Impact case study database

The research in statistics at the University of St Andrews, as listed in Section 2, has underpinned environmental impact assessments for marine mammals and seabirds across a range of marine industries worldwide. There are 3 main areas of impact in this REF period:

• In defence, as a result of our methods, the US and 4 other NATO navies have changed procedures to demonstrably manage their use of sonar to meet environmental regulations and reduce adverse effects on marine animals.

• In marine renewable energy, our methods are recommended by national agencies (UK and Scotland), and these have been adopted by industry bodies when assessing the environmental impact of wind farm construction. When significant impacts have been evidenced, this has required an industry response such as additional monitoring alongside an independent evaluation of the ability of the monitoring to detect population recovery post-construction.

• In oil production, our research contributed to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill natural resources damage assessment, which led to the largest environmental damage settlement in US history. The analytical approaches developed have changed the way the US government approaches damage assessments.

Changes to the way navies effectively manage sonar usage

Navies of the world have identified active sonar as a key component of anti-submarine warfare. To ensure they are ready to use it effectively, Navies conduct frequent training and testing activities. The loud underwater sounds produced during these activities have the potential to harm marine life. Most nations, therefore, require procedures to be followed that minimise any harm, and also some form of environmental assessment. Our research has helped the navies of the US, UK, Netherlands, France and Norway to (a) demonstrate compliance with their country’s environmental regulations and/or (b) to change their operating procedures to reduce the impact of sonar on marine mammals.

The US Navy is required to submit environmental impact statements (EISs) or overseas EISs (OEISs) to the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Agency (NOAA) for each training and testing area (typically many millions of square km) between every 5 and 7 years. These include requests to “take” a specified number of marine mammals (at specified taxonomic levels, e.g., species), where the definition of a take includes certain types of behavioural disturbance. To estimate the number of takes, the Navy has built a simulation tool, Navy Acoustic Effects Model (NAEMO). One key input is the dose-response function – i.e., the probability of a response as a function of acoustic dose. The most recent set of EIS/OEISs (Phase III EIS) were written between 2014 and 2018. For these, at the request of the Navy environmental compliance team, Thomas and a PhD student developed custom biphasic dose-response functions, based on our previous Bayesian dose-response modelling methods [R1]. These were used in deriving the dose-response functions used in the EIS/OEISs [S1, S2]. Additional input data for these analyses used (a) methods we developed for determining whether a behavioural response has taken place during Behavioural Response Studies (BRSs) [R1], and (b) results from observational studies of acoustic response on Navy testing ranges [R2] undertaken by a Navy employee as part of their part-time PhD supervised and assisted by Thomas at St Andrews [S1, p. 65; S2]. In summary, as stated by the Director of the Energy and Environmental Readiness Division, Department of the Navy “… statistical developments by researchers in Math and Statistics at St Andrews, have provided critical scientific bases for the EIS/OEIS that enable the Navy to obtain permits authorizing continued training and testing on at-sea ranges.” [S2]

Many European navies have used BRS data analysed with our methods to develop tools for planning sonar exercises and as real-time decision aids used on the bridge of warships. Examples include the UK S2117, Netherlands SAKAMATA and Norwegian SONATE. For example, the Norwegian Navy’s guidance for planning of intense sonar exercises is based on results from the study where we first developed the Bayesian dose-response methods [R1, S3]. In addition, the UK, Netherlands, French and Norwegian Navies have changed specific operating procedures to reduce the impact of sonar on cetaceans, based on published research where we played a key role in the analysis [R1 and others, S3, S4]. The Chief of Staff, Royal Norwegian Navy, writes “… the ground-breaking research of the University of St Andrews and their international partners has resulted in major advances in our ability to manage the use of sonar. The impact of this research is that we are able to use sonar with restrictions and guidance based upon scientific evidence of effects on cetaceans. The research has been critical for developing and underpinning our guidelines, which protect the marine environment by reducing sonar impacts on cetaceans while allowing the Norwegian Navy to train and conduct our sonar activities without unnecessary restrictions.” [S3] The Director of Department Maritime Systems, Royal Dutch Navy writes “ NATO established the Active Sonar Risk Mitigation Smart Defence Initiative in 2014 to harmonize procedures designed to mitigate the risk of active sonar operations by NATO navies. … The biological and statistical research conducted by the University of St Andrews has profoundly influenced our understanding both of which types of effects are considered, and how to quantify and reduce risk during planned sonar exercises.” [S4, pp. 2-3]

Enabling assessment of environmental impact of wind farm construction

Activities associated with the installation of offshore wind turbines have the potential to affect marine mammals and seabirds, for example by displacing them from the area around construction sites. For construction consent, wind farm developers must undertake (costly) biological monitoring, and the resulting survey data must be analysed using methods that are capable of revealing construction-related effects. The Scottish Government commissioned Mackenzie and Scott-Hayward to create two freely available software packages, MRSea and MRSeaPower based around the CReSS spatial smoothing approach [R3, R4] which are designed to (a) quantify any windfarm related effects and (b) quantify the ability of the survey regime to detect these effects [S5]. The Renewables and Energy Programme Manager at Marine Scotland writes: “ *MRSea is the recommended approach by both Natural England and Marine Scotland (2014-ongoing) and MRSea has been used for a wide range of wind farm installations to quantify impacts and any post-impact recovery and latterly MRSeaPower has been used to determine the adequacy of additional survey frequency subsequent to the identification of significant impacts.*” [S6]

To date, MRSea has been used in the consenting process and post-consent monitoring for at least 13 different farms in the UK and Denmark with a potential capacity of over 5450MW, enough to power over 4,500,000,000 homes. Denmark, at the forefront of wind power generation, had the first large scale offshore windfarm in the world (Horns Rev I) and in 2019 had the highest wind power generation in the world as a fraction of domestic consumption (47%). Use of MRSea is documented in reports underpinning the Evidence Plans and Environmental Statements as part of the consenting process for offshore wind farms. “ *MRSea has been used in the process for several UK based [wind] farms (Lincs, Lyn and Inner Dowsing, Burbobank, Hornsea 3 and 4, Robin Rigg,Liverpool Bay and Moray West) and the very largest Danish windfarms (Rodsand I and II, and Horns Rev [I, II and II]). MRSeaPower has been used for the Lincs and Fehmarn Belt Fixed Link projects. This work is wide reaching and significant: the associated outputs inform both regulatory decision makers via the consent to operate, and industry by critically evaluating the frequency (and thus the substantial costs) of surveying.*” [S6]. The UK has a legal responsibility for protected species that can be affected by wind farms and so the beneficiaries include UK marine regulators by way of evidence-based decision making, windfarm-related companies (e.g., DONG and E.ON) and protected wildlife, such as the threatened red-throated diver (listed under Annex I of the EU Birds Directive) and harbour porpoise (listed in Annex I and IV of the EU Habitats Directive). MRSea has been used in windfarm-related impact assessment for both these vulnerable species, but also many more.

Deepwater Horizon oil spill environmental damage assessment

On April 20^th, 2010, the Deepwater Horizon drilling unit exploded in the Northern Gulf of Mexico, resulting in the release of approximately 3,200,000,000 barrels of oil into Gulf waters. The US government NOAA began a Natural Resources Damage Assessment (NRDA), in preparation for a settlement or litigation against the legally responsible party, BP. One important component of the NRDA was the Marine Mammal Injury Quantification (MMIQ). In 2014, Thomas was invited to join the MMIQ team to assist in analysis of the multiple data-sources generated, and to help provide population projections under assumed baseline and impacted conditions [R5, R6, and others]. The team’s report was submitted in 2015, and at about the same time, BP settled with the US government (and other stakeholders) for USD20,800,000,000, of which USD8,800,000,000 was assigned to restore the environmental damage. The chair of the MMIQ team and former Chief of the Oceans and Human Health Branch at NOAA writes “ Dr Thomas made significant contributions … as a leader in the development and implementation of innovative approaches for quantifying the marine mammal injury following the DWH oil spill. He and his colleagues at St Andrews were vital to the success of the injury quantification, which in turn was a key factor in the settlement with BP.” [S7] Regarding the ongoing impact of this work, they write: “ *The quantification approaches that we developed [R6] … have provided a template for future marine mammal injury assessments. Our ground-breaking efforts have changed the way that NOAA approaches NRDAs. Previously reluctant to pursue marine mammal damages due to the difficulty in documenting and quantifying injuries, NOAA is now armed with robust analytical tools and the agency has made assessment of marine mammal injuries a high priority. … The innovative models and analytical approaches developed by our team [R5, R6] have prompted NOAA to more actively investigate and pursue damages for marine mammal injuries from oil and other chemical spills.*” [S7]