1

Outer Moray Firth Cetacean Research 2008

Project Report for the BBC Wildlife Fund

February 2009

Sonja Eisfeld, Simon Keith, Alice Pope, Davy Still, Sarah Dolman & Mark Simmonds

Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society (WDCS)

The Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society (WDCS), Brookfield House, 38 St. Paul Street, Chippenham, Wiltshire,

SN15 1LJ. Registered Charity No. 1014705

2

1 Introduction

Whales, dolphins and porpoises are known to inhabit the waters of both the inner and outer Moray Firth in north east

Scotland, but there remain significant gaps in our understanding of their distribution, abundance and habitat use in the

Moray Firth as a whole. The inner Moray Firth is recognised as an internationally important area for bottlenose dolphins

and was designated in 2005 as a Special Area of Conservation (SAC) under the EU Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC)1.

The outer Firth may also be important but has been studied in far less detail, especially the offshore areas which have no

protected status.

These data gaps are of particular concern considering the degree of past and present industrial development and other

human activities that occur in the Firth. Offshore oil and gas exploration and production, dredging, fisheries activities,

pollution, marine renewable energy and boat traffic all affect the marine environment and can negatively impact

cetaceans. Baseline information on presence and habitat use of cetaceans is necessary in order to quantify the present

and future impacts of anthropogenic activities. Furthermore, effective conservation of wild populations requires an

understanding of the relationship between populations and their habitats, preferably with predictive ability (Caňadas et

al. 2005). A first step towards this is to determine which habitats are used with higher frequency. This information can

then be used to help determine those environmental features (abiotic and biotic) that are required to maintain populations

at a favourable conservation status.

The primary objective of this research has been to collect baseline data to begin to fill the gaps in our knowledge of the

seasonal variation in abundance/presence and distribution of cetaceans in these waters. This information is required in

order to advise and inform policy decisions that relate to the conservation of cetaceans in this region and to define

further research requirements.

1.1 Study area

The Moray Firth (57º40´N, 3º30´W) is an area (measuring approximately 5230 km²) of tremendous natural beauty that

hosts a variety of marine habitats supporting a diverse assemblage of marine species. Bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops

truncatus), harbour porpoises (Phocoena phocoena) and minke whales (Balaenoptera acutorostrata) are the most

commonly recorded species, though other species, including common dolphins (Delphinus delphis), orcas (Orcinus

orca) and pilot whales (Globicephalus melas), are also seen occasionally. Grey (Halicherus grypus) and harbour seals

(Phoca vitulina) are also common in the Firth. The Dornoch Firth is the most northerly large estuary in Britain and

supports a significant proportion of the inner Moray Firth population of the harbour seal and has SAC status.

The Moray Firth is the largest embayment in the northeast of Scotland (Tilbrook, 1986) and an integral part of the

northwest North Sea and Atlantic Ocean beyond, sharing such large-scale environmental parameters as water circulation

and climate patterns (Wright et al. 1998). Bounded on two sides by land, it is generally defined as the area from

Duncansby Head in the north, to Inverness in the southwest and to Fraserburgh in the east (Harding Hill 1993). The area

west of Helmsdale in the north to Lossiemouth in the south is generally referred to as the “inner” Moray Firth, whilst the

area to the north and east of these landmarks is known as the “outer” Moray Firth (Figure 1).

In the inner Firth, the seabed slopes gently from the coast to a depth of about 50 m, approximately 15 km offshore,

whilst the outer Firth more closely resembles the open North Sea with the seabed sloping more rapidly to depths of up to

200 m within 26 km of the shoreline (Holmes et al. 2004). The rivers that empty into the Firth create many areas with

estuarine conditions and associated habitats. Rocky shores and cliffs are imposing evidence of similar structures beneath

the sea. The Southern Trench, for example, is an enormous undersea valley allowing a finger of relatively deep water

(~200 m) to extend along the southern coast as far as Banff. Likewise, vast sandy banks undulate across the sea bottom

resembling the sandy and pebbly beaches above.

1 The Moray Firth SAC has bottlenose dolphins as the “Annex II species that are a primary reason for selection of this site” along with ‘sandbanks which are slightly covered by sea water all the time’ as an Annex I habitat qualifying feature (and the annexes referred to here are those of the

Directive). For more details see JNCC Moray Firth SAC website: http://www.jncc.gov.uk/ProtectedSites/SACselection/sac.asp?EUCode=UK0019808

3

1.2 The Changing Face of the Moray Firth

Whilst the Moray Firth is widely regarded as a haven for wildlife, including the thousands of migratory and other birds

and wildlife that throng its spectacular cliffs and tidal mudflats (MFP 2009), it is also a region of increasing human

development. Much of this development is coastal, but an increasing amount is also planned offshore. The Firth is home

to a population of about 250,000 people and Inverness is reportedly the second fastest growing city in Europe.

Issues facing the conservation of marine wildlife in the region currently include the development of new marinas, with a

predicted increase in boat traffic; exploration and production of new and existing fossil fuel deposits (including in, and

adjacent to, the dolphin SAC); and marine renewable energy developments, including a large offshore windfarm in the

outer Moray Firth. Very loud noise is used to explore the sea bed for fossil fuels and for placement of offshore

installations, whether they are oil rigs or wind farms, bring construction and operation-related noise and disturbance,

including many extra movements of boats. A fuller description of the risks associated with these new developments for

cetaceans and other marine wildlife can be found on the WDCS website (www.wdcs.org).

2 Methods 2.1 Observer training

Training days were run prior to each survey to teach the methods and skills needed to be an effective member of the

survey team. Hosted at the WDCS Wildlife Centre in Spey Bay, these courses taught visual and acoustic survey methods

and included practical sessions on land and at sea. As volunteer observers varied between surveys, the training ensured a

base level of competence across all observers. Up to seven volunteers including recruits from the local area attended.

Figure 1: Map showing: (A) the layout of the Moray Firth, NE Scotland, defining the inner and outer sections of the Moray Firth; and (B) the location of the Moray Firth within the British Isles.

4

2.2 Field studies

Cetacean field studies pose particular challenges due to the aquatic nature of these mammals and the environment in

which they live. Cetaceans are highly mobile, wide-ranging diving mammals which spend the majority of their time

under water. This dynamic environment, with its continuously fluctuating conditions such as wind, waves, swell, glare

and visibility, makes fieldwork complicated. Consequently, cetaceans are often difficult to monitor and can, for

example, be easily missed during surveys. To minimise these limitations, a combination of two field techniques derived

from terrestrial studies and tested in previous cetacean surveys (e.g. SCANS, the Small Cetacean Abundance in the

North Sea survey) have been used in this study.

Simultaneous acoustic and visual surveys were carried out using one of three research vessels, the Gemini Explorer, the

Gemini Endeavour and the White Horse. The Gemini Explorer and the Gemini Endeavour are both former Clyde Class

RNLI Lifeboats, the White Horse is a former fishing boat now used as a dive boat; dimensions can be found in Table 1.

Surveys took place in all four seasons and during the months of February, May, August and November in 2008. All

ships surveyed at speeds of approximately 8 knots, during daylight hours, in moderate to excellent visibility and in sea

states equal or less than three and swell heights equal or less than 2.5 m (Table 2). Passive acoustic monitoring was

carried out in all sea states, including times when visual effort had stopped due to unsuitable environmental conditions.

The position of the vessel was recorded every 10 seconds by the ship’s computer from a GPS navigation system using

the International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW) Data logging Software, Logger (www.ifaw.org).

Table 1: Specifications of the three survey vessels used during WDCS outer Moray Firth boat surveys in 2008.

Boat Length

(m)

Height (m) Months used

Bow Wing

Gemini Explorer 21.9 2.3 3.3 Feb, May, Nov

Gemini Endeavour 17.0 2.3 4.2 Aug

White Horse 17.9 3.0 3.6 Feb

Table 2: Specification of the environmental conditions for WDCS outer Moray Firth boat surveys in 2008.

Condition Specification/category

Sightings Not incidental

Visibility moderate, good or excellent

Sea state ≤ 3

Swell ≤ 2.5 m

Precipitation intensity Not high

Primary effort High

Secondary effort High

Mid frequency effort High

High frequency effort High

2.2.1 Visual survey

Visual data were collected simultaneously from two independent observation platforms

by trained observers. The primary platform (‘wing’) was the highest observation platform

on the survey vessel. It was manned by two observers positioned on the port and

starboard sides of the wing platform, each scanning a 90° radius from straight ahead (0°)

to abeam (either 90° starboard or 270° port). Platform 2 (‘bow’) was a lower platform

manned by a single observer positioned on the bow, scanning a 90° radius (from 315° to

45°) ahead of the boat (Figure 2). A bird observer was positioned on the port or starboard

side of the bow of Gemini Endeavour or the port or starboard site on the wing of Gemini

Explorer scanning a straight line 90° from the direction the vessel was moving and

recording any bird that flew,

swam or sat on the water

through this virtual line. To

maintain consistent sighting

Figure 2: Schematic of the survey vessel showing

the three observation platforms.

5

effort and prevent observer fatigue, watches were rotated every 30 minutes in the following sequence: 1) watch from

bow platform, 2) data logger in the wheelhouse, 3) rest/break, 4) watch from port platform, 5) watch from starboard

platform, 6) listen at acoustic station, 7) rest/break, 8) bird observations.

Scanning was predominantly conducted with the naked eye. On first sighting of a single animal or a group of animals,

the bearing and heading direction was recorded in relation to the vessel using angle boards mounted at each observation

platform (Figure 3a). Binoculars (magnification 7 x 50, with an internal reticule) and distance sticks (Figure 3b + 3c)

were used to measure radial distance, and the binoculars were also used to help to determine species, group size and

behaviour where necessary.

All observers carried two-way radios to relate sightings to the data logger stationed inside the wheelhouse. When

sightings occurred simultaneously, the information was recorded onto a digital dictaphone and later transcribed.

Environmental data included sea state (Beaufort scale), swell height (m), visibility (poor – excellent), cloud cover (0 – 8)

and precipitation (none – heavy). The presence, number and type of other vessels in the vicinity were also collected

every 30 minutes, as were environmental conditions when they changed.

2.2.2 Acoustic survey

Acoustic surveys sample the sounds made

by cetaceans rather than the animals

themselves. Harbour porpoise have very

distinctive clicks; their power is

concentrated in an extremely narrow band

centred around 130kHz (six times higher

than that which humans can perceive) while

dolphins produce whistles between 4 and 20

kHz (Caldwell et al. 1990) which lie in the

audible range of humans. To detect the click

vocalisations made by harbour porpoises

and the whistles of dolphins, a hydrophone

(underwater microphone) was deployed at

the beginning of each day and was towed

behind the boat on 150m of Kevlar coated

cable. When high frequency clicks,

characteristic of harbour porpoises, were

detected by the hydrophone they were

monitored using the software program

A B C

Figure 3: a) Angle board as used on each of the visual observation platforms during the survey to determine the angle

of sightings in relation to the movement of the survey vessel; b) view through reticuled binoculars used to determine

the distance of a sighting from the survey vessel; c) use of a distance stick to estimate the distance of a sighting from

the survey vessel (note that distance sticks are unique to the height of the observation platform and the observer). Photos courtesy of Lucy Molleson, Alice Pope and Simon Keith.

Figure 4: Schematic of the

hydrophone setup (adapted

from Gillespie 2005).

6

Rainbow Click (IFAW) on a laptop computer in conjunction with Logger. Dolphin whistles were monitored by the

acoustic monitor who listened to the live audio band signal and watched a real-time spectrogram display using the

software Ishmael (NOAA). Recordings were also made on the computer’s hard drive to act as a back-up to check

detections. Rainbow click is designed to automatically detect and log specific acoustic features of porpoise extracted

from echolocation click signals. The data were then processed to allow the targeted cetacean species’ vocalisation to be

distinguished from other sources of noise (including the vocalisations of other cetacean species). A schematic of the

hydrophone setup can be seen in Figure 4.

2.3 Data analyses

2.3.1 Visual data

Sightings data from the wing and bow platform were combined (Macleod et al. 2003) and duplicate recordings classified

as re-sights, which were excluded from further analyses. Incidental sightings by those not on a dedicated watch were

excluded from the analyses as well. Reticule distances were transformed to metres. All probable and definite sightings

were included in the analyses. The number of animals at first sighting was adjusted if subsequent re-sighting added

additional group size information.

2.3.2 Acoustic data

2.3.2.1. Individual click classification

For objective classification of porpoise events, all porpoise click files were initially viewed without consulting the visual

data. Clicks were identified and their quality assessed according to the following parameters (Swift et al. in press):

1. The peak frequency (kHz); 2. The length of the click waveform; 3. The width of the click power spectrum; 4. The ratio of sound energy in the porpoise band (100 – 160 kHz) and a control band (40 – 90 kHz).

2.3.2.2. Click train identification

Different types of porpoise click events were classified according to: i) the number of porpoise clicks that they

contained, ii) track definition, i.e. whether the detected click showed a clear and definable track past the hydrophone

array, and iii) the quality (see above) of the clicks within it. Porpoise detections were defined as one or a series of click

events occurring within 2 minutes of each other. This was based on the geometry of the survey vessel in relation to an

idealised porpoise: If it is assumed that porpoises are not affected by the survey vessel a porpoise will be stationary in

relation to the array as it passes and, since the average speed of the vessel was 250 m min-1 and the estimated detection

range of the porpoise detector was 250m, it takes 2 minutes for one point in the sea to enter and leave the detection area.

Rather than being calculated from the integrated bearings of clicks within each event, this detection range is based on an

estimate from work with other identical hydrophone arrays (Gillespie, pers. comm.).

There were three types of clicks. For objective classification of porpoise events, all porpoise click files were initially

viewed without consulting the visual data. Clicks were identified and their quality assessed according to the following

parameters events (click train tracks, porpoise or haywire events and single clicks) and four different types of detection

were classified (Figure 5):

• Click train (CT): One distinguishable click train with logical progression of clicks, just one porpoise clicking

• Multi track (MT): Various (more than one) distinguishable click trains with logical progression of clicks

• Porpoise or haywire event (HE): Lots of clicks, difficult to see a distinct pattern

• Single click (SC): One single click with perfect waveform and power spectrum.

For each multi track detection the ‘group size’ was noted (minimum, maximum and best estimate), i.e. the number of

different click train tracks and therefore, potentially, different animals thought to have been detected.

2.3.2.3 Whistles

The program Spectrogram 16 (freeware version 16.0; Visualization Software LLC) was used for analyses of medium

frequency sound files (dolphin whistles and clicks). A spectrogram simply plots the frequency components of sounds as

a function of time (Figure 6). In Spectrogram 16, digital audio from the computer sound card was analyzed to produce a

plot of frequency versus time, with the harmonic Spectrum Level at each frequency represented by a variable colour

scale. These spectrograms revealed the hidden frequency structure of audio signals and were used for identifying or

classifying particular sounds, like dolphin whistles and clicks. Once whistles and clicks in files were identified, they

were matched to the dolphin sightings.

7

Figure 5: Harbour porpoise click train classes. (a) SC or Single Click; (b) CT or Click Train Event with one single

clearly defined track; (c) MT or Multi Track Event containing multiple clicks and more than one defined track; (d)

HE or Haywire Event containing multiple clicks with no clear or defined track.

Figure 6: Example of (A) dolphin whistles and (B) dolphin clicks as viewed with Spectrogram 16.

A

8

2.3.3 Combining visual and acoustic data

Visual and acoustic data were combined to determine the total number of marine mammal encounters. The hydrophone

array itself was not connected to the vessel’s GPS, so each acoustic detection was assigned an associated GPS reference

(latitude and longitude) by creating a look-up function within the visual data base (location against time). Times were

used to match sightings and detections. A sighting was considered to be matched with a detection if it occurred 3 minutes

or less prior to the start of an acoustic detection, and not after the end of an acoustic detection. This is based on the fact

that 1) the hydrophone array is 150 m astern of the sightings platform and, 2) animals could be seen further ahead than

the acoustic detection range.

The process of matching acoustic detections to visual detections was problematic: sightings were made ahead and

perpendicular of the vessel at ranges sometimes exceeding the detection rage of the hydrophone. The animals that were

detected acoustically may not have been in view at the time. Also, the movements of most animals were not tracked, so it

is not known whether schools remained at the same location or moved towards or away from the hydrophone.

Dolphin detections were treated separately, as they potentially violated two key assumptions a) the animal is not attracted

to the boat and, b) the detection range for whistles and broad band clicks is much greater than 250 m.

3 Results 3.1 Track lines and sightings

During 2008, a total of 22 survey trips lasting between 3 to 11 hours of on-effort survey time were made on 22 days.

Due to the unpredictable and very changeable weather, observers were sometimes on effort in unfavourable conditions

(outside of the parameters set for this survey as described in Table 2) or had to be taken off effort until conditions had

improved again. Sightings made during unfavourable conditions were still recorded but were later excluded from the

analyses. Tables 4 A – C demonstrate the variation between total effort and effort in favourable conditions after applying

the predetermined environmental parameters to the data (see Table 2). The surveys covered a total survey distance of

2429.76 km (~ 156 hours), during which 293 visual encounters were recorded. Observers were on effort in sea state

three or less for 85.4% of the total transect length which amounts to 2073.90 km and 232 encounters or 1922.74 km and

224 encounters respectively after incorporating the acoustic effort (79.1% of total track line).

During the surveys, a total of three different cetacean species (one phocoenid, one mysticete and one delphinid) and two

seal species were encountered (Table 5). The respective distribution of encounters for each survey month is shown in

Figure 7.

9

Table 4: The survey effort for seasonal surveys conducted in the Moray Firth, NE Scotland, in 2008; A) showing all

effort, before applying restrictions; B) showing effort after applying the conditions depicted in table 2 (except for Mid

and High frequency effort); C) showing all effort after applying the conditions depicted in table 2.

A B

Month

No.

survey

days

Survey

effort

(km)

Total no.

of

encounters Month

No.

survey

days

Survey

effort

(km)

Total no.

of

encounters

February 5 617.95 36 February 5 524.48 34

May 6 642.68 108 May 6 593.66 99

August 6 604.51 106 August 6 508.76 81

November 5 564.62 43 November 5 447.00 18

Total 22 2429.76 293 Total 22 2073.90 232

C

Month

No.

survey

days

Survey

effort

(km)

Total no.

of

encounters

February 5 450.95 30

May 6 568.26 98

August 6 469.47 78

November 5 434.06 18

Total 22 1922.74 224

Table 5: Showing the number of encounters per cetacean species in the study area. The total number of animals

encountered is given in parentheses. A) showing all encounters, before applying restrictions; B) showing encounters

after applying the conditions depicted in table 2 (except for Mid and High frequency effort); C) showing all encounters

after applying the conditions depicted in table 2.

A February May August November

Seals

Grey seal

(Halichoerus grypus) 10 (11) 31 (31) 11 (11) 18 (18)

Common seal

(Phoca vitulina) 0 (0) 8 (8) 1 (1) 1 (1)

Unidentified seal 1 (1) 1 (1) 9 (9) 0 (0)

Cetaceans

Harbour porpoise

(Phocoena phocoena) 23 (29) 54 (64) 66 (120) 23 (31)

Common dolphin

(Delphinus delphis) 0 (0) 2 (7) 2 (32) 0 (0)

Minke whale

(Balaenoptera acutorostrata) 0 (0) 10 (10) 13 (14) 1 (1)

Unidentified cetacean 2 (2) 2 (2) 2 (4) 0 (0)

Total trackline (km) 617.95 642.68 604.51 564.62

10

B February May August November

Seals

Grey seal

(Halichoerus grypus) 9 (10) 27 (28) 10 (10) 8 (8)

Common seal

(Phoca vitulina) 0 (0) 8 (8) 1 (1) 0 (0)

Unidentified seal 1 (1) 1 (1) 6 (6) 0 (0)

Cetaceans

Harbour porpoise

(Phocoena phocoena) 22 (28) 51 (61) 54 (94) 9 (18)

Common dolphin

(Delphinus delphis) 0 (0) 2 (7) 1 (2) 0 (0)

Minke whale

(Balaenoptera acutorostrata) 0 (0) 9 (9) 8 (8) 1 (1)

Unidentified cetacean 2 (2) 1 (1) 1 (1) 0 (0)

Total trackline (km) 524.48 593.66 508.76 447.00

C February May August November

Seals

Grey seal

(Halichoerus grypus) 10 (9) 26 (26) 10 (10) 8 (8)

Common seal

(Phoca vitulina) 0 (0) 8 (8) 1 (1) 0 (0)

Unidentified seal 1 (1) 1 (1) 5 (6) 0 (0)

Cetaceans

Harbour porpoise

(Phocoena phocoena) 23 (25) 51 (61) 53 (92) 9 (18)

Common dolphin

(Delphinus delphis) 0 (0) 2 (7) 1 (2) 0 (0)

Minke whale

(Balaenoptera acutorostrata) 0 (0) 9 (9) 7 (8) 1 (1)

Unidentified cetacean 2 (2) 1 (1) 1 (1) 0 (0)

Total trackline (km) 450.95 568.26 469.47 434.06

Table 5 continued.

The most frequently sighted cetacean species in all months surveyed was the harbour porpoise (Table 6), followed

thereafter by the minke whale. Harbour porpoise were recorded in the survey area in all survey months. Minke whales

were sighted in May and August, once in November, and not sighted during the February survey. Common dolphins

were only recorded in May and August. Grey seals were sighted in all surveys. Common seals were sighted less

frequently overall than grey seals and were not seen at all during the February survey.

11

Figure 7: Sightings maps of the area surveyed in the outer Moray Firth showing the spatial distribution of cetacean and seal species encountered across the four

months surveyed in 2008. Note that these are the sightings after applying restrictions (table 2) to the data; distribution maps for each month showing all sightings

(without restrictions) can be found in Appendix I.

12

Table 6: The encounter rates for harbour porpoises, minke whales and common dolphins in the outer Moray Firth in

2008 expressed as the number of encounters per km for each species. The determination in parentheses denotes the

total number of animals per km effort. A) showing encounter rates for all species, before applying restrictions; B)

showing encounter rates after applying the conditions depicted in table 2 (except for Mid and High frequency effort);

C) showing encounters rates after applying the conditions depicted in table 2.

A

February May August November

Harbour porpoise

(Phocoena phocoena)

0.037

(0.047)

0.084

(0.099)

0.109

(0.198)

0.041

(0.069)

Common dolphin

(Delphinus delphis) 0 (0)

0.003

(0.016)

0.003

(0.023) 0 (0)

Minke whale

(Balaenoptera

acutorostrata) 0 (0)

0.016

(0.011)

0.022

(0.053)

0.002

(0.002)

B

February May August November

Harbour porpoise

(Phocoena phocoena)

0.042

(0.019)

0.086

(0.103)

0.106

(0.185)

0.020

(0.040)

Common dolphin

(Delphinus delphis) 0 (0)

0.003

(0.015)

0.002

(0.016) 0 (0)

Minke whale

(Balaenoptera

acutorostrata) 0 (0)

0.015

(0.012)

0.016

(0.004)

0.002

(0.002)

C

February May August November

Harbour porpoise

(Phocoena phocoena)

0.0421

(0.055)

0.090

(0.107)

0.113

(0.196)

0.021

(0.042)

Common dolphin

(Delphinus delphis) 0 (0)

0.004

(0.016)

0.002

(0.015) 0 (0)

Minke whale

(Balaenoptera

acutorostrata) 0 (0)

0.016

(0.012)

0.015

(0.004)

0.002

(0.002)

3.2. Acoustic detections

Of the 2429.76 km of transect covered during all four survey months, 79.1 % (1922.74 km) were surveyed acoustically

(Table 7). In a total of 140 click files analysed, a total of 249 (Σ SC+CT+MT+HE) harbour porpoise click trains were

detected (Figure 8), 14.9 % of click trains were classified as SC detections, 60.2 % as CT detections, 21.7 % as MT

detections and 3.2 % as HE detections.

Table 7: Number of click train detections and effort during outer Moray Firth surveys in 2008. Note that no click data

was recorded in November due to a faulty setting in the software. SC – Single click; CT – Click train event; MT –

Multi track event; HE – Haywire event. The survey effort shows effort while visual effort and acoustic effort were

high.

Month SC CT MT HE All Survey

effort (km)

February 10 (11.5 %) 60 (69.0 %) 16 (18.4 %) 1 (1.1 %) 87 450.95

May 15 (12.4 %) 69 (57.0 %) 30 (24.8 %) 7 (5.8 %) 121 568.26

August 12 (29.3 %) 21 (51.2 %) 8 (19.5 %) 0 (0.0 %) 41 469.47

November 0 (0.0 %) 0 (0.0 %) 0 (0.0 %) 0 (0.0 %) 0 434.06

Total 37 (14.9 %) 150 (60.2 %) 54 (21.7 %) 8 (3.2 %) 249 1922.74

13

Figure 8: Distribution of acoustic harbour porpoise detections within the survey area in the outer Moray Firth in 2008. November data is lacking due to a wrong

setting to the hydrophone.

14

Of those 249 acoustic detections, a total of 44 were matched to 62 harbour porpoise sightings occurring at the same time;

7 acoustic detections matched 12 porpoise sightings in February, 25 acoustic detections matched 35 porpoise sightings in

May and 12 acoustic detections matched 15 porpoise sightings in August. Passive acoustic monitoring thus increased the

total quantity of data gathered from February to August inclusively by 62 %.

Considering the sightings rates in each month surveyed, there were relatively far fewer porpoise detections in August

compared to February and May (X2=30.9, DF=2, P=0.000). This may have been caused by higher noise levels on the

Gemini Endeavour in August. Future analysis will use noise measurements taken on each survey to calculate an

adjustment factor for the data (Swift et al. in press).

A total of four common dolphin sightings (two in May, two in August, see Table 5A) were matched to sound recordings

of dolphin whistles and clicks. In all cases, the dolphins were heard before they were seen.

3.3 Bird sightings

Birds were abundant during all surveys. Birds seen were roughly categorised as follows: auks, divers, ducks, fulmars,

gannets, geese, gulls, cormorant, shearwater, skuas, petrels and terns. Ducks were prominent in February, while auks,

fulmars and gulls were more abundant in May and in August (Table 8). Gannets were more frequently seen in August than

in the other survey months. Geese were recorded in February and November, while terns were only recorded in May and

August.

According to Ian Francis of the RSPB, who joined the survey in November, the Black Guillemot count of 97 (part of the

total number of auks) that he made from the vessel was the highest ever recorded in NE Scotland (Moray, Aberdeenshire

and Nairn), and the Great Northern Diver count (36) was the second highest ever in Moray and Nairn. The only place in

Aberdeenshire that has recorded slightly higher numbers is Rattray Head, and a count of 36 is over 1 % of the estimated

Great Britain wintering population (very few areas record more in any year, but it is known that Orkney and Shetland hold

many more than this). Figure 9 shows numbers of birds for each survey month. Please note that the axes have different

scales.

Table 8: Numbers of birds encountered in each survey month.

Number per month Bird Group

Feb May Aug Nov

Auk 47 1251 1768 154

Diver 0 2 0 24

Duck 243 48 1 107

Fulmar 47 279 372 112

Gannet 22 82 374 257

Goose 5 0 0 5

Gull 924 448 519 1773

Cormorant 142 15 22 149

Shearwater 0 0 9 0

Skua 0 1 9 1

Petrel 0 0 2 0

Tern 0 4 15 0

15

2008 Auk Count

0

500

1000

1500

2000

Feb May Aug Nov

Month

Auk Numbers

2008 Diver Count

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Feb May Aug Nov

Month

Diver Numbers

2008 Sea Duck Count

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Feb May Aug Nov

Month

Sea Duck Numbers

2008 Fulmar Count

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

Feb May Aug Nov

Month

Fulm

ar Numbers

2008 Gannet Count

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

Feb May Aug Nov

Month

Gannet Numbers

2008 Goose Count

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Feb May Aug Nov

Month

Goose Numbers

2008 Gull Count

0

500

1000

1500

2000

Feb May Aug Nov

Month

Gull Numbers

2008 Phalacrocorax Count

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

Feb May Aug Nov

Month

Phalacrocorax Numbers

Figure 9: Numbers of birds per month surveyed in the Moray Firth in 2008. Please note that the axes have different scales!

16

2008 Shearwater Count

0

2

4

6

8

10

Feb May Aug Nov

Month

Shearwater Numbers

2008 Skua Count

0

2

4

6

8

10

Feb May Aug Nov

Month

Skua Numbers

2008 Petrel Count

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

Feb May Aug Nov

Month

Petrel Numbers

2008 Tern Count

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

Feb May Aug Nov

Month

Tern Numbers

4 Discussion and Conclusions 4.1 Importance of the outer Moray Firth, our survey findings and the limitations of our data

Distribution and occurrence of cetaceans in the western North Sea has previously been described from opportunistic data

collected during seabird surveys (Mudge et al. 1984, Northridge et al. 1995) and by dedicated volunteer coastal networks

(Evans 1992). These data were combined with those collected during one large-scale survey in 1994 (SCANS – Small

Cetacean Abundance in the North Sea, Hammond et al. 2002) to produce a general atlas of distribution for northwest

Europe (Reid et al. 2003) featuring 28 cetacean species over a period of 25 years. SCANS II was conducted in the summer

of 2005 which will add additional data to the second edition of the Atlas in due course. These data provide a useful

illustration of presence of cetaceans, but due to the low-resolution data, it is unsuitable for “local” management where finer

scale determinations are required (Weir et al. 2007). This is clearly the situation in the outer Moray Firth.

More detailed studies have, to date, focused on the inner Moray Firth SAC (Wilson 1995, Wilson et al. 1999, 2000, 2004,

Hastie et al. 2003, 2004) and the southern outer Firth (Robinson et al. 2007, Culloch & Robinson 2008). Prior to our

surveys, no data have been published on cetaceans in the offshore (or more northern) areas of the outer Firth. The data

presented in this report are an important first step in filling this data gap. They indicate possible seasonal differences in

cetacean distributions and densities. However, they still provide relatively small datasets that need to be used with care.

They should not, for example, be used as the sole basis for management decisions and plans in this region, relating for

example to any potential new developments here. Such developments will require well planned and dedicated longer term

studies to further establish the ways in which legislated environmental responsibilities are to be understood and met,

including how cetaceans utilise this region and potential impacts upon them. The burden now lies on the shoulders of

governments and developers to pay for the quantity and quality of independent research required to achieve and underpin

their legislated environmental responsibilities.

4.2 Occurrence and distribution of animals in the outer Moray Firth

Cetaceans were encountered during all seasonal surveys in 2008. Species encountered included three of the eight species

previously recorded in the outer Firth (e.g. Robinson et al., 2007) – harbour porpoise, minke whales and common dolphins.

Bottlenose dolphins were not seen during the outer Moray Firth surveys in 2008. Their apparent absence corresponds with

Figure 9 continued

17

the results of the long-term studies along the southern coastline of the outer Moray Firth which showed that they prefer

shallow, coastal waters less than 25 m in depth (Robinson et al. 2007, Culloch & Robinson 2008). These shallow waters

were outside of our survey area.

On the other hand, studies from the inner Firth (within the bottlenose dolphin SAC), have shown a preference by the

bottlenose dolphins for depths in excess of 50 m with a steep gradient (Hastie et al. 2003, 2004). This is likely the result of

significant differences between the two environments: the inner Firth has strong currents and tidal fronts within deep

constricted channels which are thought to be used by the dolphins to aid foraging (Mendes et al. 2002), while these features

are not as pronounced in the outer Firth where the dolphins are thought to use the coastline to aid foraging (e.g. Shane et al.

1986).

No data exists on the distribution of bottlenose dolphins in the Moray Firth in the winter months. It might be possible that

they use the areas further from shore more often following currents and fish during the winter months, but this has yet to be

confirmed. Individuals identified from photo-identification studies off the west coast of Scotland have been observed in the

Moray Firth (Robinson et al., 2009) and so it is possible that bottlenose dolphins will utilise the outer Moray Firth. Only

the collection of more survey data will confirm or deny this possibility. An opportunistic sighting of bottlenose dolphins

was made in November, close to shore off Buckie, where dolphins are often reported.

Minke whales were more usually observed in deeper waters further from shore. Their sightings typically occurred along

isobaths and were restricted to the summer months, except for one sighting in November. Tetley et al. (2008) showed a

correlation between the presence of minke whales and the occurrence of two mesoscale oceanographic features observed in

the Moray Firth, namely the Dooley Current, which transports cold water south from the north Atlantic into the North Sea,

circling it clockwise into the Moray Firth (Eleftheriou et al. 2004) and a warm water plume extending out from the inner

Firth into the wider embayment and North Sea beyond. Tetley et al. (2008) hypothesised that within the Moray Firth

system, when the warm water plume feature is dominant, it stimulates greater phytoplankton biomass which in turn

increases the availability of sandeels (Ammodytes spp.), as high phytoplankton concentrations will draw them out of the

benthic sediments in which they bury themselves for protection (Wright et al. 2000, Macleod et al. 2004). Sandeels

comprise the principal prey for both minke whales and harbour porpoises in Scottish waters (Pierce et al. 2004, Santos et

al. 2004). However, the relationships between predators and their prey are complex. For example, many species of fish in

Scottish waters, including whiting (Merlangius merlangus), haddock (Gadus morhua) and pelagic mackerel (Scomber

scombrus) (Santos et al., 2004) are ultimately dependent on sandeel prey themselves (Robinson & Tetley 2007). As a

consequence, variations in the presence or absence of these mid-trophic species in the survey area could also be expected to

influence the distributions of cetacean species.

Both visual and acoustic data indicate that harbour porpoises are widespread in the survey area throughout the year, usually

more abundant in deeper waters further from shore. The acoustic data provided a more comprehensive picture of porpoise

distribution in the region as effective coverage was maintained through periods with less favourable sighting conditions.

These findings are supported by other studies in the Moray Firth (Gridley 2005, Robinson et al., 2007). As with the minke

whales, harbour porpoise distribution might be dependent on sandeel distribution (Pierce et al., 2004, Santos et al., 2004).

The possibility of inter-specific competition with bottlenose dolphins cannot be excluded as a potential explanation for the

distribution of porpoise sightings. Bottlenose dolphins are known to sometimes interact violently with porpoises and

resulting avoidance behaviour by porpoises could result in temporal and/or spatial habitat segregation between these

species (Thompson et al., 2004).

Common dolphins are typically a warmer-water dolphin species, in the northern limits of their range in Scottish waters.

They were recorded in the summer months of the surveys during May and August. Unpublished data show sightings of

common dolphins in the inner Firth (the Sutors and North Kessock; WDCS unpublished data) and the outer Firth (CRRU

pers comm.) in previous years. These movements could be connected to food supplies brought about by the mixing of fresh

and saltwater in the inner parts of the Firth. The common dolphins are probably close to the northern end of their range

within the Moray Firth. More data on the movement and habitat use of these animals in these waters are important to

further consider the value of this region for them. Another possible explanation for more frequent sightings of this species

in recent years may be that the waters in the Firth are getting warmer and/or that there is an ongoing northward shift in this

species in the North East Atlantic as suggested by MacLeod et al. (2005).

The results of this study demonstrate the value of seasonal boat surveys to explore seasonality and habitat use of cetacean

species in the outer Moray Firth throughout the year. Large-scale boat surveys are important to determine species presence,

long term trends in population densities, distribution and habitat use to inform effective conservation planning in the

marine environment. All cetacean species are currently offered ‘strict protection’ under the EU Habitats Directive. With

new mechanisms for marine conservation approaches in the forthcoming UK and Scottish Marine Bills and transposition of

the EU Marine Strategy Framework Directive, it is more important than ever that we are able to make informed decisions

18

about sustainable development, ensuring the conservation of our marine species, as required under European and national

laws.

4.3 Improving survey design

Using dedicated marine mammal observers that include a combination of staff and volunteers to collect data can be

extremely effective and valuable. With proper training and supervision consistency in gathered data can be achieved. The

survey demonstrated that having dedicated bird observers adds value to collected data, where it means identification to

species level is more likely. Given the value of the region to internationally important seabird species, such data would

undoubtedly contribute to future bird conservation efforts.

The collection of environmental data such as water depth, salinity and temperature should be considered for future surveys.

Such data can add considerable value to interpretation of cetacean sightings, making it easier to infer reasons for

distributions of animals and enabling recognised important parameters for habitat models.

4.4 Public Outreach

The surveys generated considerable public interest in the region and beyond. It was featured on the BBC TV Countryfile

programme after Adam Hanson and a film crew from the BBC joined the survey for one day in November. The survey

produced an item for the programme that, along with the other media (detailed in Annex 2), will have helped to raise the

profile of WDCS, the survey ,the diversity of whales, dolphins and porpoises living in the Firth and the threats that they

face.

Copies of this report will be distributed to local stakeholders and the relevant conservation agencies in due course (it has

already been requested by government agencies, industries and environmental consultants). We anticipate that this too will

help to raise awareness, including facilitating a wider appreciation of the status of the Firth’s cetaceans.

5 Recommendations

It should be noted that the EU Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC) only allows the creation of Special Areas of Conservation

for certain marine mammal species – i.e. bottlenose dolphins, harbour porpoises and grey and common seals. In Scotland,

there is currently one SAC for bottlenose dolphins in the inner Moray Firth. No SACs have been designated for harbour

porpoises. However the Directive requires that all cetacean species should be strictly protected, without specifying how this

might be done. Thus it is currently challenging to use the Directive as a useful direct management tool for the conservation

of cetacean species other than bottlenose dolphins, even if they are equally (or even more) threatened. Hence:

• Consideration needs to be given to ways to better protect those cetacean species found in the outer Moray Firth

that require ‘strict protection’ under the EU Habitats Directive, but which are not currently listed as Annex II

species and so are not eligible for SACs.

There is increasing interest in the outer Moray Firth, as in other parts of Scotland’s territorial waters, in development of a

number of anthropogenic activities, including oil and gas exploration and the development of various marine renewable

energy technologies, including wind and tidal power. It is important that the government commits to urgently building a

better understanding of the influences of human-induced impacts on these cetacean populations and individuals. With this

in mind, we recommend:

• that the Governments make a commitment to conduct baseline research to improve our understanding of the

species found in the outer Moray Firth (as well as more generally in UK waters) on an ongoing basis, as this is

vitally important to making informed decisions surrounding marine spatial planning and, more broadly, to the

effective implementation of the EU Habitats Directive, given that all cetaceans are provided ‘strict protection’ by

the Directive. To achieve this, a combination of aerial and boat based or multiple boat surveys should be carried

out to be able to cover a bigger survey area;

• that the widespread distribution of both grey and common seals throughout the survey area be considered in future

management decisions, noting that they too have been awarded an SAC in the Moray Firth; and

• the existing datasets should be combined and used for habitat modelling to determine important habitats. This

modelling should be continually ground-truthed using real survey data.

All decisions surrounding potential developments should be made on an informed basis. That these were the first seasonal

boat surveys in this incredibly diverse and productive region, given the increasing interest in development, is not

acceptable. The government should commit to at least the same standards as we currently expect with potential

developments in the terrestrial environment. The principle that the ‘polluter pays’ for baseline surveys that demonstrate

their environmental sustainability. The current approach to grant licenses without a baseline of information is not a

precautionary one and is not in line with European laws that offer these animals ‘strict protection’.

19

Acknowledgements

These surveys were made possible by funding from the BBC Wildlife Fund. The authors would like to thank Nicky

Thomas and Andy Bool for their help with the project. We would also like to thank the skippers of all three boats, Davey

of Gemini Explorer, George from Gemini Endeavour and Chris from the White Horse for all their patience with us.

Thanks also to Iris Smith for her help and kindness and also to Peter Hizzet for renting out Gemini Explorer and Gemini

Endeavour to us.

The following people volunteered their time during the survey or after, and we want to thank them profoundly: Hannah

Bird, Lucy Molleson, Laura Stansfield, Emma Squire, Laura Smith, Marcus Walters, Stephanie Cable, Katie Bates, Divya

Panicker, Jenny Passmore, Bea Chater, David Anderson, Paul Hibbard, Karen Hall, Nina Baumgartner, Catherine

McIlwrath, Mika MacKenzie, Sally-Ann Coxen, Sarah Baulch, Jennie Howie, Blythe Jopling, Katie Dyke, Jim Hill,

Helene Joly, Kirsty Sharratt, Ian Frances, Katie Norbury and Vicki Brown.

Our gratitude also goes to Doug Gillespie, René Swift, Roy Wyatt, Jonathan Gordon and Cormac Booth for answering all

our questions about hydrophones, porpoise detection rates, porpoise click trains and Rainbow Click. We want to thank

Alice Pope, Marcus Walters and Emma Squire for letting us use their homes as bases and Kevin Morgan who let us stay

in his fine cottage in Portessie! Also, thanks must go to Kevin Robinson for use of his excellent office facilities. Finally

thanks must go to Nicola Hodgins for comments on earlier drafts of this report.

All maps were drawn using ArcGIS 9.2.

References

Caldwell, M.,C., Caldwell, D.K., Tyack, P.L. (1990). Review of the signature whistle hypothesis for the Atlantic

bottlenose dolphin. In: The bottlenose dolphin. Leatherwood & Reeves, Eds. Academic Press, San Diego. Pp. 199 –

139.

Caňadas, A., Sagarminaga, R., de Stephanis, R., Urquiola, E., Hammond, P.S. (2005). Habitat preference modelling as a

conservation tool: proposals for marine protected areas for cetaceans in southern Spanish waters. Aquatic Conservation:

Marine Freshwater Ecosystems. 15: 495 - 521.

Culloch, R.M., Robinson, K.P. (2008). Bottlenose dolphins using coastal regions adjacent to a Special Area of

Conservation in north-east Scotland. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom. 88(6): 1237-

1243.

Eleftheriou, A., Basford, D., Moore, D.C. (2004). Synthesis of Information on the Benthos Area SEA 5. Report for the

Department of Trade and Industry. 145 pp.

Evans, P.G.H. (1992). Status review of cetacean sightings in the British Isles, 1958 – 1985. Sea Watch Foundation,

Oxford, UK.

Gillespie, D. (2005). SCANS II Acoustic Equipment Setup Instructions. Unpublished guidance by IFAW.

Gridley, T. (2005). Combining acoustic and visual survey techniques to determine the factors affecting marine mammal

distribution in the outer Moray Firth (NE Scotland). MRes Thesis. University of Aberdeen. 48 pp.

Hammond, P.S., Berggren, P., Benke, H., Borchers, D.L., Collet, A., Heide-Jørgensen, M.P., Heimlich, S., Hiby, A.R.,

Leopold, M.F., Øien, N. (2002). Abundance of harbour porpoise and other cetaceans in the North Sea and adjacent

waters. Journal of Applied Ecology. 39: 361 – 376.

Harding-Hill, R. 1993. The Moray Firth Review. Scottish Natural Heritage, Northwest Region, Scotland, UK.

Hastie, G.D., Wilson, B., Thompson, P.M. (2003). Fine-scale selection by coastal bottlenose dolphins: application of a

new land-based video-montage technique. Canadian Journal of Zoology. 81: 469 – 478.

Hastie, G.D., Wilson, B., Wilson, L.J., Parsons, K.M., Thompson, P.M. (2004). Functional mechanisms underlying

cetacean distribution patterns: hotspots for bottlenose dolphins are linked to foraging. Marine Biology. 144: 397 – 403.

Holmes, R., J. Bulat, P. Henni, J. Holt, C. James, N. Kenyon, A. Leslie, D. Long, R. Musson, S. Pearson & H. Stewart.

(2004). DTI Strategic Environmental Assessment Area 5 (SEA5): Seabed and superficial geology and processes. British

Geological Survey Report CR/04/064N. National Environment Research Council, Nottingham, UK.

20

MacLeod C.D., Bannon, S.M. Pierce G.J., Schweder, C., Learmonth,, J.A. Herman

and Robert, J.S. and Reid J. 2005. Climate

change and the cetacean community of north-west Scotland. Biological Conservation 124: 477-483

MacLeod, K., Simmonds, M.P., Murray, E. (2003). Summer distribution and relative abundance of cetacean populations

off north-west Scotland. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom. 83: 1187 – 1192.

Macleod, K., Fairbairns, R. Gill, A., Fairbairns, B., Gordon, J., Blair-Myers, C., Parsons, E.C.M. (2004). Seasonal

distribution of minke whales (Balaenoptera acutorostrata) in relation to physiographic and prey off the Isle of Mull,

Scotland. Marine Ecology Progress Series. 277: 263 – 274.

Mendes, S., Turrell, W., Lütkebohle, T., Thompson, P.M. (2002). Influence of the tidal cycle and a tidal intrusion front

on the spatio-temporal distribution of coastal bottlenose dolphins. Marine Ecology Progress Series. 239: 221 – 229.

MFP (2009) Moray Firth Partnership website: http://www.morayfirth-partnership.org/ Last accessed March 2009.

Mudge, G.P., Crooke, C.H., Barret, C.F. (1984). The offshore distribution and abundance of seabirds in the Moray

Firth. Unpublished report to BritOil (available from RSPB, Munlochy, Scotland).

NOAA. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/vents/acoustics/whales/ishmael/

Northridge, S.P., Tasker, M.L., Webb, A., Williams, J.M. (1995). Distribution and relative abundance of harbour

porpoises (Phocoena phocoena), white-beaked dolphins (Lagenorhynchus albirostris Gray), and minke whales

(Balaenoptera acutorostrata Lacépède) around the British Isles. ICES Journal of Marine Science. 52: 55 – 66.

Pierce, G.J., Santos, M.B., Reid, R.J., Patterson, I.A.P., Ross, H.M. (2004). Diet of minke whales Balaenoptera

acutorostrata in Scottish waters with notes on strandings of this species in Scotland 1992 – 2002. Journal of the Marine

Biological Association of the UK. 84: 1241 – 1244.

Reid, J.B., Evans, P.G.H., Northridge, S.P. (2003). Atlas of cetacean distribution in north-west European waters. Joint

Nature Conservation Committee, Peterborough, UK.

Robinson, K.P., Tetley, M.J. (2007). Behavioural observations of foraging minke whales (Balaenoptera acutorostrata)

in the outer Moray Firth, north-east Scotland. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom. 87:

85 – 86.

Robinson, K.P., Baumgartner, N., Eisfeld, S.M., Clark, N.M., Culloch, R.M., Haskins, G.H., Zapponi, L., Whaley A.R.,

Weare, J.S., Tetley, M.J. (2007). The summer distribution and occurrence of cetaceans in the coastal water of the outer

southern Moray Firth in northeast Scotland (UK). Lutra. 50(1): 19 – 30.

Robinson K.P., Cheney B., Mandleberg L., Eisfeld S.M., Costa M., Johnston P., Stevick P.T. (2009). Coast to coast:

First evidence for translocational movements by Scottish bottlenose dolphins. 23rd Annual Conference of the European

Cetacean Society, Istanbul, Turkey, 2-4 March 2009.

Santos, M.B., Pierce, G.J., Learmonth, J.A., Reid, R.J., Ross, H.M., Patterson, I.A.P. Reid, D.G., Beare, D. (2004).

Variability in the diet of harbor porpoises (Phocoena phocoena) in Scottish waters 1992 – 2003. Marine Mammal

Science. 20: 1 – 27.

Shane, H.S., Wells, R.S., Würsig, B. (1986). Ecology, behaviour and social organisation of the bottlenose dolphin: a

review. Marine Mammal Science. 2:34 – 63.

Swift, R., Caillat, M., Gillespie, D., (in press). Analysis of acoustic data from the SCANS-II survey. Appendix D2.3 of

the SCANS-II report.

Tetley, M.J., Mitchelson-Jacob, E.G., Robinson, K.P. (2008). The summer distribution of coastal minke whales

(Balaenoptera acutorostrata) in the southern outer Moray Firth, NE Scotland, in relation to co-occurring mesoscale

oceanographic features. Remote Sensing of Environment. 112: 3449 – 3454.

Tilbrook, P. J. (1986). Nature conservation in the Moray Firth. Proceedings of the Royal Society of Edinburgh 91B: 13

– 25.

21

Thompson, P.M., White, S., Dickson, E. (2004). Co-variation in the probabilities of sighting harbour porpoises and

bottlenose dolphins. Marine Mammal Science. 20: 322 – 328.

Weir, C.R., Stockin, K.A., Pierce, G.J. (2007). Spatial and temporal trends in the distribution of harbour porpoises,

white-beaked dolphins and minke whales off Aberdeenshire (UK), north-western North Sea. Journal of the Marine

Biological Association of the United Kingdom. 87: 327 – 338.

Wilson B. (1995). The ecology of the bottlenose dolphins in the Moray Firth, Scotland: a population at the northern

extreme of the species’ range. PhD thesis, University of Aberdeen, Scotland, UK.

Wilson B., Grellier K., Hammond P.S., Brown G. and Thompson P.M. (2000). Changing occurrence of epidermal

lesions in wild bottlenose dolphins. Marine Ecology Progress Series. 205: 283–290.

Wilson B., Hammond P.S., Thompson P.M. (1999). Estimating size and assessing trends in a coastal bottlenose dolphin

population. Ecological Applications. 9: 288–300.

Wilson B., Reid R.J., Grellier K., Thompson PM., Hammond, P.S. (2004). Considering the temporal when managing the

spatial: a population range expansion impacts protected areas-based management for bottlenose dolphins. Animal

Conservation. 7: 1–8.

Wright, R., Ray, S., Green, D.R., Wood, M. (1998). Development of a GIS of the Moray Firth (Scotland, UK) and its

application in environmental management (site selection for an ‘artificial reef’). Science of the Total Environment. 223:

65–76.

Wright, P.J., Jensen, H., Tuck, I. (2000). The influence of sediment type of the distribution of the lesser sandeel

Ammodytes marinus. Journal of Sea Research. 44: 243 – 256.

22

Annex I: Sightings maps of the area surveyed in the outer Moray Firth showing the spatial distribution of cetacean and seal species encountered across the four

months surveyed in 2008 before applying restrictions to the data as depicted in table 2.

23

Annex II: Media featuring the survey.

Moray Firth Radio 5/8/08

STV 6/8/08

The Scotsman 6/8/08

Press & Journal (Aberdeen) 7/8/08

Press & Journal (Highlands & Islands) 7/8/08

Northern Scot 8/8/08

Banffshire Journal 12/8/08

Strathspey & Badenoch Herald 13/8/08

The Scotsman 23/8/08

Channel Five News 3/9/08

BBC Wildlife Magazine 1/10/08

BBC Countryfile, BBC One 30/11/08

Press & Journal (Aberdeen) 17/1/09

Press & Journal (Highlands & Islands) 17/1/09