of the kite, the probability of
assessing potential interactions with marine life, because
collision is approximately 80 percent in the center of
visibility was generally good, light was sufficient, and
the kite trajectory, and more collisions are predicted to
suspended particles were few. An experienced third-party
occur with the tether than with the kite itself.
contractor conducted video analysis, which included
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,
depth, trajectories, and possible evasive behaviors
Passive acoustic data collection was accomplished using
(Lieber et al. 2017).
a stationary icListen high-frequency hydrophone sus-
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.
Booth et al. (2015) assessed collision probabilities for
Intermittent marine animal observations made either
harbor seals in relation to the Strangford Lough deploy-
from onboard PLAT-I or from the control shore station
ment, based on their reported depth distributions. This
resulted in no observations of marine animals within
work reported that the probability of a simulated ani-
500 m of the platform during the initial testing period
mal coming into direct contact with the device varied
(C. Chandler, personal communication).
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
Field Trials
dolphins, based on the collision probabilities and popu-
Progress has been made in understanding the potential
lation consequence assessment (assuming no evasion),
consequences of collision risk. Researchers at SMRU
even a single collision would be detrimental and therefore,
in Scotland have carried out a series of collision tri-
effort was required to understand empirical encounter
als, using a vessel-mounted turbine blade and seal and
rates in the presence of the turbine for this species.
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 likeli-
hood or consequence of concussion as a result of strike,
which has the potential to be fatal (i.e., the animal loses
Figure 3.5. Minesto’s Deep Green 0.5 MW tidal kite being deployed at
Holyhead Deep, in Anglesey, Wales. (Photo courtesy of Minesto) consciousness and drowns).

Oosterschekering, Netherlands The potential for marine mammals to hear tidal energy
The Oosterschekering, a storm surge barrier in the devices is an important concept related to understand-
Netherlands, houses five integrated tidal turbines in ing collision risk (Hastie et al. 2018a). The interac-
an area where harbor porpoise, grey seals, and harbor tions are complex and depend on turbine source levels,
seals are known to occur (Leopold and Scholl 2019). ambient sound, propagation in moving water, sensory
The surge barrier has been in place since 1986 and the abilities, swim speeds, and diving behaviors. Empiri-
turbines were installed in December 2015. Before the cal measurement of the noise emitted by turbines and
tidal turbines were installed, a small number of seals 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).
Several studies have investigated the sensitivity of col-
All indications from sites monitored to date are that
lision models to various input parameters. For example,
marine mammals should detect tidal turbines acousti-
Copping and Grear (2018) presented an analysis that
cally and may use avoidance behaviors if they perceive
incorporated a number of different parameters into a
the turbines to be a threat. Field playback studies using
simple collision risk model, including variation in site-
recordings of tidal turbines indicate responses at the
specific geography, tidal current, depth distribution of
scale of a few hundred meters, although the responses
animals, and a prediction of the likely severity of colli-
depend on the acoustic characteristics of the signal
sion. This analysis suggested that collisions leading to
and the hearing sensitivity of the species (Hastie et al.
“serious injury” were likely to be relatively rare events
2018a; Robertson et al. 2018). Turbines that emit mostly
but that the risk of serious injury varied between spe-
low-frequency noise may not be audible at long ranges
cies and site and, in particular, in the degree of channel
to high-frequency specialists such as harbor porpoises.
“blockage” created by turbines. Similarly, Band et al.
Similarly, devices that emit more higher-frequency
(2016) demonstrated a reduction in predicted colli-
sound may not be audible to low-frequency hearing
sion risk with sequential parameter refinements, which
species. This highlights the need to take into account
incorporated detailed information about seal behavior,
the turbine-specific acoustic footprint and the hearing
depth distribution, turbine characteristics, severity
capabilities of the species likely to be present. Predictive
of collision, etc. However, analyses such as these also
modeling of the acoustic energy output of new turbines
indicate that predictions of risk are extremely sensitive
prior to their deployment should inform the range at
to assumptions about behavioral parameters that can
which marine animals may be able to hear devices and
only be measured around operating turbines, param-
provide insight into the ability of animals to respond
eters such as avoidance or fine-scale evasive responses.
appropriately and avoid collision (Marmo 2017). How-
For instance, Joy et al. (2018), by incorporating empiri-
ever, the degree to which the audibility and “warning
cal data collected around SeaGen (Sparling et al. 2018),
distance” actually influence behavior, and ultimately
recently demonstrated the effect of incorporating
the risk of collision, is uncertain.
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.
cussion by Booth et al. [2015] and Schmitt et al. [2017] RESEARCH AND MONITORING NEEDS TO
above in relation to the Minesto device). Other examples RETIRE THE ISSUE
include simulations that provide a framework to allow There are still a number of knowledge gaps and uncer-
behavioral influences such as food availability and tainties in relation to the probability and consequences
responses to noise to be incorporated, as was created of collisions between marine mammals and tidal energy
for Ramsey Sound (Lake et al. 2017). A spatially explicit devices, including better understanding of the likelihood
Individual-Based Modeling (IBM) approach is being of collision with and avoidance of turbines, better under-
developed at SMRU to explore the potential conse- standing of the consequences of a collision with a turbine
quences of the impacts of MRE projects, including colli- blade, translating individual collision risk to population-
sion. However, this outcome is still at least a year away level risk, better understanding of the sublethal effects
from completion (B. McConnell, personal communica- that may cause secondary injury or death, scaling of colli-
tion). Given the complexity of behavioral responses sion risk from a single turbine to arrays, and the need for
and the need to understand collision risk at the array collaboration among sectors to retire the risk of collision,
scale, the future of collision risk modeling is uncertain. as described in the following paragraphs.

40 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
Scaling collision risk from a single turbine to arrays –
et al. 2018). However, information describing the occur-
With few devices in the water, insight into the potential
rence and behavior of marine mammals at close range
risk to marine mammals from turbine blades cannot
to devices (1–10s of meters) does not exist. The tools
be well predicted as the industry moves toward larger
and technologies to allow this research to be conducted
commercial arrays. Among the challenges for scaling
are being developed (Cotter et al. 2018; Gillespie et al.
up the knowledge of collision risk from a single device
2020; Hastie et al. 2019; Malinka et al. 2018; Sparling et
would be whether animal responses to individual tur-
al. 2016). Information about the equipment and tech-
bines might influence collision risk with other turbines
niques that contribute to determining collision risk
in an array. Predictive models validated with collision
and close encounters with animals and turbines can be
risk data collected around single devices and small
found in Chapter 10 (Environmental Monitoring Tech-
arrays may be useful to understanding the range of
nologies and Techniques for Detecting Interactions of
potential outcomes, identifying particular sensitivities,
Marine Animals with Turbines).
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
Collaboration among sectors to retire the risk of col-
of encounter, the body part struck, and the part of the
lision – Collaborative approaches involving academia,
device with which the animal collides (Copping and
industry, and government have been shown to be good
Grear 2018; Onoufriou et al. 2019).
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-
ing, and attitudes toward publishing. To address these
Sublethal effects – Effects that do not result in serious
challenges, funding sources need to have a degree of
injury or death are difficult to predict or measure but
flexibility to respond to changing project timelines, and
could have serious consequences; for example, blunt
research institutions need to retain key expertise. There
force trauma or concussion could affect an animal’s
also needs to be a degree of external governance of
future foraging success and ability to reproduce. Tech-
monitoring and research programs to assure that maxi-
niques exist for incorporating sublethal effects into the
mum benefit is drawn for all stakeholders, and that
prediction of future population consequences, but the
objective and trusted science is delivered.
necessary knowledge to carry out these analyses does
not currently exist for collision risk and marine mam-

SECTION 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 pub-
lished, 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, avoid-
ance, and evasion around MRE devices, but fish strikes
had not been observed (Broadhurst et al. 2014; Hammar
et al. 2013; Viehman and Zydlewski 2015). Substan-
tial 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 con-
sequences of blade strike (Romero-Gomez and Rich-
mond 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 under-
standing certain aspects of the risk hydrokinetic tur-
bines 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 esti-
mated for a proposed turbine in coastal Japan and were
replicated in a scaled-down laboratory setting (Zhang
3.5. et al. 2017). The passing rates, positions, and reactions
of Japanese rice fish (Oryzias latipes) were recorded after
COLLISION RISK TO FISH
upstream and downstream releases near an axial flow

M
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
West Anglesey Demonstration Zone for tidal energy,
To understand the effects of blade strikes on fishes,
AZFP data were collected for three months in late fall to
three fish species (gizzard shad [Dorosoma cepedianum],
winter, while split-beam echosounder data were col-
rainbow trout [Oncorhynchus mykiss], and hybrid striped
lected and trawls were conducting for groundtruthing
bass [Morone saxatilus x M. chrysops]) were exposed to
at the beginning and end of the AZFP data collection
simulated blade strikes in a laboratory setting (Bev-
period. From these data, fish density, distribution, and
elhimer et al. 2019). The relationships among blade
overlap with a proposed hydrokinetic device were calcu-
thickness, impact velocity, and body orientation were
lated in relation to one or more of the following: season,
examined to understand the relationships between
tide stage, diel stage, tidal current speeds, or suspended
turbine characteristics and the probability of injury and
particulate matter.
mortality of different fish species. Mid-body strikes
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
installation, maintenance and decommissioning to
These baseline observations aid in understanding the
avoid major fish migrations or presence of endangered
potential collision risk of fishes and turbines. Because
and threatened species (Staines et al. 2019).
fish counts may be proportional to the encounter rate
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
used a predictive approach that relied on Generalized
Deployed Support Structures and Turbines
Additive Models, and found that the fish-school area
Group Behavior
and occupied depth around the static turbine support
By extending the same methodologies and approaches
structure were significantly related to the time of day,
used in pre-deployment baseline studies, installa-
current velocity, and tide stage (ebb/flood; Williamson
tion and post-installation assessment of the impacts
et al. 2019). Both analyses found that there were more
of support structures and turbines on fishes, such as
fish schools present at water velocities less than 1.0
avoidance behavior and encounter probability, can be
m/s than at higher velocities, and there were more fish
inferred at a group level by observing multiple fish, such
schools present near the turbine site than at the control
as shoals or even local populations. Specifically, com-
site. From the results, it was inferred that the aggrega-
parisons of fish presence/absence, counts, or densities
tion of prey fishes near turbine structures may increase
in locations where a turbine is deployed and in nearby
prey availability and predator foraging efficiency, which
reference locations (where a turbine is not deployed)
may increase predator collision risk (Williamson et al.
can be made. Similar comparisons can be made before
2019). It was further inferred that the biggest change in
and after a support structure or turbine is deployed to
the behavior of predatory fish would occur at night when
infer the effects of turbines as part of post-consent
they were predicted to occupy deeper waters, which
monitoring programs.
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
During the EnFAIT project in Bluemull Sound, Scotland,
on-water activity disturbances (e.g., industry vessel
fish of the genus Pollachius (identified as saithe, Pol-
and diving activities) varied at the impact site and pos-
lachius virens) were regularly observed in the subsea
sibly influenced results. Specifically, lower fish densi-

44 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
horizontal swimming direction slightly, and angling
To understand the aggregation characteristics of fishes
away. In the Kvichak River, all adult fish demonstrated
near rotating turbines, hydroacoustic surveys were
some type of avoidance reaction, as did the majority of
conducted in the East River, New York (Bevelhimer et al.
juveniles; approximately one-third of juveniles passed
2017) and in Cobscook Bay, Maine (Grippo et al. 2017) to
through the turbine (Matzner et al. 2017).
examine fish densities and distributions in relation to
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.
2015; Staines et al. 2020) and, as such, real-world data
Individual Behavior of Fishes
to parameterize these behaviors in models are limited
To monitor the individual behavior of fishes near tur-
(Bevelhimer et al. 2017). Consequently, these two stud-
bines, relatively fine-scale (centimeter to meter scale)
ies represent an important step toward understanding
information must be collected using cameras or acous-
the behavior of individual fishes near rotating turbines.
tic imaging systems. In cases when individual behavior
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
was modeled in two studies, one in Cobscook Bay, Maine
In both studies, collisions ranged from infrequent to
(Shen et al. 2016) and one in Minas Passage, Nova Scotia
nonexistent. In the East River, 36 individual tracks were
(Viehman et al. 2018). In Cobscook Bay, a model used
identified as having the possibility of having had a close
empirically collected echosounder data from stationary
encounter with the turbine based on each fish’s proxim-
and mobile hydroacoustic surveys to examine the prob-
ity to the turbine, but there were no observations of fish
ability that fish would be at the depth of the turbine and
being struck by rotating blades in the video images that
could therefore encounter it as close as 10 m upstream
were obtained (Bevelhimer et al. 2017). In more than
(Shen et al. 2016). In Minas Passage, empirical fish den-
42 hours of camera footage reviewed from the Kvichak
sity and vertical distribution data collected by an echo-
River, there were only 20 potential contact interactions,
sounder were used to estimate the probability of spatial
of which only 3 were classified as “maybe” collisions
overlap with the device under three fish distribution
after close visual examination (Matzner et al. 2017). On
scenarios: (1) uniform vertical distribution; (2) winter
only one occasion was an actual contact confirmed, and
vertical distribution; and (3) summer vertical distribu-
it involved an adult fish that contacted the camera, not
tion (Viehman et al. 2018).
the turbine itself. More interactions with the turbine were
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
a year was 0.058 (95 percent% CI: [0.043, 0.073]; Shen
Modeling Studies
et al. 2016). In Minas Passage, the probability that fish
As a valuable complement to field-based studies, mod-
would encounter the marine hydrokinetic device based
eling studies have been conducted to understand several
on spatial overlap alone was 0.00175 with uniform verti-
facets of potential impacts of hydrokinetic devices on
cal distribution (Viehman et al. 2018). The probability of
fishes, including encounter risk, behavior, and colli-
encounter was 0.00064 for the winter vertical distribu-
sion risk. These models can fill information gaps when
tion of fish (median proportion of fish at turbine depth =
field studies are not feasible or lack the spatial or tem-
0.365), and 0.00099 for the summer vertical distribution
poral resolution to answer important questions. In the
(median proportion of fish at turbine depth = 0.566).
past, many models did not incorporate empirical data
These are likely conservative estimates of encounter
(i.e., data collected in the field), but this is changing as
probability because neither model incorporated the
research on turbines effects matures.
avoidance or evasion behaviors of fishes. If avoidance
Encounter Risk 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
The behavior of fishes when encountering a turbine
(Viehman et al. 2018). These components can vary
has been explored in one study in an IBM framework
among studies and are typically predefined by inves-

46 OES-ENVIRONMENTAL 2020 STATE OF THE SCIENCE REPORT

(Grippo et al. 2017). The goal of the study was to use 3.5.3.
empirical data to characterize the magnitude, ecologi- RESEARCH AND MONITORING NEEDS TO
cal significance, and potential drivers of behavioral 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-
tions are basic compared to other mature fields related
Collision Risk Modeling
to understanding anthropogenic impacts on organisms.
Collision risk modeling is used to understand, predict,
Some of the priority needs for understanding collision
and assess potential rates of a fish either running into
risk for fishes with MRE devices are listed below.
static components of a turbine or being struck by mov-
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 tur-
Groundtruthing acoustic targets – To determine which
bine parts will depend on the turbine size, architecture,
fish species are in the vicinity of MRE devices, acoustic
and movement characteristics.
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 character-
Individual fish behavior – Detailed information about
istics were taken from device-specific engineering
the behavior of individual fishes should be collected
information, whereas the sources of hydrodynamic
to complement information gained from group-level
and bathymetric characteristics were not described.
observations to understand the ramifications of altered
Using a 95 percent avoidance rate for Atlantic salmon,
behavior (Bevelhimer et al. 2017) and to inform encoun-
which is based on previous research and is assumed to
ter probability and collision risk models. Once method-
be precautionary (Scottish Natural Heritage 2016), and
ologies are refined, they can be used to answer behav-
the worst-case scenario of an array consisting of 200
ioral questions that have eluded researchers. Because
individual 10-bladed turbines, the collision risk for any
echosounders (e.g., split-beam sonar) have not been
given individual fish of a certain life stage that passes
particularly effective in sampling nearfield areas, once
through the turbine site during its oceanic migratory
a fish gets close to a turbine, this method is less help-
circuit is expected to be 0.007 percent for grilse and
ful than cameras for determining the extent and out-
adults, and 0.003 percent for smolts. Scenarios with
comes of interactions. Even with cameras, identifying
fewer turbines and turbines with fewer blades produced
collision versus avoidance at close distances remains
lower collision risk estimates.
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 infor-
mation. 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 dur-
ing periods of darkness should be examined to under-
stand 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 Figure 3.6. Schematic of stimulus fields produced by a turbine that
on fish behavior on a species-specific basis, it is not could affect fish behavior. (Illustration by Robyn Ricks)
possible to understand the sampling bias. Literature
elucidated through tagging or other methods should
from research around hydroelectric dams may provide
be overlaid on the fields around the turbine, and
some insight.
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
Consequences of the collision of fish with turbines –
data are also needed to reduce the burden of the stor-
The outcomes of actual collisions of fishes and MREs
age and post-processing of collected data.
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
Optimizing turbine operation for fish safety – While
stimuli (Figure 3.6). Grippo et al. (2017) qualitatively
also considering electricity production, research to
examined these questions, but rigorous quantita-
identify optimum blade velocity should examine the
tive analyses are needed. To do this, fields around the
trade-off between avoidance behavior and severity of
operating/rotating turbine, including water velocity,
injuries, because increased blade velocity results in
pressure, acceleration, and water particle character-
increased avoidance behavior, while decreased blade
istics (Nedelec et al. 2016; Popper and Hawkins 2018)
velocity results in decreased severity of injuries and
should be measured. Next, fine-scale fish behavior
mortality (Zhang et al. 2017).

48 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 behav-
ior observed during field studies (Viehman and
Zydlewski 2017). These models need to be rigorously
groundtruthed to determine the realism of their out-
puts.

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 tur-
bines 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, regula-
tors will have to consider the potential effects on fish
populations, using data gathered from single devices
and small arrays, and applying tools used in consid-
eration of other development processes. Also of con-
3.6.
sideration are the community-level effects that might
be caused by MRE development. By altering the fish
COLLISION RISK TO SEABIRDS

S
community, ecosystem effects such as changes in the eabirds are considered to be at risk from tidal tur-
food web structure, as well as the overall and relative bine development if they dive at the locations and
abundance of fishes, will likely be realized. Further- 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. GPS location data to gain dive profiles for seabirds at
SUMMARY OF KNOWLEDGE THROUGH 2016 MRE sites. In the absence of empirical seabird collision
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
3.6.2.
than collision risk. While no empirical data were avail-
KNOWLEDGE GENERATED SINCE 2016
able about the collision impacts of seabirds with MRE
Since the publication of the 2016 State of the Science
devices, several studies assessed the relative sensitivi-
report, studies have continued to investigate habitat
ties of different seabird species or species groups to the
use and fine-scale interactions with turbines as well
potential adverse effects of MRE devices (e.g., Furness
as the development of monitoring techniques, as a
et al. 2012; Wilson et al. 2007). Cormorants and auk spe-
proxy for collision risk for seabirds and tidal turbines.
cies including European shag (Phalacrocorax aristotelis)
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
guillemots, common guillemots [Uria aalge], and Euro-
Technology and remote observation methods were
pean shags), individuals were associated with fast and
also used to investigate the potential impacts of MRE
slow horizontal currents, high turbulence, upward and
devices on seabirds. Williamson et al. (2017) used the
downward vertical currents, and hard-rough seabeds.
Flow, Water Column and Benthic Ecology (FLOWBEC)
However, the strength of the associations was species-
platform equipped with a variety of sensors to assess
specific. In particular, the study demonstrated a strong
the underwater interactions of seabirds (as well as fish
association of Atlantic puffins with fast horizontal flow,
and marine mammals) with tidal turbines. A similar
highlighting the potential for this species to be at risk
integrated instrumentation system was also developed
of collision with tidal turbines. Following on from this,
by Polagye et al. (2014). In addition, Jackson (2014)
Waggitt et al. (2017) used data from shore-based seabird
used above-water cameras on the Pelamis wave energy
surveys across six sites in Scotland to identify trends in
device at the European Marine Energy Centre (EMEC)
the use of habitats by black guillemots and European
in the Orkney Islands, Scotland, to assess the use of the
shags. However, their results did not provide any clear
wave structure and surrounding water by seabirds, and
generalizations, suggesting that species habitat use
they found use by eight species, most frequently by
of tidal-stream environments and the associated risk
Arctic terns (Sterna paradisaea). Floating tidal turbines
of collision with turbines may vary greatly between
operate near the surface; therefore, for these types of
development sites.
devices, the results from Jackson (2014) suggest the
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
greater on flood tides than the ebb and lower at faster
Cole et al. (2018) used a modified ornithodolite (a pair
tidal flows, indicating a very low turbine encounter
of binoculars with a built-in laser rangefinder, digital
risk for even the most commonly occurring diving
compass, and inclinometer) to quantify animal space
birds. Black guillemot and European shag were the
use and the fine-scale space use in a highly dynamic
only bird species observed in the subsea video footage.
tidal area (Ramsey Sound, Wales) by diving seabirds,
Eleven occurrences of shag and seven of guillemot
to locate the birds. Their results showed that the stan-
were observed, all during slack tide or periods of tidal
dard deviation of distance measurements was 1–2 m
flow below the cut-in speed, when the turbines were
within a 2 km range. However, systematic error in the
not operating. On three occasions, European shag
laser rangefinder distance measurement, as well as
were observed actively pursuing fish around turbines.
the influence of the target bird size and color, could
No physical contact between birds and the turbine
lead to an increase in the actual 3-D positional error
blades was ever observed in any of the footage.
(Cole et al. 2018). Despite these limitations, the orni-
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
(Williamson et al. 2018). This research aims to develop
Thirty-three bird species have been recorded in land-
algorithms for the automated detection of animals
based surveys during the EnFAIT project in Bluemull
and hydrodynamic features from UAV data. A UAV
Sound (Nova Innovation 2020). Fifteen species are
was used with vantage point surveys to observe top
known to dive to the turbine depth (≥ 15m below sea
predators around a manmade structure (SeaGen) in
level), and therefore capable of encountering and
Strangford Lough, Northern Ireland, demonstrat-
interacting with the turbines. Black guillemot and
ing the presence of a predictable foraging hotspot for
European shag accounted for over 90% of all sight-
several tern species in the surface wake of the device
ings, with other diving bird species, such as Atlantic
(Lieber et al. 2019). During the study, SeaGen was
puffin, northern gannet (Morus bassanus), common
being decommissioned and the rotors were removed,
guillemot and red-throated diver (Gavia stellata)
although the monopile was still in place, thereby cre-
recorded infrequently. Black guillemot were recorded
ating a surface wake effect. It has been hypothesized
diving in the area immediately around the turbines
that foraging hotspots generated around operational
in 2.75% of scans, European shag in 1.04% of scans

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
3.6.3.
hotspots at depth is unclear.
RESEARCH AND MONITORING NEEDS TO
Fine-scale Interactions RETIRE THE ISSUE
To better understand the risk of collision of seabirds Significant data gaps remain because only a limited
with underwater turbines, it is vital to understand number of studies have been conducted, so there is
how individuals will interact with the devices. To date, no evidence to show that direct interactions with tidal
there has been limited information about the under- 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 about and observations of nearfield animal movements
interactions information has been collated about sea- and behaviors around tidal turbines, which would be
bird diving behavior in an attempt to parameterize required for a variety of designs and across a range of tidal
collision risk models. Robbins (2017) produced a syn- locations. This means that we do not currently understand
thesis of data about seabird diving behavior (18 dif- how seabirds interact with operational turbines and we
ferent parameters) for 22 species found in UK waters. are unable to predict how devices might affect indi-
This study found that existing knowledge of foraging viduals at new development sites, which limits the evi-
and diving behavior is highly variable across species dence base for environmental impact assessments. This
and parameters and that for some of the most vulner- is also evident when using collision risk models, which
able species, such as loons and black guillemots (Fur- currently make assumptions about avoidance or evasion
ness et al. 2012), data uncertainty is high. For such responses of seabirds, based on learning from offshore
species, targeted research will be required. 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 ◆ Improve the understanding of the displacement of
explored for seabirds (Onoufriou et al. 2019). seabirds from operating tidal energy sites to under-
stand 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
◆ Target observations (rather than generic monitor-
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
how seabirds use high-flow environments.
seasons including the breeding season. Improved data
◆ Target observations to determine the extent of
should be used to parameterize underwater collision
displacement effects.
risk models.
The priorities for the development of technology,
Seabird Use of Tidal Races – Wade et al. (2016) incor-
methodologies, and tools include the following:
porated uncertainty into an assessment of seabird
vulnerability relative to MRE developments and found ◆ Develop methods to improve the understanding of

high levels of uncertainty associated with seabird use the behavior of seabirds around operating devices,

of tidal races. This affects confidence in our estimates particularly avoidance and evasion behaviors.

of the likely risk of collisions between diving seabirds ◆ 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). ◆ Develop automated methods for processing the
large quantities of data, such as underwater video/
Research Priorities – Many of the priorities for reduc-
camera images, that are often recorded at sites.
ing the risk of seabird collisions with tidal turbines
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 spe-
cies to increase the evidence base for use in estima-
tion 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
 In addition, it is vital to examine the overlap and
3.7.
potential interaction that may occur among predator
CONCLUSIONS AND and prey species, through the integration of data col-
RECOMMENDATIONS lected about marine mammals, fish, and diving sea-

K
ey progress has been made to better understand birds around turbines (Scott et al. 2014). By collecting
collision risk, and evidence is steadily growing data about the three major groups of marine animals at
across a range of disciplines, informed by research and risk through coordinated monitoring programs (adding
post-installation monitoring of operational devices. sea turtles in appropriate waters), the understanding of
No collisions have been observed in nearfield monitor- the potential interactions around MRE devices will be
ing carried out to date around operational turbines. improved for each group and the potential interactions
However, because deployments have been limited between the groups, such as the availability of forage
and monitoring challenges are significant, gaps in 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 3.7.2.
not provide definitive evidence that collisions will not EVIDENCE OF FACTORS AFFECTING
occur. Uncertainty about collision risk, including the 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
(e.g., Waggitt et al. 2017) but also some differences
3.7.1.
INTEGRATION OF INFORMATION, (e.g., Hastie et al. 2016). As evidence of the influence
TECHNOLOGY, AND ENGINEERING EXPERTS of fine-scale hydrodynamics on marine animal distri-
IN MONITORING PROGRAMS bution 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 devices and marine animals, the animals’ behavioral
information technology to improve the technologies responses to the physical and acoustic presence of
used in monitoring (including improved reliability, devices will be the primary factors influencing colli-
survivability, and cost), as well as managing, analyz- sion risk. Such responses include attraction, avoid-
ing, and disseminating the data. The development ance, and evasion. These factors can be better under-
of automated data processing algorithms and soft- stood by measuring the response of marine animals to
ware for analyzing data gathered around operational the actual presence of installed devices and arrays.
devices will be key to resolving uncertainties about
collision risk.

54 OES-ENVIRONMENTAL 2020 STATE OF THE SCIENCE REPORT

3.7.3. 3.7.4.
ASSESSING COLLISION RISK AND ITS POST-INSTALLATION MONITORING OF
CONSEQUENCES COLLISION RISK
Assessments of collision risk for tidal energy projects Globally, uncertainty and knowledge gaps about col-
often include the use of predictive models to quantify lision risk have been key drivers of the requirement
potential collisions (e.g., Scottish Natural Heritage 2016) for and design of post-installation monitoring pro-
and the likely consequences of such predictions for spe- grams for tidal and river energy projects (see Chapter
cies’ populations (e.g., King et al. 2015). In general, col- 12, Adaptive Management with Respect to Marine
lision models are relatively simple, based on the broad Renewable Energy). This is an area in which there has
spatial overlap of marine animals with tidal energy been significant activity in recent years, and there
development areas, and on the measured or estimated is a growing body of evidence about the interactions
animal density, often across a much wider area. Outputs between animals and tidal devices. Significant progress
should therefore be treated with caution to avoid inflat- has also been made in the development of monitoring
ing their scientific basis. Outputs provide a useful indi- techniques and instruments to address the challenges
cation of the potential magnitude of collision risk, but of gathering robust information of relevance to col-
contextualization and interpretation also are crucial. lision risk in tidal energy environments and around
Equally uncertain are the consequences to an indi- operating devices (see Chapter 10, Environmental
vidual animal if a collision with a moving part of a 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 as well as reporting on the findings of existing opera-
consequences for marine mammals across the size tional projects over the next few years, are expected
range from small pinnipeds and cetaceans to large to further address some of the collision risk critical
whales, as well as fish and diving seabirds, are not well gaps and uncertainties. These efforts include oppor-
known. More investigations are needed to assure that tunities for meta-analyses across multiple sites and
an overly conservative approach to predicting the out- projects. Key to the success of this work will be the
comes of collisions can be avoided. MRE industry, regulators, researchers, and fund-
A key driver of the global concern about collision risk is ing agencies working collaboratively to understand
the potential for such effects to lead to losses of indi- how to best fund, share, and disseminate the results
viduals, which may affect ecosystem dynamics and the of research and monitoring programs to collectively
long-term status of populations. For many species, move toward a better understanding of collision risk.
particularly those with spatially restricted, declin- This will require the exploration and development of
ing, or small populations, even a very low collision mechanisms for sharing data and information without
risk could result in concern about its effects on long- compromising commercial interests or intellectual
term population viability. For many species, limited property rights, as well as consideration of the needs
evidence of life history or population demographics of the consenting processes, including independent
presents a challenge to understanding the potential review and scrutiny of outputs.
for such effects. In the case of some species of “char-
ismatic 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
 Benjamins, S., Dale, A. C., Hastie, G., Waggitt, J. J., Lea,
3.8.
M.-A., Scott, B., and Wilson, B. 2015. Confusion Reigns?
REFERENCES A Review of Marine Megafauna Interactions with Tidal-
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​
-adaptive-management-post-consent-monitoring​
Band, B. 2014. Annex 3. Detailed Collision Risk Assess-
-strategies
ment: Marine Mammals, Basking Shark, and Diving
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-
ences, 76(12), 2350-2363. doi:10.1139/cjfas-2018-0386
Band, B., Sparling, C. E., Thompson, D., Onoufriou, J.,
https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/mortality-injury​
San Martin, E., and West, N. 2016. Refining Estimates
-assessment-three-species-fish-exposed-simulated​
of Collision Risk for Harbour Seals and Tidal Turbines.
-turbine-blade-strike
Scottish Marine and Freshwater Science Vol 7 No 17.
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
Turbine in the East River, New York. Transactions of the
Battin, J. 2004. When Good Animals Love Bad Habitats:
American Fisheries Society, 146(5), 1028-1042. doi:10​
Ecological Traps and the Conservation of Animal Popu-
.1080/00028487.2017.1339637 https://tethys.pnnl.gov​
lations. Conservation Biology, 18(6), 1482-1491. doi:10​
/publications/hydroacoustic-assessment-behavioral​
.1111/j.1523-1739.2004.00417.x https://tethys.pnnl.gov​
-responses-fish-passing-near-operating-tidal
/publications/when-good-animals-love-bad-habitats​
-ecological-traps-conservation-animal-populations 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​
Copping, A., Sather, N., Hanna, L., Whiting, J., Zydlewski,
-mammal-collision-stream-tidal
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
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. 16 U.S.C.
Castro-Santos, T., and Haro, A. 2015. Survival and ch. 35 § 1531 et seq. [U.S.]
Behavioral Effects of Exposure to a Hydrokinetic Tur-
Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation
bine on Juvenile Atlantic Salmon and Adult American
Act 1999 (Cth). [Australia]
Shad. Estuaries and Coasts, 38(1), 203-214. doi:10.1007​
/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,
65(3), 414-432. doi:10.1093/icesjms/fsn048 https://​
Cole, E.-L., Waggitt, J. J., Hedenstrom, A., Piano, M.,
tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/impacts-ocean-acidification​
Holton, M. D., Börger, L., and Shepard, E. L. C. 2018. The
-marine-fauna-ecosystem-processes
Ornithodolite as a tool to quantify animal space use
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​ (FAO) 2018. The State of World Fisheries and Aquacul-
/ornithodolite-tool-quantify-animal-space-use-habitat​ ture 2018 - Meeting the sustainable development goals
-selection-case-study-birds-diving (ISBN 978-92-5-130562-1). Report by United Nations;
Copping, A., and Grear, M. 2018. Applying a simple Rome, Italy. https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/state​
model for estimating the likelihood of collision of -world-fisheries-aquaculture-2018-meeting-sustainable​
marine mammals with tidal turbines. International -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​
-hydrokinetic-turbine-under-multiple
Furness, R. W., Wade, H. M., Robbins, A. M. C., and Mas-
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​
Hammar, L., Andersson, S., Eggertsen, L., Haglund,
-populations-adverse-effects-tidal-stream-turbines​
J., Gullström, M., Ehnberg, J., and Molander, S. 2013.
-wave
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),
Hammar, L., Eggertsen, L., Andersson, S., Ehnberg, J.,
e0229058. doi:10.1371/journal​.pone.0229058 https://
Arvidsson, R., Gullström, M., and Molander, S. 2015.
tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/passive​-acoustic-methods-
A Probabilistic Model for Hydrokinetic Turbine Colli-
tracking-3d-movements-small​-cetaceans-around-marine
sion 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​
Hansen, K. A., Maxwell, A., Siebert, U., Larsen, O. N., and
.gov/publications/diving-bird-collision-risk-assessment​
Wahlberg, M. 2017. Great cormorants (Phalacrocorax carbo)
-framework-tidal-turbines
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
Hastie, G. D., Bivins, M., Coram, A., Gordon, J., Jepp, P.,
https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/mechanical-properties​
MacAulay, J., Sparling, C., and Gillespie, D. 2019. Three-
-harbor-seal-skin-blubber-test-anisotropy
dimensional 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
Hastie, G. D., Evers, C., Gillespie, D., Irving, P., Onou-
centres in Europe. International Journal of Marine Energy,
friou, J., Sparling, C. E., and Thompson, D. 2018b. Marine
14, 68-79. doi:10.1016/j.ijome.2016.02.003 https://tethys​
Mammals and Tidal Energy: Report to Scottish Govern-
.pnnl.gov/publications/environmental-impact-assessment​
ment - MRE Theme. Report by Sea Mammal Research
-gathering-experiences-wave-energy-test-centres​
Unit for Scottish Government; St Andrews, Scotland.
-europe
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
Kreibel, D., Tickner, J., Epstein, P., Lemons, J., Levins,
status. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,
R., Loechler, E. L., and Stoto, M. 2001. The precaution-
117(4), 2218. doi:10.1073/pnas.1909726116 https://tethys​
ary principle in environmental science. Environmental
.pnnl.gov/publications/effective-fisheries-management​
Health Perspectives, 109(9), 871-876. https://tethys.pnnl​
-instrumental-improving-fish-stock-status
.gov/publications/precautionary-principle-environmental​
Kristan, W. B.. 2003. The role of habitat selection behav- -science
ior in population dynamics: source–sink systems
Kristan, W. B. I. 2003. The role of habitat selection
and ecological traps. Oikos, 103(3), 457-468. doi:10​
behavior in population dynamics: source-sink sys-
.1034/j.1600-0706.2003.12192.x https://tethys.pnnl.gov​
tems and ecological traps. Oikos, 103(3), 457–468. doi:
/publications/role-habitat-selection-behavior-population​
10.1034/j.1600-0706.2003. 12192.x https://tethys.pnnl.gov​
-dynamics-source-sink-systems-ecological
/publications/role-habitat-selection-behavior-population​
Jackson, A. C. 2014. Riding the waves: use of the Pelamis -dynamics-source-sink-systems-ecological
device by seabirds. Paper presented at the 2nd Inter-
Lake, T., Masters, I., and Croft, N. 2017. Algorithms
national Conference on Environmental Interactions of
for Marine Mammal Modelling and an Application in
Marine Renewable Energy Technologies, Stornoway,
Ramsey Sound. Paper presented at the 12th European
Scotland. https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/riding​
Wave and Tidal Energy Conference, Cork, Ireland.
-waves-use-pelamis-device-seabirds
https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/algorithms-marine​
Johnston, D. T. 2019. Investigating the Foraging Ecology -mammal-modelling-application-ramsey-sound
of Black Guillemots Cepphus grylle in Relation to Tidal
Langton, R., Davies, I. M., and Scott, B. E. 2011. Seabird
Stream Turbines and Marine Protected Areas. Doctoral
conservation and tidal stream and wave power genera-
Dissertation, University of the Highlands and Islands,
tion: Information needs for predicting and manag-
Inverness, Scotland. https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications​
ing potential impacts. Marine Policy, 35(5), 623-630.
/investigating-foraging-ecology-black-guillemots​
doi:10.1016/j.marpol.2011.02.002 https://tethys.pnnl.gov​
-cepphus-grylle-relation-tidal-stream
/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​
-mammals-tidal-rapids
Leopold, M., and Scholl, M. 2019. Monitoring geti-
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),
Malinka, C. E., Gillespie, D. M., Macaulay, J. D. J., Joy,
Netherlands. https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications​
R., and Sparling, C. E. 2018. First in situ passive acous-
/monitoring-getijdenturbines-oosterscheldekering​
tic monitoring for marine mammals during opera-
-oosterscheldekering-tidal-turbines
tion 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​
Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972. 16 U.S.C. ch 31 §
/publications/optimising-multiple-multibeam-sonars​
1361 et seq. [U.S.]
-assess-marine-life-interactions-underwater-kite
Marmo, B. 2017. Operational noise from tidal turbine
Lieber, L., Nimmo-Smith, W. A. M., Waggitt, J. J., and
arrays and the accessment of collision risk with marine
Kregting, L. 2018. Fine-scale hydrodynamic met-
mammals. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America,
rics underlying predator occupancy patterns in tidal
141(5), 3921-3921. doi:10.1121/1.4988862 https://tethys​
stream environments. Ecological Indicators, 94, 397-
.pnnl.gov/publications/operational-noise-tidal-turbine​
408. doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2018.06.071 https://tethys.pnnl​
-arrays-assessment-collision-risk-marine-mammals
.gov/publications/fine-scale-hydrodynamic-metrics​
-underlying-predator-occupancy-patterns-tidal-stream Martin, G. R., and Wanless, S. 2015. The visual fields
of Common Guillemots Uria aalge and Atlantic Puffins
Lieber, L., Nimmo-Smith, W. A. M., Waggitt, J. J., and
Fratercula arctica: foraging, vigilance and collision vul-
Kregting, L. 2019. Localised anthropogenic wake gener-
nerability. Ibis, 157(4), 798-807. doi:10.1111/ibi.12297
ates a predictable foraging hotspot for top predators.
https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/visual-fields-common​
Communications Biology, 2(1), 123. doi:10.1038/s42003​
-guillemots-uria-aalge-atlantic-puffins-fratercula​
-019-0364-z https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/localised​
-arctica
-anthropogenic-wake-generates-predictable-foraging​
-hotspot-top-predators Martin, G. R., White, C. R., and Butler, P. J. 2008. Vision
and the foraging technique of Great Cormorants Phala-
Macaulay, J., Gordon, J., Gillespie, D., Malinka, C., and
crocorax carbo: pursuit or close-quarter foraging? Ibis,
Northridge, S. 2017. Passive acoustic methods for fine-
150(3), 485-494. doi:10.1111/j.1474-919X.2008.00808​
scale tracking of harbour porpoises in tidal rapids.
.x https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/vision-foraging​
The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 141(2),
-technique-great-cormorants-phalacrocorax-carbo​
1120-1132. doi:10.1121/1.4976077 https://tethys.pnnl​
-pursuit-or-close
.gov/publications/passive-acoustic-methods-fine-scale​
-tracking-harbour-porpoises-tidal-rapids 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​
/marine-mammals-tidal-energy-annual-report-scottish​
Nova Innovation Ltd. 2020. EnFAIT - Enabling Future
-government
Arrays in Tidal Year 3 Environmental Monitoring
Report. Available at: https://www.enfait.eu/publications/ Polagye, B., Copping, A., Suryan, R., Kramer, S., Brown-
Saracino, J., and Smith, C. 2014. Instrumentation for
Onoufriou, J. 2020. Harbour seals in a tidal stream
Monitoring around Marine Renewable Energy Con-
environment: movement ecology and the effects of a
verters: Workshop Final Report (PNNL-23100). Pacific
renewable energy installation. Doctoral Dissertation.
Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, Washing-
University of St Andrews, St Andrews, Scotland.
ton. 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.
Popper, A. N., and Hawkins, A. D. 2018. The importance
Journal of Applied Ecology, 56(7), 1712-1724. doi:10.1111​
of particle motion to fishes and invertebrates. The Jour-
/1365-2664.13388 https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications​
nal of the Acoustical Society of America, 143(1), 470-488.
/empirical-determination-severe-trauma-seals-collisions​
doi:10.1121/1.5021594 https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications​
-tidal-turbine-blade
/importance-particle-motion-fishes-invertebrates
Offshore Renewables Joint Industry Programme
Robbins, A. 2017. Seabird Ecology in High-Energy
(ORJIP). 2017. ORJIP Ocean Energy: The Forward Look;
Environments: Approaches to Assessing Impacts of
an Ocean Energy Environmental Research Strategy for
Marine Renewables. Doctoral Dissertation, University
the UK. Report by Aquatera Ltd for The Crown Estate,
of Glasgow, Glasgow, Scotland. https://tethys.pnnl.gov​
Marine Scotland Science, Welsh Assembly Government,
/publications/seabird-ecology-high-energy-environments​
Scottish Natural Heritage, Natural Resources Wales;
-approaches-assessing-impacts-marine
Stromness, Orkney. https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications​
/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
Turbine Sound (DOE-UW-06385). Report by University
Offshore Renewables Joint Industry Programme
of Washington for U.S. Department of Energy Office of
(ORJIP). 2019. Supporting good practice in consenting
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Washington
for tidal steam and wave technologies in Wales. Report
D.C. https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/marine-mammal​
by Aquatera Ltd for The Crown Estate, Marine Scotland
-behavioral-response-tidal-turbine-sound
Science, Welsh Assembly Government, Scottish Natural
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
Monitoring Programme (Report No. MEY-1A-70-HSE-
Paleczny, M., Hammill, E., Karpouzi, V., and Pauly, D.
018-I-PEMP). Report by MeyGen. https://tethys.pnnl​
2015. Population Trend of the World’s Monitored Sea-
.gov/publications/meygen-tidal-energy-project-phase​
birds, 1950-2010. PLoS ONE, 10(6), e0129342. doi:10.1371​
-1-project-environmental-monitoring-programme
/journal.pone.0129342 https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications​
/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​
-hydrokinetic-device-conference-paper
Schlaepfer, M. A., Runge, M. C., and Sherman, P. W.
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://​
tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/estimating-probability-fish​
Schmitt, P., Culloch, R., Lieber, L., Molander, S., Ham-
-encountering-marine-hydrokinetic-device
mar, L., and Kregting, L. 2017. A tool for simulating col-
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-
able Energy Development. Scottish Marine and Fresh-
Scott, B., Langton, R., Philpott, E., and Waggitt, J. 2014.
water Science Vol 7 No 14. Marine Scotland Science,
Seabirds and Marine Renewables: Are we Asking the
Aberdeen, Scotland. https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications​
Right Questions? In S. M. and P. A. (Eds.), Marine Renew-
/scottish-government-demonstration-strategy-trialling​
able Energy Technology and Environmental Interactions.
-methods-tracking-fine-scale
Humanity and the Sea (pp. 81-92). Dordrecht, Neth-
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
small changes in transit behaviour. Aquatic Conserva-
Scottish Natural Heritage. 2016. Assessing collision
tion: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems, 28(1), 194-204.
risk between underwater turbines and marine wildlife.
doi:10.1002/aqc.2790 https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications​
Scottish Natural Heritage Guidance Note. https://tethys​
/harbour-seals-phoca-vitulina-around-operational-tidal​
.pnnl.gov/publications/assessing-collision-risk-between​
-turbine-strangford-narrows-no
-underwater-turbines-marine-wildlife
Species at Risk Act, S.C. 2002. c. 29. [Canada]
Sharples, R. J., Moss, S. E., Patterson, T. A., and Ham-
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​
Wade, H. M. 2015. Investigating the Potential Effects
-tidal-turbine-installation-operations-harbour-porpoise​
of Marine Renewable Energy Developments on Sea-
-minas
birds. 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,
Wade, H. M., Masden, E. A., Jackson, A. C., and Fur-
D.C. https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/improvements​
ness, R. W. 2016. Incorporating data uncertainty when
-probabilistic-tidal-turbine-fish-interaction-model​
estimating potential vulnerability of Scottish seabirds
-parameters
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​
Wade, P. R. 1998. Calculating Limits to the Allowable
/publications/communicating-uncertainty-about-facts​
Human-Caused Mortality of Cetaceans and Pinnipeds.
-numbers-science
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​
Waggitt, J. J., Cazenave, P. W., Torres, R., Williamson,
.pnnl.gov/publications/approaching-birds-drones-first​
B. J., and Scott, B. E. 2016. Quantifying pursuit-diving
-experiments-ethical-guidelines
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
at the MASTS: Annual Science Meeting, Glasgow,
Waggitt, J. J., and Scott, B. E. 2014. Using a spatial over-
UK. https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/multi-platform​
lap approach to estimate the risk of collisions between
-studies-meygen-tidal-energy-site-using-uavs-measure​
deep diving seabirds and tidal stream turbines: A review
-animal
of potential methods and approaches. Marine Policy, 44,
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-
ture. Renewable Energy, 141, 1092-1102. doi:10.1016​
Weimerskirch, H., Prudor, A., and Schull, Q. 2017.
/j.renene.2019.04.065 https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications​
Flights of drones over sub-Antarctic seabirds show spe-
/predictable-changes-fish-school-characteristics-due​
cies- and status-specific behavioural and physiological
-tidal-turbine-support-structure
responses. Polar Biology, 41(2), 259-266. doi:10.1007​
/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
Association for Marine Science for Scottish Govern-
Whitton, T. A., Jackson, S. E., Hiddink, J. G., Scoulding,
ment; Oban, Scotland. https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications​
B., Bowers, D., Powell, B., D’Urban Jackson, T., Gimenez,
/collision-risks-between-marine-renewable-energy​
L., and Davies, A. G. 2020. Vertical migrations of fish
-devices-mammals-fish-diving-birds
schools determine overlap with a mobile tidal stream
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​
-modelling-atlantic-salmon
Williamson, B., Fraser, S., Blondel, P., Bell, P. S., Wag-
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 Go to https://tethys​.pnnl.gov for

OES-Environmental 2020 State of the Science full report and Andrea Copping a comprehensive collection of
executive summary available at: Pacific Northwest National papers, reports, archived presen-
Laboratory tations, and other media about
https://tethys​.pnnl.gov/publications/state-of-the​-science-2020
[email protected] environmental effects of marine
renewable energy development.
+1 206.528.3049

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 inter-
action, 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
produced by MRE device operation. Further, while the
interest in understanding the noise radiated by marine
importance of acoustic particle velocity to fishes is
renewable energy (MRE) devices and whether this noise
widely recognized (Popper and Hawkins 2018), we only
has implications for marine animals that inhabit areas
discuss radiated noise in terms of acoustic pressure.
in which MRE development could occur. This chapter
This is because in the acoustic farfield, particle velocity
focuses on new knowledge related to noise produced by
can be directly related to acoustic pressure (i.e., for our
MRE devices that has been published since 2016. While
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

 erated by MRE devices, observations to date, which are
4.1. summarized by Copping et al. (2016) and in the ensuing
IMPORTANCE OF THE ISSUE sections of this chapter, suggest that acoustic injury to

B
ecause sound is central to the way that many marine animals from operational MRE device noise is
marine animals interact with their surroundings, unlikely. Further, acoustic injuries attributed to sound
and each other, the potential impacts of anthropo- produced during installation are also unlikely, particu-
genic noise have received considerable attention. These larly if pile driving is not employed. While pile driving is
impacts include auditory masking, stress, behavioral a construction technique commonly used for offshore
changes, and acoustic responses or injuries (South- wind farms,1 it is rarely used in the MRE sector and,
all et al. 2007). Acoustic injuries resulting from noise unless device designs change considerably, this practice
exposure include temporary threshold shifts and, in of rare use is unlikely to change.2 However, radiated
extreme cases, barotrauma or death. Much of regula- noise from operational MRE devices may be audible
tory and research interest has been concerned about 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 mal behavior, it can be challenging to establish an in situ
(wave energy converters [WECs] and tidal, river, and link between underwater noise and animal behavior.
ocean current turbines). Consequently, MRE device For example, establishing such a link has been difficult
noise or its potential impacts have been the focus of even for offshore wind (e.g., Bailey et al. 2010; Russell
multiple studies (e.g., Robinson and Lepper 2013). et al. 2016), which has been deployed at a much greater
Globally, the regulatory protections afforded to marine scale than MRE devices; for the acoustic effects of ves-
animals, particularly marine mammals (e.g., the Marine sel traffic (e.g., Rolland et al. 2012), which occurs at a
Mammal Protection Act [1972] in the United States larger scale than any renewable energy generation in
[U.S.], the Marine Strategy Framework Directive [2008] the ocean; and for seismic surveys (e.g., Przeslawski
and the Habitats Directive [1992] in the European Union et al. 2018), which produce much higher-amplitude
[E.U.]) mandate that measures be taken to minimize any sound than any MRE devices. Consequently, most stud-
ecological impacts arising from emissions of anthropo- ies investigating the underwater noise effects of MRE
genic underwater noise. As such, consideration of the deployments assess received sound levels at various
potential impacts of MRE device noise is often required distances from operating devices and compare these
as part of the environmental assessments carried out in levels to ambient noise and/or animal hearing sen-
support of licensing processes related to MRE deploy- sitivity as a proxy for potential behavioral responses.
ments. However, the outcomes of these requirements Because MRE device noise is radiated over a range of
vary by region. In the U.S., this has included require- frequencies, knowledge of marine animal hearing sen-
ments for pre- and post-installation acoustic mea- sitivity is important for establishing the context for
surements around the majority of MRE deployments. radiated noise (Figure 4.2). As discussed in the follow-
In the E.U., acoustic measurements have also often ing sections, a number of studies have found that MRE
been carried out but are optional, because the existing device noise only exceeds ambient noise at short dis-
knowledge base has been sufficient to assess ecologi- tances from the source (e.g., <50 m). Under these condi-
cal impacts. Although significant uncertainties remain tions, it is unlikely that any observed in situ behavioral
about the risks posed to marine animals by sounds gen- 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

Wind turbines
SOU R C E

Pile driving

Vessels (recreational to commercial)

Sub-bottom profiling sonars

Fisheries/
hydrographic sonars
F R E QU E NC Y

1 Hz 100 Hz 1 kHz 10 kHz 100 kHz

Sea turtles

Fishes
H EARING RA NGE

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 fre-
quencies conveys scientific uncertainties about the upper frequency limit of their radiated noise. For hearing ranges, the horizontal bars corre-
spond 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

 measured radiated noise from WECs but did not draw
4.2.
conclusions about their potential environmental effects
SUMMARY OF KNOWLEDGE (Beharie and Side 2012; Lepper et al. 2012).
THROUGH 2016
Modeling of radiated noise prior to 2016 was more lim-

B
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 for audibility with respect to ambient noise. When

noise characteristics, marine animal response to this accounting for the ambient noise conditions reported

noise) similar to those of a contemporary report about by Tougaard (2015), these results are consistent and

the environmental effects of MRE (Copping et al. 2013). 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 ◆ Distinguishing an MRE device’s noise from that of
locations. Tougaard (2015), based on field measure- the ambient environment
ments from the Danish coast of the North Sea, sug- ◆ Establishing an international standard for measuring
gested that harbor seals (Phoca vitulina) were likely noise emitted by MRE devices
to be able to discern the noise from hydraulic pumps
◆ Accurately modeling noise from an array of MRE
used during startup and shutdown for a WEC, but were
devices using measurements from a single device
unlikely to detect noise during normal operation. Simi-
◆ Quantifying the direct and indirect effects of noise
larly, Cruz et al. (2015) determined that the noise emit-
from MRE devices on animals
ted by an oscillating surge WEC was minor compared
to noise generated from other marine activities (e.g., ◆ Closing knowledge gaps related to hearing thresh-
sonars, ships, pile driving), but that such noise levels olds and threshold shifts in marine animals.
from WECs could elicit behavioral responses by certain All of these challenges share features common to a vari-
cetaceans. Observations of a cross-flow tidal turbine ety of anthropogenic noise sources. Further, the last two
suggested that some marine animals might detect items above are broad-ranging and not possible for the
the emitted sound, but behavioral modifications and MRE community to address in isolation.
acoustic injury were unlikely (ORPC 2014). Other studies

SECTION B – CURRENT KNOWLEDGE OF KEY DEVICE INTERACTIONS WITH THE MARINE ENVIRONMENT 71
 On a more progressive note, several advances have been
4.3. made in understanding marine animal hearing thresh-
KNOWLEDGE GENERATED SINCE olds and shifts, including updated regulatory guidance
2016 for the U.S. about appropriate weighting functions for
different marine mammal hearing groups (NMFS 2018).

S
ince 2016, limited progress has been made in some
In addition, under the auspices of the International
of the five challenging areas targeted above. First,
Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) Technical Commit-
robustly distinguishing MRE device sound from ambi-
tee 114 (TC 114), an international consensus Techni-
ent noise remains a challenge. Second, no significant
cal Specification has been published, which lays out a
attempts have been made to model arrays with high
standardized approach to characterizing radiated noise
fidelity, but few arrays exist against which models can
around MRE devices (IEC 2019). More significantly, sev-
be benchmarked. Such modeling efforts require reli-
eral MRE devices have been characterized in the field
able acoustic source and environmental parameters
and a few studies have made progress toward estab-
(e.g., sound velocity variations in water and sediments),
lishing links between radiated noise and behavioral
which are often not available when taking measure-
responses. As for studies published prior to 2016, none
ments around MRE devices or at potential deployment
of them suggest that radiated noise from MRE device
sites for arrays. Third, as discussed below, quantifica-
operation is likely to cause acoustic injury.
tion of direct and indirect effects on marine animals has
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 (hydro-
phone 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 mod-
eling 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 math-
ematical 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 intro-
ductory 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 Sound pressure associated with a particular frequency presented with a dB re 1 μPa 2 /Hz
density level bandwidth of 1 Hz.
Decidecade sound pressure level The sound pressure level (SPL) in a decidecade (one-third octave) band. dB re 1 μPa
(decidecade SPL)
Broadband sound pressure level SPL across a range of frequencies. The associated frequencies must be dB re 1 μPa
(broadband SPL) specified. If calculated over all measured frequencies, this is equal to the
root mean square (RMS) SPL.
Source level A measure of sound radiated by a source defined as the sound pressure level dB re 1 μPa at 1 m
at a reference distance of 1 m. The associated frequencies must be specified.

72 OES-ENVIRONMENTAL 2020 STATE OF THE SCIENCE REPORT

4.3.1. Direct comparisons to site-specific ambient noise,
TIDAL, OCEAN, AND RIVER CURRENT rather than literature values for relatively quiet, open
TURBINES ocean conditions, would better support conclusions
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 ments were made regarding behavioral changes and
mammals. The authors used a drifting hydrophone (see avoidance, no direct measurements of animal behavior
Chapter 10, Environmental Monitoring Technologies were made in the study.
and Techniques for Detecting Interactions of Marine
Schmitt et al. (2018) measured radiated noise from a
Animals with Turbines) to measure radiated noise from
tidal turbine and correlated noise with operating condi-
an OpenHydro tidal turbine (axial-flow, high solidity)
tions. Measurements of a ¼-scale Minesto AB subsea
deployed in the English Channel (Brittany, France) at
kite equipped with an axial-flow turbine were presented
distances between 100 and 2400 m. Turbine source lev-
in the study. In this work, a drifting hydrophone was
els were estimated from regressions of spatially binned
used to measure sound from the MRE device operating
averages of decidecade sound pressure level (SPL).
in Strangford Narrows (Northern Ireland, United King-
These source levels were then used with ray tracing and
dom [UK]) during a period when currents were constant
parabolic equation modeling to estimate the distance
at approximately 1 m/s. Measured decidecade SPLs
at which received levels would exceed relatively low
were reported for three operating conditions involv-
levels of ambient noise typical of the open ocean, and
ing different turbine shaft speeds, kite velocities, and
would exceed audibility thresholds for different species.
tether twists. Decidecade SPLs for all cases were based
The maximum source level estimated by Lossent et al.
on average levels from 15 seconds before and 15 seconds
(2018) was 152 dB re 1 μPa at 1 m in the 128 Hz decide-
after the hydrophone passed directly above the center
cade band, and all other decidecade source levels fell
of the kite’s flight path (i.e., within 15 m of the kite).
below 137 dB re 1 μPa at 1 m. The authors noted broad-
Given the uncertainty of the specific location of the
band components of radiated noise at frequencies from
kite, results are presented as the mean received levels
approximately 40 to 8000 Hz, with amplitude modu-
over the sampling period, and multiple samples were
lations related to the turbine rotation rate. Multiple
averaged for each operational condition. Maximum
tonal components of noise were also noted between
decidecade SPLs reported by Schmitt et al. (2018) were
20 and 1300 Hz. Measurements suggested the source
less than 110 dB re 1 μPa at a frequency of approximately
is omnidirectional. On the basis of acoustic modeling,
300 Hz. Over much of the reported bandwidth (20 Hz
the authors estimated that radiated noise would exceed
to 100 kHz), observed decidecade SPLs were less than
ambient noise at distances up to 1.5 km. When combined
95 dB re 1 μPa. For some operational conditions, clear
with hearing thresholds, maximum estimated marine
modulation of the signal was observed and related to
mammal detection ranges were approximately 1 km.
the kite’s flight-path period. Results from the three
The results presented by Lossent et al. (2018) highlight measured operational conditions demonstrated that the
some of the challenges of separating ambient noise largest differences in radiated noise were attributable
from radiated MRE device noise, particularly as a func- to changes in the turbine speed (i.e., higher rotor speeds
tion of distance from the assumed source. Clear MRE were correlated with increased noise levels). In com-
device signatures attributed to the turbine were present parison, changes in radiated noise due to tether twists
at relatively close ranges but had low signal-to-noise or through-water kite speed were limited. Schmitt et al.
ratios relative to ambient noise farther from the device. (2018) made no attempt to address the potential bio-
At some frequencies, regressions for propagation losses logical consequences or audibility ranges of the device.
appeared to have coefficients that were inconsistent Although source levels were not estimated, the dis-
with expected range-dependent spreading and attenu- tances from the hydrophone to the source in this study
ation losses (e.g., cylindrical or spherical spreading), were on the order of tens of meters and may be con-
suggesting that some of this noise should not be attrib- sidered a coarse proxy for source levels. Ambient noise
uted to the turbine. Consequently, for some frequencies, levels from the site were used to contextualize radiated
source levels may be biased high because of a conflation noise. This suggests that radiated noise from the kite
of ambient noise and radiated noise from the turbine. 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
for two MRE devices with seasonal ambient noise mea-
Risch et al. (2020) measured radiated noise from an
surements and species audiograms to investigate the
Atlantis AR1500 tidal turbine (18 m diameter; 1.5 MW
“listening space reduction” for harbor seals and harbor
rated capacity) in Pentland Firth, Scotland (UK). The
porpoises. Listening space is defined by the volume over
radiated noise measurements were obtained using
which an animal can detect biologically relevant sound.
drifting hydrophones at ranges up to approximately
Therefore, listening space reductions contextualize the
2300 m, during which mean tidal currents ranged
regions of potential biological responses for the two
from 2.2 to 3.1 m/s. Measurements revealed that,
marine mammal species. The two MRE devices consid-
when operating, the noise attributable to the tur-
ered were a tidal kite (Schmitt et al. 2018) and an axial-
bine occurred primarily in the 50 to 1000 Hz range,
flow turbine (Schottel, characterized by Schmitt et al.
although lower intensity device noise was observed
2015). In the case of the tidal kite, radiated noise mea-
above ambient conditions at higher and lower fre-
surements were converted to source levels using spher-
quencies. Decidecade sound pressure levels showed
ical spreading with the distances between the devices
increases of at least 30 to 40 dB relative to ambi-
and the hydrophone at the closest point of approach
ent noise for close range measurements (range less
(approximately 6 m). The ranges of ambient noise for
than 20 m). Turbine noise intensity increased with
summer and winter conditions were constrained by the
rotation rate, with 10 to 20 dB differences observed
5th and 95th percentiles. Parabolic equation and ray
between the lowest and fastest rotation rates, but
tracing models were used to model propagation losses
the frequency content was similar for all rotation
between the hypothetical turbines and receiver loca-
rates. Broadband noise was observed at relatively
tions.
short ranges (approximately 300 m or less), while,
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-
tent sound at frequencies from 100 to 1000 Hz that were
Bevelhimer et al. (2016) compared measured ambi-
hypothesized to be a consequence of the power take-
ent noise in a river to characteristics of turbine noise
offs reaching their end stops. Because of the difficulty of
to estimate detection ranges for five fish species. Rela-
definitively attributing sound to the WEC, the authors
tively few studies have considered ambient noise in
recommended that, in the future, multiple hydrophone
rivers or the potential acoustic effects of MRE devices
recording systems be simultaneously deployed to local-
in riverine environments. Bevelhimer et al. (2016)
ize WEC sound. A minor weakness of the Walsh et al.
compared measurements of ambient noise sources in
(2017) study was that underwater noise measurements
the Mississippi River to measurements of the Ocean
were treated in a relatively qualitative manner, and it is
Renewable Power Company (ORPC) TidGen tidal turbine
not clear whether the presented information is received
in Cobscook Bay, Maine. Other sources of anthropo-
levels at the 200 m stand-off distance from the WEC or
genic ambient noise, namely different types of vessels,
nominal acoustic source levels calculated using a simple
were noted to be of higher amplitude than the TidGen
propagation model.
turbine. Finally, Bevelhimer et al. (2016) compared the
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
(WETS) in Kaneohe, Hawaii, U.S. Two deployments
4.3.2.
were conducted between 2016 and 2019, one at the 60
WAVE ENERGY CONVERTERS
m berth and one at the 30 m berth. Polagye et al. (2017)
A limited number of new studies of noise generated by
described outcomes from fixed platform measurements
WECs have been published since 2016, but they include
on the seabed at a distance of approximately 100 m and
a study of one WEC, the Fred Olsen Lifesaver, a point
drifting measurements, primarily at closer range, for
absorber, which was characterized at two locations
the deployment at the 60 m berth. Drifting measure-
using different methodologies.
ments resolved frequencies from 10 Hz to 200 kHz and
Walsh et al. (2017) measured radiated noise from the were used to attribute radiated noise to the WEC and its
Lifesaver, during a 2-year test at the FabTest test site moorings based on co-temporal comparisons between
in Falmouth Bay, UK. The objective of the study was to measurements in close proximity to the WEC and a
evaluate the feasibility of using hydrophones at a rela- “reference” site at a distance of 1200 m from the WEC.
tively large stand-off distance from a WEC (200 m) to In addition to sound consistent with the power take-
monitor its physical condition. No attempt was made to off reported by Walsh et al. (2017) (i.e., periodic tonal
study the potential effects of radiated noise on marine elevation from 30 Hz to 1 kHz), multiple intermittent
animal behavior. Measurements were conducted using sounds associated with the WEC or its mooring were
moored hydrophones at a distance of 10 m above the detected at frequencies up to 200 kHz, and the highest
seabed in water depths of 25 to 45 m. Results are pre- frequencies were associated with impact noise from a
sented for frequencies from 10 Hz to 32 kHz. Consistent 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 µPa2/Hz, and sis also highlights the benefits of conducting relatively
declined to 70 dB re 1 µPa /Hz at 1 kHz. All WEC and
2
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.
sea state, but frequency-domain analysis demonstrated
4.3.3.
that this was primarily a consequence of flow-noise
BIOLOGICAL CONSEQUENCES OF RADIATED
from wave orbital velocities close to the seabed in the NOISE
0 to 10 Hz band, which exceeded radiated noise from As previously discussed, all of the research published
the WEC (Polagye 2017). Broadband received SPLs at a prior to 2016, as well as the studies of MRE device noise
range of 100 m were centered around 115 dB re 1µPa, and reviewed in this chapter, used sound detection as a
ranged from 105 to 125 dB re 1 µPa. 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
2 tions of prey around an artificial reef).
to approximately 65 dB re 1 µPa /Hz at 1000 Hz. No
2
Schram et al. (2017) used a mesocosm experiment to
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
data) was used as a sound source and, as for the Hastie
Hastie et al. (2018) used shore observers and tagging to
et al. (2018) effort, the study was partitioned into con-
demonstrate the behavioral response (localized avoid-
trol and playback periods. Broadband (30 Hz to 10 kHz)
ance) of harbor seals to simulated tidal turbine noise in
source levels were 158 dB re 1 µPa at 1 m, which was
a tidal channel. To assess behavioral changes and avoid-
lower than the source level used by Hastie et al. (2018)
ance exhibited by harbor seals exposed to tidal turbine
(175 dB re 1 µPa at 1 m), but substantially higher than
noise, the authors tagged and remotely observed harbor
the actual RivGen turbine. Unlike the Hastie et al. (2018)
seals during exposures to simulated tidal turbine noise
effort, harbor seals showed no measurable response
in Kyle Rhea, an energetic tidal channel on the west
to the simulated turbine sound. However, because of
coast of Scotland, UK. They evaluated the behavioral
the lower source level, harbor seals would have needed
response by comparing patterns in spatially resolved
to be within 10 m of the source to experience received
abundance between periods with simulated turbine
levels similar to those correlated with localized avoid-
sound (playback) and periods with only ambient noise
ance by Hastie et al. (2018). The difference in geographic
(control). The playbacks were based on interpreted
location and turbine sound signature may also have
measurements from the SeaGen turbine (Strangford
contributed to the apparent divergence in outcomes.
Lough, Northern Ireland, UK) and had a broadband (115
Over the three seasonal playback trials (each two weeks
to 3750 Hz) source level of 175 dB re 1 µPa at 1 m. Has-
in duration, divided between control and playback peri-
tie et al. (2018) reported no changes in total numbers
ods), harbor porpoises were found to initially avoid the
of seals in the water in the study area (defined as the
playback source by 300 m, but this distance declined
distance at which harbor seals could be observed in the
to 100 m during the second trial, and no avoidance was
450 m wide channel) between the control and playback
apparent during the third trial. This could be an indica-
periods. However, usage decreased between 11 to 41 per-
tion of habituation or increased tolerance. However,
cent at distances of less than 500 m from the acoustic
because the vessel used to deploy the sound source was
source. Given that no differences in overall abundance
only present during the playback periods (for reasons of
were noted, these results suggested localized avoidance
cost), it is uncertain whether the avoidance and poten-
without a broader-scale impact. The authors extensively
tial habituation were in response to simulated turbine
discussed a number of issues related to their results.
sound, survey vessel presence, or seasonal variations in
First, in comparison to other measured tidal turbines,
harbor porpoise behavior.
the playback source levels were of relatively high ampli-
tude. Second, the playback sound consisted of a series of 4.3.4.
seven frequency-modulated narrowband tones from 115 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
propagation losses at an offshore wind site. A key find-
ing was that seasonal differences in the water properties
(well-mixed vs. stratified) resulted in considerable dif-

SECTION 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-
acterization provides a snapshot of received levels at a
Since 2016, relatively little progress has been made
single temporal condition and spatial location. These
with regard to the modeling of sound produced by MRE
two levels of characterization recognize that radi-
devices. Halfa et al. (2018) focused on the development
ated noise from some MRE devices may not warrant a
of a temporal-domain, three-dimensional finite-ele-
comprehensive characterization, but that more limited
ment sound propagation model. This model, Paracousti,
characterizations should be conducted in a consistent
has been compared to multiple analytical and modeling
manner for comparability across projects. Effectively, a
approaches with favorable results and facilitates the
Level A characterization is a series of Level B character-
integration of multiple acoustic sources. No other efforts
izations conducted at several temporal conditions and
have developed new models for MRE device noise or
spatial positions.
focused on the development of advanced tools for prop-
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). ◆ The capabilities of the acoustic measurement system
4.3.5. and calibration requirements
INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS ◆ 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 ◆ Temporal conditions and spatial locations for mea-
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 rent turbine, or OTEC plant)
Committees (Canada, France, Germany, Ireland, Neth-
◆ Data review to exclude measurements with obvi-
erlands, Spain, UK, U.S.), describes methods for charac-
ous contamination from other acoustic sources (e.g.,
terizing received levels in the vicinity of WECs, current
vessel traffic)
turbines (tidal and river), and ocean thermal energy
conversion (OTEC) plants. The specification incorpo- ◆ Analysis methods to reduce acoustic measurements

rates many of the unique considerations for observa- to sound pressure density levels, decidecade SPLs,

tions in MRE environments summarized by Lepper and and broadband SPLs

Robinson (2016). ◆ 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
cases, estimated source levels for sound propagation
By default, measurements are required to resolve
studies would be biased high and potentially overstate
frequencies from 10 Hz to 100 kHz, though there are
the acoustic footprint of operating MRE devices. This
allowances for expanding or contracting this frequency
difficulty is compounded if ambient noise at some fre-
range as warranted by specific conditions and regula-
quencies is driven by the same physical processes as
tory requirements. At the lower end of this range, flow-
MRE power generation. For example, as the current
noise, which is non-propagating sound caused by water
speed rises, the power output and rotation rate for most
motion relative to a hydrophone, is a concern because
turbines increase, but depending on the site, the radi-
it has the potential to artificially inflate decidecade and
ated noise from sediment transport (e.g., Bassett et al.
broadband SPLs. Flow-noise can arise from turbulence
2013) also increases and can be mistaken for MRE device
advected over the hydrophone element and vortices
noise. Despite these challenges, attempting to distin-
shed by the hydrophone element. Consequently, the
guish radiated noise from ambient contributions, even
specification includes recommendations to identify the
when uncertainties remain, is an important step in the
probability of flow-noise in measurements and poten-
process of understanding the potential consequences of
tial mechanisms to minimize flow-noise. While flow-
radiated noise from MRE devices.
noise is a well-documented issue for fixed platforms
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
for comparisons across MRE devices, they are insuffi-
4.4. cient for biological interpretation. Second, as discussed
RESEARCH AND MONITORING above, when possible, differentiating between MRE

NEEDS TO RESOLVE THE ISSUE device noise and ambient noise will facilitate biological
interpretation. Overall, given the potential uncertainty

O
f all the outstanding research and monitoring related to acoustic sources, ambient noise, and species-
needs, the most critical undeveloped capability is specific audiograms, behavioral response studies are
differentiating between MRE device noise and ambient only likely to provide useful information if MRE device
noise. Such differentiation is needed to establish the noise and ambient noise are well characterized.
true acoustic characteristics of MRE devices and esti-
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. 4.6.
GUIDANCE ON MEASURING RECOMMENDATIONS
UNDERWATER NOISE FROM MRE
W
e recommend two categories of activity going for-
DEVICES ward. Successful execution of these activities will

I
not answer all the remaining research questions identi-
EC 62600-40 provides guidance for the measure-
fied by Copping et al. (2016; e.g., effects of arrays), but
ment of underwater noise around MRE devices,
will establish a strong foundation for future study.
including instrument calibration, methods for acous-
tic and contextual measurements, methods for data ◆ Expand the evidence base of rigorous, comparable
processing, and uniform presentation of results. How- acoustic measurements across a broader range of
ever, in areas where international consensus does not MRE devices and settings. These should be included
yet exist, several considerations are not prescriptively in a publicly-accessible library of MRE device noise
addressed. First, as previously discussed, no method signatures. Direct comparisons are enabled by the
is given to differentiate between MRE device noise and measurement guidance discussed in Section 4.5,
ambient noise. Second, while flow-noise is described particularly Level A characterization under IEC
as being problematic at low frequencies (frequencies 62600-40. Use of standardized methods will allow
audible only to fish and low-frequency cetaceans), no outcomes from individual studies to be generalized
prescriptive guidance is given about its identification in a way that contributes to global risk identification.
or mitigation. We note that it has been established that An improved understanding of the characteristics
free-drifting measurements reduce flow-noise, but of the radiated noise from MRE devices and the fac-
do not guarantee that it will be negligible, because any tors that control them will facilitate effective study
velocity differential between the hydrophone and sur- designs to understand behavioral responses to this
rounding water at the scale of the hydrophone element noise. To achieve this, it will be necessary to establish
will generate flow-noise. Progress in these areas will be robust methods for differentiating MRE device noise
tracked by IEC TC 114 through an ad hoc group and, as from ambient noise and, at the lowest frequencies,
international consensus emerges, improved methods minimize contamination from flow-noise. Finally,
will be incorporated into the next edition (nominally challenges and recommended refinements to the
expected in 2024) of the Technical Specification by a methodology should be communicated to the IEC
Maintenance Team. Consequently, experience using ad hoc group monitoring the implementation of IEC
the first edition of the Technical Specification should be 62600-40.
communicated to the relevant IEC National Commit- ◆ 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
behavioral responses in mesocosm or field studies
In interpreting measurements of underwater noise
is challenging for a variety of reasons, including the
around MRE devices, it is important to remember that
confounding variables that affect animal behavior
variations in received levels can be a consequence of fac-
and the generally low amplitude of observed MRE
tors other than variations in the acoustic source (e.g.,
device noise relative to ambient noise. Such links will
seasonal changes in propagation). As explanatory factors
be particularly difficult to establish for threatened
for ambient noise are identified, they can be controlled
or endangered species because of the low sample
for in experimental design and reduce the risk of ambient
sizes in the field and uncertainty in their audiograms.
noise being conflated with MRE device noise. IEC 62600-
Research community agreement on a framework for
40 takes steps in this direction by recommending that
evaluating behavioral consequences could begin to
measurements be undertaken only in a restricted set of
answer this important question.
metocean conditions for each category of MRE device.

80 OES-ENVIRONMENTAL 2020 STATE OF THE SCIENCE REPORT

 Copping, A., Hanna, L., Whiting, J., Geerlofs, S., Grear,
4.7.
M., Blake, K., Coffey, A., Massaua, M., Brown-Saracino,
REFERENCES J., Battey, H. 2013. Environmental effects of marine
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​
-annex-iv-final-report
Bailey, H., Senior, B., Simmons, D., Rusin, J., Picken, G.,
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
Systems. https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/state-of-the​
Bassett, C., Thomson, J., Dahl, P. H., and Polagye, B.
-science-2016
2014. Flow-noise and turbulence in two tidal chan-
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
European Wave and Tidal Energy Conference, Nantes,
Bassett, C., Thomson, J., and Polagye, B. 2013.
France. https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/discussion​
Sediment-generated noise and bed stress in a
-effects-underwater-noise-radiated-wave-energy-device​
tidal channel. Journal of Geophysical Research,
-portugal
118(4), 2249-2265. doi:10.1002/jgrc.20169 https://
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
Effects on Marine Life. Acoustics Today, 11, 18-25. https://​
Beharie, R., Side, J. 2012. Acoustic Environmental Moni-
tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/underwater-sound-field​
toring - Wello Penguin Cooling System Noise Study
-impact-pile-driving-its-potential-effects-marine-life
(2012/01/AQ). Report by International Centre for Island
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,
Jensen, F. H., Bejder, L., Wahlberg, M., Aguilar Soto,
143(6), 3242-3253. doi:10.1121/1.5039839 https://tethys​
N., Johnson, M., and Madsen, P. T. 2009. Vessel noise
.pnnl.gov/publications/modeling-underwater-noise​
effects on delphinid communication. Marine Ecology
-propagation-marine-hydrokinetic-power-devices​
Progress Series, 395, 161-175. doi:10.3354/meps08204
-through-time
https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/vessel-noise-effects​
Haikonen, K., Sundberg, J., and Leijon, M. 2013. Charac- -delphinid-communication
teristics of the Operational Noise from Full Scale Wave
Lepper, P., Harland, E., Robinson, S., Theobald, P., Has-
Energy Converters in the Lysekil Project: Estimation of
tie, G., and Quick, N. 2012. Acoustic noise measurement
Potential Environmental Impacts. Energies, 6(5), 2562-
methodology for the Billia Croo wave energy test site:
2582. doi:10.3390/En6052562 https://tethys.pnnl.gov​
Annex A: Summary of operational underwater noise
/publications/characteristics-operational-noise-full-scale​
from a Pelamis WEC system at the EMEC wave energy
-wave-energy-converters-lysekil-project
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​
Lepper, P., and Robinson, S. 2016. Measurement of
-collision-risk
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​
Lesage, V., Barrette, C., Kingsley, M. C. S., and Sjare, B.
-increase-their-call-amplitude-response-vessel
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​
Lin, Y.-T., Newhall, A. E., Miller, J. H., Potty, G. R.,
/modelling-propagation-underwater-acoustic-signals​
and Vigness-Raposa, K. J. 2019. A three-dimensional
-marine-energy-device-using-finite
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​
Polagye, B., Murphy, P., Cross, P., and Vega, L. 2017.
-performance-tidal-turbine-using-large-eddy
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://
Popper, A., and Hawkins, A. 2018. The importance of
tethys​.pnnl.gov/publications/underwater-operational-noise-
particle motion to fishes and invertebrates. Journal of the
level​-emitted-tidal-current-turbine-its-potential-impact
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​
.04.011 https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/integrated​
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2018. 2018
-approach-assessing-marine-seismic-impacts-lessons​
Revisions to: Technical Guidance for Assessing the
-learnt-gippsland-marine
Effects of Anthropogenic Sound on Marine Mammal
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​
Robertson, F., Wood, J., Joslin, J., Joy, R., and Polagye,
-marine-mammal
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​
-within-experimental
Rolland, R. M., Parks, S. E., Hunt, K. E., Castellote, M.,
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​
.pnnl.gov/publications/marine-mammal-noise-exposure​
Russell, D. J. F., Hastie, G. D., Thompson, D., Janik, V. M.,
-criteria-initial-scientific-recommendations
Hammond, P. S., Scott-Hayward, L. A. S., Matthiopou-
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-
NA-27738-EN-N). Report for European Commission,
Schmitt, P., Elsäßer, B., Coffin, Hood, and Starzmann,
Brussels. doi:10.2777/272281 https://tethys.pnnl.gov​
R. 2015. Field Testing a Full-Scale Tidal Turbine Part
/publications/marven-environmental-impacts-noise​
3: Acoustic Characteristics. Paper presented at the 11th
-vibrations-electromagnetic-emissions-marine
European Wave and Tidal Energy Conference, Nantes,
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-
mals. PLoS ONE, 10(7), 1-7. doi:10.1371/journal.pone​
Schmitt, P., Pine, M. K., Culloch, R. M., Lieber, L., and
.0132391 https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/underwater​
Kregting, L. T. 2018. Noise characterization of a subsea
-noise-wave-energy-converter-unlikely-affect-marine​
tidal kite. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America,
-mammals
144(5), EL441-EL446. doi:10.1121/1.5080268 https://​
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
Marine Renewable Energy Devices through underwa-
Scholik-Schlomer, A. 2015. Where the Decibels Hit
ter Acoustic Emissions: Case study of a Wave Energy
the Water: Perspectives on the Application of Sci-
Converter in Falmouth Bay, UK. Renewable Energy,
ence to Real-World Underwater Noise and Marine
102(Part A), 205-213. doi:10.1016/j.renene.2016.10.049
Protected Species Issues. Acoustics Today, 11(3), 36-44.
https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/monitoring-condition​
https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/where-decibels-hit​
-marine-renewable-energy-devices-through-underwater​
-water-perspectives-application-science-real-world​
-acoustic
-underwater-noise
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 Go to https://tethys​.pnnl.gov for

OES-Environmental 2020 State of the Science full report and Andrea Copping a comprehensive collection of
executive summary available at: Pacific Northwest National papers, reports, archived presen-
Laboratory tations, and other media about
https://tethys​.pnnl.gov/publications/state-of-the​-science-2020
[email protected] environmental effects of marine
renewable energy development.
+1 206.528.3049

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 anthro-
pogenic 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
 The primary source of anthropogenic EMF emis-
5.1. sions associated with MRE systems is the cables used
IMPORTANCE OF THE ISSUE to transmit the electricity produced, and their emis-

A
ny anthropogenic activity that uses electrical cables sions depend on the cable configurations in relation to
in the marine environment is a primary source of the ambient environment. EMF emissions may also be
EMFs. The cables emit EMFs along their entire lengths, associated with offshore substations receiving mul-
whether transmitting high-voltage direct current (DC) tiple cables and, in some cases, transforming voltages
or alternating current (AC). Currently, high-voltage AC between AC and DC. Current interest is focused on EMFs
(HVAC) electrical cables are used to connect all types of generated within the cable and existing along its length,
offshore and MRE devices both among units in an array propagating perpendicular to the cable axis into the
and to marine substations; and HVAC or high-voltage surrounding environment, and decaying with distance
DC (HVDC) can be used to export power to shore. The from the source. In DC cables, the EMF emitted is a
interactions between EMFs emitted by MRE power static field, whereas in AC cables, the EMF is normally a
generation with the naturally occurring geomagnetic low-frequency sinusoidal field. E-fields are contained
field (GMF) can potentially alter the behavior of marine within the cable by shielding and grounding that allow
animals that are receptive to these fields (Figure 5.1), the field to dissipate quickly, but a B-field is still emit-
including potentially altering avoidance or attraction ted in the outside environment. When an animal or
behaviors. It is important to know the intensity of the water current causes motion through a B-field, sec-
emitted EMF, which depends on the type of current (DC ondary induced electric fields (iE-fields) are generated
or AC), the cable characteristics, the power transmitted, (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 power- ponents of the EMFs emitted by a buried subsea cable
rated cables. The response of receptor animals fun- (red) are shown, as well as the ambient geomagnetic
damentally depends on the sensitivity of the animals, field (black) and bioelectric fields from living organisms
which is determined by the sensory systems they pos- (orange). Figure 5.1a shows the EMF associated with a
sess (Snyder et al. 2019). The movement and distribution DC cable; Figure 5.1b shows the EMF associated with a
of the animals also plays a role in the probability of an standard three-phase AC subsea cable with the current
encounter with an EMF and may depend on the species following a typical sine wave back and forth through
life stage, as well as the spatial and temporal use of the each core. For both cables the direct E-field is shielded
environment where the EMF occurs (Figure 5.1). by cable material (black outer cable), but B-fields (blue)
An EMF has two components: electric fields (E-fields) are not shielded and propagate to the surrounding envi-
and magnetic fields (B-fields1). The Earth creates its ronment. An iE-field is created in the fish (yellow) as it
own GMF and has E- and B-fields associated with natu- moves through the B-field emitted by the cable. Local-
ral phenomena (e.g., lightning), while also being per- ized iE-fields will also be induced by seawater moving
meated by EMFs from outside the Earth’s atmosphere through the B-field and the GMF. In addition, for the
(Gill et al. 2014). In seawater, natural E-fields are pro- AC cable, the out-of-phase B-field emitted by each core
duced by the interaction between the conductivity of of the cable causes a rotation in the magnetic emission,
the water, the Earth’s rotation of the B-field, and the which induces an iE-field in the surrounding conductive
motion of tides/currents (Stanford 1971), which creates seawater (red), that is emitted into the environment
localized motion-induced fields. above the seabed.

1. B-field is the accepted nomenclature for the magnetic field. It is tech-

nically 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)

2000; Westerberg and Lagenfelt 2008) and possibly

5.2. reaching the limit between animal attraction to and
SUMMARY OF KNOWLEDGE repulsion from EMFs (Huveneers et al. 2013). However,
THROUGH 2016 the state of the knowledge until 2016 was limited, which
prevented further interpretation (Gill et al. 2014).

S
ome marine animals are capable of sensing EMFs to
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
B-field patterns produced by different cable configura-
low field intensities (Gill et al. 2014).
tions 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
the environmental impacts of subsea cables (Taormina
To fill significant knowledge gaps about EMFs, the 2016
et al. 2018).
State of the Science report (Copping et al. 2016) recom-
mended further efforts toward These reviews demonstrate that when considering the
◆ characterizing EMFs in AC vs. DC transmission sys- potential response of an organism to EMFs, the topic
tems, in single vs. multiple cables configurations, should be divided into two categories: organisms that
and in the electrical topology of various MRE devices have the sensory capability to detect and respond to
B-fields, and organisms that have the sensory capabil-
◆ measuring actual EMF levels linked to the location
ity to detect and respond to E-fields (although recent
and depth of devices, as well as the spatial and tem-
evidence suggests that some organisms may be able to
poral variability of EMFs to which animals would
detect both types of fields directly) (see Newton et al.
potentially be subjected
2019). The primary consideration for EMFs emitted by
◆ carrying out dose-response studies to establish spe-
subsea cables is the B-field, which should be considered
cies-specific ranges of detections, and thresholds for
in relation to the ambient GMF and the iE-fields that
and types of responses
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-
ing organism response to MRE EMFs.
5.3. The predominant taxonomic groups discussed in the
KNOWLEDGE GENERATED SINCE 2016 State of the Science report were fish and inverte-
2016 brates. The current review of recent literature includes

I
consideration of new knowledge about the responses of
n the 2016 State of the Science report (Copping et al.
electro- and magnetoreceptive organisms to changes in
2016), the importance of differentiating the poten-
the magnetic and/or electric environment. An overview of
tial environmental effects of EMFs when assessing the
knowledge generated since 2016 and a set of recommen-
interactions between MRE devices and receptors was
dations are covered in the remainder of this chapter.
highlighted (e.g., by Boehlert and Gill 2010). The pres-

90 OES-ENVIRONMENTAL 2020 STATE OF THE SCIENCE REPORT

5.3.1. structures may reside within the naso-olfactory cap-
RESPONSES TO EMF – FISH (ADULT) sules of sandbar sharks (Anderson et al. 2017). Strong
Field Studies of EMFs permanent magnets, used in shark-repellent studies,
Studies of magnetosensitive species migration have have been shown to induce avoidance behaviors in a
continued to be a focus of field investigations. The number of elasmobranch species (Richards et al. 2018;
migration success of Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus Siegenthaler et al. 2016). However, it is unclear whether
tshawytscha) in San Francisco Bay, California (United the avoidance effects were a result of the fish respond-
States [U.S.]) was found to be largely unchanged after ing directly to magnetic stimuli or to iE-fields. Newton
installation of a 200 kV HVDC subsea cable (Wyman et (2017) showed that the yellow stingray uses GMF polar-
al. 2018). However, the proportion of salmon crossing ity to solve spatial tasks and detect changes in GMF
the cable location was larger than the proportion not 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 The anatomy, physiology, and behavior of electrorecep-
locations, but farther away at others, which was attrib- tive species have been the subjects of a number of stud-
uted to other higher-intensity B-field sources, such as ies over the past few decades. Most studies since 2016
metal bridges. Together with other environmental fac- have focused on determining whether electroreceptive
tors, transit times through some parts of the bay were species detect B-fields directly or indirectly by induc-
slightly reduced (Wyman et al. 2018). tion (see above). Bellono et al. (2018) indicated that the
The results of a field experiment conducted in Long electroreceptive sensitivity of some species of benthic
Island Sound, Connecticut (U.S.) showed that little shark appears to be adapted to a narrow range of elec-
skates (Leucoraja erinacea) crossed over a 300 kV HVDC trical stimuli, such as those emitted by prey, whereas
transmission cable. However, the skates showed a in some species of skate the EMF receptors are more
strong distributional response associated with the broadly tuned, which may enable them to detect both
higher EMF zone, moved significantly greater distances 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 ing (de Haan et al. 2016), but these E-fields are several
respond to B-fields, likely via a magnetite-based sen- orders of magnitude greater (30 to 100 V/m approxi-
sory process (Diebel et al. 2000; Kirschvink and Gould mately 20 cm from electrodes) than those associated
1981; Kirschvink and Walker 1985), but other hypoth- 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 5.3.2.
environment has considered that when an individual RESPONSE TO EMF – FISH (EMBRYONIC
approaches an EMF, it experiences an iE- field, which 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.

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
5.3.3.
and static exposures enhanced the yolk-sac absorp-
RESPONSE TO EMF – INVERTEBRATES
tion rate. Larvae with absorbed yolk-sacs were less
Relatively little is known about the effects of EMFs on
efficient at first feeding, resulting in smaller weights at
marine benthic invertebrates, but some decapod crusta-
age. A smaller yolk sac and faster absorption rate were
ceans are known to be magnetosensitive. Research since
also observed in exposed (static magnetic, 10 mT, DC)
2016 concerning invertebrates generally supports pre-
freshwater Northern pike (Esox lucius) (Fey et al. 2019b).
vious studies that demonstrated no or minor effects of
In addition, hatching was one day earlier, but no differ-
encounters with EMFs, but some findings are equivocal
ences in hatching success and larval mortality or size of
(Albert et al. 2020).
larvae were noted. The appearance of embryonic mela-
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-
2+ 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
gating the genotoxicity and cytotoxicity responses dur-
In a laboratory study, Scott et al. (2018) observed a clear
ing the early development of rainbow trout exposed to
attraction of European edible crabs (Cancer pagurus) to
a low-frequency (50 Hz 1 mT) EMF for 40 days, showed
shelters that had a relatively high B-field (2.8 mT, com-
nuclear abnormalities and alterations in the number of
pared to nT- or µT-level EMFs measured in the field)
cell nuclei (Stankevičiūtė et al. 2019).
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
An experimental study by Taormina et al. (2020)
subsequent B-field strength, the effects on the devel-
exposed juvenile European lobsters (Homarus gamma-
opment of early life stages may become a consideration
rus) to a DC or AC B-field (maximum up to 200 μT) and
in the future.

92 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
5.3.4.
influence of light affecting their sheltering behavior.
RESPONSE TO THE PRESENCE OF SUBSEA
The authors commented that higher magnetic values CABLES – FAUNAL COMMUNITIES
(which could be encountered while seeking shelter close To assess the effects on the community of species
to a cable) may need to be considered when studying the inhabiting the environment on or adjacent to subsea
potential B-field effects on the behavior of this species. 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 rag- gized cables (35 kV) to compare the invertebrate colo-
worm (Hediste diversicolor) did not find any evidence of nizing community and the fish assemblages present in
avoidance or attraction behaviors (Jakubowska et al. southern California (U.S.). Magnetic fields of energized
2019). The polychaetes did, however, exhibit enhanced cables reached background levels within 1 m and no
burrowing activity when exposed to the B-field. In statistical differences in the faunal communities were
addition, food consumption and respiration rates were found. Factors such as substrate or depth were more
not affected, but ammonia excretion was reduced in relevant than proximity to the cable in explaining the
exposed animals, with plausible consequences for variation of fish community and density in association
their metabolism; however, knowledge about the bio- with a 245 kV HVAC transmission cable in Lake Ontario,
logical relevance of this response is currently absent Ontario (Canada) (Dunlop et al. 2016). Dunham et al.
(Jakubowska et al. 2019). (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 nities growing along cables routes are generally similar
genetic material that may cause diseases. to those in nearby areas, although some locations per-
Electric Fields haps show a difference in the abundance of a few spe-
Relative to species navigation and prey detection, a cies. However, it is important to note that any observed
limited number of previous studies indicated that some changes could be the result of the physical presence of
freshwater invertebrate species may be able to detect the cable or other features in the environment, rather
low-intensity E-fields comparable to those induced by than an EMF effect (see Chapter 6, Changes in Ben-
subsea cables (Patullo and MacMillan 2010). However, thic and Pelagic Habitats Caused by Marine Renewable
no similar studies of marine invertebrate response to 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
 vehicle equipped with a commercial magnetometer and
5.4.
custom-built, three-axis E-field sensor that simulta-
GUIDANCE ON MEASURING EMF neously measured E-fields and B-fields by following a
FROM MRE DEVICES AND CABLES lawnmower-type survey path above AC and DC power

A
cables on the east coast of Florida (U.S.). The values
dvancing our knowledge of the characteristics of
of the emitted fields were within the expected EMF
EMFs emitted by cables or MRE devices is essential
intensity of these cables. The modeled B-fields for the
for understanding the possible consequences of expo-
Trans Bay Cable in San Francisco, California (U.S.) were
sure of the aquatic environment and for developing
very similar to field measurements and consistent with
accurate predictive models of EMFs. Since the MaRVEN
expectations (Kavet et al. 2016), as was the case for
(Marine Renewable Energy, Vibration, Electromagnetic
measurements of the B-field emitted by the Basslink
fields and Noise) project deployed the SEMLA (Swedish
HVDC across Bass Strait in Tasmania (Australia) (Sher-
Electromagnetic Low-Noise Apparatus) device to mea-
wood et al. 2016). Nonetheless, the emissions from
sure in situ E-fields and B-fields emitted by subsea MRE
other B-field sources, such as metal bridge structures
cables (Thomsen et al. 2015), a few studies have contin-
or geological deposits, might be up to a hundred times
ued to focus on quantifying the extent of anthropogenic
greater than the B-field emission from the cable and
EMFs using field measurements and modeling (Table
might distort the B-field, making it impossible to model
5.1). Field strengths and the depth and angle of buried
and discern B-fields emitted by and measured around
HVDC power cables are parameters that determine the
the cable in some locations (Kavet et al. 2016). Hence,
extent of the EMF above the seabed and can be modeled,
in some cases the actual EMF emitted into the environ-
but these models need to be validated in the field.
ment will not match the modeled outputs.
Dhanak et al. (2016) used an autonomous underwater

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 rela-
tion to the ambient fields perpendicular to the cable axis.

Cable Current Location Magnetic field Electric field Extent EMF Reference
(B-field) (E-field)
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 San Francisco 1.15 - 1.2 µT n/a <40 m Kavet et al. (2016)
(200 kV, 400 Bay, California 3 m above seafloor
MW, 85 km) (U.S.)
Basslink DC Bass Strait, Tasmania 58.3 µT 5.8 µV/m 15 - 20 m Sherwood et al.
(500 kV, 237 (Australia) (2016)
MW, 290 km)
Cross Sound DC Connecticut (U.S.) DC: AC: AC-DC Hutchison et al.
(300 kV, 330 0.4 - 18.7 µT max: 0.7 mV/m B-fields: (2018)
MW, 40 km) AC: 5 - 10 m
max 0.15 µT
Neptune DC New Jersey (U.S.) DC: DC: AC: max: Hutchison et al.
(500 kV, 660 1.3 - 20.7 µT 0.4 mV/m E-fields up (2018)
MW, 105 km) AC: to 100 m
max 0.04 µT
Sea2shore AC Rhode Island (U.S.) 0.05 - 0.3 µT 1-25 µV/m AC: B-field up Hutchison et al.
(502 amps, to 10 m (2018)
30 MW, 32 km) AC: E-field up
to 50 m
(estimated)

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
In general, the research concerning EMF effects requires
each end of the cables. In the same study, an AC cable at
an understanding of both the EMF environment in
a small wind farm emitted B-fields that were ten times
which the sensitive organisms will encounter EMFs and
lower than those modeled, suggesting self-cancellation
the context of their responses. With a growing number
inside the three-conductor cable owing to the twisted
of cables being deployed, and increases in the power
design of the cable.
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
MRE installations currently are of relatively small scale
study ocean circulation based on its EMF signature. In
and they are not the only sources of EMFs in the envi-
2018, electric currents generated in the world’s oceans
ronment. Questions about the environmental effects of
due to seawater movement through the Earth’s B-field
EMFs remaining to date can be addressed and manage-
were detected by the ESA satellites. These large-scale
ment decisions can be supported by considering some
datasets will provide further context for the electro-
key elements (Figure 5.2).
magnetic environment relevant to marine life.
To date, although some of the study results suggest
effects of EMFs on certain species (see Section 5.4),
5.5. the lack of specific information has led to the general
RESEARCH AND MONITORING conclusion that EMFs associated with subsea cables
are not harmful and do not pose a risk to biota. This
NEEDS TO RESOLVE THE ISSUE
would appear to be an appropriate conclusion for MRE

T
he 2016 State of the Science report highlighted 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
If studies provide evidence that a given receptor organ-
individual species at behavioral, physiological, devel-
ism responds to EMFs, then the next step toward the
opmental, and genetic levels. However, based on the
determination of any impact would be to investigate the
evidence to date, the ecological impacts associated with
likelihood of a receptor to encounter the EMF emission
MRE subsea power cables may be weak or moderate at
extent (Figure 5.2). For non-mobile receptors, the emis-
the scale that is currently considered or planned. None-
sion-response relationship will depend on the duration
theless, it is important to recognize that this assess-
of the exposure, the intensity and frequency of the EMF,
ment comes from studies of a small number of cables,
and the threshold levels at which a response will occur.
and several researchers have acknowledged that data
Knowledge about thresholds is currently very poor and,
about impacts are scarce and many uncertainties con-
therefore, requires more specific attention.
cerning electromagnetic effects remain (Taormina et

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 ◆ Cables and MRE devices are part of a whole power
observations around single cables. No EMF receptor system of electrical generation and transmission
interaction studies have been conducted in relation to infrastructure. Each of the different parts will have
multiple subsea cables, even around existing offshore a role in the variability of the EMFs emitted. Under-
wind farms, so there is no evidence to enable cumulative standing the whole power system and how its dif-
effects assessments to be undertaken, and no other data ferent parts influence EMF variability is important
about this topic exist from other industries. for determining the EMF environment encountered
Additional research is needed to determine the specific by receptor species. In addition, evidence that wide
environmental impacts of EMFs on the aquatic life high- AC fields are associated with DC cables (Hutchison et
lighted in Figure 5.2. This knowledge will be required al. 2018) makes the interpretation of the biological
because the more extensive EMFs associated with future 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 Potential receptors of emitted EMF Potential receptors of emitted EMF
Marine or aquatic mammals and turtles Fish (teleosts and elasmobranchs) Marine or aquatic invertebrates

Moveme n t an d d i str i b u ti o n L if e H is t o rie s

Community of Altered Movement Avoidance or Early life stage Physiological Prey or Genetic or
organisms – migration – pattern – attraction – development or biochemical predator genotoxic
large-scale large-scale medium-scale small-scale change detection aspects
(e.g., energetic)

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 sensi-
tive receptors. If a population-level change is demonstrated, there is the potential for cumulative or cascading effects at the ecological com-
munity 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- ◆ Data gaps exist between the interaction of pelagic
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 knowledge base.
measurements of EMFs at MRE development sites.
◆ Long-term and in situ studies are needed to address
Measuring the environmental EMF requires equip-
the question of the effects of chronic EMF exposure
ment that has the necessary sensitivity and accuracy
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 impacts of EMFs emitted by the electrical cable.
studies. If the effects are determined to be significant
◆ To determine whether an effect is negative, demon-
and negative, then appropriate mitigation measures
stration of the effect at the biologically relevant unit
may need to be developed. Given the current lack of
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
◆ Because EMFs are associated with any subsea trans-
and should be focused on the early embryonic and
mission cable, regardless of the MRE device, the
juvenile life stages of elasmobranchs, crustacea,
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 indica-
◆ To date, there are no environmental standards or
tors could be developmental, physiological, genetic,
guidelines for subsea cable deployment or the mea-
and/or behavioral.
surement of EMFs. Synthesizing current knowledge
◆ Field studies using modern tagging and tracking
requires a number of assumptions and, because the
systems will provide insight into behavioral and, in
nature of the knowledge is patchy, there are no appar-
some cases, physiological evidence for determining
ent significant environmental impacts that require
the potential effects on mobile receptors of encoun-
regulation. This interpretation and the associated
tering multiple cables. These types of studies may be
assumptions will likely need to be reviewed in the
required when considering the installation of cable
future as the knowledge and understanding of subsea
networks and large arrays of MRE devices. The find-
conditions expands, particularly when considering the
ings should be collected with regard to their use in
planned larger power-rated cables, greater networks
modeling the exposure likelihood for determining
of MREs, and the subsea infrastructure.

SECTION B – CURRENT KNOWLEDGE OF KEY DEVICE INTERACTIONS WITH THE MARINE ENVIRONMENT 97
5.6. 5.7.
CONCLUSION REFERENCES

S
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
Anderson, J. M., Clegg, T. M., Véras, L. V. M. V. Q., and
number of individual species (behavioral, physiological,
Holland, K. N. 2017. Insight into shark magnetic field
developmental and genetic levels), but not at the EMF
perception from empirical observations. Scientific
intensities associated with MRE. However, an effect or
Reports, 7(1), 11042. doi:10.1038/s41598-017-11459​
response to MRE EMFs does not necessarily mean there
-8 https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/insight-shark​
are impacts. Currently, conclusive evidence is insuf-
-magnetic-field-perception-empirical-observations
ficient and additional knowledge about receptor species
(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
Binhi, V. N., and Prato, F. S. 2017. Biological effects
important, however, to acknowledge that this assess-
of the hypomagnetic field: An analytical review of
ment comes from a handful of studies and that data
experiments and theories. PLoS ONE, 12(6), e0179340.
about impacts are scarce, so significant uncertainties
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0179340 https://tethys.pnnl.gov​
concerning electromagnetic effects remain. Because
/publications/biological-effects-hypomagnetic-field​
EMFs are associated with any subsea transmission
-analytical-review-experiments-theories
cable, the collection and sharing of EMF characteristics
should be encouraged and facilitated, for example, by Boehlert, G., and Gill, A. 2010. Environmental and
making these practices a condition of permissions being Ecological Effects of Ocean Renewable Energy Devel-
granted for MRE deployments. Taking local conditions opment: A Current Synthesis. Oceanography, 23(2),
into consideration will help with future assessments of 68-81. https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/environmental​
similar cables in different environments to assist the -ecological-effects-ocean-renewable-energy​
MRE industry. -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) (Salmon-
idae) during early embryogenesis. The European Zoo-
logical 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​
Gill, A. B., Gloyne-Philips, I., Kimber, J., and Sigray, P.
.pnnl.gov/publications/assessment-electromagnetic-field​
2014. Marine Renewable Energy, Electromagnetic (EM)
-emissions-subsea-cables
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-
field-emf-impacts​-elasmobranch-shark-rays-skates-
Dunlop, E. S., Reid, S. M., and Murrant, M. 2016. Lim-
american-lobster
ited influence of a wind power project submarine cable
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​
-crab-harvests
Kantserova, N. P., Krylov, V. V., Lysenko, L. A., Usha-
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​
-invertebrates-living-vicinity-energized-unenergized​
Kavet, R., Wyman, M. T., and Klimley, A. P. 2016. Mod-
-submarine-power
eling Magnetic Fields from a DC Power Cable Buried
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​
-jamaicensis
Kirschvink, J. L. 1997. Homing in on vertebrates. Nature,
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
https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/electroreception​
Kirschvink, J. L., and Gould, J. L. 1981. Biogenic magne-
-marine-fishes-chondrichthyans
tite as a basis for magnetic field detection in animals.
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​
-carcharhinus-plumbeus-strong-magnetic-fields
Peters, R. C., Eeuwes, L. B. M., and Bretschneider, F.
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.
Department of the Interior, Sterling, VA. https://tethys​
Pettersson, P., and Schonborg, N. 1997. Reduction of power
.pnnl.gov/publications/evaluation-potential-emf-effects​
system magnetic field by configuration twist. IEEE Transac-
-fish-species-commercial-or-recreational-fishing
tions on Power Delivery, 12(4), 1678-1683. doi:10​
.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
safety range of electrical pulses for two benthic inverte-
Polet, H., Delanghe, F., and Verschoore, R. 2005. On
brates: brown shrimp (Crangon crangon L.) and ragworm
electrical fishing for brown shrimp (Crangon crangon): I.
(Alitta virens S.). ICES Journal of Marine Science, 72(3),
Laboratory experiments. Fisheries Research, 72(1), 1-12.
973-980. doi:10.1093/icesjms/fsu176 https://tethys.pnnl​
doi:10.1016/j.fishres.2004.10.016 https://tethys.pnnl.gov​
.gov/publications/determining-safety-range-electrical​
/publications/electrical-fishing-brown-shrimp-crangon​
-pulses-two-benthic-invertebrates-brown-shrimp
-crangon-i-laboratory-experiments

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).
Walker, M. M., Kirschvink, J. L., Ahmed, G., and Dizon,
Aquatic Toxicology, 208, 109-117. doi:10.1016/j.aquatox​
A. E. 1992. Evidence that fin whales respond to the geo-
.2018.12.023 https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/genotoxic​
magnetic field during migration. Journal of Experimental
-cytotoxic-effects-50-hz-1-mt-electromagnetic-field​
Biology, 171(1), 67. https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications​
-larval-rainbow-trout
/evidence-fin-whales-respond-geomagnetic-field-during​
Taormina, B., Bald, J., Want, A., Thouzeau, G., Lejart, -migration
M., Desroy, N., and Carlier, A. 2018. A review of poten-
Westerberg, H., and Begout-Anras, M-L. 2000. Ori-
tial impacts of submarine power cables on the marine
entation of silver eel (Anguilla anguilla) in a disturbed
environment: Knowledge gaps, recommendations and
geomagnetic field. In Advances in telemetry, Proceed-
future directions. Renewable and Sustainable Energy
ings of the third conference on fish telemetry in Europe.
Reviews, 96, 380-391. doi:10.1016/j.rser.2018.07.026
Norwich, England, June 1999. Moore, A., andI Russel, I.
https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/review-potential​
(eds.), CEFAS, Lowestoft.
-impacts-submarine-power-cables-marine-environment​
-knowledge-gaps Westerberg, H., and Lagenfelt, I. 2008. Sub-sea power
cables and the migration behaviour of the European
Taormina, B., Di Poi, C., Agnalt, A.-L., Carlier, A., Desroy,
eel. Fisheries Management and Ecology, 15(5-6), 369-
N., Escobar-Lux, R. H., D’eu, J.-F., Freytet, F., and Durif,
375. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2400.2008.00630.x https://tethys​
C. M. F. 2020. Impact of magnetic fields generated by AC/
.pnnl.gov/publications/sub-sea-power-cables-migration​
DC submarine power cables on the behavior of juvenile
-behaviour-european-eel
European lobster (Homarus gammarus). Aquatic Toxicol-
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
Organisms Fiscal Year 2011 Progress Report. Report
Tesch, F. W., and Lelek, A. 1973. Directional behaviour of
No. PNNL-20813. Report by Pacific Northwest National
transplanted stationary and migratory forms of the eel,
Laboratory for U.S. Department of Energy, Washing-
Anguilla Anguilla, in a circular tank. Netherlands Journal
ton DC. https://tethys.pnnl​.gov/publications/effects-
of Sea Research, 7, 46-52. doi:10.1016/0077-7579(73​
electromagnetic-fields-fish​-invertebrates-task-213-
)90031-8 https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/directional​
effects-aquatic-organisms
-behaviour-transplanted-stationary-migratory-forms​
-eel-anguilla-anguilla Wyman, M. T., Peter Klimley, A., Battleson, R. D.,
Agosta, T. V., Chapman, E. D., Haverkamp, P. J., Pagel,
Thomsen, F., Gill, A., Kosecka, M., Andersson, M.,
M. D., and Kavet, R. 2018. Behavioral responses by
André, M., Degraer, S., Folegot, T. G., J., Judd, A., Neu-
migrating juvenile salmonids to a subsea high-voltage
mann, T., Norro, A., Risch, D., Sigray, P., Wood, D., and
DC power cable. Marine Biology, 165(8), 134. doi:10.1007​
Wilson, B. 2015. MaRVEN - Environmental Impacts of
/s00227-018-3385-0 https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications​
Noise, Vibrations and Electromagnetic Emissions from
/behavioral-responses-migrating-juvenile-salmonids​
Marine Renewable Energy. Report No. RTD-K3-2012-
-subsea-high-voltage-dc-power-cable

102 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 Go to https://tethys​.pnnl.gov for

OES-Environmental 2020 State of the Science full report and Andrea Copping a comprehensive collection of
executive summary available at: Pacific Northwest National papers, reports, archived presen-
Laboratory tations, and other media about
https://tethys​.pnnl.gov/publications/state-of-the​-science-2020
[email protected] environmental effects of marine
renewable energy development.
+1 206.528.3049

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 opportu-
nities 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
 dominated by coarse sediments, boulders, or rocky out-
6.1.
crops. Benthic communities associated with these habi-
IMPORTANCE OF THE ISSUE tats are typically stress-tolerant, opportunistic organ-

T
he potential changes in marine habitats induced 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
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 spe- ment has the potential to be colonized by fouling organ-
cies) are identified at each site, avoided, managed, and/ isms and then act as an artificial reef by attracting fish
or mitigated. Experience at OWFs provides evidence and other mobile animals; MRE devices are no differ-
that local biodiversity may drastically change in the ent, especially because of their seabed moorings and
vicinity of an MRE device over time, thereby modifying associated infrastructures (Alexander et al. 2016). While
the resilience of the ecosystem (Causon and Gill 2018). a single tidal turbine or wave energy converter (WEC)
However, because marine ecosystems are exposed to has a relatively limited ecological footprint, an array of
natural environmental fluctuations at various temporal devices may act as a network of interconnected artifi-
and spatial scales, the ability to detect changes due to cial reef, in a way similar to that of OWFs (Causon and
anthropogenic pressures will depend on the robustness Gill 2018). This reef effect may spread at the ecosystem
of the survey design (Bicknell et al. 2019; Sheehan et al. scale, with yet-to-be-identified effects on the structure
2018). In addition, the cumulative effects of activities and functioning of local and regional food webs (Raoux
across diverse sectors may be substantial at the scale et al. 2017).
of an MRE deployment site and will need to be taken
into account to understand and manage changes in the As the worldwide economy keeps growing and maritime
marine environment (Causon and Gill 2018; Wilding et shipping lanes expand, dispersion and propagation of
al. 2017). non-native species is becoming a more prominent issue
for the marine environment, especially in nearshore
The distribution of benthic communities is strongly habitats. MRE devices may act as “stepping stones”
influenced by the depth and characteristics of the sea- for many of these non-native species to colonize new
floor as well as the current speed, and few studies have places and cross biogeographical barriers (Adams et al.
described the natural variability of assemblages in 2014; Wilding et al. 2017). The connectedness of deploy-
high-energy-flow environments (Kregting et al. 2016). ment sites with harbors and marinas, more particularly
The exploitation of tidal energy requires high tidal those where non-native species have been documented
velocities that are usually associated with a seafloor 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

 survey at the SeaGen tidal turbine. Changes detected in
6.2.
benthic communities over time were attributed to tem-
SUMMARY OF KNOWLEDGE poral variability and natural processes including species
THROUGH 2016 competition and succession. Overall, changes in com-

B
munity composition were similar across all sampling
efore 2016, there were only a few deployed wave
stations and the reference station. Under natural ocean
and tidal devices, notably the SeaGen tidal turbine
conditions, benthic communities undergo succession
in Northern Ireland, the OpenHydro tidal generator
with changes in the dominant species as the communi-
in the Orkney Islands of Scotland, European Marine
ties reach a dynamic mature state. This pattern of suc-
Energy Centre tidal devices in the Orkney Islands, and
cession and the time needed to reach the mature state
the Lysekil WEC in Sweden. OWFs have been found to be
must be considered when monitoring benthic com-
reasonably comparable to MRE devices in terms of their
munities around MRE devices to determine whether
effects on artificial reef and benthic habitats (Kramer et
changes are natural or caused by the presence of an
al. 2015), and they were used as a surrogate for many of
MRE device or array.
the analyzed effects of wave and tidal devices in 2016.
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
offshore wind devices (Langhamer 2012), few studies
By 2016, several studies showed no impacts of MRE
have examined the mechanisms for dissemination of
devices or OWF locations on benthic communities or
non-native species or suggested that MRE devices pose
species abundance (De Backer et al. 2014; Lindeboom
a higher risk for invasions than other existing marine
et al. 2011, 2015; Wilhelmsson et al. 2006). Other stud-
installations (Mineur et al. 2012).
ies examining benthic communities at the deployed
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 ◆ Determine the effects of MRE devices (wave and
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, relying on surrogate structures.
species richness, and species diversity than the refer-
◆ Address the potential benthic and artificial reef
ence location because of the increased structural com-
effects from arrays or co-located wave and tidal sites
plexity of the seabed at the foundations, although the
to determine their cumulative impacts.
results were not statistically significant (Langhamer
2010; Langhamer and Wilhelmsson 2009). ◆ Develop a framework of ecosystem changes that
incorporates the potential for cascading effects as
At the SeaGen tidal turbine, organisms including mus- well as natural patterns of succession.
sels, barnacles, brittle stars, crabs, and more, have been
◆ Validate models of community change and artificial
found to colonize structures on the seafloor and in the
reef effects with field data.
water column (Keenan et al. 2011). Colonization of the
vertical structure of offshore wind pilings by species ◆ Determine whether MRE devices create novel step-
such as blue mussels (Mytilus edulis) led to the creation ping stones for non-native species.
of new habitats and thus colonization by other benthic ◆ 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
 and creation of habitats (e.g., biofouling, artificial reef,
6.3.
reserve effect). These habitat changes may also lead to
KNOWLEDGE GENERATED SINCE 2016 indirect effects, for example facilitating the propagation

S
everal different types of WECs and tidal turbines of non-native invasive species.
have been tested in real conditions over the last 6.3.1.
decade at various locations. However, few have stayed ALTERATION OF EXISTING HABITATS AND
in the water long enough (i.e., several years) to moni- RECOVERY TIMEFRAMES
tor and observe persistent or long-term environmental The installation and operation of MRE devices may lead
changes caused by the presence and functioning of the to alteration and/or loss of existing benthic habitats, for
device. Most of the knowledge related to changes in hab- example during cable installation or due to turbulence
itats caused by MRE devices still comes from surrogate and scouring around device and mooring foundations.
industries like OWFs, OGPs, or power and communica-
Trenching and Digging for Installation of Devices
tion cables (Dannheim et al. 2019), as well as from a few
and Cables
modeling studies. However, the hard and sturdy struc-
There is currently a great diversity of tidal turbine
tures of most OWFs and OGPs span the entire water col-
and WEC technology designs, most of them floating
umn from the seafloor to the surface, while most MRE
or bottom-mounted. The loss of benthic habitat due
devices are either bottom-mounted without surface
to the footprint of anchors and foundations is widely
expression or floating and attached to the seafloor by
acknowledged by decision-makers, particularly when
mooring structures (e.g., Figure 6.1). Knowledge transfer
vulnerable marine ecosystems or other fragile habi-
from surrogate industries thus depends on the context.
tats have been identified during the siting process and
Two main types of changes for the benthic and pelagic avoidance and mitigation measures are taken (Greaves
habitats are generated by MRE devices (Figure 6.1): and Iglesias 2018). Cable laying to link MRE devices to
damaging effects (e.g., trenching, footprint effect) an offshore substation and/or the onshore grid may lead

Onshore substation

Point
absorber
Concrete mattress
Biofouling

Artificial reef
effect
Buried cable

Oscillating wave Tidal turbine

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;
Taormina et al. 2018). Direct impacts of such methods of
Jetting and ploughing are among the favored methods
cable laying are the crushing, damaging, or displacement
for burying cables in soft sediments, the former result-
of organisms (Dunham et al. 2015; Taormina et al. 2018).
ing in a much wider disturbance strip than the latter
However, unless cables are laid on slow-growing taxa like
(100 to 2000 m and 2 to 8 m respectively; Kraus and
glass sponge reefs (Dunham et al. 2015), colonization of
Carter 2018; Taormina et al. 2018). Depending on the
the iron, concrete, or rocky cable protections by encrust-
wave and current dynamics, turbidity resulting from
ing organisms may lead to full recovery of the disturbed
cable laying can persist for several days, thereby limit-
seafloor to the pre-cable state. Recovery has happened
ing the available light for primary producers, reducing
within one to eight years (Kraus and Carter 2018 and
prey detectability for fish and filtration efficiency for
examples therein; Sheehan et al. 2018; Taormina et al.
suspension-feeders. However, these effects are short-
2018), in some cases showing evidence of successful eco-
term, and resuspended sediment tends to settle in a
logical successions (Sheehan et al. 2018).
matter of days (Taormina et al. 2018). Habitat recovery
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: footprint effect of a tidal turbine on benthic commu-
The Footprint Effect nities is thus likely to be limited to the seafloor area
While the loss of seafloor habitat directly under the directly adjacent to the device (Kregting et al. 2016;
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.
loss of benthic habitats during operation due to scour- CREATION OF NEW HABITATS
ing by local turbulence in the immediate vicinity of the MRE devices can also provide new habitats to biofouling
anchors and/or foundations (i.e., the footprint effect) species, have effects similar to artificial reefs and fish
is also a concern. This concern has been assessed and aggregating devices, and even act as marine reserves.
measured in real conditions involving tidal turbines
Biofouling
(Kregting et al. 2016; O’Carroll et al. 2017a; O’Carroll et
al. 2017b), concrete anchors on soft sediments (Henkel Biofouling is a design and engineering concern for

2016), and artificial structures in an estuary (Mendoza devices because it might affect performance and main-

and Henkel 2017). The last two studies particularly tenance schedules. No antifouling paint or coating

looked at infauna and the authors did not find any sta- has proven fully efficient in preventing biofouling in

tistically significant differences in species richness, the long run, and placing MRE devices, foundations,

diversity, or assemblage composition compared to ref- and cables in the water may create new hard-bottom

erence sites (Henkel 2016; Mendoza and Henkel 2017). habitats in areas where none previously existed (Fig-

However, the sediment mean grain size significantly ure 6.3). Few MRE devices have been in the water long

varied and the abundance of organisms was slightly enough (i.e., several years) to characterize biofouling

higher in sediments closer to the structures in the estu- communities and successional rates (Want and Porter

ary setting (Mendoza and Henkel 2017). 2018), but experience at OWFs and OGPs can provide
some related insight. However, the structures used by
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 tur- vide habitats for fouling organisms from the seafloor
bine in Strangford Lough, Northern Ireland (Kregting to the surface, whereas MRE devices typically do not
et al. 2016; O’Carroll et al. 2017a; O’Carroll et al. 2017b). span the whole water column (except for their mooring
Benthic communities were highly variable within structures and dynamic cables). Fouling assemblages
the study area, and covered a large spectrum of suc- will inevitably vary between deployment sites (geog-
cessional stages (Kregting et al. 2016; O’Carroll et raphy, habitats), devices, and components (Macleod
al. 2017a). Although the epifauna in the area directly et al. 2016; Want et al. 2017), but all start with a bio-
under the blades and legs of the turbine was signifi- film of marine bacteria and fungi followed over time
cantly more variable than farther away from the turbine by successions of initial (e.g., barnacles, hydroids and
(O’Carroll et al. 2017a), seasonal variability signifi- tubeworms) then secondary (e.g., anemones, ascid-
cantly affected epifaunal communities regardless of ians and mussels) colonizers (Causon and Gill 2018;
the station (O’Carroll et al. 2017b). It is thought that at Dannheim et al. 2019). These communities are specific
this particular site, as well as in other high-velocity- to hard substrates and often follow a vertical zonation
flow environments favorable to tidal energy develop- (Dannheim et al. 2019). Various successional stages may
ments, epifaunal communities are highly resilient and be observed within an array of MRE devices in the same
mainly composed of mosaics of opportunistic species way different stages of development are observed in
adapted to great physical disturbance (Kregting et al. OWFs (Causon and Gill 2018).
2016; O’Carroll et al. 2017a, 2017b). While the authors
noticed a negative effect of SeaGen on epifaunal organ- Some of the most common biofoulers on OWFs are

isms in the immediate vicinity of the turbine, probably mussels; they compose 90 percent of epistructural

due to the increased local turbulences that kept benthic biomass in the upper zone of wind turbine foundations

communities at an early successional stage, the effect in some locations (Slavik et al. 2018). Prolific biofoul-

quickly dissipated with distance from the turbine (i.e., ing organisms (e.g., barnacles, serpulid worms, ascid-

one rotor diameter away; O’Carroll et al. 2017a). The ians) often have short pelagic larval durations and may
be transported to artificial structures by construction

110 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 (fouling) species, MRE devices may potentially attract
availability of larvae, and the survival rates of recruits mobile organisms like decapods, demersal and pelagic
(Langhamer 2016). Biofouling can occur relatively rap- fish, and apex predators, and in that sense have effects
idly; bare space can be colonized to almost 90 percent similar to artificial reefs or fish aggregating devices
within two months in some cases (Viola et al. 2018). (Dannheim et al. 2019; Langhamer 2016). This effect
Relatively high densities of opportunistic species were has been measured and described within several OWFs
found on some WECs at the Lysekil test site in Sweden in European waters (Methratta and Dardick 2019). Sev-
(Langhamer 2016). The overall species compositions eral fish species have been shown to aggregate around
found in the intertidal habitats provided by wind tur- offshore wind turbine foundations and other artificial
bine foundations and oil platform pilings often resem- hard structures, benefiting from foraging on the benthic
ble those of nearby natural intertidal habitats and/ communities on the foundations and adjacent habitats
or local harbors (Coolen et al. 2018; Viola et al. 2018). (Causon and Gill 2018; Dannheim et al. 2019). By increas-
Similarly, species composition on the deeper sections ing the complexity of the seafloor and surrounding water,
of such structures as well as on the concrete founda- OWFs and MRE devices also provide shelter and food (e.g.,
tions of MRE devices more resemble those of local fouling organisms) for aggregating species, thereby poten-
subtidal natural reefs (Coolen et al. 2018; Langhamer tially leading to changes in the diversity, abundance, and
2016). Maximum biodiversity has been found at inter- size of taxa making up the local communities (Causon and
mediate depths (i.e., halfway up the water column) on Gill 2018; Dannheim et al. 2019; Langhamer et al. 2018).
the foundations of wind turbines, where disturbance is However, the type of device and foundation, their spac-
also intermediate (Coolen et al. 2018). In high-energy ing (in the case of an array), local arrangement, and por-
environments, the floating parts of WECs may not pro- tion of water occupied are important factors controlling
vide much of a suitable intertidal habitat for biofoulers the impact of the artificial reef effect (Adams et al. 2014;
because of the constant motion and wave impacts (Cau- Causon and Gill 2018; Krone et al. 2017; Langhamer 2016).
son and Gill 2018). Ultimately, biofouling is a natural At the scale of an array of MRE devices, the artificial reef
process that is nearly impossible to avoid on artificial effect could lead to regional changes, including a shift from
structures deployed in marine environments. soft-sediment to hard-substrate communities and, poten-
tially, 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
The reserve effect is defined as the condition in which
fish; significantly increased observations and sizes of
habitats and marine communities in the vicinity of a
fish schools in the wake flow and changes in the vertical
device or array of devices are de facto protected from
distribution of fish schools in the vicinity of a turbine
fishing when exclusion zones are in place (Alexander et
have been noted, although there was some variability
al. 2016). This effect can be beneficial; it promotes the
in the depths, days, and tidal cycles (Fraser et al. 2018;
potential recovery of local populations of some vulner-
van Hal et al. 2017; Williamson et al. 2019). In addition
able species and benefits local fisheries if spillover is
to providing food, artificial structures may also provide
observed in the wider surrounding (non-protected)
flow refuges for pelagic fish (Fraser et al. 2018).
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
While it might take several years to observe a signifi-
the cable protections are of a different structure than
cant reserve effect during recovery within an exclusion
the surrounding natural reef (e.g., concrete mattresses
zone around MRE devices (Causon and Gill 2018; Coates
vs. boulders), different species assemblages and reef
et al. 2016), models can help understand the extent
effects may result (Sheehan et al. 2018).
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 exclu-
sion 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)
enhanced the colonization by non-native species for at
6.3.3.
least 15 months, unless maintenance was timed to occur
ADDITIONAL INDIRECT EFFECTS
after the peak of the reproductive season (Viola et al.
The environmental effects discussed above are direct
2018). Non-native invasive species will be more likely to
changes to marine habitats associated with MRE
colonize parts of MRE devices that stay on the surface
devices. These changes can become ecologically sig-
(e.g., surface attenuators) or occupy the top section of
nificant beyond the physical boundaries of the area
the water column (e.g., point-absorber buoys, oscillat-
of deployment (Krone et al. 2017; Slavik et al. 2018) or
ing water columns, overtopping devices, tidal lagoons),
trigger a diversity of indirect effects and cascading pro-
thereby providing environmental conditions similar to
cesses locally, such as increases in biomass or recruit-
intertidal habitats (Causon and Gill 2018). For example,
ment of non-native invasive species (Causon and Gill
while underwater cables and their armoring structures
2018; Dannheim et al. 2019). However, these indirect
on the seafloor can act as artificial reefs, there is very
effects have not been documented for MRE develop-
little evidence of colonization by non-native species
ments at this time and are presented here as a summary
(Taormina et al. 2018). In fact, only three occurrences
of discussions within the MRE and OWF communities.
of non-indigenous sea squirts were recorded during
Facilitation of Non-Native Species Dispersion 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
New MRE sites, especially large arrays of devices, are
already been described for OWFs in Europe and OGPs
believed to provide new habitats for biofouling and
in California (e.g., Coolen et al. 2016, 2018; van Hal et
artificial reef non-native species and could potentially
al. 2017; Viola et al. 2018) and is a potential concern
act as stepping stones between already colonized areas
regarding MRE devices (Dannheim et al. 2019; Loxton
and new natural habitats (Adams et al. 2014; Bray et al.
et al. 2017; Want et al. 2017), even if non-native species
2017; Loxton et al. 2017). Like other biofouling organ-
have yet to be reported to occur on MRE devices already
isms, non-native species might be transported to the
deployed offshore (Want et al. 2017; Want and Porter
energy extraction sites via construction and mainte-
2018).
nance 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 main-
tenance, 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 popula-
Two recent studies have used an EwE modeling
tions and allow species to disperse further, potentially
approach (Alexander et al. 2016; Raoux et al. 2017),
across natural biogeographical barriers (Adams et al.
respectively conducted for periods of 25 years at an
2014). Siting and device maintenance need to be thought
MRE site and 30 years at an OWF while increasing the
through carefully to prevent such connectedness
biomass of targeted benthic and fish compartments
between harbors and MRE sites for non-native species.
(Figure 6.4). Both studies showed that the biomass and
Local and Regional Increase in Biomass and local food webs changed significantly within the model
Organic Matter areas, especially with an increase in mussel biomass
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.

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. 6.4.
A habitat suitability modeling approach demonstrated RESEARCH AND MONITORING
that barnacles would largely respond negatively to the NEEDS TO RESOLVE THE ISSUE
reduction in bed-shear stress generated by tidal tur-

T
his literature review has highlighted several gaps in
bine farms, whereas edible crabs would respond posi-
our knowledge that need to be addressed to advance
tively (du Feu et al. 2019). However, these effects are
our understanding of the risks associated with changes
thought to be mainly restricted to the direct vicinity of
in benthic and pelagic habitats. Often, monitoring and
tidal arrays, similar to the footprint effect, and farfield
research programs are disconnected from one another,
effects on benthic communities are unlikely (du Feu et
so the results from one program do not necessarily
al. 2019; Kregting et al. 2016).
contribute to answering questions asked by another
Changes in flow and hydrographic conditions due (Dannheim et al. 2019; Loxton et al. 2017). Benthic and
to MRE devices (see Chapter 7, Changes in Oceano- pelagic communities change over time (e.g., seasonal
graphic Systems Associated with Marine Renewable variability, succession stages, post-disturbance resil-
Energy Devices) may add a level of variability in local ience), and long-term studies are required to under-
and farfield phytoplankton dynamics and processes stand their ecological processes (Langhamer 2016;
(Dannheim et al. 2019). The idea is that local distur- Taormina et al. 2018; Wilding et al. 2017). However,
bances in the wake of devices would modify the stratifi- there is little understanding of appropriate spatial and
cation, thereby increasing vertical mixing and turbidity, temporal scales for environmental impact assessment
which in turn would either increase the phytoplankton (EIA) and monitoring in relation to MRE, or of the suit-
primary production because of higher nutrient avail- able thresholds of undesirable consequences (Wilding et
ability, or lower it because of lack of light (Dannheim et al. 2017).
al. 2019; Floeter et al. 2017). The question was recently
Stakeholders need justified guidelines for the levels of
addressed using biogeochemical models in the context
biodiversity, as well as the assemblages and scales to
of large-scale tidal turbine arrays: 66 MW, 800 MW,
be considered (Wilding et al. 2017). This holds true for
and 8 GW (Schuchert et al. 2018; van der Molen et al.
native communities as well as for potentially invasive
2016). Model results suggested the loss of up to 25 per-
organisms that may constitute part of the biofouling
cent of local phytoplankton concentrations, although
and artificial reef taxa (Loxton et al. 2017). There are
well below the natural seasonal variations (Schuchert et
gaps to fill concerning the composition of biofouling
al. 2018), as well as negligible farfield effects in the case
assemblages on MRE devices and aggregating species
of an 800 MW tidal array, or increase in farfield phyto-
found around devices, their geographic distribution,
plankton primary production with a less-realistic 8 GW
connectivity, and dispersion abilities (Adams et al. 2014;
tidal array (van der Molen et al. 2016).
Bray et al. 2017; Want and Porter 2018), so that regula-
Extreme biofouling by filter-feeding organisms on tors can knowingly assess risk and develop biosecurity
device components is also thought to modify local measures to prevent the spread of non-native invasive
hydrodynamics and phytoplankton processes. Slavik species (Loxton et al. 2017).
et al. (2018) used a biogeochemical model to investi-
Underwater visual surveys are very useful approaches
gate the question in relation to OWFs. Model results
for observing changes in species and habitat composi-
suggested losses of up to 8 percent of regional annual
tion and distribution on and around MRE devices, either
primary productivity due to increased filtration by
through scuba diver surveys, unmanned video tran-
epifauna, with the maximum loss occurring within
sects, or cameras mounted on static structures (Bender
the OWFs (Slavik et al. 2018). However, biofouling on

SECTION B – CURRENT KNOWLEDGE OF KEY DEVICE INTERACTIONS WITH THE MARINE ENVIRONMENT 115
et al. 2017). However, the high-energy environments
6.5.
and presence of structures and cables in the water
often make for challenging conditions, and methods GUIDANCE ON MEASURING
may need to be refined (e.g., Sheehan et al. 2020). Even CHANGES IN BENTHIC AND PELAGIC
greater challenges associated with image-based surveys HABITATS CAUSED BY MRE
are the amount of footage that needs to be processed to

B
efore-after-control-impact (BACI) analyses are
extract ecologically relevant information and the need
among the best-suited survey designs for measur-
for optimized protocols (e.g., Taormina et al. 2020).
ing changes over spatial and temporal anthropogenic
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

chemical, food web, habitat suitability) were recently that good quality baseline data be collected to provide

used to address several questions related to changes 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, et al. 2017), if not six to eight years to cover the recovery

devices left long enough in the water will create habi- 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
6.6.
al. 2017). Follow-up monitoring surveys may sample a
subset of the baseline survey as long as they cover the RECOMMENDATIONS

W
diversity of habitats and communities initially identi- hile several questions have been addressed over
fied (O’Carroll et al. 2017b; Wilding et al. 2017). the four years since publication of the previous

Using a modeling approach may be helpful in highlight- State of the Science report, numerous authors have

ing some potential changes in benthic and/or pelagic highlighted recommendations for conducting research

habitats and species that can then be specifically looked and monitoring to reduce the uncertainty around some

for. Habitat suitability models (e.g., MaxEnt) are par- of the changes in benthic and pelagic habitats and to

ticularly valuable when it comes to identifying areas move the industry forward (Bray et al. 2017; Dannheim

that feature the appropriate ecological requirements et al. 2019; Linder and Horne 2018; Loxton et al. 2017;

for a species to establish itself, and these models may Macleod et al. 2016; O’Carroll et al. 2017b; Wilding et al.

help track the settlement of non-native species (Adams 2017). Suggestions for the path forward include the fol-

et al. 2014; du Feu et al. 2019). Regarding pelagic com- lowing:

munities such as nekton organisms, parametric mod- ◆ Define relevant spatial and temporal scales for EIAs
els (e.g., state-space model) work best for detecting and monitoring surveys.
changes, time-series models and semi-parametric ◆ 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
◆ Use modeling approaches to define habitat suitability
is one of the most easily accessed and commonly used
and connectedness during the siting process.
approaches for modeling human-induced ecosystem-
◆ Characterize the diversity and ecological character-
wide changes over long periods of time, particularly in
istics of biofouling communities and common non-
data-poor systems like MRE sites (Alexander et al. 2016;
native biofouling and artificial reef species.
Raoux et al. 2017). However, many other model types
also exist, such as size-based models (Rogers et al. ◆ Use (transfer) as much as possible knowledge and
2014) or agent-based models (Fulton et al. 2015). Mod- lessons learned from other offshore industries such
elers interested in MRE would benefit from consulting as offshore wind, oil and gas extraction, and fisheries.
with experienced ecological and fisheries modelers to ◆ 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
 Bray, L., Kassis, D., and Hall-Spencer, J. M. 2017.
6.7.
Assessing larval connectivity for marine spatial plan-
REFERENCES ning in the Adriatic. Marine Environmental Research,
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​ ecological interactions with a deployed tidal energy
/offshore-marine-renewable-energy-devices-stepping​ device; an observational pilot study. Ocean & Coastal
-stones-across-biogeographical 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:// temporal benthic species assemblage responses with
tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/spatial​-ecosystem- a deployed marine tidal energy device: A small scaled
modelling-marine-renewable-energy​-installations- study. Marine Environmental Research, 99, 76-84.
gauging-utility 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​ services with epibenthic biodiversity change following
/publications/fish-assemblages-sunken-vessels-natural​ installation of offshore wind farms. Environmental Sci-
-reefs-southeast-florida-usa ence & 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​ C., Pinsky, M. L., Reygondeau, G., Rodgers, K. B., Rykac-
-environmental-impacts-offshore-wind-farms-lessons​ zewski, R. R., Sarmiento, J. L., Stock, C., and Watson,
-learned-recommendations 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​
Dunham, A., Pegg, J. R., Carolsfeld, W., Davies, S.,
-linnaeus
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​
Ellis, J. I., and Schneider, D. C. 1997. Evaluation of a
-rocky-reefs
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 Renew-
Floeter, J., van Beusekom, J. E. E., Auch, D., Callies, U.,
able Energy Development Around the World. Report by
Carpenter, J., Dudeck, T., Eberle, S., Eckhardt, A., Gloe,
Pacific Northwest National Laboratory for Ocean Energy
D., Hänselmann, K., Hufnagl, M., Janßen, S., Lenhart,
Systems. https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/state-of-the​
H., Möller, K. O., North, R. P., Pohlmann, T., Rieth-
-science-2016
müller, 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
Kramer, S., Hamilton, C., Spencer, G., and Ogston, H.
Coolen, J. W. 2018. Environmental benefits of leaving
2015. Evaluating the Potential for Marine and Hydro-
offshore infrastructure in the ocean. Frontiers in Ecology
kinetic Devices to Act as Artificial Reefs or Fish Aggre-
and the Environment, 16(10), 571-578. doi:10.1002/fee​
gating Devices, Based on Analysis of Surrogates in
.1827 https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/environmental​
Tropical, Subtropical, and Temperate U.S. West Coast
-benefits-leaving-offshore-infrastructure-ocean
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​
Kraus, C., and Carter, L. 2018. Seabed recovery following
/fish-distributions-tidal-channel-indicate-behavioural​
protective burial of subsea cables - Observations from
-impact-marine-renewable-energy
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​
Kregting, L., Elsaesser, B., Kennedy, R., Smyth, D.,
.2019.00424 https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/where​
O’Carroll, J., and Savidge, G. 2016. Do Changes in Cur-
-ecological-gaps-remain-modelers-perspective
rent 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​
Krone, R., Dederer, G., Kanstinger, P., Krämer, P.,
/j.envsci.2014.12.006 https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications​
Schneider, C., and Schmalenbach, I. 2017. Mobile
/multi-model-approach-engaging-stakeholder-modellers​
demersal megafauna at common offshore wind turbine
-complex-environmental-problems
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​
.gov/publications/mobile-demersal-megafauna-common​
Henkel, S. 2016. Assessment of Benthic Effects of
-offshore-wind-turbine-foundations-german-bight​
Anchor Presence and Removal. Report by North-
-north
west National Marine Renewable Energy Center for
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​
/6/3/035101 https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/short​
Langhamer, O. 2012. Artificial Reef Effect in relation
-term-ecological-effects-offshore-wind-farm-dutch​
to Offshore Renewable Energy Conversion: State of
-coastal-zone-compilation
the Art. The Scientific World Journal, 8. doi:10.1100/2012​
/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.
doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2017.09.041 https://tethys.pnnl.gov​
Langhamer, O. 2016. The location of offshore wave
/publications/evaluating-statistical-models-measure​
power devices structures epifaunal assemblages.
-environmental-change-tidal-turbine-case-study
International Journal of Marine Energy, 16, 174-180.
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
Indicators, 83, 178-191. doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2017.07.015
Langhamer, O., Dahlgren, T. G., and Rosenqvist, G. 2018.
https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/modeling-baseline​
Effect of an offshore wind farm on the viviparous eel-
-conditions-ecological-indicators-marine-renewable​
pout: Biometrics, brood development and population
-energy
studies in Lillgrund, Sweden. Ecological Indicators, 84,
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-
ing research for the marine renewable energy industry.
Langhamer, O., and Wilhelmsson, D. 2009. Colonisa-
International Journal of Marine Energy, 19, 292-303.
tion of fish and crabs of wave energy foundations and
doi:10.1016/j.ijome.2017.08.006 https://tethys.pnnl.gov​
the effects of manufactured holes – A field experi-
/publications/setting-agenda-biofouling-research-marine​
ment. Marine Environmental Research, 68(4), 151-157.
-renewable-energy-industry
doi:10.1016/j.marenvres.2009.06.003 https://tethys.pnnl​
.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-
sels around turbine foundations in an ecosystem model
Lindeboom, H., Degraer, S., Dannheim, J., Gill, A. B., and
of Nysted off-shore wind farm, Denmark. Journal of Sea
Wilhelmsson, D. 2015. Offshore wind park monitoring
Research, 62(2), 159-174. doi:10.1016/j.seares.2009.01​
programmes, lessons learned and recommendations for
.008 https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/local-effects-
the future. Hydrobiologia, 756(1), 169-180. doi:10.1007​
blue​-mussels-around-turbine-foundations-ecosystem-
/s10750-015-2267-4 https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications​
model​-nysted-shore
/offshore-wind-park-monitoring-programmes-lessons​
-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​
.07.014 https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/measuring​
Methratta, E. T., and Dardick, W. R. 2019. Meta-Analysis
-sensitivity-two-ospar-indicators-coastal-food-web​
of Finfish Abundance at Offshore Wind Farms. Reviews
-model-under-offshore-wind
in Fisheries Science & Aquaculture, 27(2), 242-260. doi:10​
.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,
J.-C., and Niquil, N. 2017. Benthic and fish aggregation
Mineur, F., Cook, E., Minchin, D., Bohn, K., Macleod, A.,
inside an offshore wind farm: Which effects on the tro-
and Maggs, C. 2012. Changing Coasts: Marine Aliens and
phic web functioning? Ecological Indicators, 72, 33-46.
Artificial Structures. In R. N. Gibson, R. J. A. Atkinson,
doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2016.07.037 https://tethys.pnnl.gov​
J. D. M. Gordon, and R. N. Hughes (Eds.), Oceanography
/publications/benthic-fish-aggregation-inside-offshore​
and Marine Biology: An Annual Review (Vol. 50, pp. 189-
-wind-farm-which-effects-trophic-web
234). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press. https://tethys.pnnl.gov​
/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
Structural Complexity. Current Biology, 24(9), 1000-
O’Carroll, J. P. J., Kennedy, R. M., Creech, A., and Sav-
1005. doi:10.1016/j.cub.2014.03.026 https://tethys.pnnl​
idge, G. 2017a. Tidal Energy: The benthic effects of an
.gov/publications/vulnerability-coral-reef-fisheries-loss​
operational tidal stream turbine. Marine Environmental
-structural-complexity
Research, 129, 277-290. doi:10.1016/j.marenvres.2017​
.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
Biogeochemical Models to Predict the Effects of Tidal
O’Carroll, J. P. J., Kennedy, R. M., and Savidge, G. 2017b.
Turbine Arrays on Phytoplankton Dynamics. Journal of
Identifying relevant scales of variability for monitoring
Marine Science and Engineering, 6(2), 58. doi: 10.3390/
epifaunal reef communities at a tidal energy extrac-
jmse6020058 https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/using​
tion site. Ecological Indicators, 73, 388-397. doi:10.1016​
-coupled-hydrodynamic-biogeochemical-models-predict​
/j.ecolind.2016.10.005 https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications​
-effects-tidal-turbine-arrays
/identifying-relevant-scales-variability-monitoring​
-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​
Vaselli, S., Bulleri, F., and Benedetti-Cecchi, L. 2008.
-renewable
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​
Viola, S. M., Page, H. M., Zaleski, S. F., Miller, R.
-wind-farm-structures-pelagic-primary-productivity​
J., Doheny, B., Dugan, J. E., Schroeder, D. M., and
-southern
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-effects-
Vodopivec, M., J Peliz, Á., and Malej, A. 2017. Offshore
monitoring-programs
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-
rich-information​-poor-rationalising-monitoring-focus-
Wehkamp, S., and Fischer, P. 2013. Impact of
marine
coastal defence structures (tetrapods) on a demer-
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 struc-
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

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 CONTACT Go to https://tethys​.pnnl.gov for a

OES-Environmental 2020 State of the Science full report and Andrea Copping comprehensive collection of
executive summary available at: Pacific Northwest National papers, reports, archived presen-
https://tethys​.pnnl.gov/publications/state-of-the​-science-2020 Laboratory tations, and other media about
[email protected] environmental effects of marine
renewable energy development.
+1 206.528.3049

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
 Ocean currents (e.g., the Gulf Stream current in the
7.1.
North Atlantic Ocean) are responsible for the transport
IMPORTANCE OF THE ISSUE of organisms and nutrients worldwide. Large arrays of

M
RE devices are most commonly sited in locations 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.
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. disrupt natural processes driven by tides, waves, and
The energy and configuration of waves are dependent ocean currents. Yet these disruptions need to be viewed
on the fetch over which the wind can generate waves, within the context of the ocean as a rapidly changing
the configuration of the continental slope and shelf, and system, comparing the magnitude of potential disrup-
in some cases, the geometry of the incident coastline. tions caused by MRE development to the natural varia-
Ocean currents are formed along continental boundar- tion of key parameters in the marine systems.
ies, driven by the rotation of the Earth, temperature gra-
dients, and global winds, with narrower focused currents
on the western side of ocean basins (western intensifica- 7.2.
tion). These are the regions where MRE devices may be
SUMMARY OF KNOWLEDGE
able to most effectively harness energy from the ocean
(Yang and Copping 2017). However, some areas may be
THROUGH 2016

C
too energetic for successful deployment and operation of hanges in oceanographic systems caused by single
devices, particularly in tidal areas characterized by high MRE devices or small MRE arrays (~20 MW or less)
levels of turbulence (Chen and Lam 2015). are likely to be small compared to the natural vari-
ability of the system (Robins et al. 2014). In the absence
While the blockage of natural flow caused by tidal tur-
of large-scale arrays, insight gained into the changes
bines is not as significant as hydropower dams and tidal
in the oceanographic system has relied on numerical
barrages, tidal turbines will reduce the tidal range or
model simulations to estimate potential farfield effects.
the flushing of contaminants from an enclosed coastal
These models need to be validated, but the scarcity of
system, but the effect will almost certainly be negligible
oceanographic data about these high-energy environ-
until large arrays are deployed and operated (De Domi-
ments and the scarcity of device deployments world-
nicis et al. 2017; Nash et al. 2014). Tides are a primary
wide make model validation impossible at this time
driver of sediment transport in enclosed basins, moving
(Copping et al. 2016).
and suspending sediments that shape seabed morphol-
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
developed to study energy removal and changes in
Wave energy converters (WECs) have the potential to
flow around MRE devices. Modeling investigations of
alter wave propagation and under-currents, thereby
the effects of tidal energy generation saw considerable
affecting natural processes such as the transport of
advances prior to 2016, with the placement of economi-
sediment in coastal waters and the shaping of coast-
cally and socially reasonable numbers of turbines for
lines. The transport of sediments supports the for-
an estuary or coastal embayment (Martin-Short et al.
mation and protection of beaches and other coastal
2015; Yang et al. 2014), more accurate modeling of sedi-
features (González-Santamaría et al. 2012), but can
ment transport processes (Fairley et al. 2015; Robins et
also lead to the erosion of shorelines and destruction of
al. 2014; Smith et al. 2013), and the inclusion of water-
coastal infrastructure (Caldwell 1967). Waves are also
quality constituents (Wang et al. 2015; Yang and Wang
responsible for vertical mixing of salinity, temperature,
2015). Although the complexity of wave regimes and the
suspended sediments, dissolved nutrients in the water
number of different WEC designs under development
column, and plankton, further supporting marine life.
posed challenges to wave modeling, numerical mod-

128 OES-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).
7.3.1.
As of 2016, a small number of field and laboratory stud- 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
The greatest number of MRE devices worldwide has
artificial sediment bed, used simulated field conditions
been deployed and tested at the European Marine
and identified the characteristics of erosion (Ramírez-
Energy Centre (EMEC) in the United Kingdom (UK) but
Mendoza et al. 2015).
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 turbulent interactions with the seabed. Compared to

around deployed devices nearby control measurements, observations showed a

31 percent decrease in flow velocity and a 10–15 per-
◆ reduction of model uncertainty with targeted
cent increase in turbulence intensity over two days of
research on turbulence
measurements. As part of the Reliable Data Acquisition
◆ variation of model inputs to account for differences Platform for Tidal (ReDAPT) project, two instrumen-
in device designs tation 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,
which can be used to optimize power production while
7.3. minimizing likely environmental effects (Sellar et al.
KNOWLEDGE GENERATED SINCE 2016 2018). Wake recovery measurements around a deployed
river turbine in Alaska, United States (U.S.), showed

L
iterature that advances the state of the science rela-
that the wake was persistent and did not show signifi-
tive to changes in oceanographic systems is sum-
cant recovery downstream of the turbine (Guerra and
marized here by field, laboratory, and modeling studies.
Thomson 2019). Observations around deployments of
Although a substantial body of literature focuses on
three CETO5 point-absorber WECs off Perth, Australia,
power extraction potential and resource characteriza-
between November 2014 and December 2015, supported
tion for wave and tidal energy, only studies that explic-
model predictions of reduced wave height leeward of
itly address the environmental effects of MRE devices
the devices (Contardo et al. 2018). Key findings included
are included. Studies of the turbulence downstream of
that wave height reductions in the swell band were
offshore wind turbines that have monopile foundations
comparable to those in the wind-sea band, observa-
have been conducted (Baeye and Fettweis 2015; Miles et
tions were greater than those simulated by the model,
al. 2017; Rogan et al. 2016; Schultze 2018), but a struc-
and some of the differences in the local wave climate
ture spanning the full water column is not representa-
were attributable to natural variability at the site. Tur-
tive of MRE devices. Instead, future studies conducted

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
waves reflecting from walls (Winship et al. 2018).
7.3.2.
LABORATORY STUDIES 7.3.3.
Studies conducted in flumes to understand wake 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
Literature addressing the effects of tidal energy extrac-
diameters downstream, deposition along the center-
tion on the hydrodynamics of oceanographic systems
line, and a horseshoe-shaped scour pit in the near wake
has reported changes in velocity and residence times,
region (Ramírez-Mendoza et al. 2018). Wake effects
without much elaboration about the environmen-
characterize the environment in the immediate area of
tal implications of such changes. Gallego et al. (2017)
turbines but might also have more distant effects with
and Side et al. (2017) summarize a large collabora-
the development of large arrays. Close lateral spacing
tive modeling project, known as TeraWatt, that uses
within an array causes significantly reduced velocity
hydrodynamic, wave, and sediment transport models to
recovery, suggesting that spacing could be optimized for
examine the effects of tidal arrays in Pentland Firth and
wake recovery (Nuernberg and Tao 2018). Three distinct
Orkney waters, UK, thereby demonstrating the applica-
wake regions were identified in a flume study (Ouro et al.
tion of numerical models to assessing the oceanographic
2019), which allowed for more detailed examination of
changes in a system. Li et al. (2019) assessed the theo-
changes that might affect the environment (Figure 7.1).
retical effects of a single tidal device on waves in shallow
Experiments in wave tanks were also used to better 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
Most tidal energy extraction modeling studies explore
the gross volume of sediment transported (Potter 2019).
farfield effects from large arrays on the order of 1 GW
Finally, Nelson et al. (2018) developed a framework for
or more (Ashall et al. 2016; Chatzirodou et al. 2019; De
optimizing tidal energy device siting while considering
Dominicis et al. 2017, 2018; Fairley et al. 2017; Gallego
environmental effects such as sediment transport.

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 configu-
ration can be modified to reduce impacts. Work summa-
rized 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
c
at a test site off Newport, Oregon, U.S., to determine
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 Environ-
mental 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) tidal-
stream 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
7.4.
waters, modeling studies have explored their effects
on beach erosion, often analyzing the potential use of GUIDANCE ON MEASURING
WECs for coastal protection. A staggered two-row array CHANGES IN OCEANOGRAPHIC
of overtopping devices at eight locations along an erod- SYSTEMS CAUSED BY MRE
ing gravel-dominated deltaic beach in Guidalfeo, Spain,

T
he study of physical oceanographic processes is
was found to decrease the average significant wave
essential for assessing and ultimately quantifying
heights by 18.3 percent, wave run-up by 10.6 percent,
the potential effects of MRE development on the physi-
and beach erosion by 23.3 percent along the coast and
cal environment, as well as for characterizing the tidal
by 44.5 percent at the central stretch of beach (Bergil-
or wave resources available for extraction (Bergillos et
los et al. 2018). In addition, a 44.6 percent decrease in
al. 2019; González-Santamaría et al. 2013; Jones et al.
longshore sediment transport and an increased amount
2018; Palha et al. 2010; Rusu and Guedes Soares 2009,
of dry beach surface at the optimal array location were
2013). Accurate measurements of the physical oceano-
shown—significant because the array was located close
graphic environment before and after the deployment
to shore (Rodriguez-Delgado et al. 2018). Declines in
and operation of MRE devices can help understand
the wave climate, caused by a floating wave array near
potential effects on processes and resources such as
an eroding beach-dune system in Asturias, Spain, were
water quality, sediment transport, and ecosystem pro-
modeled to alleviate erosion of the dune front and sup-
cesses.
port the dual use of WECs for coastal protection and
energy generation (Abanades et al. 2018). However, for 7.4.1.
most open coastlines, WECs are unlikely to assist with 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-
cies and ocean current velocities are computed based
Most wave models assess small arrays of 20 or fewer
on sound travel time and the frequency shift (Dop-
devices and the resulting nearfield effects (Abanades et
pler shift) of the echo (e.g., Simpson 2001). Multiple
al. 2018; Atan et al. 2019; Bergillos et al. 2018; Jones et
transducers enable resolution of 3D current velocity
al. 2018; Rodriguez-Delgado et al. 2018), likely because
and direction. Because the principles of operation for
of the complexity of modeling diffracted and radiated
the acoustic Doppler current profilers (ADCPs) rely on
waves around multiple devices or arrays. However,
sound scattering, these instruments can also provide
two studies looked at farfield effects around large
information about particle concentrations, including
wave arrays (O’Dea et al. 2018; Venugopal et al. 2017).
total suspended sediment (Gartner 2004; Wall et al.
There has been little technology convergence for wave
2006), plankton biomass (Cisewski et al. 2010; Jiang et
devices; a plethora of WEC designs are under consider-
al. 2007), and fish school swimming speeds (Lee et al.
ation, including attenuators, oscillating water columns,
2014; Patro et al. 2000).
overtopping devices, and point absorbers. Each WEC
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 capa-
ble of sampling at a high rate of frequency (>8 Hz) to
quantify forcing parameters such as shear stress, verti-
cal 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
 ety of array designs and different environmental condi-
a
tions (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 envi-
ronmental 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), near-
continuous measurements of 3D current velocities and
particle concentrations. These types of sensors have
been widely used for MRE environmental monitor-
ing. 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 water- Some ADCPs are equipped with surface tracking and/
quality sensor (middle) mounted on a bottom platform, upward look-
or pressure transducers to enable co-located measure-
ing; and (b) a downward-looking ADCP mounted in-line on a coastal
mooring. (Photos courtesy of Frank Spada [a] and Grace Chang [b]) ments 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 envi-
ronmental monitoring. While LiDAR techniques are
more traditionally used for measurement of bathym-
etry (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 pro-
cesses at a wide range of spatial and temporal scales,
from detailed investigation of individual wave propa-
gation 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. impact, feasibility, and cost.
(Photo courtesy of Grace Chang)

7.4.2. 7.5.
REMOTE SENSING TECHNIQUES
RESEARCH AND MONITORING
Surface waves and currents can also be measured using
remote-sensing techniques (e.g., radar altimetry,
NEEDS TO RESOLVE THE ISSUE

M
high-frequency radar, synthetic aperture radar, light ost regulators accept the fact that single MRE
detection and ranging [LiDAR]), or stereo photogram- devices are unlikely to disrupt the oceanographic
metry. The primary advantage of remote-sensing tech- 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
larger arrays. Although progress has been made, key
Marine radar techniques are increasingly being
research and monitoring needs identified in the 2016
employed for assessment, evaluation, and environmen-
State of the Science report (Copping et al. 2016) remain
tal monitoring in support of MRE projects (Bourdier et
relevant. Recommendations for research and monitor-
al. 2014). In The Crown Estate lease areas for MeyGen
ing to advance the knowledge of MRE effects on ocean-
Ltd. and Scottish Power Renewables in Scotland, marine
ographic systems and move the industry forward are
radar was used to obtain maps of surface currents in
listed in the following sections.
support of tidal turbine array deployments (Bell et al.
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 sur-
face roughness modulations (turbulent wakes) in rela-
tion 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. ricanes or winter storms are also capable of causing
IMPROVING MODEL VALIDATION significant acute change. Other anthropogenic activities
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 ing may also directly affect localized physical processes.
which to validate model simulations. Oceanographic Other anthropogenic pressures may be more indirect,
measurements collected for the purpose of character- such as a dam reducing coastal sediment supply from
izing the power potential at MRE sites are being used rivers and increasing coastal erosion. Similarly, MRE
to verify model assumptions and outcomes from the arrays may cumulatively interact with one another
UK and other regions where tidal turbines and WECs (Waldman et al. 2019). And all these local changes exist
have been deployed (e.g., Sellar et al. 2017, 2018). Com- against the backdrop of a changing climate experienc-
prehensive monitoring was performed, mostly in the ing warming oceans and rising sea levels.
nearfield, at the sites of several single devices or small
Cumulative effects studies will reduce uncertainty by
arrays located at EMEC, UK (Fraser et al. 2017; Sellar
isolating the effects of MRE extraction from natural and
and Sutherland 2016; Sellar et al. 2017) and Perth, Aus-
anthropogenic pressures. The effects of MRE extraction
tralia (Contardo et al. 2018). As large arrays are deployed
must also be compared to the impact of non-renewable
in the future, pre- and post-deployment farfield mea-
energy sources that are being offset. A methodology for
surements will be needed to provide data for model
carrying out effective cumulative impact assessment is
validation.
elusive but is sorely needed as additional use of ocean
Numerical models are steadily improving in resolution spaces come online. The MRE community needs to be a
and realism, yet these improvements increase their partner in developing and implementing methods that
dependency on high-quality measurements. Many address cumulative impacts.
geographic locations lack high-resolution bathymetry
7.5.3.
data that drive model realism. Models often use basic
UNDERSTANDING ENVIRONMENTAL
bottom drag or momentum sinks for tidal turbines or
IMPLICATIONS
basic parameterizations for WECs, so fine-tuned device
Models predict changes in physical parameters, which
parameterizations are needed to accurately represent
may cascade into changes in the environment. To be
energy removal and changes in water flow (e.g., Apsley
meaningful, these predictions must be linked to poten-
et al. 2018). To address the need for datasets, research
tial impacts on specific organisms and ecosystem pro-
should target the enhanced accuracy and resolution
cesses. These types of linkages are elusive but some
of sensors and remote technology, more consistent
insight can be gathered using proxies such as changes
methodologies for data collection, and better sharing of
in sediment deposition rates to indicate changes in
existing datasets.
habitat structures (e.g., O’Laughlin et al. 2014), by com-
7.5.2. paring potential changes to natural variability (e.g.,
ASSESSING CUMULATIVE EFFECTS: Kregting et al. 2016), or by coupling physical models to
NATURAL VARIABILITY AND biogeochemical models (e.g., van der Molen et al. 2016).
ANTHROPOGENIC ACTIVITIES Learning from industry analogs may provide some
Assessing energy removal in the context of natural vari- early insights about the environmental effects of arrays.
ability and other anthropogenic activities is particularly Environmental implications are often site-specific,
challenging and hampers estimation of the potential but trends may be identified that apply across multiple
effects of MRE on the environment. Ocean circulation bodies of water, different MRE device designs, and
and sediment transport patterns naturally shift sea- specific organisms. Studies that explore these trends
sonally and over multi-year patterns such as the North can provide valuable guidance for the interpretation of
Atlantic Oscillation, Pacific Decadal Oscillation, and El model results and for device developers to minimize the
Niño Southern Oscillation. Extreme events like hur- potential effects of MRE devices on the oceanographic
system.

136 OES-ENVIRONMENTAL 2020 STATE OF THE SCIENCE REPORT

 Bell, P. S., McCann, D. L., Crammond, S., McIlvenny, J.,
7.6.
Dufaur, J., and Archer, P. 2014. Marine radar derived
REFERENCES current vector mapping at a planned commercial tidal
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://​ Technologies, Stornoway, Scotland. https://tethys.pnnl​
tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/dual-wave-farms-energy​ .gov/publications/marine-radar-derived-current-vector​
-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​
.2017.10.018 https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/role​
Apsley, D. D., Stallard, T., and Stansby, P. K. 2018. Actu-
-wave-energy-converter-farms-coastal-protection​
ator-line CFD modelling of tidal-stream turbines in
-eroding-deltas-guadalfeo-southern
arrays. Journal of Ocean Engineering and Marine Energy,
4(4), 259-271. doi:10.1007/s40722-018-0120-3 https://​ Bergillos, R. J., Rodriguez-Delgado, C., and Igle-
tethys-engineering.pnnl.gov/publications/actuator-line​ sias, G. 2019. Wave farm impacts on coastal flood-
-cfd-modelling-tidal-stream-turbines-arrays ing under sea level rise: A case study in southern
Spain. Science of The Total Environment, 653, 1522-
Ashall, L. M., Mulligan, R. P., and Law, B. A. 2016. Variability
1531. doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv​.2018.10.422 https://
in suspended sediment concentration in the Minas Basin,
tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/wave​-farm-impacts-coastal-
Bay of Fundy, and implications for changes due to tidal
flooding-under-sea level​-rise​-case​-study​-southern​-spain
power extraction. Coastal Engineering, 107, 102-115.
doi:10.1016/j.coastaleng.2015.10.003 https://​tethys​.pnnl​.gov Bourdier, S., Dampney, K., Fernandez, H., Lopez,
/publications/variability-suspended​-sediment- G., and Richon, J.-B. 2014. Non-intrusive wave
concentration-minas-basin-bay-fundy​-implications field measurement. (Report No. D4.05). Report by
Energy Research Centre of the Netherlands for
Atan, R., Finnegan, W., Nash, S., and Goggins, J. 2019.
Marine Renewables Infrastructure Network. https://​
The effect of arrays of wave energy converters on
tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/d405-non-intrusive-wave​
the nearshore wave climate. Ocean Engineering, 172,
-field-measurement
373-384. doi:10.1016/j.oceaneng.2018.11.043 https://
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.
https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/coastal-processes​
Baeye, M., and Fettweis, M. 2015. In situ observations of
-beach-erosion
suspended particulate matter plumes at an offshore wind
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
Laboratories, Albuquerque, New Mexico. Report
Bell, P., McCann, D., Lawrence, J., and Norris, J. 2015. Remote
by SANDIA for U.S. Department of Energy. https://
detection of sea surface roughness signatures related to
tethys-engineering.pnnl​.gov/publications/wave-energy-
subsurface bathymetry, structures and tidal stream turbine
converter-effects-wave​-fields-evaluation-snl-swan-
wakes. Paper presented at the 11th European Wave and Tidal
sensitivity-studies
Conference, Southampton, UK. https://tethys.pnnl.gov​
/publications/remote-detection-sea-surface-roughness​
-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-
energy-extraction-non-cohesive-sediment​-transport
Contardo, S., Hoeke, R., Hemer, M., Symonds, G.,
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​
Gotelli, C., Musa, M., Guala, M., and Escauriaza, C. 2019.
-installation-benthic-boundary-layer-tidal
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
Guerra, M., and Thomson, J. 2019. Wake measure-
scale three-dimensional modelling for wave and tidal
ments from a hydrokinetic river turbine. Renewable
energy resource and environmental impact: Methodolo-
Energy, 139, 483-495. doi:10.1016/j.renene.2019.02.052
gies for quantifying acceptable thresholds for sustainable
https://tethys-engineering.pnnl.gov/publications/wake​
exploitation. Ocean & Coastal Management, 147, 67-77.
-measurements-hydrokinetic-river-turbine
doi:10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2016.11.025 https://tethys.pnnl.gov​
/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
Lagrangian circulation. Applied Energy, 203, 321-332.
García-Oliva, M., Djordjević, S., and Tabor, G. R. 2017.
doi:10.1016/j.apenergy.2017.06.022 https://tethys.pnnl​
The impacts of tidal turbines on water levels in a shal-
.gov/publications/assessing-impact-tidal-stream-energy​
low estuary. International Journal of Marine Energy, 19,
-extraction-lagrangian-circulation
177-197. doi:10.1016/j.ijome.2017.07.006 https://tethys​
.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
stream energy site. Energy, 189, 116113. doi:10.1016​
Garcia Novo, P., and Kyozuka, Y. 2019. Analysis of tur-
/j.energy.2019.116113 https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications​
bulence and extreme current velocity values in a tidal
/turbines-effects-water-renewal-within-marine-tidal​
channel. Journal of Marine Science and Technology, 24(3),
-stream-energy-site
659-672. doi:10.1007/s00773-018-0601-z https://tethys​
-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
System. Paper presented at the Marine Energy Tech-
Gartner, J. W. 2004. Estimating suspended solids con-
nology Symposium, Seattle, Washington. https://
centrations from backscatter intensity measured by
tethys.pnnl.gov/publications​/modeling-impacts-energy-
acoustic Doppler current profiler in San Francisco Bay,
extraction-gulf-stream​-system
California. Marine Geology, 211(3), 169-187. doi:10.1016​
/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​
-velocimeter-data
Herbers, T. H. C., Jessen, P. F., Janssen, T. T., Colbert,
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-
result-arrays​-tidal-turbines-have-effect-benthic-
Jiang, S., Dickey, T. D., Steinberg, D. K., and Madin,
communities
L. P. 2007. Temporal variability of zooplank-
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​
Li, X., Li, M., Jordan, L.-B., McLelland, S., Parsons, D.
-harbour-porpoises
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​
Liu, X., Yuan, P., Wang, S., Yuan, S., Tan, J., and Si, X.
/publications/spatial-environmental-assessment-tool​
2019. Simulation Study of Potential Impacts of Tidal
-seat-modeling-tool-evaluate-potential
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​
O’Dea, A., Brodie, K. L., and Hartzell, P. 2019. Continu-
-turbulence-intensity-effects-marine-current-turbines​
ous Coastal Monitoring with an Automated Terrestrial
-behaviour-part
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
O’Dea, A., Haller, M. C., and Özkan-Haller, H. T. 2018.
Energy, 68, 876-892. doi:10.1016/j.renene.2013.12.048
The impact of wave energy converter arrays on wave-
https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/experimental-study​
induced forcing in the surf zone. Ocean Engineering, 161,
-turbulence-intensity-effects-marine-current-turbines​
322-336. doi:10.1016/j.oceaneng.2018.03.077 https://
-behaviour-0
tethys​.pnnl.gov/publications/impact-wave-energy-
Nash, S., O’Brien, N., Olbert, A., and Hartnett, M. 2014. converter​-arrays-wave-induced-forcing-surf-zone
Modelling the far field hydro-environmental impacts
O’Laughlin, C., and van Proosdij, D. 2013. Influence of
of tidal farms – A focus on tidal regime, inter-tidal
varying tidal prism on hydrodynamics and sedimentary
zones and flushing. Computers & Geosciences, 71, 20-27.
processes in a hypertidal salt marsh creek. Earth Surface
doi:10.1016/j.cageo.2014.02.001 https://tethys.pnnl.gov​
Processes and Landforms, 38(5), 534-546. doi:10.1002​
/publications/modelling-far-field-hydro-environmental​
/esp.3340 https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/influence​
-impacts-tidal-farms-focus-tidal-regime
-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
Conference, Nantes, France. https://tethys.pnnl.gov​
Ouro, P., Runge, S., Luo, Q., and Stoesser, T. 2019.
/publications/impact-scaled-tidal-stream-turbine-over​
Three-dimensionality of the wake recovery behind
-mobile-sediment-beds
a vertical axis turbine. Renewable Energy, 133, 1066-
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-
tory study on the effects of hydro kinetic turbines on
Palha, A., Mendes, L., Fortes, C. J., Brito-Melo, A., and
hydrodynamics and sediment dynamics. Renewable
Sarmento, A. 2010. The impact of wave energy farms in
Energy, 129, 271-284. doi:10.1016/j.renene.2018.05.094
the shoreline wave climate: Portuguese pilot zone case
https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/laboratory-study​
study using Pelamis energy wave devices. Renewable
-effects-hydro-kinetic-turbines-hydrodynamics-sediment​
Energy, 35(1), 62-77. doi:10.1016/j.renene.2009.05.025
-dynamics
https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/impact-wave-energy​
-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
of sedimentary processes. Renewable Energy, 72, 311-
Patro, R., Zedel, L., and Spanu-Tollefsen, C. 2000.
321. doi:10.1016/j.renene.2014.07.037 https://tethys.pnnl​
Monitoring fish movement using an ADCP. The Journal
.gov/publications/impact-tidal-stream-arrays-relation​
of the Acoustical Society of America, 108(5), 2489-2489.
-natural-variability-sedimentary-processes
doi:10.1121/1.4743187 https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications​
/monitoring-fish-movement-using-adcp Rodriguez-Delgado, C., Bergillos, R. J., Ortega-Sán-
chez, M., and Iglesias, G. 2018. Protection of gravel-
Petrie, J., Diplas, P., Gutierrez, M., and Nam, S. 2014.
dominated coasts through wave farms: Layout and
Characterizing the mean flow field in rivers for resource
shoreline evolution. Science of The Total Environment,
and environmental impact assessments of hydrokinetic
636, 1541-1552. doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.04.333
energy generation sites. Renewable Energy, 69, 393-
https://tethys.pnnl​.gov/publications/protection-gravel-
401. doi:10.1016/j.renene.2014.03.064 https://tethys.pnnl​
dominated-coasts​-through-wave-farms-layout-
.gov/publications/characterizing-mean-flow-field-rivers​
shoreline-evolution
-resource-environmental-impact-assessments
Rogan, C., Miles, J., Simmonds, D., and Iglesias, G. 2016.
Potter, D. 2019. Alteration to the shallow-water tides
The turbulent wake of a monopile foundation. Renew-
and tidal asymmetry by tidal-stream turbines. Doc-
able Energy, 93, 180-187. doi:10.1016/j.renene.2016.02​
toral Dissertation, Lancaster University, Lancashire,
.050 https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/turbulent-wake​
England. https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/alteration-
-monopile-foundation
shallow​-water-tides-tidal-asymmetry-tidal-stream-
turbines Rusu, E., and Guedes Soares, C. 2009. Numerical mod-
elling to estimate the spatial distribution of the wave
Raghukumar, K., Chang, G., Spada, F., Jones, C., Jans-
energy in the Portuguese nearshore. Renewable Energy,
sen, T., and Gans, A. 2019. Performance Characteris-
34(6), 1501-1516. doi:10.1016/j.renene.2008.10.027
tics of “Spotter,” a Newly Developed Real-Time Wave
https://​tethys-engineering.pnnl.gov/publications/numerical​
Measurement Buoy. Journal of Atmospheric and Oceanic
-modelling-estimate-spatial-distribution-wave-energy​
Technology, 36(6), 1127-1141. doi:10.1175/jtech-d-18​
-portuguese-nearshore
-0151.1 https://tethys-engineering.pnnl.gov/publications​
/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​
-application-acoustics-sediment
Sellar, B. G., Sutherland, D. R. J., Ingram, D. M.,
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​
Yang, Z., and Wang, T. 2015. Modeling the Effects of
-array-interactions
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://
Yang, Z., Wang, T., Copping, A., and Geerlofs, S. 2014.
tethys-engineering.pnnl.gov/publications​/use-adcp-
Modeling of in-stream tidal energy development and
compute-suspended-sediment-discharge-tidal​-hudson-
its potential effects in Tacoma Narrows, Washing-
river-new-york
ton, 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 Devel-
opment Around the World. Report for Ocean Energy Systems (OES). (pp. 126-145). doi:10.2172/1633183

REPORT AND MORE INFORMATION CONTACT Go to https://tethys​.pnnl.gov for

OES-Environmental 2020 State of the Science full report and Andrea Copping a comprehensive collection of
executive summary available at: Pacific Northwest National papers, reports, archived presen-
Laboratory tations, and other media about
https://tethys​.pnnl.gov/publications/state-of-the​-science-2020
[email protected] environmental effects of marine
renewable energy development.
+1 206.528.3049

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. Large migratory baleen whale species (e.g., humpback

SUMMARY OF KNOWLEDGE whales [Megaptera novaeangliae], minke whales [Balae-
noptera acutorostrata], right whales [Eubalaena glacialis])

M
arine animal encounters with MRE device moor- are typically considered to be at the greatest risk of
ing systems and the associated risk of entangle- encounters with MRE device mooring systems because
ment and entrapment are emerging topics among the of their life history traits (e.g., migration) and feeding
potential environmental effects of MRE; these topics behaviors (Benjamins et al. 2014). Large pelagic elas-
were not discussed in the 2016 State of the Science report mobranchs (e.g., whale sharks [Rhincodon typus], basking
(Copping et al. 2016). Key progress and growth in shark whales [Cetorhinus maximus], manta rays) also have
knowledge and understanding across this topic area are greater potential risk of entanglement because of their
discussed in the following sections. 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 of marine animals focuses on observations of injury and
by regulatory and advisory bodies within consenting pro- mortality caused by entanglement with fishing gear
cesses as the scale of arrays grows.

148 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
marine animals, although baleen whales were found to
Entanglement in submarine telecommunications cables
be at greater risk because of their large size and feeding
has been reported prior to 1959 (Wood and Carter 2008).
behavior (Benjamins et al. 2014). However, all the moor-
Entanglements of whales (mainly sperm whales) were
ing configurations examined had too much tension to
mostly associated with excessive slack in repaired
create a loop that could entangle a whale.
cables and most occurred in deep waters (118 m). The
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-
specific response of whales to rope colors highlights the
Derelict (i.e., lost, abandoned, discarded) fishing gear
need to further investigate this topic for the species of
and marine debris are known causes of entanglement
interest. Another important biological characteristic of
for elasmobranchs (sharks and rays, Parton et al. 2019)
whales is their ability to communicate acoustically. A
and smaller marine animals (sea turtles, Gunn et al.
mitigation strategy to reduce cetacean bycatch in fish-
2010; fur seals, sea lions, Page et al. 2004; sea turtles,
eries is the use of acoustic deterrent devices, but their
Wilcox et al. 2015). Once entangled, small marine ani-
effectiveness is unclear (Hamilton and Baker 2019).
mals do not have the ability to free themselves and
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
to entanglement between the mooring tether of the
The entanglement risks associated with MRE device
tidal kite and marine mammals (Minesto 2016). The
mooring systems and transmission cables are poorly
model predicted that most marine mammals (grey seals
understood, largely because of the lack of empirical
[Halichoerus grypus], harbor porpoise [Phocoena phocoena],
data and focused studies. Using the available literature
and bottlenose dolphins) swimming through the swept
on marine mammal entanglement with fishing gear,
area of the device would not encounter the mooring
Kropp (2013) determined that migrating whales off
tether when the device is operating. Even in the case of
the coast of Oregon (U.S.) would likely be at relatively
an encounter, the tether would remain taut to avoid the
low risk of entanglement with MRE device mooring
risk of entanglement.
systems because of their rare occurrence in the region

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 inter-
array 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-

ing systems, for example with autonomous or remote
8.2.
operating vehicles, could minimize entanglement risk
RESEARCH AND MONITORING by detecting the malfunction of mooring systems or
NEEDS TO RESOLVE THE ISSUE the presence of derelict fishing gear. If such monitoring

A
dditional studies of the habitat preferences and detects gear entanglements, the debris can be removed,

diving behaviors of marine animals are needed thereby further reducing the risk of marine animal

to evaluate the risk of encounters that could lead to entanglement. Finally, studies focusing on the devel-

entanglement. Combining modeling and field observa- opment of MRE arrays should be targeted to evaluate

tions will enhance the assessment of the risk. While the 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-and-
floating-wind-farms

150 OES-ENVIRONMENTAL 2020 STATE OF THE SCIENCE REPORT

 Gunn, R., Hardesty, B. D., and Butler, J. 2010. Tack-
8.3. ling ‘ghost nets’: Local solutions to a global issue in
REFERENCES northern Australia. Ecological Management & Restora-
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- https://​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. to reduce marine mammal bycatch and entanglement
https://​tethys​.pnnl​.gov​/publications​/understanding​ in commercial fishing gear: lessons learnt and future
-potential​-marine​-megafauna​-entanglement​-risk​ directions. Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries, 29(2),
-marine​-renewable​-energy​-0 223-247. doi:10​.1007​/s11160​-019​-09550​-6 https://​
Copping, A., and Grear, M. 2018. Humpback Whale tethys​.pnnl​.gov​/publications​/technical​-mitigation​-reduce​
Encounter with Offshore Wind Mooring Lines and Inter- -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 ning, L. 2015. Assessment of entanglement risk to
Energy Management. https://​tethys​.pnnl​.gov​/publications​ marine megafauna due to offshore renewable energy
/humpback​-whale​-encounter​-offshore​-wind​-mooring​ mooring systems. International Journal of Marine Energy,
-lines​-inter​-array​-cables 11, 27-49. doi:10​.1016​/j.ijome​.2015​.04​.001 https://​tethys​
Copping, A., Sather, N., Hanna, L., Whiting, J., .pnnl​.gov​/publications​/assessment​-entanglement​-risk​
Zydlewski, G., Staines, G., Gill, A., Hutchison, I., -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 Renew- J., and Marshall, C. D. 2012. Behavioral responses of
able Energy Development Around the World. Report by minke whales (Balaenoptera acutorostrata) to experi-
Pacific Northwest National Laboratory for Ocean Energy mental fishing gear in a coastal environment. Journal
Systems. https://​tethys​.pnnl​.gov​/publications​/state​-of​-the​ of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 413, 13-20.
-science​-2016 doi:10​.1016​/j.jembe​.2011​.11​.018 https://​tethys​.pnnl​.gov​
Duncan, E. M., Botterell, Z. L. R., Broderick, A. C., Gal- /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. 2014. Enhancing the Visibility of Fishing Ropes to
Endangered Species Research, 34, 431-448. doi:10​.3354​ Reduce Right Whale Entanglements. Bycatch Reduction
/esr00865 https://​tethys​.pnnl​.gov​/publications​/global​ Engineering Program 1, 67-74. https://​tethys​.pnnl​.gov​
-review​-marine​-turtle​-entanglement​-anthropogenic​ /publications​/enhancing​-visibility​-fishing​-ropes​-reduce​
-debris​-baseline​-further​-action -right​-whale​-entanglements
Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Kropp, R. K. 2013. Biological and existing data analysis
Act 1999 (Cth). [Australia]. to inform risk of collision and entanglement hypotheses
Habitats Directive (Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 (PNNL-22804). Pacific Northwest National Laboratory,
May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and Richland, Washington. Report by Pacific Northwest
of wild fauna and flora). OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7-50. National Laboratory for U.S. Department of Energy.
[European Union]. 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.
Marine Pollution Bulletin, 18(6, Supplement B), 350-352.
Minesto. 2016. Deep Green Holyhead Deep Project
doi:10​.1016​/S0025​-326X​(​87​)​80024​-3 https://​tethys​
Phase I (0.5 MW) - Environmental Statement. https://​
.pnnl​.gov​/publications​/records​-entangled​-gannets​-sula​
tethys​.pnnl​.gov​/publications​/deep​-green​-holyhead​-deep​
-bassana​-helgoland​-german​-bight
-project​-phase​-i-05​-mw​-environmental​-statement
Sparling, C., Coram, A., McConnell, B., Thompson,
Moore, M. J., Bogomolni, A., Bowman, R., Hamilton, P.
D., Hawkins, K., and Northridge, S. 2013. Wave and
K., Harry, C. T., Knowlton, A. R., Landry, S., Rotstein,
Tidal Consenting Position Paper Series: Marine Mam-
D. S., and Touhey, K. 2006, 18-21 Sept. 2006. Fatally
mal Impacts. Report by SMRU Consulting for Natural
entangled right whales can die extremely slowly. Paper
Environment Research Council. https://​tethys​.pnnl​.gov​
presented at OCEANS 2006, Washington, D.C. doi:10​
/publications​/wave​-tidal​-consenting​-position​-paper​
.1109​/OCEANS​.2006​.306792 https://​tethys​.pnnl​.gov​
-series​-marine​-mammal​-impacts
/publications​/fatally​-entangled​-right​-whales​-can​-die​
-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​
Wilcox, C., Heathcote, G., Goldberg, J., Gunn, R.,
-marine
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 Develop-
ment Around the World. Report for Ocean Energy Systems (OES). (pp. 146-153). doi:10.2172/1633184

REPORT AND MORE INFORMATION CONTACT Go to https://tethys​.pnnl.gov for a

OES-Environmental 2020 State of the Science full report and Andrea Copping comprehensive collection of
executive summary available at: Pacific Northwest National papers, reports, archived presen-
https://tethys​.pnnl.gov/publications/state-of-the​-science-2020 Laboratory tations, and other media about
[email protected] environmental effects of marine
renewable energy development.
+1 206.528.3049

SECTION B – CURRENT KNOWLEDGE OF KEY DEVICE INTERACTIONS WITH THE MARINE ENVIRONMENT 153
154 OES-ENVIRONMENTAL 2020 STATE OF THE SCIENCE REPORT
9.0
Social and Economic Data
Chapter author: Mikaela C. Freeman
Contributor: Deborah J. Rose

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
 and values in a community and surrounding areas
9.1.
(Figure 9.1). Commonly, social and economic effects are
IMPORTANCE OF THE ISSUE assessed through cost-benefit analyses or social and

F
ully understanding the effects of MRE developments 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 for additional focus on and the development of standard-
better understanding of the effects of MRE and good prac- ized processes, best practice examples, and guidance for
tices for data collection. While some countries have pro- social and data collection and use in MRE consenting and
vided common frameworks, such as the European Union strategic planning. Current practices are inconsistent and
(EU)’s Marine Strategy Framework Directive (Directive could be better developed (Copping et al. 2017). Further,
2008/56/EC 2008), they are outside of the purview of this the degree to which social and economic data and assess-
chapter. A large body of knowledge exists about social and ments have a substantial influence on the outcome of
economic effects, but not all of it is specific to MRE. As the strategic planning or license determination processes is
industry advances and more MRE development occurs, often unclear, even when they are required in support of
understanding of the social and economics effects of MRE applications or planning processes.
will increase and the information presented in this chap-
ter can be expanded upon. Ocean Energy Systems (OES)-Environmental has been
involved in furthering understanding of the social and
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 tion, analysis, and application for consenting, which
benefits, including benefits for rural and coastal com- have been addressed at two international workshops. The
munities and economies that other sectors cannot reach first workshop (Copping et al. 2017), hosted at the 2017
(Regeneris Consulting Ltd. 2013; Smart and Noonan European Wave and Tidal Energy Conference, examined
2018). The social and economic benefits of MRE projects frameworks and practical aspects for collecting data that
include low visual impacts (Bailey et al. 2011; Devine- define the social and economic risks and benefits of MRE
Wright 2011), engagement of the local population development. The second workshop (Copping et al. 2018),
(Devine-Wright et al. 2013), and an increase in employ- held in conjunction with the Environmental Interactions
ment opportunities (Lavidas 2019). Some MRE deploy- of the Marine Renewables 2018 conference, built on the
ments have provided insight into potential effects and 2017 workshop and examined case studies for social and
their extents, and indicated the importance of social and economic impacts. This chapter builds on the outcomes
economic effects, especially as the industry scales up to from both workshops, and much of the information in
array-sized deployments (see Section 9.6). However, this chapter comes from discussion and feedback at these
because the MRE industry is in the early stages of devel- workshops. This chapter provides a general overview of
opment globally, some uncertainty regarding potential the definitions of social and economic effects; require-
social and economic benefits or adverse effects of devel- ments for collecting social and economic data in several
opments remains (Bonar et al. 2015). 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)

tors include the effects on infrastructure and facilities,

9.2. services, cost of living, health and well-being, culture,
DEFINITION OF SOCIAL AND and populations (Kerr et al. 2014; Vanclay et al. 2015). It
ECONOMIC EFFECTS is important in any assessment of social and economic
effects to include the effects on indigenous and remote

S
ocial and economic effects can include benefits to
communities, because they are often marginalized and
or adverse effects on employment, local infrastruc-
may be affected differently than other communities
ture and services, regional businesses, and communi-
(Kerr et al. 2015).
ties. Additional examples of social and economic effects
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-
1 as sightseeing and fishing experiences from project
nesses, and existing industries, while key social indica- structures that serve as artificial reefs/fish-aggregating
devices (see Chapter 6, Changes in Benthic and Pelagic
1. Gross value added is used to measure the contribution made by an Habitats Caused by Marine Renewable Energy Devices)
industry or sector and is calculated by the output minus consumption
(OECD 2001).
(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
9.3.
on communities, economies, and employment. For REQUIREMENTS FOR COLLECTING
example, MRE developments may exclude other marine SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC DATA TO
uses, such as reducing access for fisheries, if they are SUPPORT CONSENTING
not sited sensitively. In addition, an MRE development

G
overnmental/regulatory or statutory requirements
could affect the perceived value of an area; for instance,
for collecting social and economic data are limited
visual components may be negatively perceived by
and poorly defined, and regulations can vary from one
a community or homeowners in the vicinity (Rand
country to the next as well as within countries, if they
and Hoen 2017; Vanclay 2012). Furthermore, the eco-
exist at all. Several countries and regulatory bodies have
nomic effects of an MRE development can vary greatly
requirements for assessing social and economic factors
depending on whether the installation and/or operation
when considering the development of new infrastructure
are staffed locally or by outside sources. For example,
projects. These requirements are primarily addressed in
if an MRE development does not use the local supply
EIAs (also called EISs, environmental statements [ESs],
chain it may fail to create much local benefit or provide
impact assessments [IAs], social impact assessments
direct employment.
[SIAs], or environment and social impact assessments
Key economic data and information for measuring [ESIAs], depending on the country). These planning
changes include data about local employment (e.g., documents are not unique to MRE developments; they
job creation potential, employment multiplier, gross are usually required for any full-scale infrastructure
wages), inward investment potential, extent of the local project, including device deployment, and few countries
and regional supply chain, gross value added, exports have requirements that are specific to the development
of products and services, existing sectors (e.g., com- of MRE projects.
mercial fishing, tourism and recreation, shipping and
navigation), and economic impacts of MRE on local
9.3.1.
COUNTRY-SPECIFIC SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC
communities (Copping et al. 2017, 2018; Marine Energy
REQUIREMENTS FOR MRE
Wales 2020; Smart and Noonan 2018). Some key social
Requirements to consider when assessing social and
data and information to collect include social and cul-
economic factors are described below for several OES-
tural context (e.g., social dynamics, cultures and values,
Environmental countries:
traditional activities), demographics and community
structure, energy security and carbon offsets (Smart ◆ The EU updated the EIA Directive in 2014 to broaden
and Noonan 2018), protected or conservation areas, its scope to include climate change, population and
other marine uses (e.g., commercial fisheries, indig- human health, biodiversity, landscape, and risk
enous fisheries, leisure, and recreation), and impacts on prevention (Directive 2014/52/EU 2014). Under EU
local communities (Copping et al. 2017, 2018). Some key law, these requirements are transposed into member
metrics for measuring change include business oppor- state national EIA legislation by May 2017.
tunities, net job gain or loss, improvements in exist- ◆ 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 envi-
ronments or monuments, traditional reindeer hus-
bandry 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 Directive2 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 level2) assessment were carried out (MeyGen 2012).
through specific EIA Regulations. Each devolved ● At SeaGen in Strangford Lough in Northern Ire-
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 fisheries, and tourism.
Planning and Marine Renewable Energy) gener-
◆ India has required consideration of socioeconomic
ally also include policies related to socioeconom-
factors since 2006, including anything that would
ics, which must be taken into account in licensing
“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 distribution (Voyants Solutions Pvt. Ltd. 2016).
in social and economic assessments are provided
◆ SIAs have been included in projects in China for
below:
decades, but they have faced many implementation
● The ES for the European Marine Energy Cen- challenges (e.g., Ip 1990). The first Environmental
tre (EMEC) test center at Billia Croo in Scotland Impact Assessment Act of the People’s Republic of
included a section on land use, fisheries, and China, passed in 2003, did not explicitly address
socioeconomic issues, which required consider- social issues (Tang et al. 2008). Over time, public
ation of local economic benefits, traditional fish- participation and social impact assessment have been
ing regions and access, and harbor congestion incorporated more informally into the EIA process
(Carl Bro Group Ltd. 2002). (Ren 2013), and China began requiring social risk

2. Devolution is the concept of delegating power from higher levels

assessments for major development projects begin-
of government to lower levels. In the UK devolved nations include ning in 2012 (Bradsher 2012; Price and Robinson
Scotland, Northern Ireland, England, and Wales, and while each
has statutory powers transferred to them by the UK, some reserved 2015).
powers remain with the UK. (https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk​
/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/770709​
/DevolutionFactsheet.pdf)

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
impacts. For instance, the U.S. Bureau of Ocean Energy
9.3.2.
Management commissioned two economic impact
DATA COLLECTION RESPONSIBILITY
assessments of wave energy deployments in Oregon,
The responsibility for collecting social and economic data
U.S. (Jimenez and Tegen 2014; Jimenez et al. 2015) that
falls to different levels of government, planning authori-
showed a significant impact, including an increase
ties, or other responsible parties, such as project devel-
in jobs, and identified potential sources of economic
opers, depending on the intended purpose and applica-
development. Both reports are publicly available and
tion of the data. However, it is difficult to determine the
can be used to inform future MRE developments and
specifics of who should be responsible for data collection
their project-level assessments.
and assessments and, often, any gaps become the bur-
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 objec- absence of developer-collected data is likely due to a
tives on a local scale, such as within a municipality or lack of funds available for data collection that is not
community. based on a regulatory requirement. However, if such
information is collated within environmental assess-

160 OES-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 Downscaled frameworks

monitoring data
Collaboration between levels of government to Collection of project-level impacts (private data)
support local data collection

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
Communicating with stakeholders provides a range
from developers. The MRE industry can also provide
of benefits to developers. It is crucial to have the sup-
collated information to reveal the potential impacts of
port of stakeholders and local communities, both for
MRE, which can then be used by developers to present
individual projects and for the long-term acceptance
the likely effects of a project. Two examples include a
of the MRE industry. In this sense, stakeholders can
state of the sector report detailing the economic ben-
include political leaders, local businesses, members
efits of MRE for Wales (Marine Energy Wales 2020) and
of the supply chain, nongovernmental organizations,
a report about the cost reduction and industrial benefits
social program staff, and community members, and
of MRE for the UK (Smart and Noonan 2018). While
especially indigenous and local communities (Isaacman
these highlight potential impacts, the most effective
et al. 2012). MRE projects are often located in rural and
option is to deploy devices and collect data as projects
sometimes remote areas where development pressures
progress to understand the true social and economic
have not been previously experienced. MRE develop-
effects of MRE and adapt or mitigate where necessary.
ments are relatively new and unproven commercially
9.3.3. and therefore they can be seen as both pioneering or
STAKEHOLDER OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT experimental. A partnership approach, with full com-
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,
Stakeholders will differ between communities, regions,
knowledge of, or awareness of MRE, including the dif-
and countries, and, while it can be difficult to define
ferent types of technologies and potential impacts of
the stakeholders, identifying main groups and involv-
MRE developments (Dalton et al. 2015), and there may
ing local communities is crucial. Stakeholders (espe-
be misconceptions or misunderstandings of MRE and its
cially local knowledge-holders) can supply a wealth
impacts (Stokes et al. 2014). A study of local perceptions
of knowledge and information, and help assure that
of the Wave Hub deployment in Cornwall, England,
the data collected and the metrics used are relevant to
found that stakeholders had firm views (such as con-
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
9.4.1.
useful tool to aid outreach efforts and can provide
DATA COLLECTION CONSISTENCY AND
insight into best approaches and lessons learned (Box REGULATORY GUIDANCE
9.1). In addition, developer awareness of prior projects It can be difficult to predict or analyze the effects
(both MRE or other industries) that have not been suc- of MRE projects. For example, understanding local
cessful or failed to deliver on promises or commitments impacts is difficult for smaller projects because the
can aid in understanding community perceptions of associated number of jobs alone may be minimal, may
a new MRE project. Building trust by engaging stake- not be truly indicative of the change, and will neces-
holders early in the development process and being sitate other data, information, or context to show the
transparent throughout project development is key to full effect (Copping et al. 2018), and in the end these
successful stakeholder engagement efforts. Involving impacts may still be small at the MRE prototype and
stakeholders can be challenging and often lengthens demonstration scale. Gathering and analyzing social
the process, especially because all stakeholders may and economic data to capture and grasp the full spec-
not initially be in favor of MRE development. In cir- trum of effects can be challenging because of a lack of
cumstances where a project or particular development
strategy may be irreconcilable with local interests, con-
cerns, 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 under-
stand 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 con-
text 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 Figure 9.3. A value map created from a study of social and cul-
initial attitudes and expected responses to potential tural values related to climate change adaptation on Prince Edward
Island, Canada. Colored dots note areas where survey participants
developments. These social characterizations must
expressed interest based on the specific values. (From Novaczek et
include spatial and temporal factors for any assessment. al. 2011)

162 OES-ENVIRONMENTAL 2020 STATE OF THE SCIENCE REPORT

 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 environ-
mental impact assessments from several
MRE test centers showed that consulting
stakeholders (e.g., fishers, surfers, naviga-
tion 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 con-
cerns, 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 pro-
cess. 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 devel-
opment 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 develop-
ment, 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, com-
munity 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
9.4.2.
and are compared across projects, understanding of
SCALES OF DATA COLLECTION
social and economic impacts can increase and ben-
Data collection at all appropriate scales (both spatial
efit the industry as a whole. However, standardization
and temporal) is important for providing a full picture
of data is complicated because each project, context,
of the benefits and adverse effects of MRE development.
region, and country can be unique in its culture, situ-
The scales at which data collection should be carried
ation, history, demographics, and regulations, and
out will vary across projects and countries (and may
regulatory guidance at an international level is unlikely.
include spatial scales ranging from the project, city,
While such standardization can be provided through
state, or regional level or temporal scales ranging from
industry standards, to date the only guidance related
a monthly, yearly, or bi-annual basis) based on a vari-
to environmental or social and economic effects in the
ety of factors. Spatial effects are more likely to occur at
MRE industry is for measuring underwater noise (see
smaller geographic scales or at the project level. As the
Chapter 4, Risk to Marine Animals from Underwater
MRE industry moves to larger arrays and/or multiple
Noise Generated by Marine Renewable Energy Devices).
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.
Similarly, most assessments and research focus on
Economic effects may not always be straightforward to
the shorter-term impacts (Dalton et al. 2015). Having
represent, but data are frequently collected to under-
long-term data is equally important, especially as the
stand these effects. Social effects can be even more
industry develops. Because of a lack of well-established
challenging to properly measure and analyze (Vanclay
and coordinated efforts to track the social and economic
2012), so much so that they are often dismissed, left out
effects of the MRE industry over time, the onus falls
of assessments, or do not occur on timescales that allow
on the project developers, especially those first in the
for the effects to be easily understood. Defining success
water, to show anticipated benefits and adverse effects.
is difficult because there is no standard approach for
Another issue with temporal data is the lag between the
assessing social and economic effects, regulatory guid-
time of data collection and actual implementation of an
ance can be hard to provide, and there is not enough
MRE project (Copping et al. 2018). Demonstrating the
data to indicate whether previous efforts to maximize
benefits of early MRE projects and collectively track-
benefits and minimize adverse effects have been suc-
ing efforts over time would help future projects plan
cessful. To make progress in this area, clear assessment
for impacts, improve consenting processes, and aid in
methods and metrics in all locations and the capacity to
obtaining public acceptance of future MRE projects.

164 OES-ENVIRONMENTAL 2020 STATE OF THE SCIENCE REPORT

 lation, and operational data to be used in consenting
9.5. MRE projects. Improving the consistency of data collec-
GOOD PRACTICES FOR COLLECTING tion allows for benefits and adverse effects of projects
DATA AND FOLLOWING TRENDS on communities to be compared, and will foster a better
understating of long-term impacts and changes.

G
ood practices for social and economic data collec-
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 Practice 3B: Project-level baseline data should be gathered by
be gathered by the appropriate level of local, regional, or the project developer, assisted by existing supply chain
national government, scaled to the closest possible companies and other local stakeholders as part of consenting
geographic extent for the area of the MRE project, before processes, before development occurs. If multiple projects are
development occurs. occurring on similar time scales, the project developers should
be encouraged to collaborate to help gather data to inform
strategic assessments.
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 Practice 4B: Social and economic data should be collected
at the same scales, using the same methodologies for at the same scales, using the same methodologies for
strategic-level assessments, by the appropriate level of local, project-level assessment, by the project developer, with
regional, or national government.1 assistance from supply chain personnel and other local
stakeholders, including local governments.
Practice 5: 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
 ize data collection and assessment as key indicators
9.6.
become agreed upon throughout the MRE industry and
CASE STUDIES across governmental bodies. This recommendation is best

A
nalyzing case studies related to deployed MRE proj- carried out by researchers or the MRE community.
ects can help further the understanding of social 9.7.2.
and economic effects and provide lessons learned for GUIDE DATA COLLECTION EFFORTS
future projects. The case studies can also be used as Once key indicators of the social and economic impacts
reference points for the effects of MRE developments of MRE development are better understood, the next
and offer a reliable comparison upon which to base esti- step would be to develop a template that establishes
mates for future projects. Box 9.2 highlights social and the questions that need to be asked and answered and
economic data that have been collected around three the key data needed to understand impacts that may
MRE developments and test centers. arise from a specific MRE development. Such a template
would guide data collection efforts by developers as well
as data collection requirements from governments and
9.7. regulators (ABPMer 2012). This recommendation is best
RECOMMENDATIONS carried out by researchers or the MRE community.

T
o fully understand the effects of an MRE deploy- 9.7.3.
ment, social and economic data must be collected CONDUCT MEANINGFUL STAKEHOLDER
and assessed. The good practice examples presented ENGAGEMENT
in this chapter provide guidance about collecting data As described in Section 9.3.3, stakeholder engagement
consistently throughout the industry and enabling is necessary for successful MRE project development
greater standardization of assessments to support and operation. In addition, stakeholders and groups
strategic planning for and consenting of MRE projects. familiar with the area surrounding a project can provide
These practices will lead to an overall increase in the a wealth of information on key social and economic data
understanding of the social and economic benefits and to collect. Stakeholders should be engaged in a mean-
adverse effects of MRE developments, improved social ingful manner by listening and learning from important
acceptance, and could be linked to more favorable regu- groups to identify evidence needs and key sources of
latory outcomes for the MRE industry. data. These groups will likely include local companies
There are many ways in which data collection could be in the MRE supply chain, the fishing industry, the tour-
improved upon. Some recommendations are listed in ism industry, communities that are often marginalized
the following sections. especially indigenous or native populations, and repre-
sentatives from local and regional groups that are likely
9.7.1. to be impacted. This engagement is best carried out by
REVIEW OR DEVELOP TOOLS AND MRE project developers.
DATABASES
Identifying potential social and economic indicators at 9.7.4.
both the project- and strategic-level will improve data PROVIDE AN INCENTIVE TO COLLECT AND
collection efforts and be useful for developers or other PUBLICIZE MRE DATA
stakeholders. Available tools and databases from MRE To move the industry forward, data and information
and other analogous industries (such as offshore wind, oil should be shared between MRE projects so that lessons
and gas, etc.) should be reviewed. If the necessary tools can be learned from past deployments (see Chapter 13,
or databases do not exist, there may be a need to develop Risk Retirement and Data Transferability for Marine
new tools or a database that could identify key indicators. Renewable Energy). The collection of social and eco-
Doing so would help to understand what data are relevant nomic data should be included in funding and deploy-
for a project and should be collected based on the size and ment conditions when possible. Government entities
potential impact of a project, and would show regulators and/or investors who provide funding or test sites
and governments which data may be important. Review- 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 eco-
nomic impacts as part of the environmental statement (ES) was undertaken (MeyGen 2012). In addition, a comparison of economic devel-
opment 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 naviga-
tion, 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 diversifica-
tion 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 under-
standing 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 Annual income Monthly salary bill Cumulative jobs Cumulative income
(number) from jobs (£000s) (£000s) (job years) from jobs (£000s)
2000 26 650 54 26 650
2001 27 675 56 53 1,325
2002 32 800 67 85 2,125
2003 40 1,000 83 125 3,125
2004 48 1,200 100 173 4,325
2005 57 1,425 119 230 5,750
2006 69 1,725 144 299 7,475
2007 77 1,925 160 376 9,400
2008 93 2,325 194 469 11,725
2009 124 3,100 258 593 14,825
2010 163 4,075 340 756 18,900
2011 189 4,725 394 945 23,625
2012 229 5,725 477 1,174 29,350
2013 286 7,150 596 1,460 36,500
2014 300 7,500 625 1760 44,000
2015 250 6,250 520 2010 50,250
2016 220 5,750 460 2240 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 govern-
9.7.6.
ment funding have to upload their data to an online data
CORRELATE IMPACTS, DATA COLLECTION,
portal (Marine and Hydrokinetic Data Repository 2020). AND PROCESSES TO APPROPRIATE SIZES
Not only does this help fund and create an impetus for With many barriers for the MRE industry to overcome
data collection and sharing, but it allows these enti- as it advances, one potential barrier is unnecessary
ties to ask for data collected about key indicators and requirements. In the case of social and economic data
impacts, thereby further adding to the ability to stan- collection, the requirements may be overly burdensome.
dardize methods and available data. This recommenda- Instead, when collecting data, the associated impacts
tion is best carried out by governments, investors, and/ need to be strongly correlated to the sensitivity of the
or MRE test sites. receptor. For example, if fishing jobs are lost because
9.7.5. of an MRE deployment, the loss would have a smaller
USE A FLEXIBLE PLANNING APPROACH impact on a community that does not heavily rely on
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.
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 collec-
tion, collation, and dissemination of data about social
and economic effects would greatly aid this developing
industry. As more information becomes available, pro-
ducing 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

 Caine, C. A. 2018. The place of the Rochdale envelope
9.9. approach in offshore renewable energy. Environmental
REFERENCES Law Review, 20(2), 74-88. doi:10.1177/1461452918777835
ABPMer. 2012. A Socio-economic Methodology and https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/place-rochdale​
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 turbine in Minas Basin. CBC News. Retrieved from
Initiatives and Strategies (pp. 285-309). Hershey, PA: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/tidal​
IGI Global. https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/handbook​ -turbine-fundy-fishermen-court-decision-1.4064346
-research-green-economic-development-initiatives​
Code de l’Environnement. 2018. Article L112-1.
-strategies
Copping, A., Freeman, M., Hutchinson, I., and Fox,
Bailey, I., West, J., and Whitehead, I. 2011. Out of Sight
J. 2019. Good Management Practices for Social and
but Not out of Mind? Public Perceptions of Wave Energy.
Economic Data Collection for Marine Renewable
Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 13(2), 139-
Energy. Ocean Energy Systems. https://tethys.pnnl​
157. doi:10.1080/1523908X.2011.573632 https://tethys​
.gov/publications/good-management-practices-social​
.pnnl.gov/publications/out-sight-not-out-mind-public​
-economic-data-collection-marine-renewable-energy
-perceptions-wave-energy
Copping, A., Hutchinson, I., and Fox, J. 2017. Exploring
Bonar, P. A. J., Bryden, I. G., and Borthwick, A. G. L. 2015.
the State of Understanding and Practice Used to Assess
Social and ecological impacts of marine energy devel-
Social and Economic Risks and Benefits of Marine
opment. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 47,
Renewable Energy Development. Workshop conducted
486-495. doi:10.1016/j.rser.2015.03.068 https://tethys​
at the European Wave and Tidal Energy Conference,
.pnnl.gov/publications/social-ecological-impacts-marine​
Cork, Ireland. https://tethys.pnnl.gov/events/exploring​
-energy-development
-state-understanding-practice-used-assess-social​
Bradsher, K. 2012. ‘Social Risk’ Test Ordered by China -economic-risks-benefits-marine
for Big Projects. The New York Times. Retrieved from
Copping, A., Hutchinson, I., Fox, J., and Freeman, M.
https://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/13/world/asia/china​
2018. Case Studies on Social and Economic Effects
-mandates-social-risk-reviews-for-big-projects.html
around MRE Development. Workshop conducted at the
Burdge, R. J., and Taylor, C. N. 2012. When and Where is Environmental Impacts of Marine Renewables Con-
Social Impact Assessment Required? Paper presented ference, Kirkwall, UK. https://tethys.pnnl.gov/events​
at the International Association for Impact Assessment /case-studies-social-economic-effects-around-mre​
Annual Meeting, Porto, Portugal. https://tethys.pnnl.gov​ -development
/publications/when-where-social-impact-assessment​
Dalton, G., Allan, G., Beaumont, N., Georgakaki, A.,
-required
Hacking, N., Hooper, T., Kerr, S., O’Hagan, A. M., Reilly,
Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM). 2018. K., Ricci, P., Sheng, W., and Stallard, T. 2015. Economic
Draft Guidance Regarding the Use of a Project Design and socio-economic assessment methods for ocean
Envelope in a Construction and Operations Plan. Office renewable energy: Public and private perspectives.
of Renewable Energy Programs, U.S. Department of Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 45, 850-
the Interior. https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/draft​ 878. doi:10.1016/j.rser.2015.01.068 https://tethys.pnnl​
-guidance-regarding-use-project-design-envelope​ .gov/publications/economic-socio-economic-assessment​
-construction-operations-plan -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-
proposition-tidal-energy​-development-nova-scotia-
Devine-Wright, P., Burningham, K., Barnett, J., Devine-
atlantic-canada-canada
Wright, H., Walker, G., Infield, D., Evans, B., Howes,
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​
Government of Canada. 2019. Impact Assessment
-project-summary-report
Agency of Canada. Retrieved from https://www.canada.ca​
Directive 2008/56/EC of the European Parliament and /en/impact-assessment-agency.html
of the Council of 17 June 2008 establishing a framework
Howell, A., and Drake, C. 2012. Scoping Study on Socio-
for community action in the field of marine environ-
Economic Impacts of Tidal Energy Development in Nova
mental policy (Marine Strategy Framework Directive).
Scotia: A Research Synthesis & Priorities for Future
OJ L 164, 25.6.2008, p. 19–40
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​
-energy-development
EquiMar. 2011. Deliverable D5.8: Impacts upon marine
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-
61727). National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden,
European Marine Energy Centre (EMEC). 2019. EMEC
Colorado. https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/economic​
Socio-Economic Report. Stromness, Orkney. https://​
-impact-large-scale-deployment-offshore-marine​
tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/emec-socio-economic-report
-hydrokinetic-technology-0

170 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.
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. 42 U.S.C.
Report by National Renewable Energy Laboratory for
§§4321-4370h.
Bureau of Ocean Energy Management. https://tethys​
.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.
Institute of Island Studies, University of Prince Edward
Kerr, S., Colton, J., Johnson, K., and Wright, G. 2015.
Island, Charlottetown, Canada. https://tethys.pnnl.gov​
Rights and ownership in sea country: implications of
/publications/social-cultural-values-mapping-decision​
marine renewable energy for indigenous and local com-
-support-tool-climate-change-adaptation
munities. Marine Policy, 52, 108-115. doi:10.1016/j.marpol​
.2014.11.002 https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/rights​ Oregon Wave Energy Trust (OWET). 2020. OWET
-ownership-sea-country-implications-marine-renewable​ 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​ Renewable Energy Forum. Retrieved from http://www​
/establishing-agenda-social-studies-research-marine​ .oref.co.uk/
-renewable-energy
The Planning Inspectorate. 2018. Using the Rochdale
Lavidas, G. 2019. Energy and socio-economic benefits Envelope. Advice Note Nine: Rochdale Envelope. https://​
from the development of wave energy in Greece. Renew- tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/using-rochdale-envelope
able Energy, 132, 1290-1300. doi:10.1016/j.renene.2018​
.09.007 https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/energy-socio​ Price, S., and Robinson, K. 2015. Making a Difference?:

-economic-benefits-development-wave-energy-greece Social Assessment Policy and Praxis and Its Emergence

in China (Vol. 6). Brooklyn, NY: Berghahn Books. https://​
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 -assessment-policy-praxis-its-emergence-china
energy developments – Learning from existing activi-
ties and informing future research priorities. Ocean & Rand, J., and Hoen, B. 2017. Thirty years of North

Coastal Management, 99, 14-22. doi:10.1016/j.ocecoaman​ American wind energy acceptance research: What have

.2014.05.025 https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications​ we learned? Energy Research & Social Science, 29, 135-

/environmental-impact-assessments-wave-energy​ 148. doi:10.1016/j.erss.2017.05.019 https://tethys.pnnl.gov​

-developments-learning-existing-activities /publications/thirty-years-north-american-wind-energy​
-acceptance-research-what-have-we-learned
Marine Energy Wales. 2020. State of the Sector Report:
Economic Benefits for Wales. https://tethys.pnnl.gov/ Regeneris Consulting Ltd. 2013. The Economic Impact

publications/state-sector-report-2020-economic- of the Development of Marine Energy in Wales.

benefits-wales https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/economic-impact​
-development-marine-energy-wales
Marine and Hydrokinetic Data Repository. 2020. About
DOE’s Marine and Hydrokinetic Data Repository. Regulations on Impact Assessments. Kgl. Res. 21. June

Retrieved from https://mhkdr.openei.org/about 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-
public-participation-china-case​-study-land-requisition
Renewable UK. 2014. Maximising the Value of Marine
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
Reviews, 58, 1070-1081. doi:10.1016/j.rser.2015.12​
Simas, T., Magagna, D., Bailey, I., Conley, D., Greaves,
.284 https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/wave-tidal-
D., O’Callaghan, J., Marina, D., Saulnier, J., Sundberg, J.,
current​-energy-review-current-state-research-beyond​
Embling, C. 2013. SOWFIA Deliverable D.4.4 Interim Report:
-technology
Critical Environmental Impacts for Relevant Socio-economic
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-
potential​-co-use-marine-space-based-operational-
Smart, G., and Noonan, M. 2018. Tidal Stream and Wave
boundaries
Energy Cost Reduction and Industrial Benefit: Sum-
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​
.gov/publications/potential-application-social-impact​
Smythe, T., Andrescavage, N., and Fox, C. 2016. The
-assessment-integrated-coastal-zone-management
Rhode Island Ocean Special Area Management Plan,
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​
/environmental-social-impact-assessment-200-mw​
Stokes, C., Beaumont, E., Russell, P., and Greaves, D.
-wind-project-village-aspari-district
2014. Anticipated coastal impacts: What water-users
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-Envi-
ronmental 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

REPORT AND MORE INFORMATION CONTACT Go to https://tethys​.pnnl.gov for a

OES-Environmental 2020 State of the Science full report and Andrea Copping comprehensive collection of
executive summary available at: Pacific Northwest National papers, reports, archived presen-
https://tethys​.pnnl.gov/publications/state-of-the​-science-2020 Laboratory tations, and other media about
[email protected] environmental effects of marine
renewable energy development.
+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
Environmental Monitoring
Technologies and Techniques
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

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

10.1. 10.2.
BACKGROUND TO ENVIRONMENTAL INSTRUMENT CLASSES USED FOR
MONITORING TECHNOLOGIES AROUND MONITORING MRE DEVICES
TURBINES
A
suite of environmental monitoring instruments has

T
echnological advancements in different instrument been used to monitor the potential environmental
classes, the integration of instruments on subsea effects of MRE devices. The most common instrumen-
monitoring platforms, and improvements of methodolo- tation used to document interactions of marine animals
gies have increased our understanding of the effects that and habitats with MRE devices include passive acoustic
tidal energy turbines and wave energy converters (WECs) instruments, active acoustic instruments, and optical
have on marine organisms. Despite these advances, mon- cameras, while other instrumentation is used to help
itoring challenges remain with respect to the durability define the physical environment in which these interac-
of monitoring equipment in harsh marine environments, tions may occur. Here, we provide an overview of the
power availability/management of integrated monitor- 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.
science in environmental monitoring technologies and PASSIVE ACOUSTICS
techniques, in particular (1) the instrument classes used Within the context of monitoring MRE devices, passive
for monitoring MRE devices (Section 10.2)1, (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

ronmental monitoring instruments and platforms around MRE devices is important because these devices may

MRE devices is the need to have available instrumenta- generate underwater noise (e.g., cavitation and motor/

tion packages that can be safely and effectively used by mechanical noise [Wang et al. 2007]) that could affect

MRE developers around active wave or tidal projects. MRE animal navigation, communication, predation, and life

developers invest time and resources to design against cycles (Lombardi 2016; Pine et al. 2012). Despite a grow-

device failure; the same investments are likely needed for ing body of PAM effort around MRE devices, no com-

monitoring instruments. There is a need to design and mercially available acoustic monitoring systems have

implement simple, robust environmental monitoring been designed specifically for monitoring in the highly

packages because many consenting/permitting (here- energetic marine environments that are sought for MRE

after consenting) decisions are contingent upon the extraction. Instead, various PAM technologies designed

operation and provision of data streams from the instru- for more benign marine environments have been

ments. Many of the instruments described here were experimentally deployed in high-flow environments to

developed for research purposes; additional effort will assess their suitability for monitoring in these condi-

be needed to further marinize and harden the platforms tions. These technologies include conventional cabled

and instruments to assure that the engineering designs or autonomous hydrophone and analog-to-digital

are capable of withstanding the purpose for which they instrument packages, internally recording hydrophones

may be used in the high-energy waters where the har- with digital interfaces, cabled and autonomous hydro-

vesting of tidal and wave energy is planned. phones or vector instrument arrays, and integrated
hydrophone and data processing systems for marine
1. Mention of commercial instruments or other equipment and software mammal detection. In this section, we first consider the
throughout this chapter is meant to illustrate the gear in use and does
not constitute endorsement of any commercial products.

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 moni- provided comprehensive reviews of all published acous-
toring marine sound and marine mammals. tic environmental monitoring activity for MRE devices
Challenges up to 2013. Online supplementary Table S10.1 (online at:
https://tethys.pnnl.gov/state-of-the-science​-2020-sup-
A variety of factors (e.g., flow noise, natural ambient
plementary-environmental-monitoring) provides an
sound, instrument size and geometry, and deploy-
update and expansion of the two previously mentioned
ment method) influence the detection efficiency of PAM
2013 reports and summarizes the various PAM efforts
instruments. However, the primary challenge for PAM
used to characterize (1) ambient noise baseline mea-
in highly energetic marine environments is the identifi-
surements, (2) operational noise, (3) construction and
cation and mitigation of flow noise (Bassett et al. 2014;
installation associated noise, and (4) planned transmis-
Lombardi 2016; Thomson et al. 2012) generated by
sions, and includes selected publications describing the
pressure fluctuations caused by turbulent flow on the
results. Monitoring for marine noise around MRE sites
surface of the hydrophone, or the noise made by water
should follow the protocol of the International Electro-
moving rapidly across the surface of the hydrophone.
technical Commission Technical Specification (IEC TS)
In energetic marine environments, flow noise can mask
62600-40:2019, which provides uniform methodolo-
true propagating sound over a large bandwidth (i.e.,
gies for consistently characterizing the sound produced
0–1 kHz), with increasing intensity and decreasing fre-
by the operation of marine energy converters that gen-
quency, while sediment movement can generate noise
erate electricity from wave, current, and thermal energy
in the 10s of kilohertz, depending on grain size and
conversion (IEC 2019; for details, see Chapter 4, Risk to
material (Bassett 2013; Raghukumar et al. 2019). This
Marine Animals from Underwater Noise Generated by
complicates the accurate characterization of ambient
Marine Renewable Energy Devices).
sound and the quantification of anthropogenic noise
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
boat-based measurements; moored/bottom-mounted
A suite of mechanical solutions to mitigate flow noise
systems and directional arrays or paired hydrophones
have been proposed. For instance, linear arrays of
have been used less frequently. However, many of the
hydrophones have been used to reduce flow noise when
early studies that used drifting boat-based measure-
monitoring tidal energy turbines in open channel tur-
ments suffered from significant contamination of
bulent flow (Auvinen and Barclay 2019; Worthington
the acoustic recordings by noise generated by surface
2014). Because the flow noise is generated locally on
motion, including waves lapping against the boat hull
each instrument, it is independent from one instru-
and topside activity. Subsequent studies deployed
ment to the next, but true propagating sound will
hydrophones under floating buoys using isolation and
appear to be coherent across the array. By coherently
suspension systems, drogues, or catenary sections to
averaging the signals across the array, the flow noise
reduce noise contamination (Figure 10.1). These hydro-
may be suppressed while the true sound is amplified.
phone deployments are described as having the highest
Another commonly used option is the deployment of
fidelity relative to the true sound field—a claim that is
instrumentation on Lagrangian drifting floats in place
frequently substantiated by the reduction of flow noise
of fixed moorings, and the use of flow shields, baffles,
and motion-induced noise levels in subsequently col-
and vibration isolation mounts to minimize flow noise.
lected datasets.
However, none of these approaches are entirely effec-
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 sys-
tems 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 autono-
mous hovercraft with a deployable acoustic instrument
has also been proposed (Barclay 2019), and both of
these technologies could provide duty-cycled long-
term 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 short-
duration signals have reasonably wide bands (10–50
kHz) and are centered at relatively high frequencies
Figure 10.1. Schematic of the components of the “drifting ears”
autonomous recording drifter specifically developed for use in tidal (90–130 kHz). However, the detection efficiency of
streams. This system was designed to keep the hydrophone in a PAM instruments for monitoring marine mammals is
fixed position relative to the body of moving water and is placed in a
submerged underwater drogue. (From Wilson et al. 2014) affected by a variety of factors, including the vocaliza-
tion bandwidth for the species being monitored and
approach, depending on the context of the monitoring
the potential masking of these sounds by flow noise
program being considered. For instance, for quantify-
and ambient noise (e.g., sediment transport on the
ing MRE device-generated noise, flow noise detected
seafloor), as well as by the propagation environment,
by a moored/bottom-mounted system typically masks
reverberation, instrument placement, and instrument
the frequencies of interest (10s–100s of hertz), neces-
deployment methodology (Bassett et al. 2013; Porskamp
sitating a labor-intensive and carefully executed drift-
et al. 2015; Tollit and Redden 2013). By understanding
based measurement campaign. However, in the case of
the relative effects of these factors, the performance
continuous real-time monitoring, a moored/bottom-
of PAM technologies for monitoring marine mammals
mounted system is the only realistic option at this time,
around MRE devices can be assessed. For instance, some
and methods of flow noise suppression (e.g., a flow
frequently observed baleen whales in the Bay of Fundy,
shield) must be used if the objective includes quanti-
Nova Scotia, Canada, (e.g., humpback, fin, and minke
fying MRE device-generated noise. However, there is
whales) produce low-frequency sounds (below 1 kHz),
no standard flow shield design available. Results from
and masking by flow and sediment transport noise may
flow shield experiments have provided mixed results;
contribute to the absence of their detections using PAM
some studies confirm a reduction in flow noise (Bassett
technologies. In addition, a modeling exercise found
2013; Raghukumar et al. 2019), and others demonstrate
that the passive acoustic detection range for southern
a reduction in system sensitivity with no effect on flow
resident killer whale (Orcinus orca) frequently observed
noise in the band of interest (Malinka et al. 2015; Por-
in Admiralty Inlet, in Washington State, United States
skamp et al. 2015).
(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
Because the primary signal of interest for monitoring
ability to transfer data at high speeds with little signal
marine mammals around MRE devices is echolocation
attenuation. The future automation of drifting PAM
clicks, the data recording packages suitable for detec-
systems using unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) to take
tion must have high sampling rates (>250 kHz) and
underwater noise measurements (Lloyd et al. 2017) may
large memory capacities for storing the raw pressure
alleviate the laborious nature of previous drift-based

180 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 algo-
rithm 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 instru-

ments 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
environments have shown the effect of lost time from
Figure 10.2. Examples of a “conventional” PAM instrument (Ocean
flow-induced noise for bottom-mounted and moored
Instruments NZ SoundTrap ST300 HF) (a) and a “stand-alone” PAM
instrument (b). (Photos courtesy of Daniel Hasselman) stand-alone instruments (Porskamp et al. 2015; Wil-
son et al. 2013). Bottom-mounted stand-alone instru-
These two classes of PAM instruments (i.e., “conven- ments generally have more detection minutes per day
tional” and “stand-alone”) have been deployed in than moored systems, during which noise generated by
drifting, moored, bottom-mounted, and MRE device- the mooring system being “blown down” against the
mounted configurations to detect, classify, and localize seabed during periods of high flow may have saturated
various echolocating marine mammals, but have been the detection buffer of the instrument (Porskamp et al.
shown to have different performance depending on a 2015). Alternatively, drifting stand-alone instruments
variety of factors, including the metric being assessed. suspended from Lagrangian drogues or floats do not
For instance, a study in the Baltic Sea found that a appear to suffer from lost time, suggesting that flow-
stand-alone instrument detected 21 to 94 percent of induced noise has less of an impact on the detection
the click trains detected by PAMGuard when applied to buffer in this configuration (Adams 2018; Benjamins
the recordings made with a co-located conventional et al. 2016; Wilson et al. 2013).
instrument (Sarnocinska et al. 2016). The reduced rate
of detections (i.e., clicks per minute) was due to several Detection efficiency also differs between PAM technol-

factors, but primarily the fact that PAMGuard detected ogies; conventional instruments generally have greater

individual clicks, whereas the proprietary software on detection ranges (0–500 m) than stand-alone instru-

the stand-alone instrument detected click trains. How- ments (0–300 m), depending on the conditions under

ever, data collected as clicks per minute by conventional which the tests are conducted (Benjamins et al. 2017;

SECTION C – ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING 181

Kyhn et al. 2008, 2012; Polagye et al. 2012; Porskamp strategies could aid marine mammal monitoring with

et al. 2015; Roberts and Read 2015; Tollit and Redden PAM instruments from bottom-mounted systems and

2013). reduce the confounding effects of noise in high-flow

environments.
Three three-dimensional (3D) localization studies have
been conducted to date. The first involved a vertical 10.2.2.
array of eight large-aperture hydrophones combined
ACTIVE ACOUSTICS – IMAGING SONARS
Active acoustics, as opposed to passive acoustics, gen-
with a small quad array. This system was deployed
erate a sound that is received as a return from the object
from a drifting ship to localize echolocating marine
of interest. For environmental monitoring at MRE sites,
mammals, and provided a detection range of 200 m
imaging sonars provide the advantage of high-resolu-
(Macaulay et al. 2017). The second study involved a
tion imagery in turbid waters without the need for arti-
3D distribution of seven hydrophones mounted on a
ficial illumination (Hastie et al. 2019b). Although imag-
tidal turbine in Ramsey Sound, Wales, and was used to
ing sonars have several advantages over optical imag-
detect and localize dolphins and porpoises (Malinka et
ery, classification of targets is generally more difficult,
al. 2018). The estimated detection range of this system
and data processing methods to allow real-time target
was 20 to 200 m for sound sources with source levels
detection, tracking, and classification relative to current
of 178 to 208 dB re 1 µPa, respectively. However, there
flows are currently under development. Because the
was an estimated 50 percent probability of detection
environmental conditions and instrument configura-
and localization for ranges >20 m, and only an esti-
tions vary among monitoring projects, target-detection
mated 10 percent probability at 50 m. The third study
algorithms require “tuning” relative to current flow,
involved a PAM array for the commissioning of a tidal
and the final target classification step generally requires
kite in the Holyhead Deep, Wales, to detect porpoises
information from a secondary instrument, such as an
and dolphins. It was composed of an 8-channel system
optical camera, an echosounder, or an acoustic Doppler
containing two clusters of four hydrophones that would
current profiler (ADCP), for validation.
together localise cetacean echolocation clicks in 3D and
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
maintenance. Most uses do not require the sonar con-
Although conventional PAM instruments record the
trol software to be integrated on a multi-instrument
entire pressure time series and provide advantages over
platform with other active acoustics. Thus, many of
stand-alone systems for the detection, classification,
the commercially available imaging sonars are not well
and localization of echolocating marine mammals in
suited for monitoring MRE devices, but several have
high-flow environments, important factors to consider
been demonstrated on previous projects. This section
when pairing PAM technology with monitoring objec-
provides an overview of the most frequently used and
tives are the deployment configuration and associated
commercially available imaging sonars for monitoring
costs. While signal masking by flow noise, sediment
MRE devices.
noise, and mooring noise can limit the utility of moored
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 devel-
oper’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 moni- Figure 10.3. Example of a vessel-based sonar configuration. (From
Parsons et al. 2017)
toring project has distinct requirements, which may
change over the course of the project, the most appro-
priate sonar for each application will also vary. The
technical specifications for different sonars affect their
suitability for monitoring MRE devices. The specifica-
tions that have the greatest impact on the capabilities of
imaging sonars for monitoring include (1) the operat-
ing 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 reso-
lution 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 spe-
cific applications are provided in online supplemen-
tary 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 configu-
rations and applications relevant to monitoring MRE
Figure 10.4. Example data from a vessel-based survey using Tritech
devices (Hastie et al. 2019a, 2019b). Several studies have Gemini. (From Parsons et al. 2014)
mounted imaging sonars on a pole and deployed the
maintenance and allows for continuous data collection;
sonar over the side of a vessel to conduct mobile surveys
eliminating the need for real-time target-detection and
(Grippo et al. 2017; Melvin and Cochrane 2015; ORPC
-tracking algorithms. When vessel surveys with imag-
Maine 2014; Parsons et al. 2014, 2017). Parsons et al.
ing sonars are conducted in conjunction with fisheries
(2017) conducted a vessel survey using a Tritech Gemini
echosounders, the combination of techniques allows for
and used the native software for data collection and
fish classification (echosounders) and tracking (imag-
processing. The sonar configuration and vertical field of
ing sonars) when targets can be co-registered between
view (Figure 10.3) and sample data from Parsons et al.
the data streams.
(2014, 2017) (Figure 10.4) are provided below. While the
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 forms, imaging sonars have also been deployed as
field of view allows for target co-registration with the stand-alone instruments. For instance, a Sound Metrics
echosounder and tracking capabilities. Although the Dual-Frequency Identification Sonar (DIDSON) imaging
narrow beam angle for both the imaging sonar and the sonar was deployed on a cabled platform approximately
echosounder results in only a narrow horizontal region 12 m from the base of the tidal turbine used for the Ver-
being monitored concurrently, deployments to date dant Roosevelt Island Tidal Energy project (Bevelhimer
have facilitated the development of target-detection et al. 2016). The platform was equipped with a pan-and-
and -tracking algorithms to simplify data post-pro- tilt system to allow dynamic positioning of the sonar so
cessing. Figure 10.5 provides an example of a processed that the field of view could be adjusted as required. The
data sequence with the imaging sonar and echosounder monitoring objective of the sonar was to observe fish
tracking biological targets on their approach to a tur- behavior relative to the turbine and look for evidence
bine structure. 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. turbine structures for monitoring purposes. The SeaGen
2020), but it has also been used for monitoring at wave project in Strangford Lough used imaging sonars for
energy test sites, although without WECs (i.e., PacWave monitoring the interactions of marine mammals with
site in Oregon, U.S., and Wave Energy Test Site [WETS] tidal energy turbines for the greatest length of time.
in Hawaii, U.S.). Imaging sonars that have higher fre- This project used the Tritech Gemini imaging sonar for
quencies have shorter ranges, while lower frequencies monitoring harbor porpoises (Phocoena phocoena) and
extend the range of target detection. While an earlier harbor seals (Phoca vitulina) (Hastie 2013), and allowed
version of the AMP included a Kongsberg M3 imaging Tritech International Ltd. to implement autonomous
sonar (Cotter et al. 2017), subsequent generations of the

184 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 of imaging sonars and their integration with multi-
(ORPC) vessel-based turbine test platform deployed instrument platforms come from previous failures that
in Cobscook Bay, Maine, U.S., in 2012 to monitor fish often remain undocumented by the teams who have
(Viehman and Zydlewski 2014). Data were collected deployed them. The most common challenges stem
continuously for 22 hours and included manual post- from the durability of the imaging sonar for lengthy
processing. Although these sonars have the highest deployments, or from the software for data collection
resolution of all commercially available imaging sonars, and processing.
they have a short range and narrow field of view.
Long-term deployments of instruments in the marine
Key Considerations 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
possible. Alternatives for sensitive components include
The ideal orientation for an imaging sonar depends on
using biofouling wipers (e.g., ZibraTech Inc.) for opti-
the location and size of the MRE device and the moni-
cal view ports, ultraviolet lights, antifouling paint,
toring objectives. The sonar swath may be oriented to
or highly concentrated zinc oxide paste (exception:
look across, in front of, or behind a device, with a verti-
stainless-steel surfaces). For less sensitive components,
cal or horizontal orientation, and either from a bottom
copper or vinyl tape may be used to coat surfaces to
or surface platform. Each of these configurations has its
inhibit growth or easily remove biofouling.
own challenges and benefits that are difficult to predict
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
produce noise in the sonar imagery. This can be remedied
Custom software for controlling the imaging sonar and
by isolating and filtering the power supplied to the imag-
acquiring data are provided by instrument manufactur-
ers. Customization beyond the native software capabili-
ties is required for integration of multiple instruments
into monitoring platforms, and when data are pro-
cessed 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 Figure 10.6. Example of electrical interference in data from a
BlueView imaging sonar on the Adaptable Monitoring Package (AMP).
Gemini imaging sonars.
Thin radial lines are observed when strobe lights for optical cameras
are active. (From Joslin 2019)

SECTION C – ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING 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
flexibility, transmission pulse types, and processing
The presence of non-biological targets (e.g., debris)
software options, all vetted by the international com-
and environmental artifacts (e.g., turbulent vortices,
munity, make the current generation of commercial
entrained air in the water column) that typify MRE
scientific echosounders the instruments of choice
sites presents challenges for environmental monitor-
for monitoring fish at MRE sites (Horne 2019). Some
ing, because these conditions can mask actual targets
manufacturers also offer a line of scientific echosound-
of interest and impede automatic target-detection
ers that have common architecture and design features,
algorithms. Similarly, moving targets in the sonar field
and include a series of instruments that can actively
of view (e.g., turbine blades, water surface) or a sonar
transmit in narrowband, single-frequency, continu-
mounted on a moving platform can result in large
ous wave or wide-bandwidth, frequency-modulated
changing acoustic artifacts in the sonar image (Urban
mode. When equipped with split-beam transducers,
et al. 2017). For these reasons, integration of imaging
individual targets can be tracked, and their scattering
sonars mounted on subsea platforms, and deployed
strength compensated for based on their location in the
to the side of MRE devices, are most likely to yield the
beam. These echosounders can be used in traditional
highest quality sonar imagery.
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.
Challenges and Mitigation Techniques
2019; Hastie 2013). Although the sound levels are not
The primary challenge for using scientific echosounders
high enough to be of concern, additional research is
to monitor fish interactions with MRE devices in high-
needed to fully characterize behavioral changes that are
flow environments is acoustic signal scattering from
detected by imaging sonars (and echosounders).
air entrained in the water column — a physical feature
10.2.3. common to MRE sites. Because sound energy emitted
ACTIVE ACOUSTICS – ECHOSOUNDERS from a transducer will be reflected when the acoustic
High-fidelity echosounders are a standard tool in fish- impedance (product of sound speed and density) differs
eries science and are routinely used to quantify fish from the surrounding water, scattering from entrained
abundance and distribution (Simmonds and MacLennan air affects the ability to detect targets of interest and
2007). They are also valuable for monitoring the inter- subsequently discriminate between the targets that are
actions of fish with MRE devices and have been used in a biological and those that are non-biological. In addi-
variety of configurations, including mobile hydroacous- tion, when volume scattering from physical sources
tic surveys (McGarry and Zydlewski 2019; Melvin and such as bubbles is sufficiently high, the presence of bio-
Cochrane 2014, 2015) and stationary deployments both logical and other non-biological targets of interest can
at the sea surface (Viehman et al. 2015) and on the sea- be masked (Figure 10.7).
bed (Viehman and Zydlewski 2017; Viehman et al. 2017;
Williamson et al. 2016a). Generally, the probability of detecting a target can
be maximized by a combination of (1) increasing the
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 the transducer), (2) reducing the range to targets, (3)
have been used and found to be effective by the scien- matching the transmit frequency to the intended target

186 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
Work has been ongoing to develop methodologies for
band), and (5) processing raw data to remove noise.
reducing the ambiguity in the classification of acous-
While these techniques can improve the detection of
tic signal scatterers, whether among species or size
targets that have weak scattering properties, or targets
classes (De Robertis et al. 2010; Horne 2000; Kornelius-
at such great distance from the transducer that the
sen 2018), or distinguishing biological sound scatterers
returned echo is not sufficiently greater than the level
(fish, zooplankton) from physical sources of scatter-
of the background ambient noise present in the sea,
ing (entrained air, microstructure) (Lavery et al. 2007,
other techniques are required to classify echo returns
2010; Ross and Lueck 2003; Warren and Wiebe 2008).
from the targets of interest (fish) and the returns from
The echo amplitude of energy backscattered from bio-
other unwanted targets in the water column (bubbles).
logical 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
A downward-looking single-beam Simrad ES60 echo-
techniques have been developed to remove noise (De
sounder (operating at 38 and 200 kHz simultane-
Robertis and Higginbottom 2007; Korneliussen 2000)
ously) was deployed from the side of a moored vessel
and isolate target groups (De Robertis et al. 2010; Fer-
and used to characterize patterns of fish presence and
nandes 2009; Kloser et al. 2002; Sato et al. 2015). To
distribution at the ORPC tidal energy site in Cobscook
address the analytical challenges that arise when the
Bay, Maine, U.S. (Shen et al. 2016; Staines et al. 2019;
background acoustic characteristics are extremely vari-
Viehman et al. 2015). The density of fish was found to
able, multifrequency methodologies capable of target
vary seasonally; the greatest densities were observed
detection within some of the challenging conditions
in the spring and late fall (consistent with migratory
at MRE sites have been developed. They include the
periods), and the greatest densities were consistently
application of a bitmap to isolate targets of interest
detected near the sea floor (Viehman et al. 2015). These
from backscatter data and automating the use of mul-
stationary data were combined with mobile survey data
tifrequency acoustic data to delineate turbulent regions
collected at the ORPC site using a Simrad EK60 split-
and then extract biological targets from within those
beam echosounder to understand fish behavior around
regions (Fraser et al. 2017a; Williamson et al. 2017).
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 sur-
Viehman and Zydlewski (2017) examined data collected
veys are subject to a suite of inherent challenges asso-
by a bottom-mounted, horizontally oriented Simard
ciated with strong currents and turbulent water that
EK60 split-beam echosounder deployed near a tidal
affect their efficacy (e.g., vessel control and positioning,
energy turbine (TidGen® Power System) at the ORPC site
ship noise, intermittent signal loss, and the influence of
in Cobscook Bay. Two years of continuously collected data
surface conditions on the extent of entrained air in the
were used to characterize patterns in fish presence at the
water column) (Melvin and Cochrane 2015). Nonethe-
tidal energy site, and revealed that the abundance of fish
less, this approach is valuable for generating metrics
near the device varied greatly with tidal and diel cycles in
of fish density from the acoustic backscatter of fish in
a seasonally changing relationship that was likely linked
the water column and understanding fish distribution
to the seasonally changing fish community in the region.
near MRE devices (Staines et al. 2019). An alternative
Contrary to observations at other tidal energy sites, the
configuration for monitoring MRE devices is station-
number of fish detected was not associated with cur-
ary deployment of echosounders—both on the surface
rent speed and did not decline with increasing current
(Viehman et al. 2015), and on the seabed (Fraser et al.
speed (Viehman and Zydlewski 2017).
2018; Viehman et al. 2017; Viehman & Zydlewski 2017;
Williamson et al. 2016b). The advantage of a stationary An upward-facing ASL Environmental Sciences Acous-
deployment is the potential for persistent monitor- tic Zooplankton and Fish Profiler (AZFP) with a single-
ing throughout the duration of the deployment. This beam transducer was mounted on a subsea platform
approach is useful for generating long-term, high-res- (FAST-1) and deployed at the Fundy Ocean Research
olution sampling for understanding biological processes Center for Energy (FORCE) test site in Nova Scotia,
at MRE sites where large changes may occur over mul- 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
to validate objects and marine life when used in conjunc-
Multifrequency data (38, 120, and 200 kHz) were col-
tion with active acoustics. Examples include validation of
lected using an upward-facing Simrad EK60 scientific
fish species during acoustic surveys using an ROV (Cam-
echosounder mounted on the FLOWBEC platform (see
panella and Taylor 2016).
Section 10.4.3) and deployed at the European Marine
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
cameras in high-pressure–rated housings (>$4000).
10.2.4.
An overview of standard types of optical cameras is
VIDEO CAMERAS
provided in online supplementary Table S10.3 (online
Video cameras (VCs) can be used to monitor marine
at: https://​tethys​.pnnl​.gov​/state​-of​-the​-science​-2020​
animals’ distribution and behavior, and determine the
-supplementary​-environmental​-monitoring).
species and size of individuals (Box 10.1). Use of VCs is
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. Cam-
era 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,
but the transfer of the cameras and mounting apparatus
Figure 10.8. Example of a school of broad whitefish (Coregonus
nasus) captured with a monochrome video camera. (Photo courtesy to the field site can be challenging because the cameras
of Robert Mueller) 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,
swimming speeds of fish, fish size, and distance of fish to
Most commercial-grade cameras are depth rated and
blade interactions, and at estimating the speeds of cur-
are in a waterproof housing made of titanium, Delrin,
rents (Harvey et al. 2002).
polyvinyl chloride, acrylic, or aluminum. An alternative
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
object in contrast to stereo imaging where more objects
Applications
can be measured per image.
Systems to Measure Object Size and Swimming Speed
Fish size and swimming speed can be determined using Systems for Long-Term Recording and Storage
stereo-VC systems. This method incorporates two cam- For long-term continuous recording, cabled systems
eras positioned side by side at a set distance. Images are of various types with a dedicated recording location
synchronized via computer by using a LED light placed on the shore or on a stationary platform have several
at a set distance and activated on/off and seen on both advantages (online supplementary Table S10.4; online
images (Harvey et al. 2002; Langlois et al. 2012; Lines et 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 Marine Renewable Energy Installation (MREI) Develop-
(United Kingdom [UK]) – At the 30 kW demonstrator turbine ment Zone (Wave Hub) and Seabed Cable Installation near
installed by Nova Innovation in Bluemull Sound, subsea video is Cornwall (UK) – Video monitoring studies were conducted off
used to monitor for potential collisions and nearfield interactions the north coast of Cornwall (UK) between 2011 and 2015 using
of marine mammals with turbines (Smith and Simpson 2018). The baited remote underwater video. The deployed system used
video monitoring uses three cameras per turbine, attached to the a weighted aluminum frame, wide-angle lens, housing, and
nacelle (two directed toward the turbine rotor and one directed white light-emitting diode (LED) lights, and an aluminum pole,
toward the seabed). The turbine is not illuminated, so video moni- to which bait was attached, was located near the camera. The
toring is only effective during daylight hours. The camera is con- system was effective at determining the diversity, abundance,
nected to a standard closed-circuit television (CCTV) system with and composition of mobile epi-benthic species in highly dynamic
a motion trigger to record continuously, and triggered footage is conditions. Other advantages included its cost-effectiveness and
retained for post-hoc analysis. flexibility to provide spatial and temporal coverage that can be
Sustainable Marine Energy, Grand Passage, Bay of Fundy, difficult to obtain using other methods (Bicknell et al. 2019).
Nova Scotia (Canada) – At the PLAT-I tidal energy converter European Marine Energy Centre offshore tidal energy
in Grand Passage, Nova Scotia, Canada, four MacArtney LUXUS test site, Isle of Eday, Orkney Islands (UK) – A combination
Compact PUR subsea cameras were installed to collect under- of optical video and acoustic Doppler current profiler (ADCP)
water video to meet requirements under the Environmental survey techniques was used to examine the presence of Pollack
Effects Monitoring Plan developed by Sustainable Marine Energy (Pollachius virens) temporarily aggregating in shoals around
(Canada) Ltd. Each camera was positioned facing downstream, the deployed device from 2009 and 2010. The combined use of
approximately centered on its associated rotor with a field of video/still photography and ADCP sampling techniques proved
view approximately 10 percent larger than the rotor diameter. useful in the offshore and extreme hydrodynamic environments.
Visibility was generally good, featuring sufficient light and limited Study results indicated that the use of such systems provided
suspended particles. A total of 14 hours of video were reviewed preliminary ecological quantitative information, which can help
by an experienced third-party contractor to screen for potential regulatory bodies and developers begin to define ecological
animal sightings. The video quality was rated as fair to good, interactions with marine tidal energy developments (Broadhurst
and inanimate materials such as seaweed and other debris were et al. 2014).
noted frequently. Aside from several observations of jellyfish, U.S. Navy’s Wave Energy Test Site (WETS) in Kaneohe,
only one positive identification of marine life was made (a small Hawaii, Fred. Olsen Ltd and Sequim Bay, WA (U.S.) –
fish, possibly a rainbow smelt [Osmerus mordax]). Stereo-optical cameras with artificial illumination and biofoul-
Ocean Renewable Power Company, Kvichak River, Iguigig, ing mitigation have been a critical component of the Adaptable
Alaska (United States [U.S.]) – In the Kvichak River, Alaska, Monitoring Package (AMP). This optical system, which was
optical cameras were used to understand fish behavior around a developed by the Applied Physics Laboratory at the University
horizontal axis helical turbine (Matzner et al. 2017). In more than of Washington uses two machine vision cameras (Allied Vision
42 hours of camera footage reviewed from the Kvichak River, Technologies, Manta G-507B) that have 5 mm lenses (Kowa
there were only 20 potential contact interactions, of which three LM5JCM) and high-power LED arrays (Cree CXB-3950 and
were classified as “Maybe” collisions after close visual examina- custom 710 nm red LED arrays) for illumination. Each of these
tion (Matzner et al. 2017). On only one occasion was an actual components is packaged in custom waterproof housings and
contact confirmed, and this was an adult fish that contacted the configured on the AMP with camera-camera and camera-light
camera, not the turbine itself. separations of approximately 0.4 m, which minimize optical
Development of an Ocean Energy Impact Monitoring Sys- backscatter (Joslin et al. 2014). Biofouling mitigation measures
tem, Scotland (UK) – In 2017, as part of the Development of include a copper ring around the planar view ports of the cam-
an Ocean Energy Impact Monitoring System project, the statu- eras and lights and mechanical brush wipers (Zebra-Tech Ltd.)
tory advisor to the Scottish Government on nature conservation, (Joslin and Polagye 2015). This system has provided high-reso-
Scottish Natural Heritage, commissioned a review of subsea lution imagery of targets of interest throughout deployments of
video monitoring data collected around operational tidal energy up to six months duration in Sequim Bay, Washington, and at the
projects. Further information about this review, which examined WETS in Hawaii. From fall 2018 to spring 2019 during a deploy-
footage from three operational projects, and information about ment at WETS on board the Fred Olsen Lifesaver wave energy
other tidal projects that have used subsea video to monitor converter, images were used to identify species of reef fish that
nearfield interactions of marine wildlife with turbines is provided congregated under the surface buoy. Co-registration of targets
in Chapter 3 (Collision Risk for Animals around Turbines). identified in both the sonar and optical imagery allows for a
higher level of target classification and simplifies data review.

SECTION C – ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING 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
pigments have absorption peaks around 455 nm (blue),
Challenges
530 nm (green), and 625 nm (red); coastal marine fish
Data Storage
are in the 490 to 510 nm range; whereas deep-sea marine
VCs produce large data files compared to other instru-
fish are more blue-shifted (470 to 490 nm) (Jobling 1995;
ment packages, so they require large amounts of data
Lythgoe 1988). However, IR light has high attenuation in
storage space and create significant challenges when
water and is only effective at ranges up to 1.5 m for 700
transmitting and analyzing the information. Several
nm ( Kyhn et al. 2012; Matsuoka et al. 1997).
strategies can be used to decrease the amount of data
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
10.3.
MRE devices (LiVecchi et al. 2019). A key factor in bat-
tery selection is the consumption rated in ampere- CHALLENGES OF MONITORING
hours for a given component. The ampere-hour rating AROUND MRE DEVICES

E
is the total amount of energy that a battery can deliver
nvironmental monitoring of MRE devices is made
for 20 hours at 26°C before the battery drops to 10.5 V
inherently challenging by the harsh conditions
before becoming fully discharged. Deep-cycle marine
under which the monitoring must take place, the need
batteries are the preferred type because they are
to manage power for multiple instruments to assure
designed to withstand frequent cycles of deep discharge
continued monitoring, and the volume of data gener-
and recharge. Light sources usually require a great
ated by the suite of instruments deployed. This section
deal of power. The light duration can be extended by
provides an overview of the various challenges of envi-
decreasing the intensity (wattage) of the lights, adding
ronmental monitoring around MRE devices.
battery ampere-hours (e.g., keeping a larger battery at
a higher temperature), changing the battery type (using 10.3.1.
lithium batteries instead of lead or nickel-cadmium SURVIVABILITY/DURABILITY AND ROBUST
types), or adding a generator or solar-powered bat-
OPERATION
Conditions at locations suitable for the development of
tery charger. The power requirements for underwater
marine energy are inherently challenging for engineer-
VCs are usually 12 to 24 VDC (volts direct current) at
ing durable and robust systems. Namely, forces from
approximately 110 mA for non-lighted models. In addi-
high-energy waves and currents compound the cus-
tion, if real-time processing is embedded in the VC the
tomary challenges of working in marine environments
power requirement can be significantly increased (Qi et
including pressure, corrosion, and biofouling. In addi-
al. 2018).
tion, deployment, maintenance, and recovery operations
Conclusion 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,
Hydrodynamic Forcing
the subject of observation, and the data needs. There are
Fluid-structure interactions in flowing water lead
many commercial options for hardening systems against
to hydrodynamic forces of lift (perpendicular to the
ocean conditions and depths, as well as for transmitting
direction of flow) and drag (parallel to the direction
or retrieving images and video. Other types of monitor-
of flow) acting on submerged bodies. Currents tend
ing technology, such as ADCP and acoustic imaging, can
to be stronger closer to the surface and weakest at the
be incorporated with optical imaging to provide addi-
seabed. Monitoring systems operating in high-flow
tional context for fish behavior and interactions. Surface
environments must be secured to prevent sliding, flip-
observations made from shore, vessel, or aircraft (includ-
ping, floating away, or structural failure caused by drag
ing drones) can provide information about and context
and lift. Three main methods are employed, typically
for what animals may be in the area and some common
in tandem, to limit these outcomes: reducing the drag
behaviors in the vicinity of MRE devices, particularly for
and lift coefficients by streamlining exposed compo-
marine mammals and fish. These observations may help
nents, reducing exposed frontal area, and increasing
to distinguish and identify particular species and allow
the weight of the monitoring system. The former two
for comparisons with underwater video.
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 pil-
ings, but will likely involve increased cost and complex-
ity. 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-
formance or interfere with critical components such
Forces from waves manifest through several pathways.
as recovery equipment. The fouling process begins
Below the surface, waves induce the circular flow or orbital
with the formation of thin biofilms (microorganisms)
motion of water, decreasing in magnitude with depth, and
on exposed surfaces, followed by the colonization or
resulting in lift and drag forces on structures, as described
recruitment of larger macro-organisms (Bixler and
above. The hydrostatic force of a wave is proportional to
Bhushan 2012). Flora and fauna vary by region and
its height. Designers of monitoring systems built to with-
depth and may be inconsistent from season to season
stand wave forcing may take several approaches: deploy-
or year to year. Biofouling can interfere with trans-
ing the system deep enough to avoid orbital motion,
ducer elements, cover optical ports, clog bearings, and
designing structures to follow waves instead of absorbing
increase drag. Considerable effort over many decades
energy from them, avoiding the surf zone, and/or using
has gone into preventing or mitigating biofouling,
durable materials and structural designs.
yielding solutions including engineering for specialized
Corrosion and Biofouling 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
Pressure and Sealing
“anodic” materials are consumed (The Electrochemical
Commercially available instruments and instrumenta-
Society 2011). Corrosion rates vary based on many fac-
tion subsystems intended for submersion are rated to
tors and may be hard to predict. Seawater is a particu-
specific depths and sealed to prevent structural col-
larly corrosive environment because of its high conduc-
lapse caused by pressure and water ingress. Similarly,
tivity. Galvanic circuits in seawater yield corrosion rates
individual enclosures may be rated by the level of envi-
5 to 12 times greater than if no electrolytes were present,
ronmental protection. For example, ingress protection
while rates may increase two to five times in freshwater
codes and standards, published by the IEC specify rat-
(The Electrochemical Society 2011). Solutions to cor-
ings indicating protection from splashing, water jets,
rosion issues include using less reactive or “cathodic”
or submersion (IEC 2013). Sealed enclosures containing
materials such as titanium or certain stainless-steel
instrumentation or electronics introduce additional
alloys at increased cost, coatings and anodization, or
challenges, including temperature management, con-
isolating dissimilar metals using nonconducting materi-
nectivity, and maintenance. Common practices to
als. Strongly anodic materials should not be used in the
mitigate these including filling housings with mineral
presence of strongly cathodic ones. Alternatively, sacri-
oil or other inert incompressible fluids, using wet-
ficial anodes made of zinc or other highly reactive met-
mate connectors, and using magnetic or reed switches.
als can be employed to protect more cathodic materials
Experience to date with MRE monitoring instruments
from natural or galvanic corrosion (The Electrochemical
has shown connectors to be the most common point of
Society 2011). Ultimately, experience shows that under
failure. Many connectors used for offshore oil and gas
certain circumstances, even parts made of titanium
development are designed to effectively seal at greater
can corrode, particularly when exposed to low-oxygen,
depths than is typical for MRE deployments.
high-temperature conditions (Pang and Blackwood
2016).

194 OES-ENVIRONMENTAL 2020 STATE OF THE SCIENCE REPORT

 a 10.3.2.
DATA MORTGAGES
Reliable detection of rare events, such as interac-
tions between a marine mammal and a tidal turbine,
requires monitoring over long periods (on the order
of days to years) to satisfy licensing conditions. How-
ever, continuous acquisition of data from medium- and
high-bandwidth instruments, such as optical cam-
eras 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
uncompressed images in a single day. This challenge
b 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 loca-
tions. Power delivery can be accomplished through one or
Figure 10.9. The Adaptable Monitoring Package (AMP), before (a.) a combination of the following methods: running a power
and after (b.) deployment for 18 weeks in Sequim Bay, Washington, cable to the deployment location, including individual
United States. (Photos courtesy of Applied Physics Laboratory,
University of Washington) instrument batteries or a centralized battery bank, and
coupling to an in situ power generation source.
Deployment, Maintenance, and Recovery Cabled Systems
Deployment, maintenance, and recovery of monitor-
Cabled operation offers the highest level of power and
ing systems where marine energy resources are strong
typically enables the ability to stream or easily access
is a major challenge. Indeed, at sites where the resource
data from shore. Cabled observatories currently provide
is the strongest or most consistent, the access to and
an unprecedented ability to observe the oceans (Smith
ultimately the availability of the systems may be most
et al. 2018). The characteristics of the cable are deter-
limited (O’Connor et al. 2013). Scheduling of marine
mined by the requirements of the instruments. Depend-
operations depends on vessel and crew availability, which
ing on these requirements, the cable may conduct AC
often requires weeks or months of advanced planning.
or DC electricity. Most of the instruments and systems
The types of vessels required to operate in high waves or
described in this chapter accept external power over a
strong currents are often rare and more expensive. For
range of 5 to 48 VDC. A higher export voltage than listed
tidal energy sites, the high degree of predictability of the
for the instruments must be run to account for voltage
resource aids in planning operations. However, perform-
drop across the cable itself and during startup (inrush
ing tasks during short slack water windows increases risk
current) or high sampling events. Therefore, one or
to personnel and equipment if complications arise. Low
several DC/DC converters are required to step the volt-
wave weather windows are harder to predict, but favor-
age down to instrument level. If AC power is used, a rec-
able conditions may last for many hours or days.

SECTION C – ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING 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
systems are high or largely unknown, likely rivaling
Battery-powered Systems
those of cable installations (depending on the distance
Many of the instruments mentioned in this chapter are
from shore). National laboratories, academic universi-
designed to be pre-configured and run autonomously
ties, and industry are conducting further research and
using their own internal batteries. Consequently, they
commercial ventures to meet these challenges.
have been designed to use small amounts of power and/
or have adjustable sampling rates and duty cycles. For
many of them, much of their volume is occupied by bat-
10.4.
teries (e.g., ADCPs). Systems running on batteries can be
designed to be deployed anywhere. The major trade-off
INTEGRATED MONITORING
for relying on internal batteries is broad applicability PLATFORMS CURRENTLY USED TO
and reliability countered by limited duration, a lack of MONITOR MRE DEVICES
operational feedback, and no native synchronization

A
variety of integrated monitoring platforms have been
of measurements. Integrated monitoring systems can
developed and deployed for monitoring MRE devices.
also employ larger, centralized battery banks to power
They include a series of autonomous and cabled platforms
instruments. This method may extend the duration
that have an array of monitoring instruments integrated
and enable centralized control of duty cycles. However,
for power requirements and duty cycles. This section pro-
similar to cabled systems, DC/DC power converters are
vides an overview of the various integrated monitoring
necessary, and they add complexity and heat genera-
platforms that have been developed and deployed.
tion to such systems. Other challenges of using batteries
are their increased volume and weight, the safety and 10.4.1.
transportability for certain chemistries (e.g., lithium- ADAPTABLE MONITORING PACKAGE
ion), and the high cost to seal large volumes. The AMP (Figure 10.10) is an instrumentation platform
developed to provide continuous underwater monitoring
Marine Energy-powered Systems for multi-month deployments around marine energy
Ocean observation systems were identified as a key devices using autonomous data processing and real-
near-term market for the marine energy industry in the time target detection and tracking (Cotter et al. 2017,
U.S. DOE Powering the Blue Economy report (LiVecchi et Polagye et al. 2020). Deployments to date have included
al. 2019). This option has the potential to provide power both cabled and autonomous systems, on both bottom
between a cable and a battery bank anywhere there is landers and surface buoys. More than two years of sea
sufficient resource availability. This concept has been testing have demonstrated the systems’ monitoring
demonstrated for a WEC at the WETS in Kaneohe Bay, capabilities in wave climates, high current channels, and
Hawaii, U.S. The WEC, when coupled to a battery bank onboard vessels.
and backup solar panel allowed the AMP to reach 84
percent uptime over a 108-day deployment period (Jos- The backbone of the AMP hardware is a power and com-

lin et al. 2019). Other monitoring systems use marine munications system that allows any cabled instrument

energy for motion or to perform profiling, thereby off- to be integrated into the platform. To date, these instru-

setting electrical demands (Manley and Willcox 2010; ments have included stereo-optical cameras with lights

Pinkel et al. 2011). Despite promising potential, chal- and wipers, acoustical cameras, multibeam sonars,

lenges remain for this method. First, the maturity and echosounders, hydrophones, ADCPs, fish tag receivers,

technical readiness of most marine energy systems is actuators, and water-clarity instruments. The combina-

196 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 tur-
bines deployed at FORCE, but its deployment location
is limited by the useful range of the Gemini 720is mul-
tibeam 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 transferability, and the associated equipment enabling
subsea instrument package developed by the University of Washington the functioning of the monitoring instruments includes
that is used to monitor marine renewable energy devices. (Image cour-
tesy of Applied Physics Laboratory, University of Washington) a termination canister and a multiplexer linking to the
subsea power cable. Onshore assets at FORCE include a
tions of these instruments can enable a wide range of
suite of supporting infrastructure for data transferabil-
monitoring and tracking capabilities depending on the
ity that has been demonstrated to provide faster upload
objectives. The data acquisition, processing, and manage-
of multibeam data than the rate at which those data
ment for this system use custom software that integrates
could be collected (i.e., 100 Mbps up/down capabilities).
the operation and control of each instrument. Real-time
algorithms have been implemented to perform target Multiple short-term trial deployments of the cabled
detection, tracking, and classification of data from the FAST-EMS platform conducted near the FORCE tidal
imaging sonars and hydrophones, which are used to trig- demonstration site to assess system performance
ger artificial illumination for the optical cameras and data revealed that monitoring instruments performed well
acquisition from all sensors. This real-time continuous under relatively benign marine conditions. However,
data processing allows the system to capture rare events more work with electrical connectors and data transfer
without accruing a large data mortgage and minimizes with lengthier subsea cables is required to advance FAST-
bias on marine life related to artificial illumination. EMS beyond the research and development stage to an
integrated monitoring platform that can be used reliably
To date, instrument settings and target-detection
for monitoring interactions of marine animals with tidal
thresholds have been tuned during the first phase of
turbines at the FORCE tidal demonstration site.
the deployment to fit the site and monitoring goals. The
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) pro-
gram for environmental monitoring of tidal turbines in
Minas Passage, in the Bay of Fundy. This cabled subsea
Environmental Monitoring System (i.e., FAST-EMS) Figure 10.11. Fundy Ocean Research Centre for Energy (FORCE)’s
includes (1) a Tritech Gemini 720is multibeam imag- Fundy Advanced Sensor Technology Environmental Monitoring
ing sonar mounted on a Kongsberg pan and tilt device, System (FAST-EMS) integrated and cabled monitoring platform posi-
tioned on the FORCE beach. (Photo courtesy of FORCE)

SECTION C – ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING 197

10.4.3. camera has recently been integrated to confirm species
FLOW, WATER COLUMN AND BENTHIC identification when lighting and visibility permit, and
ECOLOGY 4D a hydrophone has been integrated to monitor ambient
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 Crucially, these instruments operate simultaneously
10.12) was developed, which integrated multiple instru- without interference using a modular and adaptable
ments to concurrently monitor the physical and ecolog- control system to allow the concurrent measurement of
ical environment in marine energy sites (Williamson et animal behavior and explanatory variables (Williamson
al. 2016a). Onboard batteries and data storage provided et al. 2017), and to investigate comparisons and transfer-
continuous recording of a 14-day spring/neap tidal ability between sites (Wiesebron et al. 2016). Co-registra-
cycle to investigate the predictable behavior of animals tion between instruments also allows measurements to
over tidal and diel cycles (Williamson et al. 2019). The be validated, and ground-truthing of bird and mammal
self-contained platform allows measurements to be 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. completed at a variety of wave and tidal stream energy
2017b) around MRE structures. Developments are under sites in Scotland—both EMEC (Orkney, Scotland) and
way to extend the battery-powered deployments using MeyGen (Pentland Firth, Scotland)—including around
instrument triggering (i.e., only using higher power the Atlantis and OpenHydro tidal turbine support struc-
instruments during detected periods of interest). A tures and in reference areas, free of devices.
cabled interface providing real-time data and a contin-
10.4.4.
uous power supply have also been developed to extend
SEA MAMMAL RESEARCH UNIT
monitoring endurance.
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
The primary target species was harbor porpoise, which
ADCP was used to take hydrodynamic measurements
echolocate at 130 kHz, so hydrophones were sampled
of flow and turbulence throughout the water column. A
at 500 kHz, generating ~1 Tb of raw data per day. Data

Figure 10.12. The FLOWBEC-4D platform during deployment at the Figure 10.13. Photograph of the MeyGen turbine support structure
European Marine Energy Center in the United Kingdom. (From Wil- during installation showing the locations of the three hydrophone
liamson et al. 2016a) 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 PAM-
Guard software (Gillespie et al. 2008b). The system was
operational between October 2017 and October 2019.
Data were manually screened offline to confirm spe-
cies and to localize clicks in three dimensions. Several
hundred porpoise tracks around the turbine have been
acquired and are being analyzed for evidence of fine-
scale avoidance behavior.

The turbine connection system is currently being Figure 10.14. Schematic of the marine mammal High Current Under-
water Platform (HiCUP) developed by the Sea Mammal Research Unit
reconfigured for a new platform, the marine mammal (SMRU) at the University of St Andrews. (Image courtesy of SMRU,
HiCUP (High Current Underwater Platform) (Figure University of St Andrews)
10.14) to be deployed in late 2020. The new system
include hydrophones, active sonar system (provided by
is built into a gravity-mounted platform that also
Ultra Electronics), underwater CCTV, ADCP, and other
includes two Tritech Gemini 720i multibeam imaging
standard equipment to measure temperature, salinity,
sonars, which enable the system to also detect and track
and density. It can be connected to the shore via a subsea
grey seals (Halichoerus grypus) and harbor seals, which
cable to facilitate 24/7 real-time data collection to deliver
rarely vocalize under water.
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 detect-
The IMP is set up as a plug-and-play prototype in
ing marine mammals at ranges up to ~50 m and does
which it is possible to install additional instruments
not elicit overt behavioral responses in seals (Hastie et
as required. More recently in 2017, through the In Situ
al. 2019a). A single tetrahedral cluster of hydrophones is
Turbulence Replication Evaluation and Measurement
mounted close to the sonars to give horizontal and eleva-
project, the pod was reinstalled with a Rockland Scien-
tion angles to sounds, and provides species identifica-
tific turbulence instrument onboard. The instrument
tion, separating clicks from porpoise and dolphin species,
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 Reli-
able 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 oper-
ate in high-velocity tidal flows. It integrates a variety of
instruments to undertake comprehensive concurrent
environmental measurements, supply real-time data, Figure 10.15. The European Marine Energy Centre (EMEC)’s Inte-
and provide improved characterization of high-energy grated Monitoring Pod (IMP) during deployment under the Energy
Technologies Institute (ETI)’s Reliable Data Acquisition Platform for
marine environments. Instruments onboard the IMP Tidal (ReDAPT) project. (Photo courtesy of EMEC)

SECTION C – ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING 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 pro-
cesses for onboard collection of monitoring data need to
be weighed against the collection of excessive amounts
10.5. of data and the concerns about missing rare events and
LESSONS LEARNED FROM the future potential use of those data.

MONITORING ACTIVITIES

B
uilding on the information about collision risk to 10.6.
marine animals from Chapter 3 (Collision Risk for
Animals around Turbines), our collective understand-
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR QUALITY
ing of the effects of MRE devices on marine animals has DATA COLLECTION, MANAGEMENT,
improved because of advances made in methodologi- AND ANALYSIS

I
cal processes, innovations in monitoring technologies,
nternational- and national-level agreements on the
the integration of state-of-the-art instrumentation on
suite of instruments required for monitoring MRE
autonomous and cabled subsea monitoring platforms,
devices and for documenting interactions that cannot be
and their subsequent deployments in harsh marine con-
resolved by research studies alone are needed. Research
ditions. These improvements stem from the series of
studies should be aligned with critical questions posed
largely undocumented failures and setbacks experienced
by licensing requirements and dictated by the results of
by those who pioneered monitoring activities for the
ongoing monitoring and research campaigns. Model-
nascent MRE industry and initially employed standard
ing studies remain an essential part of understanding
oceanographic and remote-sensing technologies in this
the environmental risks of MRE devices and should be
new context. Although the knowledge gained from this
employed, as appropriate. For cases where no data cur-
process has greatly advanced monitoring capabilities,
rently exist (e.g., changes in oceanographic systems),
ongoing challenges remain, including the need to assure
models can be employed to help guide monitoring pro-
the durability of sensitive equipment; power availability
grams for when MRE arrays are established. Where few
and management for integrated monitoring systems;
data currently exist (e.g., collision risk), models can
and continuous data collection, storage, and analysis.
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.
The data mortgage challenge can be addressed through
However, there are currently no commercially avail-
the collection of data on a sparse duty cycle (e.g., only
able “fit for purpose” instrumentation packages, and
record five minutes of data every hour). However, this
monitoring still relies on oceanographic, hydroacous-
approach would likely miss rare events of interest. Alter-
tic, and other instruments that are intended for use in

200 OES-ENVIRONMENTAL 2020 STATE OF THE SCIENCE REPORT

natively, automated data processing can be implemented 10.6.2.
to identify periods of interest in the collected data. When 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
compare the size, shape, and speed of targets. Cotter et
Recently, there has been a push to improve automatic
al. (2017) implemented multibeam sonar target track-
data processing methods for environmental data
ing in real time and used it to limit data acquisition to
derived from MRE sites to decrease the volume of data
periods when targets were predicted to be present. This
that must be analyzed, the rate at which the data can
approach recorded an estimated 99 percent of targets
be analyzed, and increase the accuracy of results. Here,
with a 58 percent true positive rate. Cotter and Polagye
we provide a brief overview of recent advancements in
(2020) evaluated real-time classification of these target
the automated processing of passive acoustics, active
tracks and found that a random forest algorithm dis-
acoustics, and optical camera data at marine energy
tinguished between the biological and non-biological
sites.
targets with a 97 percent true positive rate.
10.6.1.
The processing of echosounder data typically involves
PASSIVE ACOUSTICS
the separation of pixels that are above a static mini-
Automated detection and localization of vocalizing
mum backscatter strength threshold (Simmonds and
marine mammals can be used to quantify the presence
MacLennan 2007). However, at marine energy sites,
and behavior of vocalizing marine mammals. PAMGuard
this approach is generally not viable because of vari-
(www.PAMGuard.org; Gillespie et al. 2008b), an open-
able background backscatter strength levels and the
source software package for automated processing of
presence of entrained air that has backscatter strength
passive acoustic data, has been widely used for the pro-
comparable to targets of interest (Fraser et al. 2017a). As
cessing of data from marine energy sites. For example,
a result, the processing of echosounder data at marine
Malinka et al. (2018) used PAMGuard to detect marine
energy sites has relied heavily on human review and fre-
mammal clicks and tonal sounds in real time, and this
quently excludes the top of the water column (Viehman
information was used to limit data acquisition to periods
et al. 2018; Wiesebron et al. 2016). To combat this, Fraser
when a vocalization was detected. These detected vocal-
et al. (2017a) developed an adaptive filtering approach to
izations were later manually reviewed for accuracy. Even
suppress background noise in echosounder data using a
though mechanical sounds from the monitored tidal tur-
moving median filter and morphological filtering to sep-
bine caused occasional false detections, the data review
arate targets of interest from entrained air. This approach
effort was significantly reduced compared to review of
was found to reliably detect fish schools throughout the
continuously acquired data. Other examples of automated
entire water column in echosounder data collected from a
detection of marine mammal vocalizations using PAM-
bottom platform at the Fall of Warness in Scotland.
Guard can be found in publications by Fernandez-Betelu
et al. (2019), Macaulay et al. (2017), and Wilson et al.
(2013).

SECTION C – ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING 201

10.6.3.
OPTICAL CAMERAS
10.7.
Automated data processing for optical camera data at 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 ambi- drifter and porpoise detection software for monitoring
ent light. Most existing algorithms developed for target Atlantic harbour porpoise (Phocoena phocoena) activity
detection and classification in underwater camera imag- in and near Minas Passage. Bachelor’s Thesis, Acadia
ery have focused on brightly colored coral fish or deep- University, Wolfville, Nova Scotia. https://tethys.pnnl​
water environments with constant artificial illumination, .gov/publications/application-multi-hydrophone-drifter​
and are not suitable for data collected at marine energy -porpoise-detection-software-monitoring-atlantic
sites (Xu and Matzner 2018). Xu and Matzner (2018)
Auvinen, M. F., Barclay, D. R., and Coffin, M. E. W. 2019.
applied a deep neural network, YOLO v3 (Redmon and
Performance of a Passive Acoustic Linear Array in a
Farhadi 2018), to automate the detection of fish in optical
Tidal Channel. IEEE Journal of Oceanic Engineering, 1-10.
camera data from two tidal energy sites and one conven-
doi:10.1109/JOE.2019.2944444 https://tethys.pnnl.gov​
tional hydropower site. The YOLO algorithm was imple-
/publications/performance-passive-acoustic-linear-array​
mented in EyeSea (Matzner et al. 2019), an open-source
-tidal-channel
application framework for manual or automated annota-
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
Bassett, C. 2013. Ambient noise in an urbanized tidal
turbine deployment at EMEC, it was able to identify fish
channel. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Wash-
with 75 percent precision and 50 percent recall in valida-
ington, Seattle, Washington. https://tethys.pnnl.gov​
tion data from the same test site. However, when trained
/publications/ambient-noise-urbanized-tidal-channel
using data from other sites, the model was found to not
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
Bassett, C., Thomson, J., Dahl, P. H., and Polagye, B.
fish that tend to gather near cameras on marine energy
2014. Flow-noise and turbulence in two tidal channels.
converter environmental monitoring instruments (Mitch-
The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 135(4),
ell Scott, personal communication).
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. Sedi-

ment-generated noise and bed stress in a tidal channel.
Journal of Geophysical Research: Oceans, 118(4), 2249-
2265. 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​
-observational-pilot-study
Benjamins, S., van Geel, N., Hastie, G., Elliott, J., and
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-turbine-
Copping, A., Hanna, L., Whiting, J., Geerlofs, S., Grear,
strike-probability-model​-through-characterization-fish
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
Systems. https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/state-of-the​
Booth, D. J., and Beretta, G. A. 2002. Changes in a fish
-science-2016
assemblage after a coral bleaching event. Marine Ecol-
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​
-environmental-cycles-occurrence-dolphins
De Robertis, A., and Higginbottom, I. 2007. A post-
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​
-environments
De Robertis, A., McKelvey, D. R., and Ressler, P. H.
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​
-installation-benthic-boundary-layer-tidal
Demer, D. A., Andersen, L. N., Bassett, C., Berger, L.,
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).
Gillespie, D., Mellinger, D. K., Gordon, J., McLaren, D.,
https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/evaluation-wideband​
Redmond, P., McHugh, R., Trinder, P., Deng, X. Y., and
-echosounder-fisheries-marine-ecosystem-science
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​
.3103 https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/automated​
Harvey, E., Fletcher, D., and Shortis, M. 2002. Estima-
-detection-tracking-marine-mammals-novel-sonar-tool​
tion of reef fish length by divers and by stereo-video A
-monitoring-effects-marine
first comparison of the accuracy and precision in the
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://
International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC). 2019.
tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/tracking-marine​-mammals-
Marine energy - Wave, tidal and other water current
around-marine-renewable-energy-devices​-using-
converters - Part 40: Acoustic characterization of
active-sonar
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
Jacobson, E. K., Forney, K. A., and Barlow, J. 2017. Using
tracking system. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Fresh-
paired visual and passive acoustic surveys to estimate
water Ecosystems, 29(4), 564-575. doi:10.1002/aqc.3017
passive acoustic detection parameters for harbor por-
https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/three-dimensional​
poise abundance estimates. The Journal of the Acoustical
-movements-harbour-seals-tidally-energetic-channel​
Society of America, 141(1), 219-230. doi:10.1121/1.4973415
-application-novel
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​
Korneliussen, R. J. (Ed.) 2018. Acoustic target classifica-
-around-tidal-turbines
tion. 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​
/S0025315408000416 https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications​
Joslin, J., Cotter, E., Murphy, P., Gibbs, P., Cavagnaro,
/harbour-porpoise-phocoena-phocoena-static-acoustic​
R., Crisp, C., Stewart, A., Polagye, B., Cross, P., Hjetland,
-monitoring-laboratory-detection
E., Rocheleau, A., and Waters, B. 2019. The wave-pow-
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​
.gov/publications/echolocation-clicks-animal-density​
Joslin, J., and Polagye, B. 2015. Demonstration of Bio-
-acoustic-sampling-harbor-porpoises-static-0
fouling Mitigation Methods for Long-Term Deploy-
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-
mates. PLoS ONE, 7(11), e45973. doi:10.1371/journal.pone​
Joslin, J., Polagye, B., and Parker-Stetter, S. 2012.
.0045973 https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/similarities​
Development of a stereo camera system for monitoring
-between-line-fishing-baited-stereo-video-estimations​
hydrokinetic turbines. Paper presented at 2012 Oceans,
-length-frequency
Hampton Roads, VA . doi:10.1109/OCEANS.2012.6405043
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​
Macaulay, J., Gordon, J., Gillespie, D., Malinka, C., and
.pnnl.gov/publications/determining-dominant-scatterers​
Northridge, S. 2017. Passive acoustic methods for fine-
-sound-mixed-zooplankton-populations
scale 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​
Malinka, C., Hay, A., and Cheel, R. 2015. Towards Acoustic
.gov/publications/optimising-multiple-multibeam-sonars​
Monitoring of Marine Mammals at a Tidal Turbine Site:
-assess-marine-life-interactions-underwater-kite
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://​
Malinka, C. E., Gillespie, D. M., Macaulay, J. D. J., Joy,
tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/automatic-image-based​
R., and Sparling, C. E. 2018. First in situ passive acous-
-system-estimating-mass-free-swimming-fish
tic 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,
Manley, J., and Willcox, S. 2010. The Wave Glider:
U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, D.C. https://​
A persistent platform for ocean science. Paper pre-
tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/powering-blue-economy​
sented at OCEANS’10 IEEE SYDNEY, Sydney, Australia.
-exploring-opportunities-marine-renewable-energy​
doi:10.1109​/OCEANSSYD.2010.5603614 https://tethys-
-maritime-markets
engineering.pnnl​.gov/publications/wave-glider-persistent-
Lloyd, S., Lepper, P., and Pomeroy, S. 2017. Evaluation platform-ocean​-science
of UAVs as an underwater acoustics sensor deploy-
Matsuoka, T., Ishizuka, S., Anraku, K., and Nakano, M.
ment platform. International Journal of Remote Sensing,
1997. Assessment by underwater infrared video of the
38(8-10), 2808-2817. doi:10.1080/01431161.2016.12596
selectivity of an experimental Danish seine for deep-
86 https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/evaluation-uavs​
water prawn. In D. A. Hancock, D. C. Smith, A. Grant,
-underwater-acoustics-sensor-deployment-platform
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-
tal Monitoring Report. Portland, ME. Report by ORPC.
Matzner, S., Trostle, C., Staines, G., Hull, R., Avila, A., and
https://tethys.pnnl.gov​/publications/cobscook-bay-tidal-
Harker-Klimes, G. 2017. Triton: Igiugig Fish Video Analy-
energy-project-2013​-environmental-monitoring-report
sis (Report No. PNNL-26576) Pacific Northwest National
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-
engineering.pnnl.gov/publications​/corrosion-titanium-
McGarry, L. P., and Gayle B. Zydlewski. 2019. Marine
alloys-high-temperature-near​-anaerobic-seawater
Fish Monitoring at FORCE: Updated Report on Process-
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​
/imaging-marine-fauna-tritech-gemini-720i-sonar
Melvin, G. D., and Cochrane, N. A. 2014. Investigation
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
Pine, M. K., Jeffs, A. G., and Radford, C. A. 2012. Tur-
Research Association of Nova Scotia. https://tethys.pnnl​
bine Sound May Influence the Metamorphosis Behav-
.gov/publications/investigation-vertical-distribution​
iour of Estuarine Crab Megalopae. PLoS ONE, 7(12),
-movement-abundance-fish-vicinity-proposed-tidal
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.
Pinkel, R., Goldin, M. A., Smith, J. A., Sun, O. M., Aja, A.
doi:10.1007/s12237-014-9828-z https://tethys.pnnl.gov​
A., Bui, M. N., and Hughen, T. 2010. The Wirewalker:
/publications/multibeam-acoustic-detection-fish-water​
A Vertically Profiling Instrument Carrier Powered by
-column-targets-high-flow-sites
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​
Polagye, B., Joslin, J., Murphy, P., Cotter, E., Scott, M.,
/video-acoustic-camera-techniques-studying-fish-under​
Gibbs, P., Bassett, C., Stewart, A. 2020. Adaptable Moni-
-ice-review-comparison
toring 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
Sarnocinska, J., Tougaard, J., Johnson, M., Madsen,
U.S. Department of Energy. doi:10.2172/1039434 https://
P. T., and Wahlberg, M. 2016. Comparing the per-
tethys.pnnl.gov/publications​/study-acoustic-effects-
formance of C-PODs and SoundTrap/PAMGUARD in
hydrokinetic-tidal-turbine​-admiralty-inlet-puget-sound
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​
Sato, M., Horne, J. K., Parker-Stetter, S. L., and Keister,
-performance-passive-acoustic-monitoring-technologies​
J. E. 2015. Acoustic classification of coexisting taxa in
-porpoise-detection-high
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​
Shen, H., Zydlewski, G. B., Viehman, H. A., and Staines,
/board-real-time-preprocessing-system-optical-remote​
G. 2016. Estimating the probability of fish encounter-
-sensing-imagery
ing 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 Confer-
Simmonds, J., and MacLennan, D. 2007. Fisheries
ence, Houston, Texas. doi:10.4043/29425-MS https://​
Acoustics: Theory and Practice (Second ed.). Oxford, UK:
tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/performance-characteristics​
Blackwell Publishing Ltd. doi:10.1002/9780470995303
-noisespotter-acoustic-monitoring-localization-system
https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/fisheries-acoustics​
Redmon, J., and Farhadi, A. 2018. YOLOv3: An Incre- -theory-practice
mental Improvement. Report by University of Wash-
Smith, K., and Simpson, N. 2018. Y1 Environ-
ington. https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications​/yolov3-
mental Monitoring Report (Report No. EnFAIT-
incremental-improvement
EU-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
Smith, L. M., Barth, J. A., Kelley, D. S., Plueddemann,
Mammal Science, 31(1), 169-190. doi:10.1111/mms.12146
A., Rodero, I., Ulses, G. A., Vardaro, M. F., and Weller, R.
https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/field-assessment​
2018. The Ocean Observatories Initiative. Oceanography,
-c-pod-performance-detecting-echolocation-click-trains​
31(1), 16-35. doi:10.5670/oceanog.2018.105 https://tethys​
-bottlenose
.pnnl.gov/publications/ocean-observatories-initiative
Robinson, S., and Lepper, P. 2013. Scoping Study:
Snohomish County Public Utility District No.
Review of Current Knowledge of Underwater Noise
1. 2012. Admiralty Inlet Final License Applica-
Emissions from Wave and Tidal Stream Energy Devices.
tion. FERC Project No. 12690. Report by Northwest
Report by Loughborough University for The Crown
National Marine Renewable Energy Center. https://
Estate. https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications​/scoping-
tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/admiralty​-inlet-final-
study-review-current-knowledge-underwater​-noise-
license-application
emissions-wave-tidal-stream

SECTION C – ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING 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​
-ocean-implications-high-frequency-sonar
Stanton, T. K., Sellers, C. J., and Jech, J. M. 2012. Reso-
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​
Underwood, M., M. Sherlock, A. Marouchos, J. Cordell,
-swimbladders-using-modified-commercial
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​
-bubbleseep-detection-repeated
Thomson, J., Polagye, B., Durgesh, V., and Richmond,
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​
-backscatter
Tollit, D., and Redden, A. 2013. Passive Acoustic Moni-
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 Interac-

tions 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​
-marine-renewable
Wang, D., Atlar, M., and Sampson, R. 2007. An experi-
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​
-multibeam-multifrequency-echosounder-flowbec​
Warren, J. D., and Wiebe, P. H. 2008. Accounting for
-seabed-platform-track-fish
biological and physical sources of acoustic backscatter
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​
/predictable-changes-fish-school-characteristics-due​
Wiesebron, L. E., Horne, J. K., Scott, B. E., and William-
-tidal-turbine-support-structure
son, B. J. 2016. Comparing nekton distributions at two
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​
-acoustic-tracking-fish-seabird-behavior-around-tidal​
Wilding, T. A., Gill, A. B., Boon, A., Sheehan, E., Dauvin,
-turbine-structures
J. C., Pezy, J.-P., O’Beirn, F., Janas, U., Rostin, L., and De
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/acoustic-
monitoring-beluga-whale​-interactions-cook-inlet-tidal-
energy-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

REPORT AND MORE INFORMATION CONTACT Go to https://tethys​.pnnl.gov for

OES-Environmental 2020 State of the Science full report and Andrea Copping a comprehensive collection of
executive summary available at: Pacific Northwest National papers, reports, archived presen-
Laboratory tations, and other media about
https://tethys​.pnnl.gov/publications/state-of-the​-science-2020
[email protected] environmental effects of marine
renewable energy development.
+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

 activities in time and space, but practical production of
11.1.
marine goods and services will continue to be conducted
BACKGROUND ON MSP through the granting of consents/permits (hereafter

A
ll MSP systems try to reflect key principles that consents), permissions, and licenses for specific activi-
are science- or evidence-based, integrated, adap- ties. MSP does not always culminate in the allocation of
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 used to plan and develop MRE in the 15 countries
to planning, that is, allocation of sea space primar- that are currently involved in Ocean Energy Systems
ily occurs on a case-by-case basis; hence, it lacks an (OES)-Environmental. The information presented in
integrated and strategic approach. While definitions of this chapter derives from answers to a questionnaire
MSP are numerous, the most widely adopted is that of completed by OES-Environmental participant coun-
the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural try representatives or their suggested contacts and,
Organization, which defines MSP as “a public process where appropriate, supplemented by relevant exter-
of analyzing and allocating the spatial and tempo- nal sources. The questionnaire, available online as
ral distribution of human activities in marine areas supplementary material (at https://tethys.pnnl.gov/state​
to achieve ecological, economic, and social objectives -of-the-science-2020-supplementary-marine-spatial​
that are usually specified through a political process” -planning), requested input about the approaches to
(Ehler and Douvere 2009; Ehler 2014). MSP is a future- MSP in each country; if and how MRE policies link to
oriented process that can be used to assign space to dif- MSP; how scientific information informs the process;
ferent uses and manage the location of specific human

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;
11.2.
tools used to implement MSP; how consenting pro-
cesses link to MSP; possible challenges to implementa- APPROACHES TO MSP IN OES-
tion of MSP for MRE; how the public is involved in MSP; ENVIRONMENTAL PARTICIPATING
and an option to include any further comments. COUNTRIES

A
Each of the questionnaire topic areas is covered the- pproximately 70 countries worldwide (Marine
matically in the following sections, closing with a final Spatial Planning Programme 2018) are now esti-
section about key findings and conclusions derived from 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 MSP-Specific Information

EU Denmark ◆ 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.
France ◆ 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.
Ireland ◆ 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, Levantine-
Balearic, and Canary Islands.
◆ Progress is being made on the development of and agreement about MSP objectives.
Sweden ◆ 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).
United ◆ MSP has been in place since 2010 with adoption of the UK Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009.
Kingdom (UK) ◆ The Act is complemented by legislation in Scotland and Northern Ireland.
England ◆ 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.
Scotland ◆ 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.
Wales ◆ 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).
Northern ◆ The Draft Marine Plan for Northern Ireland was published in 2018 (DAERA 2018a). The Department of Agriculture,
Ireland 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 ◆ 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).
India ◆ 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.
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 knowl-
edge, 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 indus-
trial ocean uses, maintenance, and conservation.
South Africa ◆ 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 coor-
dinated 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).
United States (U.S.) ◆ 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 Massa-
chusetts 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 con-
tains 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 rec-
ognized 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 MSP-Specific Information

EU Denmark ◆ 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 ◆ 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 bottom-
mounted 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.

Ireland ◆ 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.

Portugal ◆ 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) esti-
mates 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.

Spain ◆ 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.

Sweden ◆ 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 suit-
able 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 ◆ There is a 2050 target to reduce carbon emissions by 80 percent, but there are no specific targets for MRE (The Cli-
Kingdom (U.K.) mate 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.
Scotland ◆ 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).
Wales ◆ 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.

Northern ◆ The Offshore Renewable Energy Strategic Action Plan 2012–2020 in place was developed in 2012 (DETI 2012).
Ireland ◆ 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).

Australia ◆ 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).

India ◆ 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 Obliga-
tion promoted by the Government of India.
◆ No specific targets have been defined for MRE development.

Japan ◆ 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.

South Africa ◆ 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.

United States (U.S.) ◆ 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. 11.5.
TAKING MRE INTO ACCOUNT IN MSP DEALING WITH POTENTIAL
CONFLICTS BETWEEN MARINE
M
RE has specific requirements from a planning
process perspective. For example, MRE needs to SECTORS/USERS
link with other infrastructure such as grid provision

A
n important consideration for MSP is potential con-
and access to ports. Any development planning process
flicts between different marine sectors and/or users,
must be cognizant of the receiving environment. To
especially as the demand for marine space increases
assure that these aspects are considered before a deci-
and, on occasion, because certain sectors will be inter-
sion is made, many countries implement some form of
ested in the same spatial area. As a relatively new sector,
environmental assessment (at the strategic or project
MRE in particular has the potential to overlap with more
level) that can then inform future planning processes.
traditional uses such as fishing and navigation. When
As part of environmental assessment requirements, and
multiple-use situations like this arise, it can be chal-
as a good practice generally, stakeholder consultation is
lenging to address the different interests and needs of
also a fundamental part of the wider planning process.
multiple users in mutually satisfying ways. Compatibility
This consultation can occur with the public at large,
between uses and activities depends not only on oceano-
with individual sectors, or with representative groups
graphic conditions (such as sea turbulence, the nature
and ultimately should lead to a more robust and trusted
of the seabed, or the size of the water column), but also
planning process. These specific requirements of the
on the size and characteristics of each project. Compat-
MRE sector can be taken into account in the develop-
ibility between activities within the same marine space
ment of MSP processes in many ways. Given the imple-
can still be achieved if, for example, the activities can be
mentation status of MSP across the globe, not all coun-
carried out at different times of the year. This could be
tries have addressed these requirements (namely India,
the case, for example, for dredging activities in overlying
South Africa, and the U.S.). In countries and regions
seawater columns where non-metallic resources could be
where MSP is progressing, specific sectoral require-
exploited. One of the rationales for MSP is that it can pre-
ments are fed into the MSP process, primarily via con-
vent or minimize conflict, because it clarifies who/what
sultation mechanisms either on an individual sectoral
activity can operate within particular spatial areas. Such
basis or through a dedicated stakeholder mechanism,
conflicts tend to be resolved on a case-by-case basis with
and are described below. Such consultation is likely to
negotiations between the interested parties (Freeman et
evolve as implementation of MSP begins. The EU coun-
al. 2016) and sometimes an independent arbiter. Very few
tries are most advanced in this respect, probably as a
MSP systems contain specific provisions or mechanisms
result of the EU MSP Directive (Directive 2014/89/EU)
related to conflict resolution, despite the recognition of
and over-arching climate and energy policies. Under
the potential for conflict in light of the increasing use of
the EU MSP Directive, all marine spatial plans must
marine space and associated competition between uses.
be subject to a Strategic Environmental Assessment to
Details about how each OES-Environmental country
address environmental impacts at the earliest possible
deals with these conflicts can be found in Table 11.4. More
stage in decision-making. The details about each OES-
detailed descriptions can be found at https://​tethys​.pnnl​
Environmental country can be found in Table 11.3. More
.gov​/state​-of​-the​-science​-2020​-supplementary​-marine​
detailed descriptions can be found at https://​tethys​.pnnl​
-spatial​-planning.
.gov​/state​-of​-the​-science​-2020​-supplementary​-marine​
-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 MSP-Specific Information

EU France ◆ 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.
Ireland ◆ 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.
Portugal ◆ 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 govern-
ment agencies to identify areas of national interest, including MRE.
United Scotland ◆ A strong heritage of research and development exists in MRE technologies and associated infrastructure and experi-
Kingdom ence in testing these devices in Scottish waters.
(UK) ◆ 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 stake-
holder 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).
Wales ◆ During 2017 and 2018, the Welsh National Marine Plan (Welsh Government 2019) was informed by a Stakeholder Ref-
erence 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.

While zoning approaches can be used to implement

11.6. MSP, it is just one tool for delivering the objectives of
AREAS AVAILABLE FOR MRE the MSP process. Some countries have zoned areas of
DEVELOPMENT their marine space for specific sectors, activities, and
uses. The details about these areas of MRE development

M
SP is often interpreted to be synonymous with
as defined for each OES-Environmental country can be
ocean zoning. Ocean zoning designates a specific
found in Table 11.5 (also see Figures 11.2 and 11.3). More
space to marine uses and can be used to limit an area
detailed descriptions can be found at https://​tethys​.pnnl​
to a single activity or to accommodate multiple uses.
.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 MSP-Specific Information

EU France ◆ 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).

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 develop-
ment of some offshore renewables.
◆ In certain locations, nature conservation has been given priority over other activities as well, while coexistence is pro-
moted in other areas such as some Natura 2000 sites (network of nature protection), with appropriate permits.
United Scotland ◆ The National Marine Planning system identifies potential conflicts and addresses and reduces these conflicts before
Kingdom 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.
Wales ◆ 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 ◆ 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 con-
flicts between sectors.
United States (U.S.). ◆ This situation has not yet been considered

224 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 Marine Spatial Planning (MSP)-Specific Information

EU France ◆ 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.
Ireland 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 ◆ 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 desig-
nated for conservation purposes.
United Scotland ◆ Some areas are generally prohibited for MRE development and require consenting requirements that effectively make
Kingdom development impossible.
(UK) ◆ 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 Scot-
land (Scottish Government 2020; Marine Scotland 2014).
◆ “Preferred areas” will become clearer as more Scottish Marine Regions develop their Regional Marine Plans.
◆ MRE development is constrained in areas used by the Ministry of Defence, as shipping lanes, and designated as safety
Wales 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 avail-
able 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
Australia 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, aquacul-
ture leases).
◆ In the state of Victoria, MPAs consist of no-take and multiple-use areas.
◆ No preferred areas or zones exist for ocean energy.
India ◆ 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, sea-
Japan weed 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.
South Africa ◆ 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
United States (U.S.) 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

 Tourism and leisure
Cables and outfalls

Multiuse platforms
Renewable energy

Marine resources

Cultural heritage

Natural heritage
Artificial reefs
Ship sinking
Aquaculture

Oil and Gas

Dredging

Mining
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

Legend Synergy
Incompatible
Possible Compatible uses

Figure 11.2. Compatible, incompatible, and synergistic marine sectors, as identified in the Portuguese Situation Plan. This figure is theoreti-
cal 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)

11.7.
TOOLS THAT SUPPORT MSP
IMPLEMENTATION
Niigata:

M
Oceanic (Tidal), any tools can be used to assist in the implementa-
Wave, Wind (Floating)
Iwate: Wave, tion of MSP at a variety of scales. These include
Wind (Floating)
Saga: Tidal, different spatial management tools such as designated
Wind (Floating) sites and zones (see Section 11.6), as well as more
technology-based tools like a dedicated marine atlas

Nagasaki: Tidal
or cadastre based on geographic information systems
Wakayama: Oceanic
(GISs). In the EU, marine GIS tools are an increasingly
Nagasaki:
Wind popular method of making marine-related informa-
(Floating) Kagoshima: Tidal tion accessible to the public, and a convenient way of
Nagasaki: Kagoshima: Oceanic illustrating complex data derived from a wide variety
Tidal
of sources. For more details about specific OES-Envi-
Okinawa: OTEC
ronmental countries’ MSP tools, see Table 11.6 (also
Okinawa: Wave
see Tables 11.7 and 11.8). More detailed descriptions can
Figure 11.3. Selected demonstration sites for wind, wave, and tidal be found at https://​tethys​.pnnl​.gov​/state​-of​-the​-science​
energy in Japan. Sites shown in red were selected in 2014; the Iwate -2020​-supplementary​-marine​-spatial​-planning.
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)

226 OES-ENVIRONMENTAL 2020 STATE OF THE SCIENCE REPORT

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 MSP-Specific Information

EU 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 per-
ceptions, 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 ◆ 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.

United England ◆ The existing Marine Information System, which contained information about plans and policies, supporting data, and
Kingdom information, was replaced with the Explore Marine Plans digital service (Marine Management Organisation 2020e) to
(UK) 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 ◆ A publicly accessible Marine Mapviewer was developed to show the existing uses and activities in the Northern Ireland
Ireland Marine Area (DAERA 2018b).
Australia ◆ 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 monitor-
ing 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.
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).
◆ The Marine Cadastre website compiles spatial data and information in a user-friendly format throughout U.S. waters to
United States (U.S.)
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.

Tool Contents

Marine Scotland MAPS NMPI National Marine Plan interactive

https://marinescotland.atkinsgeospatial.com/nmpi/

Scotland’s Marine Atlas: Information for The National Marine Plan An assessment of the condition of Scotland’s seas, based on
https://www2.gov.scot/Publications/2011/03/16182005/0 scientific evidence from data and analysis and supported by
expert judgment
Marine Scotland’s Regional Locational Guidance Information related to the search areas for future offshore wind,
http://marine.gov.scot/information/regional-locational-guidance wave, and tidal energy plan options

Regional Marine Plans Only Clyde and Shetland Marine regions have taken this forward
https://www2.gov.scot/Topics/marine/seamanagement/regional/Boundaries to date.

Sectoral Planning Specifically for offshore wind, wave, and tidal energy
https://www2.gov.scot/Topics/marine/marineenergy/Planning

Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations Different regulations are used depending on the location of the
https://www2.gov.scot/Topics/marine/Licensing/marine/guidance/EIARegulations marine development and the installed capacity of the develop-
ment. 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. 11.9.
THE CONSENTING PROCESS AND MSP FACTORS LIMITING
IMPLEMENTATION OF MSP FOR MRE
M
SP is both strategic and anticipatory. To achieve

A
the objectives of MSP there must be clear links cross countries, a multitude of factors lead to chal-
to the project level. All MRE projects will require some lenges in implementing MSP. It is important to
form of consent to occupy sea space and generate elec- understand these key challenges in order to provide
tricity from natural marine resources. It is therefore lessons for other countries to learn from when develop-
imperative that MSP aid decision-making for consent- ing MSP and to tackle challenges that may arise across
ing processes. Every country has a different method of MSP implementations. Only certain countries, primarily
consenting development in their marine space, but the those in the EU that have MSP already in place or are
method should align with higher, national-level policy working toward its implementation, were in a position
objectives reflected in MSP. In the EU, there is a legal to discuss their limiting factors and challenges. For fac-
requirement for MSP with a set of common minimum tors limiting implementation of MSP for MRE in OES-
requirements that plans must contain, but there is no Environmental specific countries, see Table 11.10. More
similar system for development in marine areas. This detailed descriptions can be found at https://​tethys​.pnnl​
remains a member state competence, although require- .gov​/state​-of​-the​-science​-2020​-supplementary​-marine​
ments of other EU legislation must be adhered to in -spatial​-planning.
state practices. In the case of MRE development, for
example, depending on the size, location, and nature
of the proposed development, most proposed projects 11.10.
will require an environmental impact assessment (EIA) PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT IN MSP
(Commission of the European Communities 2009)

I
t is widely accepted that transparency, accountabil-
based on over-arching EU law on this topic (European
ity, and openness are key principles for successful
Commission – Environment 2009). EU conservation
planning and decision-making processes. Therefore,
legislation (Habitats and Birds Directives) must also be
to achieve the desired planning objectives, it is essen-
complied with and such compliance regularly involves
tial that the parties whose interests may be affected, or
the completion of an Appropriate Assessment (Coun-
who have a role to play, should take part in the design
cil Directive 92/43/EEC; Directive 2009/147/EC). This
and operation of the planning process. Public and
interaction of consenting and MSP is not applicable
stakeholder involvement can help responsible authori-
to the current situations in India, South Africa, or the
ties carry out their responsibilities, set appropriate
U.S., where consent is granted on a case-by-case basis
priorities, and balance environmental, economic, and
because there is no over-arching MSP process in place.
social objectives. Having contributed to the process,
Details of the interactions of MSP and consenting for
the public and stakeholders are more likely to have a
MRE are shown for each OES-Environmental country
sense of ownership for it and thus be more committed
in Table 11.9. More detailed descriptions can be found
to its successful implementation. Aside from these fac-
at https://​tethys​.pnnl​.gov​/state​-of​-the​-science​-2020​
tors, public participation is regularly a legal require-
-supplementary​-marine​-spatial​-planning.
ment 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-Envi-
ronmental 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 MSP-Specific Information

EU France ◆ 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.
Ireland ◆ 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.

Portugal ◆ The Directorate-General for Natural Resources, Safety and Maritime Services oversees MSP, is responsible for alloca-
tion 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).
Spain ◆ 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.
Sweden ◆ The Environment Court is responsible for licensing decisions with guidance from the marine spatial plan, but the plan is
not binding

United ◆ All planning decisions must align with UK Government policy, specifically the Marine Policy Statement (HMG 2011), as
Kingdom (UK) 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.
Scotland ◆ 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).
Wales ◆ 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.
Northern ◆ When the Marine Plan is adopted, it will be used by public authorities when making decisions that affect the marine
Ireland area.
Australia ◆ 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).
Japan ◆ MRE consenting gives priority to the acceptability of other stakeholders, with no involvement of other regulatory authori-
ties in individual project consents.

230 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 MSP-Specific Information

EU France ◆ 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 con-
senting 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.
United Scotland ◆ MSP implementation is limited by financial resources and the willingness of stakeholders to support it.
Kingdom
Wales ◆ Applying the marine spatial plan to MRE consenting requires that practical measures be developed to streamline con-
senting with a proportionate, risk-based approach.
Australia ◆ 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 understand-
ing, 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.
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 con-
senting.

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 MSP-Specific Information

EU France ◆ 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).
Ireland ◆ There is a strong focus on public engagement in the national MSP process, including formal public consultation pro-
cesses 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 par-
ticipated and been represented.
United England ◆ The Marine Management Organisation is responsible for public participation, the agency’s engagement with stakehold-
Kingdom ers, and what to do with the outcomes of any views and opinions received.
(UK) ◆ 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 Par-
ticipation (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 nongovern-
mental organizations.
◆ The Welsh Government produces regular newsletters to provide updates on progress.
Northern ◆ A Statement of Public Participation lays out the public engagement process for the Marine Plan for Northern Ireland
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 responsi-
bilities 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.
Australia ◆ In Victoria, the draft MSP Framework was developed collaboratively using a co-designing process that involved govern-
ment 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 partner-
ships 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 Manage-
ment (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.

existing users. Often it is more appropriate and easier to

11.11.
have supporting policies and financial assistance.
KEY FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
Once MSP is further along in the implementation process,

M
SP is an approach that can be used locally,
it would be interesting to look at precisely how, in what
regionally, and nationally as a way of improving
way, and at what point MRE and its related infrastructural
marine governance and achieving sustainable develop-
requirements are incorporated into marine spatial plans.
ment. It is clear from the preceding sections that almost
Currently, this seems to occur primarily via stakeholder
all the countries surveyed are advancing some form of
engagement mechanisms and dedicated meetings with
MSP. This progress varies by country and can be attributed
sectoral representatives or their organizations. Develop-
to a wide range of factors. In the EU, for example, coun-
ment of MSP systems appear to have driven data and
tries are legally mandated to have maritime spatial plans
information collection and collation in almost every coun-
in place by March 2021 (Directive 2014/89/EU), yet some
try. This can be motivated by policy requirements, but
member states are still at the early stages of plan develop-
interestingly can come about as a result of a realization
ment, whereas others are already reviewing and adapting
that such data will support other law and policy objectives,
their plans. This variability in progress can be attributed to
putting the principle of “collect data once and use many
a variety of reasons such as different policy drivers, gov-
times” into practice. In the EU, this is particularly the case
ernment priorities, and more operational-level challenges
where implementation of the Marine Strategy Framework
related to human and financial resources. Scale can also be
Directive (Directive 2008/56/EC) necessitates data collec-
an issue because a number of EU member states have huge
tion and environmental monitoring. Research projects,
maritime jurisdictional areas.
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, user-
centered, and streamlined.

SECTION D – STRATEGIES FOR ACCELERATING CONSENTING/PERMITTING 233

In terms of moving MSP forward, there is a need to
11.13.
assure that planners and policy-makers are aware of
the needs of MRE. This includes up-to-date information
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
Basic Act on Ocean Policy, Act No. 33 of April 27, 2007
serve remote or off-grid communities, these needs
[Japan].
may vary and MSP will need to address differences such
as the appropriate scale for planning processes. Such Basque Energy Agency. 2017. Basque Energy Strategy
alignment would assure that key land-based mea- 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. Message from BOEM’s Acting Director: The Path For-
If these types of needs are better understood and rec- ward for Offshore Wind Leasing on the Outer Continen-
ognized by planners, they may help to frame MSP going tal Shelf. Retrieved from www.boem.gov/newsroom/notes​
forward. Developing knowledge about environmental -stakeholders/message-boems-acting-director-path​
interactions could also assist in minimizing the spatial -forward-offshore-wind-leasing-outer
areas where MRE is prohibited or where there are more
consenting and licensing obligations. As more and more Commission of the European Communities. 2009.

countries recognize the potentials presented by MRE in Report from the Commission to the Council, the Euro-

meeting renewable energy targets and reducing green- pean Parliament, the European Economic and Social

house gas emissions, demands on maritime space are Committee and the Committee of the Regions - On

likely to increase. To minimize impacts and maximize the application and effectiveness of the EIA Directive

sustainable development opportunities, it is critical to (Directive 85/337/EEC, as amended by Directives 97/11/

have a forward-planning process, such as MSP, sup- EC and 2003/35/EC). Brussels, Belgium. https://eur-lex​

ported by an efficient and effective development con- .europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2009:0378:​

senting/licensing system and enforcement regime. FIN:EN:PDF

Commonwealth of Massachusetts. 2020. Massachu-

setts Ocean Management Plan. Retrieved from https://​
11.12. www.mass.gov/service-details/massachusetts-ocean​
ACKNOWLEDGMENT -management-plan

T
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 OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7-50 [European Union].
garner additional input from their colleagues. The sup-
Décret n° 2017-724 du 3 mai 2017 intégrant la planifica-
port of the Sustainable Energy Authority of Ireland is
tion maritime et le plan d’action pour le milieu marin
also acknowledged. This contribution is based upon
dans le document stratégique de façade (Decree n°
projects supported by the Navigate project (Grant-Aid
2017-724 of 3 May 2017 integrating the maritime plan-
Agreement No. 842 PBA/IPG/17/01), carried out with the
ning and action plan for the marine environment in
support of the Marine Institute, and funded under the
the façade strategic document). https://www.legifrance​
Marine Research Programme by the Irish Government,
.gouv.fr/eli/decret/2017/5/3/DEVH1632060D/jo/texte (In
and by Marine and Renewable Energy Ireland: the SFI
French).
Research Centre for Energy, Climate and Marine (12/
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​
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.
%20Review%2020180514.pdf
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
Department of Environment, Forestry and Fisher-
Energy Resource. Dublin, Ireland. https://tethys.pnnl.gov​
ies (DEFF) and Department of Science and Innovation
/publications/offshore-renewable-energy-development​
(DSI). 2020. National Oceans and Coastal Information
-plan-framework-sustainable-development-irelands
Management System (OCIMS). Retrieved from https://​
Department for the Economy (DfE). 2019. Off- www.ocims.gov.za/
shore Renewable Energy Strategic Action
Department of Housing, Planning and Local Gov-
Plan (ORESAP) 2012-2020 - Progress Report
ernment (DHPLG). 2017. Towards a Marine Spatial
1 April 2018 to 31 March 2019. Belfast, North-
Plan for Ireland – A Roadmap for the delivery of the
ern Ireland. https://www.economy-ni.gov.uk/sites​
national Marine Spatial Plan. Dublin, Ireland. https://​
/default/files/publications/economy/ORESAP-progress​
www.housing.gov.ie/planning/marine-spatial-planning​
-report-to-March%202019.pdf
/towards-marine-spatial-plan-ireland
Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment
Department of Housing, Planning and Local Govern-
(DETI). 2012. Offshore Renewable Energy Strategic
ment (DHPLG). 2018. National Marine Planning Frame-
Action Plan (ORESAP) 2012-2020. Belfast, Northern
work: Baseline Report. Government of Ireland, Dublin,
Ireland. https://​tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/ireland-
Ireland. https://www.housing.gov.ie/planning/marine​
offshore-renewable​-energy-strategic-action-
-spatial-planning/national-marine-planning-framework​
plan-2012-2020
-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
Portuguese).
Department of Housing, Planning and Local Gov-
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).
OJ L 164, 25.6.2008, p. 19-40.
Department of Housing, Planning and Local Govern-
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​
Directive 2014/89/EU of the European Parliament and
%20Briefing%20note%20on%20the%20MPDM%20Bill​
of the Council of 23 July 2014 establishing a framework
.pdf
for maritime spatial planning. OJ L 257, 28.8.2014, p.
Department of Housing, Planning and Local Govern- 135–145
ment (DHPLG). 2019d. Public Consultation on the Draft
Ehler, C. 2008. Conclusions: Benefits, lessons learned,
National Marine Planning Framework. Retrieved from
and future challenges of marine spatial planning.
https://www.housing.gov.ie/planning/marine-planning​
Marine Policy, 32(5), 840-843. doi:10.1016/j.marpol.2008​
/public-consultation-draft-national-marine-planning​
.03.014 https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/conclusions​
-framework
-benefits-lessons-learned-future-challenges-marine​
Department of Land Conservation and Development. -spatial-planning
2020. Ocean Planning. Oregon Coastal Management
Ehler, C. and Douvere, F. 2009. Marine Spatial Plan-
Program. Retrieved from https://www.oregon.gov/lcd​
ning: a step-by-step approach toward ecosystem-
/OCMP/Pages/Ocean-Planning.aspx
based 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​
Ehler, C. 2014. A Guide to Evaluating Marine Spatial
/marine-spatial-planning-resource-conservation​
Plans. IOC Manuals and Guides No. 70; ICAM Dossier
-fisheries-management-ensuring-fishermen
No. 8. UNESCO, Paris, France. https://tethys.pnnl.gov​
Direção-Geral de Recursos Naturais, Segurança e Ser- /publications/guide-evaluating-marine-spatial-plans
viços Marítimos (DGMR). 2018. Ordenamento do Espaço
Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation
Marítimo Nacional – Plano do Situação [National
Act 1999. Act No. 91 of 1999. 16 Jul 1999. Federal Regis-
Maritime Spatial Planning – Situation Plan] (Volumes
ter of Legislation. Australia.
I to VI). Retrieved from http://www.psoem.pt/discussao​
_publica-2/ (In Portuguese). 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​
/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data​
European Commission – Environment. 2009. Envi-
/file/857072/Revised_SPP_NE_Clean.pdf
ronmental Impact Assessment – EIA. Retrieved from
https://ec.europa.eu/environment/eia/eia-legalcontext.htm Marine Management Organisation. 2019b. North West
Marine Plan – Statement of Public Participation:
European MSP Platform. 2020. Overview of MSP related
November 2019. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk​
maritime uses. Sweden. Retrieved from https://www.msp​
/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data​
-platform.eu/countries/sweden
/file/857074/Revised_SPP_NW_Clean.pdf
Executive Order 13547 of July 9, 2010. The Stewardship
Marine Management Organisation. 2019c. South West
of the Ocean, Our Coasts, and the Great Lakes. 3 C.F.R.
Marine Plan – Statement of Public Participation:
13547 [U.S.].
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, 137- Inshore and North East Offshore Marine Plan – Draft
144. doi:10.1016/j.marpol.2016.04.050 https://tethys.pnnl​ for consultation. Newcastle upon Tyne, England. https://​
.gov/publications/assessing-potential-spatial-temporal​ assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads​
-conflicts-washingtons-marine-waters /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​ for consultation. Newcastle upon Tyne, England. https://
/Participacion/Paginas/DetalleParticipacionPublica.aspx​ assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads​
?k=236 /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 upon Tyne, England. https://assets.publishing.service.gov​

Executive, Scottish Government, Welsh Assembly .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 Inshore and South West Offshore Marine Plan - Draft

Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009, c.23 [UK]. for consultation. Newcastle upon Tyne, England. https://​
assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads​
Marine and Coastal Act 2018 (VIC) [Australia]. /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
Strategy for Energy and Climate: Multi Annual Energy
Marine Scotland. 2014. Planning Scotland’s Seas: Sec-
Plan). République Francaise, Paris, France. https://www​
toral Marine Plans for Offshore Wind, Wave and Tidal
.ecologique-solidaire.gouv.fr/sites/default/files/Projet​
Energy in Scottish Waters: Analysis of Consultation
%20PPE%20pour%20consultation.pdf (In French).
Responses. Scottish Government, Edinburgh, Scotland.
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
public et des instances (Integrated Marine Policy - Pub-
Marine Scotland. 2015. Scotland’s National Marine
lic and body consultation). Retrieved from http://www​
Plan– A Single Framework for Managing Our Seas.
.dirm.nord-atlantique-manche-ouest.developpement​
Scottish Government, Edinburgh, Scotland. https://​
-durable.gouv.fr/consultation-du-public-et-des-instances​
tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/scotlands-national-marine​
-a966.html (In French).
-plan-single-framework-managing-our-seas
Ministry of Economy, Trade, and Industry. 2018. 5th
Marine Scotland. 2016. Pilot Pentland Firth and Orkney
Strategic Energy Plan (Provisional Translation). Gov-
Waters Marine Spatial Plan. Scottish Government,
ernment of Japan, Tokyo, Japan. https://www.enecho​
Edinburgh, Scotland. https://www.gov.scot/publications​
.meti.go.jp/en/category/others/basic_plan/5th/pdf​
/pilot-pentland-firth-orkney-waters-marine-spatial​
/strategic_energy_plan.pdf
-plan/
Ministry of New and Renewable Energy. 2015.
Marine (Scotland) Act 2010, asp 5.
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​ Strategic Energy and Climate Framework. Govern-
-applications/status_of_msp/ ment of Spain. Retrieved from https://www.lamoncloa​

Mid-Atlantic Ocean Data Portal. 2020. Mid-Atlan- .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​ (NOAA) Office for Coastal Management. 2020. Marine
/Mid-Atlantic-Regional-Planning-Body/Mid-Atlantic​ Cadastre - An Ocean of Information. Retrieved from
-Regional-Ocean-Action-Plan.pdf 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​ /area-statements/marine-area-statement/?lang=en
/media/PDF/EU_POLICIES/National%20Renewable​
Nielsen, K., Krogh, J., Kofoed, J. P., Jensen, N. E.H., Friis-
%20Energy%20Action%20Plan/202.pdf
Madsen, 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​ for research, development and demonstration 2012].
.nord-atlantique-manche-ouest.developpement-durable​ DCE Technical Report No. NEI-DK-5801. Aalborg Uni-
.gouv.fr/document-strategique-de-facade-association-du​ versity, Aalborg, Denmark. https://www.osti.gov/etdeweb​
-a669.html (In French). /biblio/22005452

238 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​
-context-convention-biological-diversity
Northeast Regional Planning Body. 2016. Northeast
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
and Coastal Reforms – Final Transition Plan. Mel-
Northeast Regional Ocean Council (NROC). 2020.
bourne, Australia. https://www.marineandcoasts.vic.gov​
Northeast Ocean Data Portal. Retrieved from https://​
.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0021/330519/Final-Transition​
www.northeastoceancouncil.org/quick-links/
-Plan_August-2018.pdf
Plan-och bygglag (Planning and Building Act)
State of Victoria Department of Environment, Land,
(2010:900). Retrieved from https://www.riksdagen.se/sv​
Water and Planning (DELWP). 2020. Marine and
/dokument-lagar/dokument/svensk-forfattningssamling​
Coastal Policy. Melbourne, Australia. https://www​
/plan--och-bygglag-2010900_sfs-2010-900 (In Swedish).
.marineandcoasts.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0027​
Real Decreto 363/2017, de 8 de abril, por el que se esta- /456534/Marine-and-Coastal-Policy_Full.pdf
blece un marco para la ordenación del espacio marítimo
State of Washington. 2020. Washington Marine Spatial
(Decree 363/2017, 8 of April, establishing a framework
Planning. Retrieved from https://www.msp.wa.gov/
for the management of the maritime space), BOE 2017,
28802-28810 [Spain]. Swedish Agency for Marine and Water Management.
2018. Proposal for the Marine Spatial Plan Baltic Sea:
The Republic of South Africa. 2017. National Frame-
Consultation Document. Gothenburg, Sweden. https://
work for Marine Spatial Planning in South Africa.
www.havochvatten.se/download/18​.47bf2cd7163855d8
https://iwlearn.net/resolveuid/21f3aa17-e74c-4f3c-8682​
5cae2805/1529995797805/proposal-for​-the-marine-
-9e28af296b20
spatial-plan-baltic-sea.pdf
Rhode Island State. 2020. RI Coastal Resources Manage-
Swedish Agency for Marine and Water Management.
ment Council (CRMC). Retrieved from http://www.crmc​
2019. Proposals for Marine spatial plans for Sweden:
.ri.gov/index.html
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 Energy Policy]. Government Offices of Sweden, Stock-

https://www2.gov.scot/Topics/marine/marineenergy​ holm, Sweden. Retrieved from https://www.regeringen.se​

/Planning /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​
/watch?v=JIigdT4J8Ec
Université de Nantes. 2019. GIS VALPENA. Retrieved
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​
/default/files/publications/2018-10/statement-of-public​
Victorian Environmental Assessment Council (VEAC).
-participation-for-the-welsh-national-marine-plan.pdf
2019. Assessment of the Values of Victoria’s Marine
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​
-document_0.pdf
Vince, J., Smith, A. D. M., Sainsbury, K. J., Cresswell, I.
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 Go to https://tethys​.pnnl.gov for

OES-Environmental 2020 State of the Science full report and Andrea Copping a comprehensive collection of
executive summary available at: Pacific Northwest National papers, reports, archived presen-
https://tethys​.pnnl.gov/publications/state-of-the​-science-2020 Laboratory tations, and other media about
[email protected] environmental effects of marine
renewable energy development.
+1 206.528.3049

SECTION D – STRATEGIES FOR ACCELERATING CONSENTING/PERMITTING 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 devel-
opments. 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 infor-
mation is available online at
https://tethys.pnnl.gov/state-
of-the-science-2020​
-supplementary-adaptive-
management.

SECTION D – STRATEGIES FOR ACCELERATING CONSENTING/PERMITTING 243

 Single-loop:
12.1. adjusting decisions
1.
based on technical
INTRODUCTION TO ADAPTIVE learning Assess
Problem
MANAGEMENT

A
M is best defined as an iterative management pro- 6. 2.
cess that seeks to reduce scientific uncertainty and Adjust Double-loop: Design
improve management through rigorous monitoring and reformulating the
decision architecture
periodic review of management decisions in response to
based on technical
growing knowledge gained from monitoring data (Cop- and institutional
ping et al. 2019; Williams et al. 2009). Monitoring asso- learning
ciated with AM is designed to address specific scientific
questions and hence contribute to the wider scientific
5. 3.
knowledge base, which can be used to amend decisions,
Evaluate Implement
refine policy, and improve consenting processes in light
of new information (Le Lièvre 2019).

From a procedural perspective, AM is a six-step cycle 4.

Monitor
(Figure 12.1) (Williams et al. 2009):
1. Assess the problem. Conduct baseline monitoring
and environmental assessment to assess the problem Figure 12.1. The adaptive management (AM) cycle. The original con-
and define measurable management objectives. cept of AM concerned single loop learning, while later additions recog-
nize the value of double loop learning, particularly to inform planning
2. Design management actions. In the context of MRE, and siting for future MRE installations in a region. (Graphic by Robyn
this refers to the design of the project proposals and Ricks. Adapted from Williams 2011a; Williams and Brown 2018)
mitigation plans, compensation, habitat enhance-
monitoring the effects of management measures that
ment measures, and monitoring - all which are
reduce uncertainty, and determine whether adjust-
informed by the environmental assessment.
ments 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. observational data to learn about the effects of manage-

5. Evaluate. Evaluate the monitoring results. ment and generate new approaches to MRE develop-
ment and management, this approach may be particu-
6. Adjust. Adapt management and monitoring meth-
larly beneficial for increasing the global understanding
ods and scope in light of what has been learned from
of MRE effects and evaluating the effectiveness of
observations.
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 regula-
tion of future MRE proposals—a learning process called
“double-loop” or “institutional” learning (Figure 12.1).
12.2.
IMPLEMENTING ADAPTIVE
AM seeks to design and apply management actions as
testable hypotheses (Walters 1986), to reduce uncer-
MANAGEMENT IN AN MRE CONTEXT

N
tainty and accelerate understanding of ecological pro- ot a new concept, AM has been used in other natu-
cesses, which means that certain management actions ral resource management situations (Copping et
may be put at risk in order to learn about receptors’ 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
Threshold levels for lethal and sublethal impacts are
deployed and monitored in real sea conditions (Copping
rarely prescribed in policy or regulations and, as such,
2018). An AM approach is therefore likely to be needed
must be determined on a case-by-case basis; for exam-
to address the risks and uncertainties associated with
ple, through the examination of species conservation
larger commercial arrays and their potential incremen-
status (Le Lièvre et al. 2016). Both lethal and sublethal
tal effects on marine ecosystems.
effects such as changes in animal behavior, density,
12.2.1. and distribution are extremely challenging to measure
THE USE OF IMPACT THRESHOLDS IN because of the difficulty in confidently measuring direct
ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT mortality and monitoring population changes. Identify-
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.

SECTION D – STRATEGIES FOR ACCELERATING CONSENTING/PERMITTING 245

12.2.2. AM and the mitigation hierarchy are not incom-
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 reinforce- arrays, mitigation takes the form of post-deploy-
ment of mitigation or compensatory measures through- ment monitoring and feedback mechanisms as
out the project, thereby hampering the generation of use- integral parts of the project design. At the large
ful science for regulatory decision-makers. Conversely, development scale, mitigation measures must
the purpose of AM is to reduce scientific uncertainty be considered and, in some cases, implemented
through an iterative process of environmental monitor- from the beginning of the project and not solely
ing and adjustment of management actions. As rightly when monitoring data indicate an undesirable
observed by Hanna et al. (2016), “striking the appropriate trend toward impact thresholds. At the top of the
balance between mitigating and compensating for poten- mitigation pyramid (Figure 12.2), impacts may
tial impacts versus detecting change is a dilemma with be avoided through technology choice and/or by
which regulators and industry must concern themselves using well-informed designated development
if they are to develop AM approaches that meaningfully areas for MRE projects within an over-arching
reduce scientific uncertainty.” 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
Avoid siting of turbines or wave energy converters in sensitive habitats, in
areas of heavy use by sensitive marine species, or known migratory corridors,
Minimize particularly for marine mammals, fish, and diving seabirds.

Minimize
Mitigate 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
Restore/ noise from devices, and effects of electromagnetic fields from cables.
Compensate 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
provide data that can be used to refine the accuracy of
Curtailment and shutdown protocols have been tested in
both impact thresholds and detected effects, as well as to
combination with AM to mitigate and reduce the uncer-
determine whether additional monitoring and mitigation
tainty surrounding collision risks with marine mam-
are required to address predicted and unforeseen impacts.
mals (Copping et al. 2016; Fortune 2017). Where no close
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
monitoring results do not provide useful information that
12.2.3.
can be used to reduce scientific uncertainty (Ward et al.
POST-INSTALLATION MONITORING
1986; Wilding et al. 2017). This is crucial because DRIP
Creating a successful AM scheme is highly contingent
monitoring undermines the success of AM and, in turn,
upon the design of monitoring programs that are suf-
the confidence regulators have in the process.
ficiently well designed to detect changes, as well as man-
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
12.3.
a bottom-up approach where data gained from multiple
projects feed into broader marine governance processes
ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT AND THE
through, for example, strategic environmental assess- PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE

T
ments and strategic research studies supported by gov- he precautionary principle is used as a preventive
ernment bodies, it may be possible for monitoring to yield action in the face of uncertainty, shifting the bur-
additional information, thereby enabling greater regulator den of proof to the proponents of an activity, exploring
confidence and supporting risk retirement during future a wide range of alternatives to possibly harmful actions,
consenting processes. The MRE sector will particularly and increasing public participation in decision-making
benefit from the double-loop learning cycle of AM (Jones (Kriebel et al. 2001). The primary way the precautionary
2005), in which lessons learned from past and current principle has been applied to MRE is through the mitiga-
projects can inform collective AM for future planning of tion hierarchy of avoidance, reduction, minimization,
MRE projects and scientifically informed licensing deci- and compensation (Figure 12.2). While application of the
sions (Figure 12.1). In principle, double-loop learning in precautionary principle provides a rational approach to
AM may fill many data gaps, allowing developers to save avoiding irreversible harm, its implementation through
significant time when developing detailed environmental the mitigation hierarchy offers reduced flexibility for
assessments to inform consenting. This will, however, addressing scientific uncertainty and promoting iterative
only be possible if monitoring data and methods for data learning for future developments. Regulators are faced
collection, analysis, and presentation are consistent and with an uncertainty paradox, i.e., a paradoxical situa-
shared at the appropriate level (Copping 2018). tion in which regulators take a precautionary approach,
Examples of MRE applications of AM processes are dis- requesting an extensive amount of data and information
cussed later. The AM taken in the MeyGen tidal project from developers to understand the risks, but the data,
(Section 12.4.1) in Scotland required phased development in turn, cannot deliver decisive evidence to meet the
with monitoring requirements specifically designed to requested level of certainty (Van Asselt and Vos 2006).
answer key scientific questions about biological impacts While the monitoring of single devices may help under-
before receiving consents to proceed to the next phase. stand the incremental effects of sizable arrays, the 2016
Similarly, the AM framework for the PacWave project State of the Science report stressed that it is unlikely
(formerly Pacific Marine Energy Center South Energy risk will scale in a simple linear fashion as the number
Test Site) in the United States (U.S.) required that moni- of devices increase (Copping et al. 2016). Relying on the
toring results be reviewed by designated regulatory agen- precautionary principle alone could lead to situations in
cies to implement predefined corrective actions, if the which developers and regulators will never understand
project effects exceed certain thresholds or mitigation whether the perceived negative interactions of MRE
criteria (Section 12.4.7). The AM approach taken for the technologies really exist and, if they do, how they can be
Ocean Renewable Power Company’s RivGen, U.S. (Section resolved and minimized efficiently for future projects
12.4.6), SeaGen, United Kingdom (UK) (Section 12.4.2), (Copping 2018; Todt and Lujan 2014). The purpose of the
DeltaStream, UK (Section 12.4.3), and Ocean Power precautionary principle is the use of rigorous science to
Technology’s Reedsport Wave Park, U.S. (Section 12.4.5), prevent unacceptable harm to marine life. Critical to the
required that if specific monitoring results were found, a achievement of rigorous science is the flexibility to inte-
set of triggers could re-start consultation with the regu- grate 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-
scriptive and flexible AM (Copping et al. 2019). Flexible
The interplay between AM and the precautionary prin-
AM has been predominantly used to address uncertainty
ciple is ambiguous. AM has sometimes been described
about the interactions of single devices that have neg-
as an alternative to the paralyzing effect of the precau-
ligible adverse effects on marine features. At the scale
tionary principle (Pembina Institute for Appropriate
of larger arrays, the value of using prescriptive AM lies
Development v. Canada 2008). More pragmatic views
in its capacity to incorporate new monitoring feedback
see AM and the precautionary principle as complemen-
into decision-making, while providing regulators with a
tary approaches in biodiversity conservation (Cooney
degree of certainty that corrective mitigation measures
2006; Morgera 2017). Complementing the application
will be taken before acceptable thresholds of change or
of the precautionary principle with AM is increasingly
disturbance are exceeded (Hanna et al. 2016). Hanna et
accepted as a best practice for delivering proportionate
al. (2016) also point out that this latter approach would
and risk-based MRE consenting (Köppel 2014; Le Lièvre
provide developers with greater certainty about the
2019). In most nations, reliance on the precautionary
costs of implementing AM. AM may still be used flexibly
principle is subject to the principle of proportionality,
in larger developments to provide the regulator with a
which, in simple terms, requires that measures adopted
safeguard for prohibiting further deployment phases
on the basis of precaution must be proportionate to the
until specified corrective actions have been taken.
perceived level of environmental risk. As such, it is gen-
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
developers’ appetite for risk (Le Lièvre et al. 2016). The
Implementing AM while adhering to the precautionary
adoption of conservative thresholds and trigger levels
principle demands the use of rigorous procedural safe-
that incorporate precautionary margins and acknowl-
guards and a commitment to communicating uncer-
edge the extant levels of uncertainty will be key for AM
tainty with transparency. AM cannot be used to offer
to work consistently with the precautionary principle.
unbounded discretion to decision-makers. AM should
Implementing AM in this manner offers a relevant
not be proposed without any degree of certainty that
response mechanism for reducing scientific uncertainty
mitigation measures will be effective. Likewise, AM
while assuring that no unintended adverse impacts will
cannot substitute for demonstrating that substantive
occur as a result of insufficient or imprecise data avail-
legal and regulatory conservation standards will be met
able during the initial approval phase.
throughout the lifespan of MRE projects. The conditions

SECTION D – STRATEGIES FOR ACCELERATING CONSENTING/PERMITTING 249

 assure development consents are given with full knowl-
12.4.
edge of the potential impacts on protected species. AM
EVALUATING THE SUCCESS OF enabled the developer to achieve the full project consent
ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT AT necessary for investor confidence, while delivering a
SELECTED MRE DEVELOPMENT SITES phased approach following the survey-deploy-monitor
licensing policy for licensing (Marine Scotland 2016). In

A
M implementation has supported the deployment
2017, Marine Scotland granted development consent to
of several wave and tidal projects, thereby contrib-
install Phase 1b, which comprised four more turbines of
uting to the testing of certain monitoring technologies,
6 MW each. Deployment of Phase 1c is intended to take
and it has answered some fundamental questions about
place in 2021–2022 and will be highly contingent upon
the environmental interactions of single devices and
monitoring outcomes from Phases 1a and 1b. If deployed,
small arrays. The case studies described in the follow-
Phase 1c will consist of a further 49 turbines, bringing
ing sections demonstrate how AM has been applied to
the total capacity of Phase 1 to 86 MW. Further informa-
consented projects, including the MeyGen tidal project
tion about the specifics of the AM plan and results of
(Scotland), the SeaGen tidal turbine (Northern Ireland),
environmental monitoring for MeyGen can be found in
the DeltaStream tidal turbine (Wales), the Roosevelt
Chapter 3 (Collision Risk for Animals around Turbines);
Island Tidal Energy project (U.S.), Ocean Power Tech-
however, some results are commercially sensitive and
nology’s Reedsport Wave Park (U.S.), and the Ocean
not yet publicly available.
Renewable Power Company’s TidGen and RivGen tur-
bine power systems (U.S.). 12.4.2.
SEAGEN TIDAL TURBINE
12.4.1. The Northern Ireland Environment and Heritage Ser-
MEYGEN TIDAL PROJECT
vice and Marine Current Turbines (MCT) installation
The MeyGen tidal energy demonstration project in Pent-
applied an AM approach to the deployment and operation
land Firth (Scotland) is the world’s largest commercial
of MCT’s SeaGen turbine in Strangford Lough (North-
tidal development and has applied an AM approach
ern Ireland). Strangford Lough is designated as a Special
through a staged consenting process. Development
Area of Conservation (SAC) and Special Protection Area
consent was granted by Marine Scotland, on behalf of
(SPA) under the EU Habitats Directive (1992) and Birds
the Scottish Minister, for the construction and opera-
Directive (2009). The main environmental concern was
tion of 61 fully submerged turbines with a consented
whether the turbine would have an adverse impact on
capacity of 86 MW. The Scottish Minister, on the advice
the use of the Lough by harbor seals, a feature of the SAC
of nature conservation bodies, consented the whole
that has an unfavorable conservation status (Keenan et
project on the condition that the first phase of develop-
al. 2011). There was also uncertainty about whether there
ment was implemented with only six turbines and those
was a risk of collision for harbor seal and harbor porpoises
turbines were monitored before the deployment of addi-
(Phocoena phocoena) with the turbine blades. Although
tional turbines (Marine Scotland 2013). The conclusions
not a protected species of the SAC, harbor porpoises are
derived from the environmental assessment process,
subject to a strict protection regime to keep them from
prescribed under the European Union (EU) Habitats
harm, including death, physical injury, and disturbances,
Directive (1992), were that significant adverse effects
under the Habitats Directive (1992). In this case, the key
might occur as a result of predicted levels of collision
aspects of AM focused on marine mammals. A compre-
with protected species, including seabirds, grey seals
hensive environmental monitoring plan was developed
(Halichoerus grypus), harbor seals (Phoca vitulina), Atlan-
as a condition of the license and was complemented by an
tic salmon (Salmo salar), and sea lampreys (Petromyzon
AM approach that required continuous review of monitor-
marinus).
ing 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-
est environmental concerns were for the collision with
After three years of post-installation monitoring, marine
the turbine of a variety of cetacean species protected
mammals appeared to be unlikely to collide with the tur-
from killing or disturbance under the Habitats Direc-
bine within the agreed-upon shutdown action perimeter.
tive (1992), including harbor porpoise and grey seal.
Monitoring activities showed that seals and harbor por-
The DeltaStream project relied on a threshold-based
poises tend to avoid the SeaGen turbine, which reduced
approach to AM where acceptable collision thresholds
the likelihood of marine mammal collisions (Keenan et al.
were set using a potential biological removals (PBR)
2011). Field data provided indications that SeaGen did not
approach (Copping et al. 2016.). PBR is a widely used
create a barrier effect for harbor seals transiting through
method of determining the level of additional manmade
the Strangford Narrows; they continued to use haulout
mortality a population can sustain without adversely
sites during turbine operation (Sparling et al. 2017). Moni-
affecting its size and stability (Wade 1998). A detailed
toring data also demonstrated that active sonar was effec-
Collision Monitoring and Adaptive Management Plan
tive in mitigating collision risk in a manner comparable
established the approach to marine mammal moni-
to MMOs (Fortune 2017). Mitigation monitoring changed
toring to determine the real level of collision risks in
from daylight only with MMOs on the turbine structure
the face of uncertainty (Copping et al. 2016; Sparling,
to 24-hour manual observation of active sonar, which
personal communication). The nearfield monitoring
allowed the turbine to be operated on a 24-hour basis, but
planned for this project included a passive acoustic
with the significant requirement for trained personnel to
monitoring system with several hydrophones directly
be on duty whenever the turbine was operating. As knowl-
mounted on the turbine substructure together with an
edge of the environmental effects of SeaGen increased,
active acoustic monitoring system that used a multi-
the precautionary shutdown distance was progressively
beam sonar to detect animals approaching the device
reduced from 200 m to 100 m, and then to less than 30
(Malinka et al. 2018). Unlike the SeaGen turbine project,
m (Savidge et al. 2014). Final removal of the shutdown
the DeltaStream project had no shutdown mitigation
protocol, with associated fine-scale monitoring around
requirements, but it applied a flexible AM approach in
the turbine blades using a new multibeam sonar system,
which the need for mitigation could be identified and
albeit authorized, was not implemented before the device
required by the Environmental Management Body to
stopped operating in 2015, prior to eventual decommis-
reduce the risk of collision-related mortalities and
sioning in 2019. The mitigation requirements resulted in
ensure that thresholds were not breached (Copping
missed opportunities to gain relevant knowledge about
et al. 2016; Sparling, personal communication). The
how marine mammals interact with the operating tur-
mitigation steps outlined in the collision risk manage-
bine blades. Despite this, the AM process allowed MCT to
ment plan included the potential for limiting turbine
install and operate the SeaGen turbine over a period of five
operation during sensitive times and the use of acoustic
years, thereby increasing the developer’s confidence in
deterrents. By consenting the project without the need
the technology and its capacity to deliver power to the grid
for a shutdown protocol, the deployment of the Del-
(Fortune 2017).
taStream turbine was designed to provide information
12.4.3. about close-range interactions between marine mam-
DELTASTREAM TIDAL TURBINE mals and the operating device to work in conjunction
An AM approach was used to license Tidal Energy Lim- with an acoustic strike detection system that appeared
ited’s grid-connected 400 kW DeltaStream tidal energy to be highly reliable to detect collisions. However, as the
project in Ramsey Sound, off the Pembrokeshire coast project progressed, the ability of the nearfield monitor-
in Wales. Ramsey Sound is within a SAC and adjacent ing 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
model suggested that there was a low probability that
12.4.4.
fish would collide with the turbine blades of the up to 30
ROOSEVELT ISLAND TIDAL ENERGY PROJECT
turbines planned for installation. AM allowed Verdant to
In 2012, the U.S. Federal Energy Regulation Commission
discontinue surveys that do not yield meaningful infor-
(FERC) issued a 10-year Pilot License (FERC No.12611) to
mation and redirect monitoring efforts toward continu-
Verdant Power for the installation of up to 30 hydroki-
ally enhancing monitoring plans for species of concern.
netic turbines to be deployed during three phases in the
east channel of the East River (New York, U.S.). The first 12.4.5.
phase of Verdant Power’s Roosevelt Island Tidal Energy 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

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
Initially, the Pilot License for the TidGen project imposed
(Response Plan) that included alternative management
a seasonal restriction window on pile-driving operations
measures. Alternative management measures were not
because of the presence of migrating Atlantic salmon.
determined at the start but were left to the later deter-
Alleviation of seasonal restrictions under the AM plan
mination of the developer and approval by the compe-
was dependent on the results of underwater monitor-
tent Implementation Committee. At this point in time,
ing, which demonstrated that sound levels produced by
the extent to which AM contributed to reducing uncer-
pile-driving hammer techniques (outside the restriction
tainty and informing the future expansion of Reedsport
period) did not exceed the acceptable threshold estab-
Wave Park cannot be evaluated, because the FERC
lished by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS
license was surrendered two years after the project was
2018). Underwater noise measurements from the instal-
approved. The license was surrendered mainly because
lation of TidGen indicated that noise levels were below
of difficulties related to financing Phase 1 and technical
the thresholds of concern for Atlantic salmon when
complications resulting from installation of the floating
sound absorption measures, including the placement of
gravity-based anchor, as well as the unfortunate sinking
plywood between the impact hammer and the follower,
of the subsurface buoyancy float. The project was with-
were used during pile driving (ORPC 2013). Using these
drawn before the AM process could be applied to the full
thresholds and transferring underwater noise data from
project timeline (O’Neil et al. 2019).
a previous project allowed ORPC to request the removal
12.4.6 of seasonal restrictions on pile-driving for Phase 1 opera-
ORPC’S TIDGEN AND RIVGEN POWER SYSTEMS tions, which was granted by FERC.
Ocean Renewable Power Company (ORPC) has a track
Monitoring for marine mammals during the installation
record of implementing AM to reduce scientific uncer-
and operational phase included incidental and dedicated
tainty when modifying project operations and monitoring
observations made by trained MMOs. Incidental obser-
methodologies at the scale of single devices (e.g., TidGen
vations were performed over several seasons to observe
and RivGen projects). Using conditional licensing, with
marine mammal presence and behavior around the tur-
AM as a basis, ORPC was granted a Pilot Project License
bine prior to, during, and after key installation and main-
(FERC No. 12711-005) by FERC in 2012 to install and
tenance activities, including pile-driving (ORPC 2013).
operate TidGen, a single horizontal-axis tidal turbine,
Mitigation for the presence of marine mammals entering
in Cobscook Bay, Maine (U.S.) (FERC No. 12711-005). An
or approaching a 152 m marine mammal exclusion zone
AM plan that served as the foundation for monitoring
during pile-driving included curtailment and delay of
and science-based decision-making was required under
installation activities (ORPC 2013). Cessation of pile-driv-
the Pilot License. The AM plan was developed by ORPC’s
ing activities was required until the marine mammal had
Adaptive Management Team (AMT) in consultation with
moved beyond 305 m (1000 ft) from the exclusion zone
regulatory agencies, stakeholders, and local communi-
or 30 minutes had passed since the last sighting (ORPC
ties. Using the AM process, ORPC, with the support of
2013). Dedicated marine mammal observations indi-
the AMT, was able to demonstrate that their single tidal

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
AMT may have to consider additional monitoring efforts
In a similar approach, during 2014 and 2015 AM allowed
and implement work timing windows to reduce and/or
for the deployment of the RivGen demonstration project
eliminate negative impacts on fish populations (FERC No.
in the Kvichak River in Alaska, U.S., without requiring a
13711-003, Article 403). Conversely, if no adverse effects
FERC Pilot License. A fish monitoring plan required the
are observed throughout the first year of operation, the
use of underwater video cameras to monitor fish interac-
AMT may submit recommendations to FERC to modify the
tions with the device and the evaluation and mitigation
monitoring protocol and shutdown plan.
of possible adverse effects on sockeye salmon. The video
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
12.4.7
Project AMT meeting in 2014 and 2015 (ORPC 2015, 2016),
PACWAVE SOUTH PROJECT
suggesting that transfer of data is a real possibility from
Oregon State University (OSU) developed a detailed AM
the industry perspective and can definitely be used to
framework to support a license application to install
inform future developments (see Chapter 13, Risk Retire-
and operate a grid-connected wave energy test facility:
ment and Data Transferability for Marine Renewable
the PacWave South Project, formerly known as Pacific
Energy). The 2015 monitoring project is referenced in the
Marine Energy Center South Energy Test Site. The
FERC license for the next stage of the Iguigig Hydroki-
project consists of four grid-connected berths to sup-
netic Project (FERC No. 13511-003) and the methods used
port testing of up to 20 commercial-scale WECs with a
previously will be implemented again, more extensively
maximum installed capacity of 20 MW. As part of their
(FERC 2019). The short sampling periods in 2014 and 2015
AM framework, OSU has committed to implementing
limited broader transferability of the data.
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
While it goes beyond the scope of this chapter to detail
about the need to adopt additional protection, mitigation,
the catalog of measures and the AM process applied by
and enhancement measures to assure that the potential
PacWave South, the approach is relatively similar with
effects are within the thresholds and meet the criteria
respect to EMFs. If post-installation field measurements
prescribed for the project.
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. 12.5.
Similarly, if underwater noise monitoring results show
CONCLUSIONS AND
persistent exceedance of published harassment thresholds RECOMMENDATIONS

T
(120 dB re 1 μPa) at a distance of 100 m from the WECs or his chapter provides an explanation of AM and how
their mooring systems, OSU is obliged to instruct test- its underlying principles may be applied to develop-
ing clients to diagnose and repair or modify the WECs or ing effective approaches for addressing uncertainty and
mooring systems within 60 days, to continue monitoring knowledge gaps in consenting processes. To date, AM
activities, and to demonstrate the effectiveness of the has contributed to risk retirement by allowing single
noise abatement measures. In addition, OSU is required devices or small arrays to be deployed under a struc-
to notify NMFS about whether further exceedances of tured incremental approach with embedded mitigation
harassment thresholds occur after implementation of the and monitoring, thereby providing valuable information
corrective actions. If, despite repairs and modifications, about device-specific stressor/receptor interactions.
the noise level is not reduced below acceptable thresholds, As the industry moves toward commercial deploy-
further actions are prescribed, including the provision of a ment, implementation guidance should be issued by
draft plan specifying the following, among other actions: 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) the design of and conditions for post-installation moni-
toring, stakeholder engagement, information sharing,
◆ necessary repairs and modifications to reduce noise
and thresholds for AM intervention.
levels.

SECTION D – STRATEGIES FOR ACCELERATING CONSENTING/PERMITTING 255

As the industry moves forward, MRE developers that
use AM for marine renewables could learn from their
12.6.
fisheries counterparts by using clearly controlled rules REFERENCES
for monitoring and evaluating project effects relative Bennet, F., Culloch, R., and Tait, A. 2016. Guidance on
to predefined thresholds, including the ability to adjust effective adaptive management and post-consent mon-
mitigation and monitoring as part of a formal structured itoring strategies (RiCORE Project Report No. RiCORE-
AM process (McDonald et al. 2017; Sainsbury et al. 2000). D5-2D5-4). Report by Robert Gordon University for
Monitoring approaches must be question-driven and the European Commission; Aberdeen, Scotland. https://​
questions must be directly connected to thresholds/trig- tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/guidance-effective-adaptive​
gers to avoid unacceptable impacts. In practice, design- -management-post-consent-monitoring-strategies
ing monitoring that informs and works with thresholds
Birds Directive (Directive 2009/147/EC of the European
may be extremely challenging; it requires the ability to
Parliament and of the Council of 30 November 2009 on
confidently measure and monitor the appropriate met-
the conservation of wild birds). OJ L 20, 26.1.2010, p.
rics of concern with the required levels of accuracy and
7-25. [European Union]
precision to inform management decisions.
Cooney, R. 2006. A long and winding road? Precaution
It is important to realize that engaging in an AM
from principle to practice in biodiversity conservation.
approach may not result in quick wins: AM is a long
In E. Fisher, J. Jones, and R. von Schomberg (Ed.), Imple-
process that requires forethought and commitment, and
menting the Precautionary Principle; Perspectives and Pros-
AM comes with a degree of risk for developers. Develop-
pects (pp. 223-244). Cheltenham, England: Edward Elgar
ers must accept that the operational schemes of their
Publishing Limited. https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications​
projects might be altered or terminated if monitor-
/long-winding-road-precaution-principle-practice​
ing indicates harm is being done to sensitive species
-biodiversity-conservation
or other valuable uses. Large MRE projects consented
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
Copping, A., Gartman, V., May, R., and Bennet, F. 2019.
have available and consider the need for and practicality
The Role of Adaptive Management in the Wind Energy
of reducing uncertainties. While AM offers some flexi-
Industry. In R. Bispo, J. Bernardino, H. Coelho, and J. L.
bility to consent and deploy MRE projects despite uncer-
Costa (Eds.), Wind Energy and Wildlife Impacts (pp. 1-25).
tainty, AM at larger deployment scales has the potential
Cham, Switzerland: Springer. https://tethys.pnnl.gov​
to become an onerous process that creates significant
/publications/role-adaptive-management-wind-energy​
financial uncertainty for project developers. To date,
-industry
AM is the only known method capable of dealing with
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​
-environmental-effects-wren-adaptive-management​
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. 16 U.S.C.
-white-paper
ch. 35 § 1531 et seq. [U.S.]
Hastie, G. D., Gillespie, D. M., Gordon, J. C. D., Macau-
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). 2019.
lay, J. D. J., McConnell, B. J., and Sparling, C. E. 2014.
Environmental Assessment for Hydropower License:
Tracking Technologies for Quantifying Marine Mammal
Igiugig Hydrokinetic Project - FERC Project No. 13511-
Interactions with Tidal Turbines: Pitfalls and Possibili-
003. Office of Energy Projects, Washington, D.C. https://​
ties. In M. A. Shields and A. I. L. Payne (Eds.), Marine
tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/environmental-assessment​
Renewable Energy Technology and Environmental Interac-
-hydropower-license
tions (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)
Johnson, C. J. 2013. Identifying ecological thresholds
Ocean. https://tethys.pnnl.gov/events/webinar-adaptive​
for regulating human activity: Effective conservation
-management-systems-dont-make-same-mistakes​
or wishful thinking? Biological Conservation, 168, 57-65.
-twice
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
Johnson, N. 2016. Adaptive Management in the Marine
vertebrates. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews,
Renewable Energy Industry. Webinar conducted by
81(2), 1926-1938. doi:10.1016/j.rser.2017.06.004 https://​
Ocean Energy Systems Annex IV. https://tethys.pnnl​
tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/challenges-opportunities​
.gov/events/adaptive-management-marine-renewable​
-monitoring-impacts-tidal-stream-energy-devices​
-energy-industry-webinar
-marine
Jones, G. 2005. Is the management plan achieving
Gillespie, A. 2013. Conservation, Biodiversity and Inter-
its objectives? In G. L. Worboys, M. Lockwood, and T.
national Law. Cheltenham, England: Edward Elgar Pub-
De Lacy (Eds. Second ed.), Protected Area Management:
lishing. https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/conservation​
Principles and Practice (pp. 555-557). Melbourne, Aus-
-biodiversity-international-law
tralia: Oxford University Press. https://tethys.pnnl.gov​
Greig, L., and Murray, C. 2008. Peer Review of Rock- /publications/management-plan-achieving-its-objectives
fort Quarry Adaptive Management Plan. Jagger Hims
Keenan, G., Sparling, C., Williams, H., and Fortune, F.
Ltd., Collingwood, Ontario. https://www.peelregion.ca​
2011. SeaGen Environmental Monitoring Programme:
/planning/pdf/rockfort/rockfort2.pdf
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​
Marine Scottland. 2016. Survey, Deploy and Moni-
-science
tor 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,
McDonald, G., Harford, B., Arrivillaga, A., Babcock, E.
491-501. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2019.02.007 https://tethys​
A., Carcamo, R., Foley, J., Fujita, R., Gedamke, T., Gib-
.pnnl.gov/publications/sustainably-reconciling-offshore​
son, J., Karr, K., Robinson, J., and Wilson, J. 2017. An
-renewable-energy-natura-2000-sites-interim-adaptive
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.
Morgera, E. 2017. The ecosystem approach and the
https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/legal-feasibility​
precautionary principle. In M. Faure, E. Morgera, and J.
-implementing-risk-based-approach-mre-consenting​
Razzaque (Eds.), Elgar Encyclopedia of Environmental Law:
-compatibility-natura
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
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2018. 2018
Wind Industry Can Aid Development of the Wave
Revision to: Technical Guidance for Assessing the
Energy Sector: Lessons Learnt From EIA Studies. Paper
Effects of Anthropogenic Sound on Marine Mammal
presented at the 22nd International Offshore and Polar
Hearing (Version 2.0): Underwater Thresholds for Onset
Engineering Conference, Rhodes, Greece. https://tethys​
of Permanent and Temporary Threshold Shifts (NMFS-
.pnnl.gov/publications/how-experiences-offshore-wind​
OPR-59). Report by National Oceanic and Atmospheric
-industry-can-aid-development-wave-energy-sector​
Administration for U.S. Department of Commerce; Sil-
-lessons
ver 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​
-regulatory-processes-literature-review
Ocean Renewable Power Company (ORPC). 2013. Cob-
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​
.gov/publications/pacwave-south-license-application
Ocean Renewable Power Company (ORPC). 2014. Cob-
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​
/publications/pacwave-south-license-application
Ocean Renewable Power Company (ORPC) 2015. Cob-
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​
Sainsbury, K. J., Punt, A. E., and Smith, A.
/publications/cobscook-bay-tidal-energy-project-2014​
D. M. 2000. Design of operational manage-
-environmental-monitoring-report
ment 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:
Springer Netherlands. https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications​
Offshore Renewables Joint Industry Programme
/strangford-lough-seagen-tidal-turbine
(ORJIP) Ocean Energy. 2017. The Forward Look: An
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,
74, 848-859. doi:10.1016/j.rser.2017.03.013 https://
Verdant Power. 2010a. Roosevelt Island Tidal Energy
tethys.pnnl​.gov/publications/turning-drip-data-rich-
Project FERC No. 12611 (Volume 1 of 4). Report by Ver-
information​-poor-rationalising-monitoring-focus-
dant Power LLC; New York, New York. https://tethys.pnnl​
marine
.gov/publications/final-pilot-license-application-roosevelt​
-island-tidal-energy-project Williams, B. K. 2011a. Adaptive management of natural
resources—framework and issues. Journal of Environmen-
Verdant Power. 2010b. Roosevelt Island Tidal Energy
tal Management, 92(5), 1346-1353. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman​
Project FERC No. 12611 (Volume 4 of 4). Report by Ver-
.2010.10.041 https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/adaptive​
dant Power LLC; New York, New York. https://tethys.pnnl​
-management-natural-resources-framework-issues
.gov/publications/roosevelt-island-tidal-energy-project​
-rite-proposed-monitoring-plans-rite-monitoring Williams, B. K. 2011b. Passive and active adap-
tive management: Approaches and an example.
Verdant Power. 2018. Appendix B: P12611- Addendum to
Journal of Environmental Management, 92(5), 1371-
Verdant Power RITE Draft License Application. Report
1378. doi:10.1016​/j.jenvman.2010.10.039 https://
by Verdant Power LLC; New York, New York. https://​
tethys.pnnl.gov/publications​/passive-active-adaptive-
tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/addendum-verdant-power​
management-approaches​-example
-rite-draft-license-application

260 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-
department-interior-technical-guide
Williams, B. K., and Brown, E. D. 2018. Double-Loop
Learning in Adaptive Management: The Need, the
Challenge, and the Opportunity. Environmental Manage-
ment, 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-Environ-
mental 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 Go to https://tethys​.pnnl.gov for

OES-Environmental 2020 State of the Science full report and Andrea Copping a comprehensive collection of
executive summary available at: Pacific Northwest National papers, reports, archived presen-
https://tethys​.pnnl.gov/publications/state-of-the​-science-2020 Laboratory tations, and other media about
[email protected] environmental effects of marine
renewable energy development.
+1 206.528.3049

SECTION D – STRATEGIES FOR ACCELERATING CONSENTING/PERMITTING 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 Large-scale marine renewable energy
“RISK RETIREMENT”? (MRE) developments continue to progress
slowly, in part because of compli-
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
cated consenting/permitting (hereafter
risk need not be fully investigated for every project. Rather we consenting) processes that invoke the
recommend that MRE developers and regulators rely on what is precautionary principle within environ-
known from already consented projects, from related research
studies, or from findings from analogous offshore industries. When
mental legislative frameworks. This can
larger arrays of MRE devices are planned, or when new informa- lead to broad, poorly scoped environ-
tion comes to light, these risks can be revisited and new decisions mental assessments, lengthy and
about the level of risk downgrading or retirement can be made.
expensive environmental data collection
The intent of the process is to provide assistance to regulators in
their decision-making and to inform the MRE community of what requirements, and extended consenting
is likely to be required for consenting single device deployments, timelines. Much of this delay is associated
demonstration projects and small arrays, as well as to help distin-
guish between perceived and actual risk to the marine environment.
with uncertainty about the potential
effects of MRE on marine animals and
Risk retirement will not take the place of any existing regulatory
processes, nor will it completely replace the need for appropriate habitats (Copping 2018).
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.

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
The risk retirement approach described here follows
(IEA) Ocean Energy Systems (OES) task OES-Environ-
the concept of stressors and receptors (Boehlert and
mental (see Chapter 1, Introduction).
Gill 2010). The stressor-receptor interactions that are
collectively recognized as key issues by regulators,
developers, stakeholders and researchers are associated
13.1
with the following:
DEFINITION OF RISK RETIREMENT
◆ potential collision of marine animals with tidal

T
he term “risk retirement” has been used by tech- turbine blades
nology-focused development programs such as
◆ effects of underwater noise from MRE operation on
geotechnical risk management to delineate circum-
marine animal behavior and health
stances in which key stressor-receptor interactions are
◆ potential effects of electromagnetic fields (EMFs)
sufficiently understood to alleviate the need to carry out
from cables and energized devices on sensitive
detailed investigations for each proposed project (NAS
marine species
2018). The term has also been used by the MRE commu-
nity to describe a means of simplifying the consenting ◆ changes in benthic and pelagic habitats from MRE
processes by focusing on key issues of concern (Copping anchors, foundations, and mooring lines
et al. 2016; Robertson et al. 2018). However, there is no ◆ displacement of or barrier effect on migratory animal
specific definition and little understanding of how risk populations from arrays of MRE devices
might progress to a less active state of investigation or ◆ changes in circulation and sediment transport as
retirement. OES-Environmental aims to examine and a result of operational MRE devices, as well as the
define the possibilities of how risk retirement might effects of energy removal from the system
be manifested and provide a pathway forward that will
◆ potential entanglement of marine animals in
help streamline consenting processes.
mooring lines for many wave devices and some tidal
Based on interactions with the MRE industry, regu- 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
Based on feedback from surveys of regulators from sev-
risk, may require further research and monitoring, while
eral countries participating in the OES-Environmental
displacement or barrier effects will not be resolved until
task and direct interactions with United States (U.S.)
larger arrays are deployed and studied. The risk retire-
regulators, a risk retirement pathway (Figure 13.1) was
ment steps described below and depicted in Figure 13.1
developed to determine whether potential risks from an
are aimed at developing criteria to minimize, down-
MRE project can be downgraded or retired. The intent
grade, or retire the risks that are not likely to cause
of the process is to provide assistance to regulators in
harm to the marine environment.
their decision-making and to inform the MRE commu-
nity of what is likely to be required for the consenting of
single devices, demonstration projects and small arrays.
13.2
Assuring that datasets and knowledge from consented
THE RISK RETIREMENT PATHWAY MRE projects are readily available and cataloged is a

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).

t i on
c r ip )
s rs or Habi
so als t o r s ) tat
( S t r e De

ep
s
Mari ( ReAnim
Pro j ec t

s
c

Examine Collect Apply Existing Test Novel

ne

Define Risk
Existing Data Additional Data Mitigation Mitigation

No Likely/ Sufficient Data Sufficient Data Risk Risk

Plausible Risk Risk Acceptable Risk Acceptable Mitigated 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
13.3
a method for advancing from determining the level of
risk from any stressor-receptor interaction toward a set
APPLICATION OF THE RISK
of solutions based on the best use of available evidence RETIREMENT PATHWAY TO MRE
and a proportionate approach to determining any addi- INTERACTIONS
tional evidence needs. The pathway aims to facilitate

B
ased on the understanding of interactions between
more streamlined consenting (Figure 13.1). The pathway
MRE systems and the marine environment, OES-
also implies that a risk can be revisited by following the
Environmental identified two stressors (underwater noise
same process, if additional information suggests fur-
and EMFs) as candidates for risk retirement related to
ther review is needed.
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, knowl-
edge, 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 infor-
mation to do so. As noted, the concept of risk retire-
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
ment is associated with a decreased need to examine the 34 experts from 11 nations. The workshop evaluated the risk
stressor-receptor interaction at each new project site. If retirement pathway using hypothetical examples for underwa-
at any stage there is not sufficient information to deter- ter noise and electromagnetic fields, mainly focusing on stages
2 (Examine Existing Data) and 3 (Collect Additional Data).
mine that the risk might be retired (via an off ramp),
the risk moves to the next stage to the right. More detail A second workshop, targeted toward a largely American audi-
about the stages can be found on the Tethys website and1 ence, was held at the Ocean Renewable Energy Conference
2019 (OREC) in Portland, Oregon, United States (September
in Copping et al. (2020a, 2020b).
10–12, 2019). The risk retirement pathway was evaluated
In moving from one stage to the next on the risk retire- using two hypothetical examples for underwater noise. Focus-
ment pathway, available knowledge needs to be exam- ing once again on stages 2 (Examine Existing Data) and 3 (Col-
lect Additional Data) of the risk retirement pathway, the work-
ined to determine whether a project can progress to the
shop experts examined the evidence to determine whether
next stage and to provide feedback among the stages.
participants felt the risk could be retired for underwater noise
This application of data to inform the process has been for wave and tidal devices.
termed “data transferability” (see Section 13.4) and
A third workshop targeted toward an Australian audience was
comes into play mainly during stages 1 and 2. In addi-
held in Sydney, Australia (December 4, 2019). In addition to
tion to applying existing data (data transfer) to inform presentations to familiarize participants with the current state
progress from stage to stage, the generation of new data of the science on environmental effects of marine renewable
from monitoring, research studies, experiments, or energy, the risk retirement pathway and data transferability
development of new effective mitigation measures may processes related to underwater noise and electromagnetic
fields were presented. Similar to the other workshops, two
require datasets to inform the process (signified by the
hypothetical examples were used to evaluate risk retirement.
dotted arrows on the top of the diagram; Figure 13.1).
2. https://tethys.pnnl.gov/events/retiring-risks-mre-environmental-
1. https://tethys.pnnl.gov/risk-retirement interactions-support-consentingpermitting

266 OES-ENVIRONMENTAL 2020 STATE OF THE SCIENCE REPORT

realistic, MRE developments to apply the evidence base BOX 13.2.
and evaluate risk retirement. The consensus among
FEEDBACK FROM RISK RETIREMENT
participants was to accept the evidence toward risk WORKSHOPS FOR UNDERWATER NOISE
retirement, but consider some additional caveats and
data collection requirements.
A t the EWTEC workshop, participants found the risk retirement
pathway intuitive and easy to navigate. They agreed that, in
13.3.1 addition to the existing sound at a site, the risk associated with
EFFECTS OF UNDERWATER NOISE ON underwater noise from marine renewable energy (MRE) could be
MARINE ANIMALS retired for single devices and small arrays, with the caveat that
a library of standardized noise measurements produced by MRE
As described in Chapter 4 (Risk to Marine Animals from
is needed. The recommendation is to measure in situ the under-
Underwater Noise Generated by Marine Renewable water noise from each wave or tidal device for which deploy-
Energy Devices), monitoring around single devices, as ment/development consent is sought, using the International
well as field research, indicate that underwater noise Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) Technical Committee (TC) 114
emitted from operational MRE devices can be detected Level B recommendations (IEC 2019). In the United States (U.S.)
by many marine animals but is unlikely to significantly context, provided that the underwater noise from a device falls
below the U.S. thresholds (NMFS 2018; Tetra Tech 2013), the risk
alter their behavior or cause them physical harm (e.g.,
could be retired. However, it was noted that different countries
Baring-Gould et al. 2016). The sound levels of devices, have different requirements, so some additional work with regu-
either wave energy devices (WECs) or tidal turbines, lators is needed to assure that the pathway becomes acceptable
appear to fall below existing U.S. regulatory thresholds for under the particular nation’s legislation. Gaps in information that
marine mammals and fish (NMFS 2018; Tetra Tech 2013). would allow a similar analysis for large MRE arrays were noted,
Operational noise from MRE devices also falls below the including the need to verify noise propagation models because
they might apply to underwater noise from large arrays in the
frequency thresholds at which most marine mammals
high-energy waters in which MRE development is targeted to
hear (Haikonen et al. 2013) and has been shown to be of occur.
lower amplitude than other industrial activities such as
At the OREC workshop, participants felt that risks from under-
commercial shipping (Lossent et al. 2017).
water noise were close to retirement for single devices. In addi-
The evidence base for underwater noise from turbines tion to supporting the concept of measuring noise outputs from
and WECs includes studies completed by Cruz et al. operational devices and comparing those outputs to U.S. regula-
tory thresholds, the participants were interested in understand-
(2015), Farcas et al. (2016), Hafla et al. (2018), Haikonen
ing how marine animals might be using the habitats immediately
et al. (2013), Lepper and Robinson (2016), Lossent et al. surrounding the device and how they might behave in response
(2018), Schmitt et al. (2015, 2018), and Tougaard (2015). to the noise produced by the device. Acquiring further informa-
To investigate the effects of underwater noise during the tion about underwater noise from arrays was thought to be
three aforementioned workshops (Box 13.2), a selection important, including the spacing of devices to minimize overall
of hypothetical, but realistic, MRE examples was used. noise inputs to an area and the role that test centers could play
in measuring underwater noise under operational conditions.
One of the examples included a bottom-mounted axial-
flow tidal turbine (Figure 13.2) for which the sound gen- At the Sydney workshop, participants thought the concept of
erated by the rotating blades and the power take-off fell risk retirement fit well in an Australian regulatory context and
that both the risk retirement and data transferability processes
in the 118–145 dB re 1 µPa at 1 m range, over frequencies
added value by providing a systemic analysis that regulators
of 40 Hz to 8 kHz (see definitions in Chapter 4, Risk to can put into practice. It was noted that additional precautionary
Marine Animals from Underwater Noise Generated by steps may be required in specific locations where sensitive spe-
Marine Renewable Energy Devices). cies 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. The evidence base for EMFs from submarine cables
EFFECTS OF EMFS ON MARINE ANIMALS 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 tele-
communications, 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 regula-
tory 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

 and gauge their comfort in using data and information
13.4. of this nature in their jurisdictions. Based on the feed-
DATA TRANSFERABILITY PROCESS back received, OES-Environmental developed a data

I
n an MRE context, the process of data transferabil- transferability process. The international research and
ity refers to applying existing learning, analyses, development community was then brought together
and monitoring datasets from one country to another, at a workshop in June 2018 in conjunction with the
among projects, and across jurisdictional boundaries. International Conference on Ocean Energy to gather
This process could help satisfy regulatory requirements additional feedback about data transferability, to review
for MRE developments and subsequently reduce costs and modify proposed best management practices, and
and burden to the industry over time, while also pro- to discuss ways to implement the process. Additional
tecting the marine environment. To efficiently transfer details and materials about data transferability out-
these datasets, it is advisable for information and data reach 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 detail by Copping et al. 2018, 2020c) consists of four
many different parameters and methods. If good man- components (Figure 13.4): (1) data transferability
agement practices were applied to standardize methods framework, (2) data collection consistency table, (3)
of collection for baseline and post-installation moni- monitoring datasets discoverability matrix, and (4)
toring around early-stage devices, the results would best management practices (BMPs). Additional details
be more readily comparable, could lead to a decrease about applying the process can be found on the Tethys
in scientific uncertainty, and would support a common website4. This process is expected to be useful for regu-
understanding of the risk of stressor-receptor interac- lators, developers, and other stakeholders to help with
tions. This, in turn, would facilitate more efficient and discovery and comparison of existing datasets that
shorter consenting processes, which would decrease have potential stressor-receptor interactions that may
financial risk for MRE project developments, reduce be present in planned MRE projects, and to help pro-
burden and requirement for additional resources for vide insight into how the outcome of these interactions
regulators, and subsequently move deployment of might be assessed.
wave and tidal devices forward more rapidly. Overall,
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 transfer-

ring 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 Figure 13.4. The data transferability process consists of a data
transferability framework, data collection consistency table, monitor-
the proposed approach to data transferability. U.S. regu- ing datasets discoverability matrix, and best management practices.
lators were further engaged through a series of online (Graphic by Robyn Ricks)
workshops. The regulators were presented with MRE
data from previously consented projects or research
3. https://tethys.pnnl.gov/data-transferability​#Outreach%20&%20
studies to provide them with background information Engagement
4. https://tethys.pnnl.gov/data-transferability

270 OES-ENVIRONMENTAL 2020 STATE OF THE SCIENCE REPORT

13.4.1. can be aggregated, requires an evaluation of the degree
DATA TRANSFERABILITY FRAMEWORK to which collection methods and units are consistent and
The data transferability framework (hereafter frame- data are applicable to similar receiving environments.
work) guides the overall process of data transfer by
For six of the stressors, a set of processes, reporting
bringing together datasets (e.g., information, raw data,
units, and generalized analysis or reporting methods is
reports, results) from already consented projects in an
proposed in the data collection consistency table (Table
organized fashion to facilitate access and assist in the
13.1). The preferred process (measurement methods)
assessment of knowledge for use in consenting future
or measurement tools are reported for each stressor,
projects. This process may be expedited if datasets are
along with preferred reporting units and the most com-
collected in a consistent way using preferred measure-
mon methods of analysis or interpretation and use of
ment methods or processes.
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.
13.4.3.
The framework uses four variables (stressor, receptor, MONITORING DATASETS DISCOVERABILITY
site condition, and MRE technology type) to define a 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-
tor, site condition, MRE technology, etc.). After datasets
13.4.2.
are identified, there is an opportunity to evaluate the
DATA COLLECTION CONSISTENCY
consistency of information and to determine whether
MRE is an international industry, whose consenting
the data can be transferred to inform applications and
processes and research norms differ from country to
decisions for new projects.
country, region to region, and among research and
commercial data collection efforts. It would be difficult 13.4.4.
to enforce the use of specific protocols or instruments 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

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
◆ Regulators and other stakeholders must be willing consistency table.
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

Collision risk Sensors include: Number of visible targets in field Number of collisions and/or close
• active acoustic only of view, number of collisions. interactions of animals with turbines,
• active acoustic + video and probability of encounters, used to
• video only validate collision risk models.
• observations from vessel or Avoidance or evasion
shore
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 Sound outputs from MRE devices
function of frequency) with units: compared against regulatory action
Amplitude: dB re 1μPa at 1 m levels. Generally reported as broadband
Frequency: frequencies within marine noise unless guidance exists for specific
animal hearing range frequency ranges.
Development of noise propagation
models for array projects from
monitoring around single devices
Electromagnetic Source: AC or DC Measured EMF levels used to validate
fields • cable - shielded or unshielded Voltage existing EMF models around cables and
• other Amplitude in tesla units other energized sources.
(µT or mT)

Changes in habitats Underwater mapping with: Area of habitat or species distribution Compare potential changes in habitat
• sonar altered, specific for each habitat and/or species distributions to maps of
• video type or species. rare and important habitats or species to
Habitat or species distribution ensure that these vulnerable species and
characterized from: habitats are not likely to be harmed by
• mapping the location of the proposed project.
• existing maps
• grabs and other benthic
sampling gear

Displacement / barrier Population estimates on or near Population estimates for species Validation of population models,
effect a project site by: under special protection. estimates of jeopardy, loss of species
• human observers Importance of high energy areas for vulnerable populations (locally or
• passive or active acoustic for key activities or transit. globally).
monitoring
• video

Changes in Numerical modeling, with field No preferred units. Indication of Data collected around arrays should be
oceanographic data validation for currents, datasets used for validation, if any. used to validate models.
systems turbulence, wave height,
wave period, etc.

272 OES-ENVIRONMENTAL 2020 STATE OF THE SCIENCE REPORT

 5 m, the sound of seabed drilling was not audible over
13.5. the vessel plant noise (Aquatera 2015). The outcome of
APPLYING DATA TRANSFERABILITY this monitoring was used to inform the development of
TO SUPPORT CONSENTING SME’s project environmental management plan for their
proposed deployment at EMEC’s Fall of Warness test

A
pplying the data transferability process will help
site and, because of the results, SME was not required
address the concept of transferring knowledge and
to implement a mitigation zone, use Marine Mam-
information among MRE projects, as well as collecting
mal Observers, or undertake acoustic monitoring dur-
data consistently.
ing installation at EMEC (Marine Scotland 2015). This
13.5.1. resulted in significant cost savings, streamlined opera-
APPLYING THE PROCESS tional planning, and reduced the number of required
The data transferability process was developed to provide offshore personnel for the EMEC deployment.
a background against which discussions with regulators
and other stakeholders can proceed as the key principles
Voith Hydro HyTide and Brims Tidal Array
and limits of transferability are better understood. The
(changes in habitat stressor)
data transferability process will facilitate initial consenting Pre- and post-installation underwater video data were
discussions between developers and regulators to guide collected at the Voith Hydro HyTide project at EMEC in
data collection and monitoring efforts needed for an MRE 2011 to determine baseline conditions and the effect of
project and determine operational monitoring needs. operation on the immediate and surrounding benthic
habitat (Aquatera 2011). A report about this high-level
While data transfer often occurs during the consent- assessment was provided to the regulator and advisors,
ing process, these instances are rarely documented. To who determined that such drilling activities would have
move the data transferability process forward, consent- a limited footprint and therefore limited effect on the
ing licenses for which data transfer was used should benthic habitat. These data were then transferred from
be highlighted and shared with the MRE community. the Voith Hydro project to inform the environmental
Through the successful development and implemen- impact assessment for the OpenHydro 200 MW Brims
tation of the data transferability process, OES-Envi- Tidal Array near Orkney, Scotland (Aquatera 2011; Brims
ronmental will continue its efforts of outreach and Tidal Array 2016). Understanding of the extent (foot-
engagement with relevant stakeholders to further the print) of the direct effects of drilling on benthic habitats
knowledge and understanding of the potential environ- allowed a proportionate approach to be adopted during
mental effects of MRE devices, thereby accelerating the the environmental impact assessment process, enabling
siting and consenting process for MRE developments. developers to focus monitoring and mitigation on topics
13.5.2. of greater scientific uncertainty.
DATA TRANSFERABILITY CASE STUDIES Sabella D03 and D10 (collision risk stressor)
A selection of examples from the MRE industry help
The Sabella D03 turbine was deployed in 2008 in the
describe some early successes in the transfer of data and
Odet estuary in Brittany, France. Video monitoring
information. We expect that many more examples will
showed slow-moving turbine speeds that appeared to be
become available in the next few years of MRE develop-
“innocuous” to schools of fish (ETIP Ocean 2017; see the
ment.
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
13.6.
receptor)
Voith Hydro installed a 23 m monopile foundation
CONCLUSION

T
for their HyTide tidal energy device at EMEC’s Fall of he concepts of risk retirement and data transfer-
Warness site in 2011, using a large offshore construc- ability have been developed by OES-Environmental
tion vessel with a dynamic positioning system. Marine 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 instal-
The groups that have convened to examine the pro-
lation operations, but this correlation was considered
cesses and evidence bases for risk retirement of under-
likely to be due to the natural diurnal haulout patterns
water noise and EMFs were generally in agreement that
of seals (Aquatera 2011). No evidence of disturbance
these stressors could be retired for small MRE projects,
by the monopile installation operations was observed,
but that additional information needs to be added to the
and noise levels were found to be unlikely to cause any
evidence base. The data transferability process, particu-
auditory impairment to harbor seals (Aquatera 2011).
larly the accessibility of datasets from consenting proj-
Based on these findings, a recommendation was made
ects, has also received strong support from these groups.
to EMEC and the regulator that no mitigation or obser-
The monitoring dataset discoverability matrix will
vation zones be established at the test site in the future
become increasingly useful as more MRE developments
by individual vessel operators, because there was no
are consented in the future and additional datasets
observed effect on marine mammals (Aquatera 2011).
become available.
Data from this project were also used to update EMEC
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 opti-
mize 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

 Copping, A., Freeman, M., and Overhus, D. 2020b. Risk
13.7.
Retirement for Environmental Effects of Marine Renew-
REFERENCES able Energy (Report No. PNNL-29996). Report by Pacific
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 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-
ton. https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/data-transferability​
Baring-Gould, E., Christol, C., LiVecchi, A., Kramer,
-collection-consistency-marine-renewable-energy
S., and West, A. 2016. A Review of the Environmental
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​
.gov/publications/state-of-the-science-2016
Brims Tidal Array Environmental Statement. 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
Device - Portugal. Paper presented at the 11th European
Copping, A. 2018. The State of Knowledge for Environ-
Wave and Tidal Energy Conference, Nantes, France. https://​
mental Effects: Driving Consenting/Permitting for the
tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/discussion-effects-underwater​
Marine Renewable Energy Industry. Report by Pacific
-noise-radiated-wave-energy-device-portugal
Northwest National Laboratory for Ocean Energy Sys-
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​
-emf-aquatic-life
Copping, A., Freeman, M., Gorton, A., and Hemery,
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​
-energy-converters-iec-ts-62600-402019
Farcas, A., Thompson, P. M., and Merchant, N. D. 2016.
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​
/modeling-magnetic-fields-dc-power-cable-buried​
Freeman, M., Copping, A., Gorton, A., and Dreyer, S.
-beneath-san-francisco-bay-based
2018. Managing Environmental Effects of Marine
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​
Lossent, J., Gervaise, C., Iorio, L. D., Folegot, T., Cloren-
-through-time
nec, 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, Vir-
ginia. 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​
.gov/publications/marine-mammal-behavioral-response​
Marine Scotland. 2015. SME Marine Licence Number
-tidal-turbine-sound
05684/15/0. Aberdeen, Scotland. https://www2.gov.scot​
/Resource/0049/00493389.pdf Sabella. 2020. Sabella. Retrieved from http://www.sabella​
-d10.bzh/
Meißner, K., Schabelon, H., Bellebaum, J., and Sordyl,
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​
-scale-tidal-turbine-part-3-acoustic-characteristics
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Med-
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​
-subsea-tidal-kite
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2018. 2018
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​
Thomsen, F., Gill, A., Kosecka, M., Andersson, M., André, M.,
-fish-wildlife-presence-near-two-river-instream-energy​
Degraer, S., Folegot, T., Gabriel, J., Judd, A., Neumann, T.,
-conversion-devices
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​
-marine-renewable-energy-sites
Vandendriessche, S., Derweduwen, J., and Hostens,
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-
ington D.C. https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/effects​
Westerberg, H., and Langenfelt, I. 2008. Sub-sea power
-electromagnetic-fields-fish-invertebrates-task-213​
cables and the migration behaviour of the European
-effects-aquatic-organisms
eel. Fisheries Management and Ecology, 15(5-6), 369-
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​
-subsea-high-voltage-dc-power-cable
NOTES

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

REPORT AND MORE INFORMATION CONTACT Go to https://tethys​.pnnl.gov for

OES-Environmental 2020 State of the Science full report and Andrea Copping a comprehensive collection of
executive summary available at: Pacific Northwest National papers, reports, archived presen-
Laboratory tations, and other media about
https://tethys​.pnnl.gov/publications/state-of-the​-science-2020
[email protected] environmental effects of marine
renewable energy development.
+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
Summary and Path Forward
Chapter author: Andrea E. Copping

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 demon-
stration, 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 appli-
cation 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 (prob-
ability) 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 Increased sharing of existing information
yellow and red that indicate increased levels of risk. The Improved modeling of interaction
dashboard also features a bar graph to indicate what Monitoring data needed to verify findings
avenues of investigation and sharing are needed to fur- New research needed
ther understand and lower the risk from that stressor Figure 14.1. Generic version of a dashboard (dial on the top) that dem-
(Figure 14.1). These avenues include onstrates the broadly understood level of risk for specific stressors, as of
2020, with indication of a pathway forward to further understand and
◆ increased sharing of available information lower the perceived risk of the stressor (bar graph on the bottom). These
◆ improved modeling of the interaction dashboards were drawn in the style of Copping and Kramer (2017), and
updated with information from this report. (Graphic by Robyn Ricks)
◆ monitoring data needed to validate models
◆ new research needed. 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.
report for each stressor and is broadly proportional to COLLISION RISK FOR ANIMALS AROUND
the other stressors. However, it is important to under- TURBINES
stand that certain risks may be perceived to be high, As detailed in Chapter 3 about collision risk, the risk
but may be found to be lower, as more knowledge is of marine animals colliding with moving parts of tidal
acquired. We hope the dashboards will prove valuable and river turbines continues to be the greatest concern
as a simple means of visualizing the perceived level of for regulators and stakeholders. Among other interac-
risk, and that they may be updated over time as new tions of concern, this risk has proved to be the most
information becomes available. Only a limited number resistant to progressing toward a solution. Considerable
of operational devices are in the water, ranging from effort and resources have gone into modeling, measur-
single turbines to small arrays. Because of the current ing, and observing the potential interactions of marine
level of MRE development, the levels of perceived risk mammals, fish, and seabirds around turbines; however,
reported here are associated with small numbers of fundamental questions remain. One of the greatest bar-
devices. As commercial-size arrays are developed and riers to better understanding collision risk stems from
occupy larger areas of the sea, the perceptions of risk the technical challenges related to making observations
for certain stressor-receptor interactions may change. 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 fol-
lowing:
◆ 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 Collision
Risk
occurs
◆ understand the impacts on a marine population if
individuals are lost as a result of blade strike
Increased sharing of existing information
◆ identify sublethal effects of blade strike that may Improved modeling of interaction
result in significant injury or death at a later time Monitoring data needed to verify findings
◆ assess the ability to scale rates of collision from a New research needed
single turbine to an array of turbines. Figure 14.2. Dashboard (dial on the top) that summarizes the broadly
understood level of risk that collisions will occur between marine
A substantial number of modeling efforts have been animals and turbines, as of 2020, for small numbers of devices. Risk
carried out to estimate the risk of collision of marine may vary with larger arrays. The bar graph on the bottom demon-
strates a pathway to better understanding and lowering the per-
mammals, fish, and birds around turbines. The models
ceived risk of collision. (Graphic by Robyn Ricks)
have been based on a variety of approaches and geom-
etries, and none of them have been challenged and veri- 14.1.2.
fied with sufficient post-installation monitoring data 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
affect marine mammals and seabirds and perhaps sea
This risk remains relatively high because of the signifi-
turtles (Holt et al. 2009; Jensen et al. 2009; Lesage et al.
cant uncertainties as well as the very high consequences
1999); while fish are more sensitive to acoustic particle
if a collision occurs (Figure 14.2).
velocities (Popper and Hawkins 2018).

SECTION E – LOOKING AHEAD 283

These effects, however, are extremely difficult and
costly to investigate, particularly because these intel-
ligent animals adapt and become acclimated to ongoing
stimuli (NRC 2003). Research on underwater noise from
MRE devices has focused on improving the measure-
ment of MRE device sound emissions and placing those
emissions in the context of the ambient soundscapes
at existing and planned MRE deployment sites. Mea-
suring sound emissions from MRE devices is chal-
lenging because of the high energy of the waters in
which devices are deployed; however, the International Underwater
Electrotechnical Commission Technical Committee 114 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 Increased sharing of existing information
sound emissions have peaked under or near the under- Improved modeling of interaction
water sound action thresholds for marine mammals Monitoring data needed to verify findings
(NMFS 2018) or fish (Tetra Tech 2013). The thresh- New research needed
olds for underwater noise examined to date consider
Figure 14.3. Dashboard (dial on the top) that summarizes the
the likelihood of injury or death to marine mammals; broadly understood level of risk from underwater noise from marine
additional thresholds have been developed that also renewable energy devices to marine animals, as of 2020, for small
numbers of devices. Risk may vary with larger arrays. The bar graph
consider lower levels of noise that may disturb or harass on the bottom demonstrates a pathway to better understanding and
marine mammals. lowering the perceived risk of underwater noise. (Graphic by Robyn
Ricks)
The most critical needs for better understanding the
14.1.3.
potential effects of underwater noise from MRE devices
ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELDS
include the following:
Chapter 5, about electromagnetic field (EMF) effects on
◆ measuring sound emissions from additional types animals, summarized research on the potential effects
and models of turbines and WECs across sound fre- 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

in place in the United States (and any variations crossing EMF at levels typical of MRE-level power cables

accepted in other nations) to determine whether the will significantly alter behavior in a manner likely to be

thresholds are approached or exceeded by particular harmful to the individual or the population. Laboratory

MRE devices and systems studies of physiological and developmental changes

have been carried out for a wide range of species, many
◆ observing marine animals around MRE devices when
of which are unlikely to encounter MRE cables, but these
possible, if regulatory thresholds are exceeded
results are not easily applied in the environment. While
◆ developing a database of noise signatures from dif- it would be easy to dismiss the potential effects of EMFs
ferent devices 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
arrays of MRE devices may be operated in areas already
This risk is low but some questions remain (Figure 14.3).
significantly occupied by other EMF sources.

284 OES-ENVIRONMENTAL 2020 STATE OF THE SCIENCE REPORT

Research and monitoring investigations that will con- 14.1.4.
tinue to inform this risk include the following: CHANGES IN HABITATS
Chapter 6, concerning changes in habitat, provided
◆ developing a reference database that relates power
insight into the potential effects on benthic and pelagic
cable configuration, size, and power transmission
habitats from the installation and operation of MRE
levels common to MRE cables, to provide EMF output
devices, including foundations, anchors, mooring
levels
lines, and cables. In addition to changes in habitats,
◆ examining EMF outputs from other underwater
introducing new hard habitats in the form of MRE
infrastructure, such as substations, that will be
devices and gear may change the behavior of certain
needed as multiple devices and arrays are deployed
species, especially fishes that are likely to reef around
in the future
the installations. The footprints of MRE devices and
◆ additional examination of potentially sensitive systems, as well as the tendency of marine animals to
marine species that are found in the vicinity of MRE aggregate around them, does not differ from the effects
project sites for which little research has been done of other marine installations ranging from navigation
to determine their level of sensitivity to EMF 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 habi-
tat 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 spe-
cies penetration into waters and habitats surround-
ing MRE projects to gauge what possible effect the
introduction of new hard habitats might have on the
area.

Based on information from analogous offshore indus-

tries and the relatively small footprint of MRE foun-
Electromagnetic dations, anchors, and mooring lines, this risk can be
Fields 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 fragile habitat types.
Improved modeling of interaction
Monitoring data needed to verify findings With future expansion of large arrays of MRE devices,
New research needed the potential to affect common habitats should be
revisited.
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 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 represen-
tations of turbines or WECs that include the position
in the water column where devices will be deployed
Changes
◆ representing in numerical models the linkages
in Habitats
from the potential effects of small numbers of MRE
devices to large arrays

Increased sharing of existing information ◆ improving these understanding for long-term base-
Improved modeling of interaction line shifts in oceanographic processes, for example
Monitoring data needed to verify findings caused by climate change.
New research needed
Based on modeling studies, this risk can be considered
Figure 14.5. Dashboard (dial on the top) that summarizes the to be low (Figure 14.6).
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 understand-
ing and lowering the perceived risk of changes in habitats. (Graphic
by Robyn Ricks)

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
Oceanographic
to sediment transport patterns, water quality, and
Systems
marine food webs are certain to be small for one or
two MRE devices, well within the natural variability of
the oceanographic systems. Once very large arrays are Increased sharing of existing information
put in place, the ability to measure these changes and Improved modeling of interaction
understand their potential ecological consequences will Monitoring data needed to verify findings
need to be revisited. In the meantime, numerical mod- New research needed
els allow us to estimate the changes that might occur as
Figure 14.6. Dashboard (dial on the top) that summarizes the
large numbers of devices are deployed and operated. To broadly understood level of risk from changes in oceanographic
date, the changes estimated using models indicate that systems caused by marine renewable energy devices, as of 2020 for
they are likely to be localized and revert to background small numbers of devices. Risk may vary with larger arrays. The bar
graph on the bottom demonstrates a pathway to better understand-
levels within short distances from the devices. The ing and lowering the perceived risk of changes in oceanographic
number of devices used in these models to demonstrate 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 entrap-
ment 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 sub-
marine 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
fishing gear and lines. MRE mooring lines have no loose Risks
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 Increased sharing of existing information
concerned that direct interaction, or secondary collec- Improved modeling of interaction
tion of derelict fishing gear, could cause harm to large Monitoring data needed to verify findings
animals. New research needed

Research and monitoring that could help further eluci- Figure 14.7. Dashboard (dial on the top) that summarizes the broadly
understood level of risk to marine animals from mooring lines and cables
date this risk include related to marine renewable energy devices, as of 2020 for small num-
◆ establishing routine maintenance that includes bers of devices. Risk may vary with larger arrays. The bar graph on the
bottom demonstrates a pathway to better understanding and lowering
monitoring of mooring lines for derelict gear and the perceived risk of mooring lines and cables. (Graphic by Robyn Ricks)
their removal in order to reduce potential secondary
entanglement 14.1.7.
◆ better understanding of the diving and swimming SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC INTERACTIONS
behavior of animals that might be at risk to help with Preparation of environmental assessment documents
siting of MRE development away from dense migra- in most nations requires analysis of the social and eco-
tory routes and to determine the depths for place- nomic effects that a proposed MRE project may have on
ment of draped cables in the water column a local area or region. Chapter 9, on social and economic
data needs, described the data collection and analysis
◆ describing the relative scales and interactions of
efforts needed to inform these documents, and also
marine animals with lines and cables using field
considered the need to track these data throughout the
measurements and numerical models, which can
life of the project, to determine whether the estimates
form the basis for outreach materials to help stake-
are accurate, and to inform future projects. Social and
holders understand this risk.
economic effects should be examined at the local level
Based on studies that examine the scale and mecha- as well as at a larger strategic scale.
nisms for entanglement, this risk can be considered to
Efforts that can assist with standardizing social and
be low (Figure 14.7).
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 perfor-
mance 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. 14.1.9.
ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING MARINE SPATIAL PLANNING
TECHNOLOGIES AND TECHNIQUES FOR Chapter 11 described the application of marine spatial
DETECTING INTERACTIONS OF MARINE planning (MSP) as it relates to and assists with MRE
ANIMALS WITH TURBINES development. The purpose of MSP is to improve the
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 to provide equity for all users, while affording environ-
animals and MRE devices, with an emphasis on the use mental protection. Responses to surveys of the OES-
of existing and emerging technologies to observe and Environmental nations described the wide range of MSP
quantify collision risk around turbines. Key instruments programs and applications as they apply to MRE.
that have been used to observe the interactions of marine
Important studies and information are needed to con-
animals with turbines include passive and active acous-
tinue improving our understanding of how MSP can
tics, as well as optical cameras. Many of these instru-
support and move forward with MRE development.
ments have been mounted and integrated together on
Needed efforts include
platforms, often with data acquisition systems. Chal-
lenges in deploying and operating instrument packages to ◆ 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
14.1.10.
may change animal behavior for optical image capture in
ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT
most environments; power management of autonomous
Chapter 12 explored the value and application of adap-
integrated packages that rely on batteries, the relatively
tive management (AM) to MRE siting, development, and
low densities of animals in fast-moving water; and the
management. Using a structured incremental approach
cost for developers.
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
Expanding the value that AM can bring to MRE will
◆ establishing collaborative projects among investiga- require
tors from many nations to develop data collection
◆ publishing guidance on AM implementation within
and analysis methods, particularly for active acoustic
the consenting process, prepared and issued by the
data that are prone to interference from ambient
appropriate regulatory body
conditions at high-energy sites
◆ producing implementation guidance for the MRE
◆ pursuing ongoing investigations and trials leading
industry to clarify the circumstances under which AM is
to the standardization of a suite of instruments and
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
◆ applying AM measures as mechanisms for decreasing
must be analyzed to determine animal interactions
financial risk to the industry
through the management of data collection, selective
storage of sightings, and development of algorithms ◆ assuring comfort amongst regulators that an AM
to automate analyses. approach can be fully compliant with regulatory
requirements and environmental legislation.

288 OES-ENVIRONMENTAL 2020 STATE OF THE SCIENCE REPORT

14.1.11. ◆ gathering evidence of additional stressors and aug-
RISK RETIREMENT AND DATA menting the existing evidence base for underwater
TRANSFERABILITY noise and EMFs as new data become available
Chapter 13 presented the concepts and initial implementa-
◆ translating into regulatory language the evidence
tion of risk retirement and data transferability as a means
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
project. Rather, we recommend that MRE developers and 14.2.
regulators rely on what is already known from already
consented and deployed projects, from related research
CHARTING A PATH FORWARD FOR
studies, or from findings of analogous offshore indus- MRE CONSENTING

B
tries. When larger arrays of MRE devices are planned, or y bringing together the information about the
when new information comes to light, these risks may potential interactions of marine animals, habitats,
need to be revisited and new decisions about the level of and ecosystem processes with MRE devices and sys-
risk retirement could be made. The intent of the process is tems, this report provides a snapshot of the knowledge
to provide assistance to regulators in their decision-mak- in 2020 derived from multiple field, laboratory, and
ing and to inform the MRE community of what is likely to modeling studies conducted around the world. The
be required for consenting small developments, as well value of this information is realized as we apply it to
as helping to distinguish between perceived and actual consenting processes, and may be informed by applying
risk to the marine environment. Risk retirement will not some of the strategies discussed in the latter chapters of
take the place of any existing regulatory processes, nor this report: MSP, AM, and risk retirement. Collectively,
will it completely replace the need for all data collection we might consider this body of information as support-
before and after MRE device deployment; these data are ing responsible development of MRE through continued
needed to verify the risk retirement findings and add to streamlining of consenting processes. In addition, we
the overall knowledge base. A process for assuring that need to consider how these management strategies
appropriate datasets and information are readily available support consenting and management of MRE projects
(data transferability) is also discussed. Inherent in the through the following lenses:
risk retirement and data transferability processes is the
◆ proportionate consenting requirements
necessary protection of the environment and inhabitants
◆ sufficiency of evidence
of the areas into which MRE devices will be deployed and
working within all existing regulatory frameworks. ◆ transferability of evidence
◆ retirement of specific issues and downgrading of
The concepts of risk retirement and data transferability
others that may be retired in the future.
are relatively new. Considerable work is needed to test
whether these concepts have value in MRE development 14.2.1.
and marine environmental protection, and to see if they PROPORTIONATE CONSENTING
can succeed in simplifying these pathways. Necessary REQUIREMENTS
activities to further risk retirement include In many parts of the world, the MRE industry has been
required to collect significant baseline and post-instal-
◆ increasing outreach and engagement with regulators
lation monitoring data for each proposed demonstra-
in many nations to further explain the process and
tion, pilot, or commercial project. At times, the require-
understand their potential for applying risk retire-
ments for data collection appear to be out of proportion
ment to consenting processes
relative to the size of the project and the likely risk to
◆ engaging with MRE device and project developers,
marine receptors. The purpose of the strategies and
researchers, consultants, and other stakeholders
planning concepts highlighted here (MSP, AM, risk
to gain their trust in the process and to assure they
retirement) is to assist in converging on proportionate
understand what regulators will require of them if
data collection, analysis, and reporting for consenting.
risk retirement is applied
Some site-specific data collection will be required at

SECTION E – LOOKING AHEAD 289

each proposed MRE project site to assure that models 14.2.4.
and information collected far from the site are appli- RETIRING SPECIFIC ISSUES
cable. However, relying on the knowledge of stressor- Some stressor-receptor interactions may be of greater
receptor relationships and likely risk from already importance in certain countries, based on local sen-
consented projects, analogous industries, and research sitivities or other needs. These issues are likely to be
studies can bring these efforts closer to the proportion- given greater attention and inquiry through research
ate consenting that will move the industry forward. investigations or post-installation monitoring require-
ments. For example, in France, to prevent corrosion of
14.2.2.
MRE structures, the developers opt to use sacrificial
SUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE
anodes. The use of these metal-based anodes has raised
For each MRE project, it is the duty of regulators to
concerns about the potential contamination of nearby
assure that sufficient evidence that is proportionate
waters and habitats, which have resulted in an exten-
to the risk is gathered to evaluate the risk to critical
sive study of potential concentrations of the metals that
marine species and habitats, and the responsibility of
might be shed into nearshore waters. The preliminary
stakeholders to question whether the regulatory process
results of this study show a very limited environmental
is fair and sufficiently protective of the marine envi-
risk due to metals concentration in nearshore waters,
ronment while not being overly precautionary. At this
which might result in the risk being retired for France
early stage of MRE development, validating whether
(De Roeck, pers. comm).
the evidence base is sufficient is not a clear and simple
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
be on the interactions for which not enough is known to
14.2.3.
clearly judge the associated levels of risk. Understand-
TRANSFERABILITY OF EVIDENCE
ing of some of the more challenging stressor-receptor
Inherent in determining under what conditions suf-
relationships, such as collision risk for marine animals
ficient evidence exists for consenting purposes is the
around turbines, will progress much faster with this
need to examine information collected at other MRE
focus. By retiring specific issues for small numbers of
development locations, and to apply lessons learned
devices and planning to re-examine these same interac-
from analogous offshore industries and targeted
tions with larger arrays, we will move toward a simpler
research projects. Evaluating and understanding what
but proportionate protective process for consenting.
data and information are valid for application to con-
senting new MRE sites is challenging. This process will
become more transparent as more deployments and
evaluations take place worldwide. The data transfer-
ability 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

 National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2018. 2018
14.3.
Revisions to: Technical Guidance for Assessing the
REFERENCES Effects of Anthropogenic Sound on Marine Mammal
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​
-marine-mammal
Holt, M. M., Noren, D. P., Veirs, V., Emmons, C. K. and
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​ Report - Virginia Offshore Wind Technology Advance-
-characterization-marine-energy-converters-iec-ts​ ment Project (VOWTAP). Report by Tetra Tech Inc.
-62600-402019 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-effects-
delphinid​-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 Go to https://tethys​.pnnl.gov for

OES-Environmental 2020 State of the Science full report and a comprehensive collection of
Andrea Copping
executive summary available at: papers, reports, archived presen-
Pacific Northwest National
https://tethys​.pnnl.gov/publications/state-of-the​-science-2020 tations, and other media about
Laboratory
environmental effects of marine
[email protected] renewable energy development.
+1 206.528.3049

292 OES-ENVIRONMENTAL 2020 STATE OF THE SCIENCE REPORT

Technical Glossary
Active acoustic measurements: Technique of purposefully Direct current (DC): Electric current that flows in a single
producing sound underwater to receive signals (reflections) direction.
from multiple sources in the water column. Includes sonar,
Ecosystem processes: The physical, chemical, and biological
multi-beam and single-beam echosounders, acoustic
connections that sustain and link the distribution and health
cameras.
of organisms within an environment.
Adaptive management (AM): Process that seeks to reduce
Electromagnetic field (EMF): Force field of electrical
scientific uncertainty and improve management through
and magnetic components that results from the motion
rigorous monitoring and periodic review of decisions in
of an electrical charge that carries a specific amount of
response to growing knowledge gained from monitoring
electromagnetic energy.
data.
Entanglement/Entrapment: Result of an animal that
Alternating current (AC): Electric current that periodically
became caught or trapped in a device’s mooring system
reverses direction.
without the possibility of escaping.
Ambient noise: Background noise in the environment from
multiple sources, and distinct from the noise emitted by Farfield: The area of ocean or bay around a marine
a marine renewable energy device or other signals to be renewable energy device, generally defined as more than five
measured. device diameters from the device or array of devices.

Backscatter: Reflection of a signal (e.g., sound, light) back Frequency: Number of vibrations, sound waves, or light
to its origin. waves emitted over a set timeframe.

Benthic: Related to the seafloor habitat; also refers to the Light detection and ranging (LiDAR): Technique used to
animals that inhabit the seafloor. measure distances by illuminating the target with laser
light and measuring the time the light takes to return to its
Biofouling: Accumulation of microorganisms, plants, algae, source.
sessile animals or small mobile animals on underwater
structures, generally from pelagic larvae that settle on hard Marine Spatial Planning (MSP): An approach to managing
surfaces as part of their life cycle. Biofouling organisms multiple marine uses and users within a geographic space,
becomes a problem for human structures placed in the informed by geospatial data on marine resources, human
ocean (including marine renewable energy devices) as it activities, and ecosystem services. MSP seeks to optimize
adds significant weight and can cover and mask important the use of marine resources and space while balancing
systems or moving parts of a device. environmental, social, and economic interests.

Collision: Direct contact between an animal and a moving Nearfield: The localized area of sea occupied by and in very
device component (blades and rotors). close proximity to a marine renewable energy, generally
considered to be within one to five device diameters.
Consenting/permitting: Providing legal permission for a
development, including marine renewable energy projects, Passive acoustic measurements: Use of underwater
based on an existing regulatory pathway that includes microphones (generally hydrophones) to characterize the
analysis and reporting on a range of environmental states soundscape, including vocalization of marine animals.
and trends that may be affected by the proposed project. Pelagic: Related to the water column of the ocean; also
Cumulative impacts: Changes to the environment that are refers to the animals that inhabit the water column.
assumed to be damaging, as a result of the combination Receptor: Animal, habitat, or ecosystem processes
of past, present, and future human activities and natural susceptible to stress from an anthropogenic device or process
processes. (stressor) that may result in changes in behavior, injury or
Data transferability: The process of applying datasets and death of an animal, or removal or deterioration of a habitat.
information from established projects or studies that can Stressor: An anthropogenic force or object that can produce
inform new project applications for regulatory approval. stress or injury on marine animals, habitats, or ecosystem
The process will facilitate the discovery and application of processes (receptor). Marine renewable energy systems and
existing information and datasets to improve the efficiency subsystems can be stressors in the marine environment.
and efficacy of transferring the information.

TECHNICAL GLOSSARY 293

REPORT AND MORE INFORMATION CONTACT Go to https://tethys​.pnnl.gov for
OES-Environmental 2020 State of the Science full report and Andrea Copping a comprehensive collection of
executive summary available at: Pacific Northwest National papers, reports, archived presen-
Laboratory tations, and other media about
https://tethys​.pnnl.gov/publications/state-of-the​-science-2020
[email protected] environmental effects of marine
renewable energy development.
+1 206.528.3049

SECTION E – LOOKING AHEAD 295