#6/9 Marine ecological monitoring at UK OSWF

Marine Ecology Monitoring at UK OWFs Case Studies, Lessons Learned and Rationales for Future Monitoring 18th March 2015

Dr Kevin Linnane

Senior Marine Ecologist

RPS Energy

Overview

• RPS Experience in 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

RPS Experience

Planning and Consenting 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).

Imaginary wind farm

Good design • Consistency in

methodologies used • Consistency in sampling (i.e.

effort and design) • Control locations: allows for

natural variation to be accounted for

Pitfalls

• Consistency in methodologies used

• Consistency in sampling (i.e. effort and design)

• Bad Planning or Bad luck?

S

S P P

C

Benthic Monitoring • Simple design can be very

effective

• Understanding of impacts from other industries: jack up impacts

• No pre-construction data

• Impact detected during monitoring

Lessons learned

• Think about 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.

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.

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.

Future Approaches?

• Consent conditions: addressing site specific uncertainties.

• Wider uncertainties: Academic and wider industry groups.

• National/Regional monitoring programmes.

Thank You

Dr Kevin Linnane, Senior Marine Ecologist

CIEEM MIMarEST CMarSci

RPS Energy, Chepstow

Email: Kevin.Linnane@rpsgroup.com