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