#6/9 Marine ecological monitoring at UK OSWF

#6/9 Marine ecological monitoring at UK OSWF

• 1.
  Marine Ecology Monitoringat UK OWFs Case Studies, Lessons Learned and Rationales for Future Monitoring 18th March 2015 Dr Kevin Linnane Senior Marine Ecologist RPS Energy
• 2.
  Overview • RPS Experiencein OWF • Examples of fish/benthic monitoring experiences • Good survey design • Potential pitfalls • Lessons learned, both from OWF and other industries, incl. O&G • Rationales behind monitoring
• 3.
  RPS Experience Planning andConsenting Round 1, 2 and 3 OWFs Consent compliance in UK including Scotland Technical support on a wide range of onshore and offshore specialisms Marine Ecology Team Experience Design of monitoring programmes: • Fish ecology; • Benthic and intertidal ecology; • Marine mammals; and • Ornithology. Technical support during monitoring. Reporting on monitoring programmes (e.g. validating predictions in the EIAs).
• 4.
  Imaginary wind farm
• 5.
  Good design • Consistencyin methodologies used • Consistency in sampling (i.e. effort and design) • Control locations: allows for natural variation to be accounted for
• 6.
  Pitfalls • Consistency in methodologiesused • Consistency in sampling (i.e. effort and design) • Bad Planning or Bad luck? S S P P C
• 7.
  Benthic Monitoring • Simpledesign can be very effective • Understanding of impacts from other industries: jack up impacts • No pre-construction data • Impact detected during monitoring
• 8.
  Lessons learned • Thinkabout how data will be used before pre construction surveys. • What the entire dataset will look like? • What comparisons are to be made with the complete datasets? • What statistical tests will you do with the data: ANOVA, Multivariate? • What represents a significant effect. Significant statistically? Or an ecological shift? • Transfer of knowledge from other industries. • Simple design can be very effective. • Impact predictions: How do these relate to monitoring.
• 9.
  Reasons for monitoring •Results of R1 monitoring: A starting point • No large community level changes. • Future monitoring needs to be more targeted/refined if it is going to be effective. • Testing predictions in the impact assessment. • Which predictions? • Which uncertainties should be prioritised? • Monitoring cannot address all uncertainties. • R1 Concerns over EMF, although methods not suitable for detecting behavioural effects. • Prey species and relationship with other trophic levels. • Displacement of fish as a result of underwater noise.
• 10.
  Reasons for monitoring •Monitoring is a requirement of consent conditions. • Requirement to address specific uncertainties assumed within impact assessments or increase overall understanding of impacts. • How does mitigation fit with monitoring: • Fish spawning surveys to determine where fish are spawning leading to targeted, effective mitigation. • Sabellaria reef being avoided by cabling, is there any need to monitor post construction? • Regional/National Monitoring: Scottish experience of contributing to wider monitoring programmes. Key uncertainties identified (e.g. Atlantic salmon migration) being addressed by academia and site specific monitoring.
• 11.
  Future Approaches? • Consentconditions: addressing site specific uncertainties. • Wider uncertainties: Academic and wider industry groups. • National/Regional monitoring programmes.
• 12.
  Thank You Dr KevinLinnane, Senior Marine Ecologist CIEEM MIMarEST CMarSci RPS Energy, Chepstow Email: [email protected]