#6/9 marine ecological monitoring at uk oswf
Post on 19-Jul-2015
236 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
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).
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
top related