Assessing environmental impacts of offshore wind farms: lessons learned and recommendations for the future

Aquatic Biosystems

Helen Bailey¹  Kate L Brookes²  Paul M Thompson³ 

[1] Chesapeake Biological Laboratory, University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science, 146 Williams Street, Solomons, MD 20688, USA

[2] Marine Scotland Science, 375 Victoria Road, Aberdeen AB11 9DB, UK

[3] Institute of Biological and Environmental Sciences, Lighthouse Field Station, University of Aberdeen, George Street, Cromarty, Ross-shire IV11 8YJ, UK

关键词: Population consequences;    Cumulative impact assessment;    Human impacts;    Collision risk;    Underwater noise;    Wind turbine;    Seabirds;    Marine mammals;   

Others  :  1089034
DOI  :  10.1186/2046-9063-10-8

 received in 2014-02-05, accepted in 2014-09-03,  发布年份 2014

【 摘 要 】

Offshore wind power provides a valuable source of renewable energy that can help reduce carbon emissions. Technological advances are allowing higher capacity turbines to be installed and in deeper water, but there is still much that is unknown about the effects on the environment. Here we describe the lessons learned based on the recent literature and our experience with assessing impacts of offshore wind developments on marine mammals and seabirds, and make recommendations for future monitoring and assessment as interest in offshore wind energy grows around the world. The four key lessons learned that we discuss are: 1) Identifying the area over which biological effects may occur to inform baseline data collection and determining the connectivity between key populations and proposed wind energy sites, 2) The need to put impacts into a population level context to determine whether they are biologically significant, 3) Measuring responses to wind farm construction and operation to determine disturbance effects and avoidance responses, and 4) Learn from other industries to inform risk assessments and the effectiveness of mitigation measures. As the number and size of offshore wind developments increases, there will be a growing need to consider the population level consequences and cumulative impacts of these activities on marine species. Strategically targeted data collection and modeling aimed at answering questions for the consenting process will also allow regulators to make decisions based on the best available information, and achieve a balance between climate change targets and environmental legislation.

【 授权许可】

   
2014 Bailey et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

Figure 3.

Figure 4.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Toke D: The UK offshore wind power programme: a sea-change in UK energy policy? Energy Policy 2011, 39:526-534.
• [2]Breton SP, Moe G: Status, plans and technologies for offshore wind turbines in Europe and North America. Renew Energy 2009, 34:646-654.
• [3]European Wind Energy Association: The European Offshore Wind Industry - Key Trends and Statistics 2013. Brussels, Belgium: A report by the European Wind Energy Association; 2014.
• [4]Sun X, Huang D, Wu G: The current state of offshore wind energy technology development. Energy 2012, 41:298-312.
• [5]Inger R, Attrill MJ, Bearhop S, Broderick AC, Grecian WJ, Hodgson DJ, Mills C, Sheehan E, Votier SC, Witt MJ, Godley BJ: Marine renewable energy: potential benefits to biodiversity? An urgent call for research. J Appl Ecol 2009, 46:1145-1153.
• [6]Boehlert GW, Gill AB: Environmental and ecological effects of ocean renewable energy development: a current synthesis. Oceanography 2010, 23:68-81.
• [7]Gill AB: Offshore renewable energy: ecological implications of generating electricity in the coastal zone. J Appl Ecol 2005, 42:605-615.
• [8]Wilhelmsson D, Malm T, Öhman MC: The influence of offshore windpower on demersal fish. ICES J Mar Sci 2006, 63:775-784.
• [9]Lindeboom HJ, Kouwenhoven HJ, Bergman MJN, Bouma S, Brasseur S, Daan R, Fijn RC, De Haan D, Dirksen S, van Hal R, Hille Ris Lambers R, ter Hofstede R, Krijgsveld KL, Leopold M, Scheidat M: Short-term ecological effects of an offshore wind farm in the Dutch coastal zone; a compilation. Environ Res Lett 2011, 6:035101.
• [10]Maar M, Bolding K, Petersen JK, Hansen JLS, Timmermann K: Local effects of blue mussels around turbine foundations in an ecosystem model of Nysted off-shore wind farm, Denmark. J Sea Res 2009, 62:159-174.
• [11]Russell DJF, Brasseur SMJM, Thompson D, Hastie GD, Janik VM, Aarts G, McClintock BT, Matthiopoulos J, Moss SEW, McConnell B: Marine mammals trace anthropogenic structures at sea. Curr Biol 2014, 24:R638-R639.
• [12]Buck BH, Krause G, Rosenthal H: Extensive open ocean aquaculture development within wind farms in Germany: the prospect of offshore co-management and legal constraints. Ocean Coast Manag 2004, 47:95-122.
• [13]Renewable UK: Cumulative impact assessment guidelines: Guiding principles for cumulative impacts assessment in offshore wind farms. 2013. Available at: http://www.renewableuk.com/en/publications/index.cfm/cumulative-impact-assessment-guidelines webcite
• [14]Masden EA, Fox AD, Furness RW, Bullman R, Haydon DT: Cumulative impact assessments and bird/wind farm interactions: Developing a conceptual framework. Environ Impact Assess Rev 2010, 30:1-7.
• [15]Dolman S, Simmonds M: Towards best environmental practice for cetacean conservation in developing Scotland's marine renewable energy. Mar Policy 2010, 34:1021-1027.
• [16]Madsen PT, Wahlberg M, Tougaard J, Lucke K, Tyack P: Wind turbine underwater noise and marine mammals: implications of current knowledge and data needs. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 2006, 309:279-295.
• [17]Thomsen F, Lüdemann K, Kafemann R, Piper W: Effects of offshore wind farm noise on marine mammals and fish. Biola, Hamburg: Germany on behalf of COWRIE Ltd.; 2006.
• [18]Popper AN, Hastings MC: The effects of human-generated sound on fish. Integr Zool 2009, 4:43-52.
• [19]Gill AB, Bartlett M, Thomsen F: Potential interactions between diadromous fishes of U.K. conservation importance and the electromagnetic fields and subsea noise from marine renewable energy developments. J Fish Biol 2012, 81:664-695.
• [20]Popper AN, Hastings MC: The effects of anthropogenic sources of sound on fishes. J Fish Biol 2009, 75:455-489.
• [21]Tougaard J, Henriksen OD, Miller LA: Underwater noise from three types of offshore wind turbines: Estimation of impact zones for harbor porpoises and harbor seals. J Acoust Soc Am 2009, 125:3766-3773.
• [22]Marmo B, Roberts I, Buckingham MP, King S, Booth C: Modelling of noise effects of operational offshore wind turbines including noise transmission through various foundation types. Edinburgh: Scottish Government; 2013.
• [23]Desholm M, Kahlert J: Avian collision risk at an offshore wind farm. Biol Lett 2005, 1:296-298.
• [24]Furness RW, Wade HM, Masden EA: Assessing vulnerability of marine bird populations to offshore wind farms. J Environ Manag 2013, 119:56-66.
• [25]Tricas T, Gill A, Normandeau, Exponent: Effects of EMFs from undersea power cables on elasmobranchs and other marine species. Camarillo, CA: U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforcement, Pacific OCS Region; 2011. OCS Study BOEMRE 2011–09
• [26]Gill AB, Huang Y, Gloyne-Philips I, Metcalfe J, Quayle V, Spencer J, Wearmouth V: COWRIE 2.0 Electromagnetic Fields (EMF) Phase 2: EMF-sensitive fish response to EM emmisions from sub-sea electricity cables of the type used by the offshore renewable energy industry. Thetford, UK: Commissioned by COWRIE Ltd (project reference COWRIE-EMF-1-06); 2009.
• [27]Westerberg H, Lagenfelt I: Sub-sea power cables and the migration behaviour of the European eel. Fish Manag Ecol 2008, 15:369-375.
• [28]Southall BL, Bowles AE, Ellison WT, Finneran JJ, Gentry RL, Greene CR Jr, Kastak D, Ketten DR, Miler JH, Nachtigall PE, Richardson WJ, Thomas JA, Tyack PL: Marine mammal noise exposure criteria: initial scientific recommendations. Aquat Mamm 2007, 33:411-521.
• [29]National Research Council: Marine Mammal Populations and Ocean Noise: Determining When Ocean Noise Causes Biologically Significant Effects. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 2005.
• [30]Wahlberg M, Westerberg H: Hearing in fish and their reactions to sounds from offshore wind farms. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 2005, 288:295-309.
• [31]Hawkins AD, Popper AN: Assessing the impacts of underwater sounds on fishes and other forms of marine life. Acoust Today 2014, 10:30-41.
• [32]Casper BM, Halvorsen MB, Matthews F, Carlson TJ, Popper AN: Recovery of barotrauma injuries resulting from exposure to pile driving sound in two sizes of hybrid striped bass. PLoS ONE 2013, 8:e73844.
• [33]Casper BM, Popper AN, Matthews F, Carlson TJ, Halvorsen MB: Recovery of barotrauma injuries in Chinook salmon, Oncorhynchus tshawytscha from exposure to pile driving sound. PLoS ONE 2012, 7:e39593.
• [34]Halvorsen MB, Casper BM, Matthews F, Carlson TJ, Popper AN: Effects of exposure to pile-driving sounds on the lake sturgeon, Nile tilapia and hogchoker. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 2012, 279:4705-4714.
• [35]Bolle LJ, de Jong CAF, Bierman SM, Van Beek PJG, Van Keeken OA, Wessels PW, Van Damme CJG, Winter HV, De Haan D, Dekeling RPA: Common sole larvae survive high levels of pile-driving sound in controlled exposure experiments. PLoS ONE 2012, 7:e33052.
• [36]Thomsen F, Mueller-Blenkle C, Gill A, Metcalfe J, McGregor PK, Bendall V, Andersson MH, Sigray P, Wood D: Effects of pile driving on the behavior of cod and sole. In The Effects of Noise on Aquatic Life. Edited by Popper AN, Hawkins A. New York, USA: Springer; 2012:387-388. [Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology, Volume 730]
• [37]Mueller-Blenkle C, Gill AB, McGregor PK, Andersson MH, Sigray P, Bendall V, Metcalfe J, Thomsen F: A novel field study setup to investigate the behavior of fish related to sound. In The Effects of Noise on Aquatic Life. Edited by Popper AN, Hawkins A. New York, USA: Springer; 2012:389-391. [Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology, Volume 730]
• [38]Kaiser MJ, Galanidi M, Showler DA, Elliott AJ, Caldow RWG, Rees EIS, Stillman RA, Sutherland WJ: Distribution and behaviour of Common Scoter Melanitta nigra relative to prey resources and environmental parameters. Ibis 2006, s1:110-128.
• [39]Pelletier SK, Omland K, Watrous KS, Peterson TS: Information Synthesis on the Potential for Bat Interactions with Offshore Wind Facilities - Final Report. Herndon, VA: U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Headquarters; 2013. OCS Study BOEM 2013–01163
• [40]Sjollema AL, Gates JE, Hilderbrand RH, Sherwell J: Offshore activity of bats along the Mid-Atlantic Coast. Northeast Nat 2014, 21:154-163.
• [41]Kunz TH, Arnett EB, Erickson WP, Hoar AR, Johnson GD, Larkin RP, Strickland MD, Thresher RW, Tuttle MD: Ecological impacts of wind energy development on bats: questions, research needs, and hypotheses. Front Ecol Environ 2007, 5:315-324.
• [42]Waring GT, Wood SA, Josephson E: Literature search and data synthesis for marine mammals and sea turtles in the U.S. Atlantic from Maine to the Florida Keys. New Orleans, LA: U.S Department of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region; 2012. OCS Study BOEM 2012–109
• [43]Dow Piniak WE, Eckert SA, Harms CA, Stringer EM: Underwater Hearing Sensitivity of The Leatherback Sea Turtle (Dermochelys coriacea): Assessing The Potential Effect of Anthropogenic Noise. Herndon, VA: U.S Department of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Headquarters; 2012. OCS Study BOEM 2012–01156
• [44]Rein CG, Lundin AS, Wilson SJK, Kimbrell E: Offshore Wind Energy Development Site Assessment and Characterization: Evaluation of the Current Status and European Experience. Herndon, VA: U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Office of Renewable Energy Programs; 2013. OCS Study BOEM 2013–0010
• [45]Carstensen J, Henriksen OD, Teilmann J: Impacts of offshore wind farm construction on harbour porpoises: acoustic monitoring of echolocation activity using porpoise detectors (T-PODs). Mar Ecol Prog Ser 2006, 321:295-308.
• [46]Tougaard J, Carstensen J, Teilmann J: Pile driving zone of responsiveness extends beyond 20 km for harbor porpoises (Phocoena phocoena (L.)). J Acoust Soc Am 2009, 126:11-14.
• [47]Bailey H, Senior B, Simmons D, Rusin J, Picken G, Thompson PM: Assessing underwater noise levels during pile-driving at an offshore windfarm and its potential impact on marine mammals. Mar Pollut Bull 2010, 60:888-897.
• [48]Brandt MJ, Diederichs A, Betke K, Nehls G: Responses of harbour porpoises to pile driving at the Horns Rev II offshore wind farm in the Danish North Sea. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 2011, 421:205-216.
• [49]Thompson PM, Lusseau D, Barton T, Simmons D, Rusin J, Bailey H: Assessing the responses of coastal cetaceans to the construction of offshore wind turbines. Mar Pollut Bull 2010, 60:1200-1208.
• [50]Kastelein RA, Van Heerden D, Gransier R, Hoek L: Behavioral responses of a harbor porpoise (Phocoena phocoena) to playbacks of broadband pile driving sounds. Mar Environ Res 2013, 92:206-214.
• [51]Koschinski S, Culik BM, Henriksen OD, Tregenza N, Ellis G, Jansen C, Kathe G: Behavioural reactions of free-ranging porpoises and seals to the noise of a simulated 2 MW windpower generator. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 2003, 265:263-273.
• [52]Degraer S, Brabant R, Rumes B: Environmental impacts of offshore wind farms in the Belgian part of the North Sea: Learning from the past to optimise future monitoring programmes: 26–28 November 2013. Brussels, Belgium: Royal Belgian Institute of Natural Sciences; 2013.
• [53]Ellison WT, Southall BL, Clark CW, Frankel AS: A new context-based approach to assess marine mammal behavioral responses to anthropogenic sounds. Conserv Biol 2012, 26:21-28.
• [54]Diederichs A, Nehls G, Dähne M, Adler S, Koschinski S, Verfuß U: Methodologies for measuring and assessing potential changes in marine mammal behaviour, abundance or distribution arising from the construction, operation and decommissioning of offshore windfarms. Germany: BioConsult SH report to COWRIE Ltd; 2008.
• [55]Thompson PM, Brookes KL, Graham IM, Barton TR, Needham K, Bradbury G, Merchant ND: Short-term disturbance by a commercial two-dimensional seismic survey does not lead to long-term displacement of harbour porpoises. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 2013, 280:20132001.
• [56]Bailey H, Hammond PS, Thompson PM: Modelling harbour seal habitat by combining data from multiple tracking systems. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 2014, 450:30-39.
• [57]Bailey H, Clay G, Coates EA, Lusseau D, Senior B, Thompson PM: Using T-PODs to assess variations in the occurrence of coastal bottlenose dolphins and harbour porpoises. Aquat Conserv Mar Freshwat Ecosyst 2010, 20:150-158.
• [58]Thompson PM, Hastie GD, Nedwell J, Barham R, Brookes KL, Cordes LS, Bailey H, McLean N: Framework for assessing impacts of pile-driving noise from offshore wind farm construction on a harbour seal population. Environ Impact Assess Rev 2013, 43:73-85.
• [59]Barrios L, Rodríguez A: Behavioural and environmental correlates of soaring-bird mortality at on-shore wind turbines. J Appl Ecol 2004, 41:72-81.
• [60]Garthe S, Hüppop O: Scaling possible adverse effects of marine wind farms on seabirds: developing and applying a vulnerability index. J Appl Ecol 2004, 41:724-734.
• [61]Camphuysen KCJ, Fox TAD, Leopold MMF, Petersen IK: Towards standardised seabirds at sea census techniques in connection with environmental impact assessments for offshore wind farms in the U.K.. London: Crown Estate Commissioners; 2004. [Report by Royal Netherlands Institute for Sea Research and the Danish National Environmental Research Institute to COWRIE BAM 02–2002]
• [62]Cook ASCP, Johnston A, Wright LJ, Burton NHK: A Review of Flight Heights and Avoidance Rates of Birds in Relation to Offshore Wind Farms. Norfolk, UK: British Trust for Ornithology on behalf of The Crown Estate, Project SOSS-02; 2012. BTO Research Report Number 618
• [63]Johnston A, Cook ASCP, Wright LJ, Humphreys EM, Burton NHK: Modelling flight heights of marine birds to more accurately assess collision risk with offshore wind turbines. J Appl Ecol 2014, 51:31-41.
• [64]Plonczkier P, Simms IC: Radar monitoring of migrating pink-footed geese: behavioural responses to offshore wind farm development. J Appl Ecol 2012, 49:1187-1194.
• [65]Chamberlain DE, Rehfisch MR, Fox AD, Desholm M, Anthony SJ: The effect of avoidance rates on bird mortality predictions made by wind turbine collision risk models. Ibis 2006, 148:198-202.
• [66]Masden EA, Haydon DT, Fox AD, Furness RW: Barriers to movement: Modelling energetic costs of avoiding marine wind farms amongst breeding seabirds. Mar Pollut Bull 2010, 60:1085-1091.
• [67]Busch M, Kannen A, Garthe S, Jessopp M: Consequences of a cumulative perspective on marine environmental impacts: Offshore wind farming and seabirds at North Sea scale in context of the EU Marine Strategy Framework Directive. Ocean Coast Manag 2013, 71:213-224.
• [68]McCann J: Developing Environmental Protocols and Modeling Tools to Support Ocean Renewable Energy and Stewardship. Herndon, VA: U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Office of Renewable Energy Programs; 2012. OCS Study BOEM 2012–082
• [69]Teilmann J, Carstensen J: Negative long term effects on harbour porpoises from a large scale offshore wind farm in the Baltic - evidence of slow recovery. Environ Res Lett 2012, 7:045101.
• [70]Wade PR: Calculating limits to the allowable human-caused mortality of cetaceans and pinnipeds. Mar Mammal Sci 1998, 14:1-37.
• [71]Butler JRA, Middlemas SJ, McKelvey SA, McMyn I, Leyshon B, Walker I, Thompson PM, Boyd IL, Duck C, Armstrong JD, Graham IM, Baxter JM: The Moray Firth Seal Management Plan: an adaptive framework for balancing the conservation of seals, salmon, fisheries and wildlife tourism in the UK. Aquat Conserv Mar Freshwat Ecosyst 2008, 18:1025-1038.
• [72]New LF, Clark JS, Costa DP, Fleishman E, Hindell MA, Klanjšček T, Lusseau D, Kraus S, McMahon CR, Robinson PW, Schick RS, Schwarz LK, Simmons SE, Thomas L, Tyack P, Harwood J: Using short-term measures of behaviour to estimate long-term fitness of southern elephant seals. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 2014, 496:99-108.
• [73]Harwood J, King S, Schick R, Donovan C, Booth C: A protocol for implementing the interim population consequences of disturbance (PCoD) approach: Quantifying and assessing the effects of UK offshore renewable energy developmenets on marine mammal populations: Report number SMRUL-TCE-2013-014. Scott Mar Freshwater Sci 2014, 5:2.
• [74]Frederiksen M, Wanless S, Harris MP, Rothery P, Wilson LJ: The role of industrial fisheries and oceanographic change in the decline of North Sea black-legged kittiwakes. J Appl Ecol 2004, 41:1129-1139.
• [75]Underwood AJ: On beyond BACI: Sampling designs that might reliably detect environmental disturbances. Ecol Appl 1994, 4:3-15.
• [76]Hewitt JE, Thrush SE, Cummings VJ: Assessing environmental impacts: Effects of spatial and temporal variability at likely impact scales. Ecol Appl 2001, 11:1502-1516.
• [77]Ellis JI, Schneider DC: Evaluation of a gradient sampling design for environmental impact assessment. Environ Monit Assess 1997, 48:157-172.
• [78]Dähne M, Gilles A, Lucke K, Peschko V, Adler S, Krügel K, Sundermeyer J, Siebert U: Effects of pile-driving on harbour porpoises (Phocoena phocoena) at the first offshore wind farm in Germany. Environ Res Lett 2013, 8:025002.
• [79]Heupel MR, Semmens JM, Hobday AJ: Automated acoustic tracking of aquatic animals: scales, design and deployment of listening station arrays. Mar Freshw Res 2006, 57:1-13.
• [80]Scales KL, Lewis JA, Lewis JP, Castellanos D, Godley BJ, Graham RT: Insights into habitat utilisation of the hawksbill turtle, Eretmochelys imbricata (Linnaeus, 1766), using acoustic telemetry. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 2011, 407:122-129.
• [81]Espinoza M, Farrugia TJ, Webber DM, Smith F, Lowe CG: Testing a new acoustic telemetry technique to quantify long-term, fine-scale movements of aquatic animals. Fish Res 2011, 108:364-371.
• [82]Maxwell SM, Hazen EL, Bograd SJ, Halpern BS, Breed GA, Nickel B, Teutschel NM, Crowder LB, Benson S, Dutton PH, Bailey H, Kappes MA, Kuhn CE, Weise MJ, Mate B, Shaffer SA, Hassrick JL, Henry RW, Irvine L, McDonald BI, Robinson PW, Block BA, Costa DP: Cumulative human impacts on marine predators. Nat Commun 2013, 4:2688.
• [83]Punt MJ, Groeneveld RA, Van Ierland EC, Stel JH: Spatial planning of offshore wind farms: A windfall to marine environmental protection? Ecol Econ 2009, 69:93-103.
• [84]Band W, Madders M, Whitfield DP: Developing field and analytical methods to assess avian collision risk at wind farms. In Birds and Wind Power. Edited by De Lucas M, Janss G, Ferrer M. Barcelona, Spain: Lynx Edicions; 2005.
• [85]Band B, Band B: Using a collision risk model to assess bird collision risks for offshore windfarms. Norway: SOSS report for The Crown Estate; 2012.
• [86]Gordon J, Gillespie D, Potter J, Frantzis A, Simmonds MP, Swift R, Thompson D: A review of the effects of seismic surveys on marine mammals. Mar Technol Soc J 2003, 37:16-34.
• [87]OSPAR: Overview of the impacts of anthropogenic underwater sound in the marine environment. North-East Atlantic: OSPAR Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North-East Atlantic; 2009. http://www.ospar.org webcite
• [88]Nedwell JR, Parvin SJ, Edwards B, Workman R, Brooker AG, Kynoch JE, Nedwell JR, Parvin SJ, Edwards B, Workman R, Brooker AG, Kynoch JE: Measurement and interpretation of underwater noise during construction and operation of offshore windfarms in UK waters. Subacoustech Report No. 544R0738 to COWRIE Ltd 2007. 978-0-9554279-5-4
• [89]Di Iorio L, Clark CW: Exposure to seismic survey alters blue whale acoustic communication. Biol Lett 2010, 6:51-54.
• [90]Castellote M, Clark CW, Lammers MO: Acoustic and behavioural changes by fin whales (Balaenoptera physalus) in response to shipping and airgun noise. Biol Conserv 2012, 147:115-122.
• [91]Blackwell SB, Nations CS, McDonald TL, Greene CR, Thode AM, Guerra M, Macrander AM: Effects of airgun sounds on bowhead whale calling rates in the Alaskan Beaufort Sea. Mar Mammal Sci 2013, 29:E342-E365.
• [92]Harris RE, Miller GW, Richardson WJ: Seal responses to airgun sounds during summer seismic surveys in the Alaskan Beaufort Sea. Mar Mammal Sci 2001, 17:795-812.
• [93]DeRuiter SL, Doukara KL: Loggerhead turtles dive in response to airgun sound exposure. Endanger Species Res 2012, 16:55-63.
• [94]Rutenko AN, Borisov SV, Gritsenko AV, Jenkerson MR: Calibrating and monitoring the western gray whale mitigation zone and estimating acoustic transmission during a 3D seismic survey, Sakhalin Island, Russia. Environ Monit Assess 2007, 134:21-44.
• [95]Nowacek DP, Vedenev A, Southall BL, Racca R: Development and implementation of criteria for exposure of western gray whales to oil and gas industry noise. In The Effects of Noise on Aquatic Life. Edited by Popper AN, Hawkins A. New York, USA: Springer; 2012:523-528. [Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology, Volume 730]
• [96]Weir CR: Short-finned pilot whales (Globicephala macrorhynchus) respond to an airgun ramp-up procedure off Gabon. Aquat Mamm 2008, 34:349-354.
• [97]JNCC: Statutory Nature Conservation Agency Protocol for Minimising the Risk of Injury to Marine Mammals from Piling Noise. Aberdeen, UK: Joint Nature Conservation Committee; 2010.
• [98]Parsons ECM, Dolman SJ, Jasny M, Rose NA, Simmonds MP, Wright AJ: A critique of the UK’s JNCC seismic survey guidelines for minimising acoustic disturbance to marine mammals: Best practise? Mar Pollut Bull 2009, 58:643-651.
• [99]Miller PJO, Johnson MP, Madsen PT, Biassoni N, Quero M, Tyack PL: Using at-sea experiments to study the effects of airguns on the foraging behavior of sperm whales in the Gulf of Mexico. Deep-Sea Res I 2009, 56:1168-1181.
• [100]Van Parijs SM, Clark CW, Sousa-Lima RS, Parks SE, Rankin S, Risch D, Van Opzeeland IC: Management and research applications of real-time and archival passive acoustic sensors over varying temporal and spatial scales. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 2009, 395:21-36.
• [101]Bellmann MA, Remmers P: Noise mitigation systems (NMS) for reducing pile driving noise: Experiences with the “big bubble curtain” relating to noise reduction. J Acoust Soc Am 2013, 134:4059.
• [102]European Wind Energy Association: Deep Water: The Next Step for Offshore Wind Energy. Brussels, Belgium: A report by the European Wind Energy Association; 2013.
• [103]European Wind Energy Association: The European Offshore Wind Industry Key 2011 Trends and Statistics. Brussels, Belgium: A report by the European Wind Energy Association; 2012.
• [104]Stokes I: Hotspots: Scotland and Fukushima. Renewable Energy Focus 2013, 14:10-11.
• [105]Clutton-Brock T, Sheldon BC: Individuals and populations: the role of long-term, individual-based studies of animals in ecology and evolutionary biology. Trends Ecol Evol 2010, 25:562-573.
• [106]Votier SC, Hatchwell BJ, Beckerman A, McCleery RH, Hunter FM, Pellatt J, Trinder M, Birkhead TR: Oil pollution and climate have wide-scale impacts on seabird demographics. Ecol Lett 2005, 8:1157-1164.
• [107]Véran S, Gimenez O, Flint E, Kendall WL, Doherty PF, Lebreton JD: Quantifying the impact of longline fisheries on adult survival in the black-footed albatross. J Appl Ecol 2007, 44:942-952.
• [108]New LF, Harwood J, Thomas L, Donovan C, Clark JS, Hastie G, Thompson PM, Cheney B, Scott-Hayward L, Lusseau D: Modelling the biological significance of behavioural change in coastal bottlenose dolphins in response to disturbance. Funct Ecol 2013, 27:314-322.
• [109]Drewitt AL, Langston RHW: Assessing the impacts of wind farms on birds. Ibis 2006, 148:29-42.