Responses of bottlenose dolphins and harbour porpoises to impact and vibration piling noise during harbour construction

Isla M. Graham, Enrico Pirotta, Nathan D. Merchant, Adrian Farcas, Tim R. Barton, Barbara Cheney, Gordon D. Hastie, Paul M Thompson

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

4 Citations (Scopus)
14 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

The development of risk assessments for the exposure of pro tected population s to noise fromcoastal construction is constrained by uncertainty over th e nature and extent of marine mammalresponses to man-made noise. Stakeholder concern often focuses on the potential for local displa cementcaus ed by impact piling, whe re piles are hammered into the seabed. To mitigate this threat, use of vibra-tion piling, where pil es are shaken int o place with a vibratory hammer, is often encouraged due to pre-sumed impact reduction. However, da ta on comparative responses of cetaceans to these different noisesources are lacking. We stu died the responses of bottlenose dolphins an d harbor porpoises to both impa ctand vibration pile driving noise during harbor constructi on works in northeast Scotland, using passiveacoustic monitoring devices to record cetacean activity and noise recorders to measure and predictreceived noise levels. Local abundance and patterns of occurrence of bottlenose dolphins were also com-pared with a five-year baselin e. The median peak-to-peak source level estim ated for impact piling was240 dB re 1 lPa (single-p ulse sound exposur e level [SEL] 198 dB re 1 lPa2s), and the r.m.s. source levelfor vibration piling was 192 dB re 1 lPa. Predicted received broadband SEL values 812 m from the pilingsite were markedly lower due to high propagation loss: 133.4 dB re 1 lPa2s (impac t) and 128.9 dB re1 lPa2s (vibration). Bottlenose dolphins and harbor porpoises were not excluded from sites in th e vicin-ity of impact piling or vibration piling; nevertheles s, some small effects were detected. Bot tlenose dol-phins spent a reduced period of time in the vicinity of construction works during both impact andvibration piling. The prob ability of occurrence of both cetacean species was also slightly less during peri-ods of vibration piling. This work provides developers and managers with the first evidence of the com-parative effects of vibration and impact piling on small cetaceans, enabling more informed riskassessments, policy frameworks, and mi tigation plans. In particular, our results emphasize the need forbetter understanding of noise levels and behavioral responses to vibration piling before recommendingits use to mitigate impact piling.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1-16
Number of pages16
JournalEcosphere
Volume8
Issue number5
Early online date25 May 2017
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - May 2017

Fingerprint

Phocoena phocoena
porpoise
Tursiops truncatus
dolphin
vibration
harbor
cetacean
pile driving
behavioral response
stakeholders
Scotland
pile
stakeholder
risk assessment
managers
uncertainty
monitoring

Keywords

  • acoustic disturbance
  • anthropogenic noise
  • behavioral response
  • coastal development
  • environmental risk assessment
  • marine mammal Conservation
  • marine protected area

Cite this

Responses of bottlenose dolphins and harbour porpoises to impact and vibration piling noise during harbour construction. / Graham, Isla M.; Pirotta, Enrico; Merchant, Nathan D.; Farcas, Adrian; Barton, Tim R.; Cheney, Barbara; Hastie, Gordon D. ; Thompson, Paul M.

In: Ecosphere, Vol. 8, No. 5, 05.2017, p. 1-16.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Graham, Isla M. ; Pirotta, Enrico ; Merchant, Nathan D. ; Farcas, Adrian ; Barton, Tim R. ; Cheney, Barbara ; Hastie, Gordon D. ; Thompson, Paul M. / Responses of bottlenose dolphins and harbour porpoises to impact and vibration piling noise during harbour construction. In: Ecosphere. 2017 ; Vol. 8, No. 5. pp. 1-16.
@article{2ae9b9ce06d9451fbc534ec52f0858ef,
title = "Responses of bottlenose dolphins and harbour porpoises to impact and vibration piling noise during harbour construction",
abstract = "The development of risk assessments for the exposure of pro tected population s to noise fromcoastal construction is constrained by uncertainty over th e nature and extent of marine mammalresponses to man-made noise. Stakeholder concern often focuses on the potential for local displa cementcaus ed by impact piling, whe re piles are hammered into the seabed. To mitigate this threat, use of vibra-tion piling, where pil es are shaken int o place with a vibratory hammer, is often encouraged due to pre-sumed impact reduction. However, da ta on comparative responses of cetaceans to these different noisesources are lacking. We stu died the responses of bottlenose dolphins an d harbor porpoises to both impa ctand vibration pile driving noise during harbor constructi on works in northeast Scotland, using passiveacoustic monitoring devices to record cetacean activity and noise recorders to measure and predictreceived noise levels. Local abundance and patterns of occurrence of bottlenose dolphins were also com-pared with a five-year baselin e. The median peak-to-peak source level estim ated for impact piling was240 dB re 1 lPa (single-p ulse sound exposur e level [SEL] 198 dB re 1 lPa2s), and the r.m.s. source levelfor vibration piling was 192 dB re 1 lPa. Predicted received broadband SEL values 812 m from the pilingsite were markedly lower due to high propagation loss: 133.4 dB re 1 lPa2s (impac t) and 128.9 dB re1 lPa2s (vibration). Bottlenose dolphins and harbor porpoises were not excluded from sites in th e vicin-ity of impact piling or vibration piling; nevertheles s, some small effects were detected. Bot tlenose dol-phins spent a reduced period of time in the vicinity of construction works during both impact andvibration piling. The prob ability of occurrence of both cetacean species was also slightly less during peri-ods of vibration piling. This work provides developers and managers with the first evidence of the com-parative effects of vibration and impact piling on small cetaceans, enabling more informed riskassessments, policy frameworks, and mi tigation plans. In particular, our results emphasize the need forbetter understanding of noise levels and behavioral responses to vibration piling before recommendingits use to mitigate impact piling.",
keywords = "acoustic disturbance, anthropogenic noise, behavioral response, coastal development, environmental risk assessment, marine mammal Conservation, marine protected area",
author = "Graham, {Isla M.} and Enrico Pirotta and Merchant, {Nathan D.} and Adrian Farcas and Barton, {Tim R.} and Barbara Cheney and Hastie, {Gordon D.} and Thompson, {Paul M}",
note = "ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This project was funded through the DECC Offshore Energy Strategic Environmental Assessment Programme using equipment previously purchased by DECC, Scottish Government, Oil and Gas UK, COW-RIE and Moray Offshore Renewables Ltd. Scottish Natural Heritage, Beatrice Offshore Windfarm Ltd., MORL, Marine Scotland, The Crown Estate and Highlands and Islands Enterprise all provided funding for photo-identification surveys. We thank Bill Ruck and col-leagues from University of Aberdeen and Moray First Marine for fieldwork support, and Global Energy, Cromarty Firth Port Authority, and other local stakeholders for information on the construction program. John Hartley, Francesca Marubini, and two anonymous reviewers kindly provided comments on the manuscript.",
year = "2017",
month = "5",
doi = "10.1002/ecs2.1793",
language = "English",
volume = "8",
pages = "1--16",
journal = "Ecosphere",
issn = "2150-8925",
publisher = "Wiley",
number = "5",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Responses of bottlenose dolphins and harbour porpoises to impact and vibration piling noise during harbour construction

AU - Graham, Isla M.

AU - Pirotta, Enrico

AU - Merchant, Nathan D.

AU - Farcas, Adrian

AU - Barton, Tim R.

AU - Cheney, Barbara

AU - Hastie, Gordon D.

AU - Thompson, Paul M

N1 - ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This project was funded through the DECC Offshore Energy Strategic Environmental Assessment Programme using equipment previously purchased by DECC, Scottish Government, Oil and Gas UK, COW-RIE and Moray Offshore Renewables Ltd. Scottish Natural Heritage, Beatrice Offshore Windfarm Ltd., MORL, Marine Scotland, The Crown Estate and Highlands and Islands Enterprise all provided funding for photo-identification surveys. We thank Bill Ruck and col-leagues from University of Aberdeen and Moray First Marine for fieldwork support, and Global Energy, Cromarty Firth Port Authority, and other local stakeholders for information on the construction program. John Hartley, Francesca Marubini, and two anonymous reviewers kindly provided comments on the manuscript.

PY - 2017/5

Y1 - 2017/5

N2 - The development of risk assessments for the exposure of pro tected population s to noise fromcoastal construction is constrained by uncertainty over th e nature and extent of marine mammalresponses to man-made noise. Stakeholder concern often focuses on the potential for local displa cementcaus ed by impact piling, whe re piles are hammered into the seabed. To mitigate this threat, use of vibra-tion piling, where pil es are shaken int o place with a vibratory hammer, is often encouraged due to pre-sumed impact reduction. However, da ta on comparative responses of cetaceans to these different noisesources are lacking. We stu died the responses of bottlenose dolphins an d harbor porpoises to both impa ctand vibration pile driving noise during harbor constructi on works in northeast Scotland, using passiveacoustic monitoring devices to record cetacean activity and noise recorders to measure and predictreceived noise levels. Local abundance and patterns of occurrence of bottlenose dolphins were also com-pared with a five-year baselin e. The median peak-to-peak source level estim ated for impact piling was240 dB re 1 lPa (single-p ulse sound exposur e level [SEL] 198 dB re 1 lPa2s), and the r.m.s. source levelfor vibration piling was 192 dB re 1 lPa. Predicted received broadband SEL values 812 m from the pilingsite were markedly lower due to high propagation loss: 133.4 dB re 1 lPa2s (impac t) and 128.9 dB re1 lPa2s (vibration). Bottlenose dolphins and harbor porpoises were not excluded from sites in th e vicin-ity of impact piling or vibration piling; nevertheles s, some small effects were detected. Bot tlenose dol-phins spent a reduced period of time in the vicinity of construction works during both impact andvibration piling. The prob ability of occurrence of both cetacean species was also slightly less during peri-ods of vibration piling. This work provides developers and managers with the first evidence of the com-parative effects of vibration and impact piling on small cetaceans, enabling more informed riskassessments, policy frameworks, and mi tigation plans. In particular, our results emphasize the need forbetter understanding of noise levels and behavioral responses to vibration piling before recommendingits use to mitigate impact piling.

AB - The development of risk assessments for the exposure of pro tected population s to noise fromcoastal construction is constrained by uncertainty over th e nature and extent of marine mammalresponses to man-made noise. Stakeholder concern often focuses on the potential for local displa cementcaus ed by impact piling, whe re piles are hammered into the seabed. To mitigate this threat, use of vibra-tion piling, where pil es are shaken int o place with a vibratory hammer, is often encouraged due to pre-sumed impact reduction. However, da ta on comparative responses of cetaceans to these different noisesources are lacking. We stu died the responses of bottlenose dolphins an d harbor porpoises to both impa ctand vibration pile driving noise during harbor constructi on works in northeast Scotland, using passiveacoustic monitoring devices to record cetacean activity and noise recorders to measure and predictreceived noise levels. Local abundance and patterns of occurrence of bottlenose dolphins were also com-pared with a five-year baselin e. The median peak-to-peak source level estim ated for impact piling was240 dB re 1 lPa (single-p ulse sound exposur e level [SEL] 198 dB re 1 lPa2s), and the r.m.s. source levelfor vibration piling was 192 dB re 1 lPa. Predicted received broadband SEL values 812 m from the pilingsite were markedly lower due to high propagation loss: 133.4 dB re 1 lPa2s (impac t) and 128.9 dB re1 lPa2s (vibration). Bottlenose dolphins and harbor porpoises were not excluded from sites in th e vicin-ity of impact piling or vibration piling; nevertheles s, some small effects were detected. Bot tlenose dol-phins spent a reduced period of time in the vicinity of construction works during both impact andvibration piling. The prob ability of occurrence of both cetacean species was also slightly less during peri-ods of vibration piling. This work provides developers and managers with the first evidence of the com-parative effects of vibration and impact piling on small cetaceans, enabling more informed riskassessments, policy frameworks, and mi tigation plans. In particular, our results emphasize the need forbetter understanding of noise levels and behavioral responses to vibration piling before recommendingits use to mitigate impact piling.

KW - acoustic disturbance

KW - anthropogenic noise

KW - behavioral response

KW - coastal development

KW - environmental risk assessment

KW - marine mammal Conservation

KW - marine protected area

U2 - 10.1002/ecs2.1793

DO - 10.1002/ecs2.1793

M3 - Article

VL - 8

SP - 1

EP - 16

JO - Ecosphere

JF - Ecosphere

SN - 2150-8925

IS - 5

ER -