Corresponding authors address: Plymouth Marine Laboratory The Hoe Plymouth PL1 3DA. Matthew Ashley

Transcription

1 Industry - Research collaboration to identify how better use of existing research and available tools could reduce project risk to streamline consenting within the SWMEP. (NERC Funded Business and Policy Internship - Marine Renewable Energy, with Regen SW and Plymouth Marine Laboratory). Matthew Ashley Corresponding authors address: Plymouth Marine Laboratory The Hoe Plymouth PL1 3DA ashm@pml.ac.uk 1

2 Summary The internship covers a two stage process, firstly gathering the knowledge and research needs required by Industry (to include developers, regulators, planners, environmental consultants and relevant stakeholders). The second stage assesses current relevant research and engages with research groups to identify opportunities where novel research methods and tools can be applied to the knowledge needs identified by industry. The second stage should be considered as an on-going process as further research projects come to light. The current research projects recorded within the report are those which were identified in the timescale of the internship and can be added to as further relevant research is identified and further projects are developed. Contents 1. Introduction page 6 2. Why the priority research needs approach? The survey design Survey results Priority topic categories Top 5 questions and knowledge needs requiring urgent attention All priority questions and knowledge needs identified within the survey Effects of devices and arrays on marine habitats and species i Existing Research and Capabilities ii Remaining Evidence and Research Gaps Survey methods i Existing Research and Capabilities ii Remaining Evidence and Research Gaps Policy and planning i Existing Research and Capabilities ii Remaining Evidence and Research Gaps Evidence base for planning decisions i Existing Research and Capabilities ii Remaining Evidence and Research Gaps.22 2

3 4.3.3 Interaction with fishing and existing marine activities i Existing Research and Capabilities ii Remaining Evidence and Research Gaps Social, cultural and economic impacts and opportunities i Existing Research and Capabilities ii Remaining Evidence and Research Gaps Array scale and cumulative effects i Existing Research and Capabilities ii Remaining Evidence and Research Gaps Stakeholder engagement i Existing Research and Capabilities ii Remaining Evidence and Research Gaps Data and Knowledge Sharing i Existing Research and Capabilities ii Remaining Evidence and Research Gaps Physical Resource Assessment i Existing Research and Capabilities ii Remaining Evidence and Research Gaps Comparison between technologies i Existing Research and Capabilities ii Remaining Evidence and Research Gaps 35 Acknowledgements References 35 Appendix 1 The survey interview script...37 List of Acronyms 3

4 CEFAS: Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science, Lowestoft, UK COWRIE: The Crown Estate, Collaborative Offshore Wind Research into the Environment DEFRA: Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs EBAO: Optimising Array Form for Energy Extraction and Environmental Benefit. NERC- Defra funded project EMEC: European Marine Energy Centre, Orkney FEPA: Food and Environment Protection Act 1985 FLOWW; The Crown Estate s Fishing Liaison with Offshore Wind and Wet Renewables Group (FLOWW) FLOWBEC; NERC-Defra funded project, Flow and Benthic Ecology 4D (FLOWBEC) IFCA; Inshore Fisheries and Conservation Authority MaREE; Marine Renewable Energy and the Environment. Project conducted between the University of the Highlands and Islands and Scottish Association for Marine Science and funded by European Union regional development funds, the Scottish Funding Council and Highlands and Islands Enterprise. MARS; Marine Resource System The Crown Estate s geographical information system MCZ; Marine Conservation Zone MERiFIC Marine Energy in Far Peripheral and Island Communities an Interreg (France and England) EU European Regional Development Fund funded project MRE; Marine Renewable Energy MRED; Marine Renewable Energy Device MREKE; Marine Renewable Energy knowledge Exchange NERC funded initiative NERC; Natural Environment Research Council ORELG; Offshore Renewable Energy Licensing Group A group formed by the Marine Management Organisation to bring together regulators and examining authorities, government bodies and sector groups with a focus on marine renewable and offshore wind. ORRAD; Offshore Renewables Resource and Development Report prepared for the South West Regional Development Agency by PMSS QBEX; Quantifying Benefits and Impacts of Fishing Exclusion Zones on Bio-resources around Marine Renewable Energy Installations. NERC-Defra funded project. 4

5 PRIMaRE; The Peninsula Research Institute for Marine Renewable Energy. The initiative is a response from the Universities of Exeter and Plymouth to the challenges facing businesses involved in marine renewable energy and in support of Wave Hub. ReDAPT; Reliable Data Acquisition Platform for Tidal. A UK-based consortium led by Rolls-Royce and including Plymouth Marine Laboratory, Tidal Generation Limited, Garrad Hassan, the University of Edinburgh, EDF Energy, E.ON, and the European Marine Energy Centre (EMEC) RESPONSE Understanding How Marine Renewable Device Operations Influence Fine Scale Habitat Use & Behaviour of Marine Vertebrates The RESPONSE project is a multidisciplinary study focusing on causal links between marine renewable devices (MRD) and changes in the fine-scale distribution and behaviour of marine vertebrates. Funded by NERC and Defra. ROV; Remotely Operated Vehicle SAC; Special Area Conservation SAMS; Scottish Association for Marine Science SEA; Strategic Environmental Assessment SMRU; Sea Mammal Research Unit, St Andrews Scotland SOWFIA; Streamlining of Offshore Wave Farms Impact Assessment an EU Intelligent Energy Europe (IEE) funded project that draws together ten partners, across eight European countries, who are actively involved with planned wave farm test centres. SPA; Special Protection Areas UK FEN; UK Fisheries Economic Network, set up by the fishing industry group Seafish. UK ERC; UK Energy Research Centre SWMEP; South West Marine Energy Park VMS; Vessel monitoring system 5

6 1 Introduction Ensuring marine renewable energy developments present acceptable risk and impact on the environment and existing economic activities is key to consenting and ensuring that marine energy projects can be deployed. Evidence of effects and benefits are not only required for consenting decisions but to provide information to regional communities to highlight opportunities. The European commitments to 2020 targets for the production of energy from renewable sources under the EC Renewable Energy Directive 2009 have created a push for wind, wave and tidal energy generation across Europe. The creation of the South West Marine Energy Park to foster business collaboration, attract investment and accelerate the commercial development of the marine energy sector has brought focus on this sector within the South West. Through becoming a leading region for marine renewable energy development the South West will benefit from energy sustainability from renewable sources while reducing carbon dioxide emissions and the global threat of ocean acidification. The generation of a new industry will bring further employment opportunities and well-informed development and management will maximise opportunities for wider benefits to ecosystem goods and services. It is therefore important to ensure the foremost current and novel research, methodologies and tools are applied to environmental and socio economic assessments of developments. As well as benefitting knowledge and management of effects of developments, application of effective research will reduce environmental and socio-economic risks of developments and therefore the lead times for projects seeking consent. The first stage of the NERC marine renewable energy internship aimed to identify gaps and opportunities that require environmental and socio economic research from an industry perspective. Developers, planners, researchers and stakeholders were asked to define specific research priorities that could reduce difficulties in the consenting process regarding assessment of environmental and socio economic impacts. A priority research needs survey (Sutherland et al 2006, 2009, Pretly et al 2010, Rees et al 2013) was designed and conducted through face to face interviews, telephone interviews and online surveys. This provided direct industry input into the research required to answer the key consenting questions that are required to enable development. At the same time these consenting risks are priority evidence needs to plan for and manage the environmental and socio-economic effects of developments. The second stage of the internship is on-going, but has engaged research groups with the highest priority questions and research needs. The aim of stage two is to identify where existing research can be applied and where novel research can be developed to fill evidence gaps. 6

7 The project envisages the potential for win-win opportunities from successfully identifying key issues and effective research solutions. These include enhancing collaboration between industry, researchers, environmental organisations and regulators. Rapid evidence gathering and identifying solutions to potential issues will reduce risk to the existing environment and human activities. This will in turn reduce consenting risk. A greater understanding of actual effects will allow an accurate calculation of risks and costs and reduce reliance on precautionary approaches. Marine renewable energy developments are occurring at the same time as designation of marine conservation zones within a nationwide marine protected are network. Presently MRE and MCZs are competing for space around UK coasts and particularly within the SWMEP. Research directed at key consenting issues, particularly in relation to marine conservation objectives will aid the potential co-location of wind, wave or tidal energy developments within MCZs if effects are proven to not negatively impact conservation objectives of individual MCZs. 2 Why the priority research needs approach The priority question approach developed by Sutherland et al (2006, 2009) provides systematic methodologies that aim to aid evidence based decision making. In these methodologies evidence bases for decisions are assessed and gaps identified where research attention is required. The nomination of priority questions by policy makers, planners or industry and the subsequent communication of existing research and application of research methodologies from scientists are integral to this process. The benefits from this process are two-way; policy-makers, planners and industry can benefit from research applied specifically to the issues they face while researchers can be more confident that appropriate methodologies and thorough science are being applied to developments (and decisions) (Sutherland et al 2006). Sutherland et al (2006, 2009) apply the approach to policy-makers research needs and knowledge required to provide sufficient evidence bases for policy decisions. The approach is adapted here, taking the priority question nomination methods and applying this to a survey for the practitioners involved in the consenting process for marine renewable energy developments. The same set of issues exist as drivers, that research needs to be directed to industry issues to increase available evidence whilst evidence gained by the most suitable and robust methods will improve scientist s confidence that environmental and socio economic risks of developments are being fully assessed. Due to time and resource constraints the full workshop programmes utilised in the methods of Sutherland et al ( ) have not been utilised in this internship. The current list of priority questions and knowledge needs will be made available to all those who nominated questions for final review and editorial changes. This will include removing of duplicates, re wording as required and addition of missing knowledge needs or research questions. For the purposes of this interim report the list is presented as it will be appear when final question nomination and editing is complete. 7

8 3 The survey As the survey to gain input from industry approached a wide range of practitioners with different exposure to exercises such as priority question nomination a semi structured interview was designed. This allowed some guidance in the form of closed questions where respondents are given a scale of responses to select and for the interviewer to be present to assist with the survey. Initial survey designs were piloted during December 2012 with members of the social and economic research groups in Plymouth Marine Laboratory and Plymouth University. The survey designs were also piloted with renewable energy industry personnel at Regen SW and those present at the RWEnpower Offshore Energy Supply Chain Event held in Exeter on 5 th December The final survey design was conducted as a face to face interview or telephone interview although online and electronic versions of the survey were also made available to maximise response rates. The survey relied on a questionnaire with a closed question section and an open ended section (Appendix 1). The closed ended section asked respondents for their view of the priority level (between 1 and 5 with 5 the highest priority) of relevant research topics. These initial research topics were drawn from existing reviews of evidence and research needs conducted by ORELG, NERC and the Environmental Scoping for the Atlantic Array, the largest renewable energy project in the South West Marine Energy Park. The list of topics included: 1.Policy and planning. 2. Stakeholder engagement, 3. Effects of devices and arrays on marine habitats and species, 4. Interaction with fishing and existing marine activities, 5. Social, cultural and economic impacts and opportunities, 6. Array scale and cumulative effects. 7. Respondent s own topics if not covered by those available (Appendix 1). The open ended section of the survey requested respondents to provide specific research questions and knowledge needs within the topics that they nominated as high priority or highest priority (4 or 5 on the 5 point scale) (Appendix 1). The survey was conducted as a face to face interview at Regen SW events and Renewable UK s Wave and Tidal 2013 conference in London, 28 th -29 th February Telephone interviews were conducted with key personnel identified by Regen SW. Electronic surveys were provided on request and sent to personnel who expressed an interest in the survey at events but did not have time to complete the survey. An online version of the survey was constructed in Google drive and made available through Regen SW. The survey gained input from industry personnel across England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland, the Regen SW events focused on wave and tidal developments in the South West and the Renewable UK event was applied to the Wave and Tidal industry. The survey is therefore strongly representative of this sector of the industry although offshore wind was considered in responses and offshore wind 8

9 industry personnel were engaged in the survey, although a minority in comparison to wave and tidal. 4 Survey results. (To date) A total of 21 individuals completed the survey through face to face or telephone interviews. These included 10 representatives of consultancies, 6 developers, 3 researchers and 2 regulators. In addition to the initial 6 topics identified from existing knowledge needs and research inventories three further topics were identified by participants, these were i) Physical resource assessment, ii) Data and knowledge sharing and iii) Comparisons between technologies. The final total of nine topic categories is discussed in section 4.1 and provides a useful summary of the priority areas and a means of presenting the broad range of specific research needs identified. It is important to be aware that certain questions will be relevant to more than one category. The 5 research questions or knowledge needs that were raised by the highest number of respondents are discussed in detail in section 4.2. All individual research questions and knowledge needs identified in the survey are reported in section 4.3 within the relevant priority topics. 4.1 Priority topic categories Even at this preliminary stage the topic category of Effects on habitats and species received the highest number of nominations as a high priority topic (Figure 1). Consultancies and regulators in particular identified this category as requiring further evidence to support consenting decisions. Opportunities for the development of methods and tools to conduct assessments in challenging environments, particularly tidal stream sites were identified. The specific research needs identified are reviewed in Sections 4.2 and 4.3. The range of questions and needs were quite broad for Effects on habitats and species which must also be considered when interpreting the importance of the high number of nominations for this category. The current high proportion of consultancies responding to the survey should be taken into account however developers and researchers also identified this topic as important. Currently the topic categories of policy and planning, effects on fishing and other marine activities, social, cultural and economic effects and cumulative effects also received moderately high numbers of nominations as high priority topics (Figure 1). When individual research questions and knowledge needs were presented within these topics there was high repetition of key knowledge gaps and research and tool development needs. 9

10 No. of Respondents Researchers Regulators Developers Consultants Combined Figure 1. The number of nominations of each topic category being either high or highest priority (including additional topic categories suggested by respondents). 4.2 Top five questions and knowledge needs requiring urgent attention The five specific research questions or knowledge needs were most often identified by survey respondents: Identify which scoping factors are important for a site and which can be removed, (requirement to focus effort on most important issues). 39% (suggested by consultants and one developer) Socio economic impact assessments required that quantify balance between environmental / economic impacts and environmental /economic benefits (currently benefits have not been stated concretely) 33% (suggested by a majority of regulators and planners and some consultants) How do seals behave in relation to tidal turbines, what is their response to devices and arrays and how are their movement patterns effected? 28% (suggested by researchers, consultants and one planner) 10

11 Development of stakeholder consenting forum and best practice to ensure stakeholder engagement is consistent and people have a forum to discuss issues and work with industry to address concerns. 22% (suggested by consultants completing consent work and one planner) How can we effectively share data from each demonstration array to improve understanding of environmental effects and educate wider audience on the understanding of environmental impacts? 17% (suggested by consultancies and one developer). A need was identified for site by site assessment of exactly which factors need the most attention and which factors can receive less attention within environmental and socioeconomic surveying for consenting purposes (question 1). This area was raised under a number of topics, including policy and planning and environmental and socio economic effects. Attention on this area was presented as being of benefit to reduce excessive time and cost investments. Consultancies dealing with the consenting for projects and developers raised this issue. The considerable investments required for environmental and socioeconomic assessments were presented as being better targeted at the issues of greatest concern for that site. Developers raised the issue that the same level of scoping and assessment was required for a single test device as a large array or industrial development. As a result this was causing extended lead times and significant financial limitations for a developing industry. One specific area of importance at many sites is provided as an example in the third most frequent issue, 3. How do seals behave in relation to tidal turbines? Question 3 appeared in further forms including fish and cetaceans. This question was raised by researchers, planners and consultants suggesting a targeted area for national level research to provide evidence to support regulators consenting decisions. Research projects on this topic are understood to be underway at Queen s University Belfast, Marine Scotland Science, Scottish Association for Marine Science, Sea Mammal Research Unit Ltd., St Andrews and Aberdeen University. Findings of this work will evidently be of direct importance in aiding industry to see which sites are most likely to have limited consenting risk to aid investor confidence. Likewise evidence on this issue will assist planners and regulators decisions on sites for development and investment. It was widely acknowledged across industry responses that if sites were to have significant impacts on prominent species development of the industry would be hugely impacted. Current research in association with a tidal turbine in Strangford Loch, Northern Ireland.is studying short and long term behavioural change and movement patterns. Initial results for a single turbine suggested benign impacts (NERC 2009). The Streamlining of Ocean Wave Farms Impact Assessment (SOWFIA) project will also provide relevant input into this issue. The second most frequently requested knowledge need or research question was for Socio economic impact assessments that quantify balance between environmental / economic impacts and environmental /economic benefits. Planners and regulators as well as some consultants were the respondents that raised this knowledge need. This specific issue was mentioned in the context that socio economic impacts and opportunities are often approached 11

12 by impact assessments but limited evidence has appeared that quantified effects based on existing development areas. Examples were raised for Orkney where tourism was expected to be impacted but job opportunities to be created, however the true case may be presenting a benefit to tourism, increasing visitors while job opportunities were also increasing. Results of current projects such as Marine Energy in Far Peripheral and Island Communities (MERiFIC) that are researching, the specific opportunities and issues faced by peripheral and island communities in exploiting marine renewable energy resources appear relevant to this knowledge need. This knowledge need was presented as being of direct benefit to planning and consenting decisions and also to aid stakeholder engagement and public awareness of benefits. Socio economic effects and stakeholder engagement raised a number of further specific questions discussed in Section 4.3. Stakeholder engagement methods and best practice were also raised in the fourth research or knowledge need that was identified by more than 20% or respondents. Whilst it was acknowledged that stakeholder consultation was being done these respondents identified a need for a standard, best practice process to be devised to ensure stakeholder engagement is consistent and the public as well as direct stakeholders are provided with a forum to resolve concerns. Examples were provided from the detailed stakeholder consultation process practised by the regional marine conservation zone planning groups such as Finding Sanctuary. A similar regional approach was suggested by one consultant for the South west Marine Energy Park region. However it was also acknowledged that such a process had to be initiated early, required significant resources and the solutions reached must be utilised. This knowledge need was raised by consultancies dealing with the consenting process for projects as well as planners. The need for data sharing between projects and was put forward by device developers as well as consultants. Regional environmental effects in particular are recognised as requiring the greatest number of data sources possible to identify what are broad scale effects. The SOWFIA project presents the largest current initiative approaching this issue. Crown Estates COWRIE database provided an early attempt to gather data from offshore wind developments. Supergen s Marine and Tidal Knowledge Network also provides an example of a current effort to gather data and resources. It is apparent however that there have been challenges to sharing of existing data resources. 4.3 All priority questions and knowledge needs identified within the survey This section presents all questions and knowledge needs identified by survey respondents, presented within relevant topic categories. Topic categories appear in the order (highest to lowest) of the % of respondents that raised research questions and knowledge needs within that topic Effects of devices and arrays on marine habitats and species. 12

13 (83% of respondents, total of 19 questions) Marine mammals Fish 1. Behavioural responses of porpoises to pile driving noise, what are the effects on individuals and the effects on populations? 2. How do seals behave in relation to tidal turbines, what is their response to devices and arrays and how are their movement patterns effected? 3. Baseline data is required on existing distribution and movement patterns of seals and cetaceans. 4. Requirement for baseline information on distribution, habitat use and migratory patterns of fish species 5. How do different fish species interact with devices and arrays? 6. How do migratory fish respond to tidal turbines and arrays (specifically salmon)? 7. What are the effects of electric and magnetic fields on fish species occurrence and movement? Benthic fauna 8. What are the long term effects of tidal devices on benthic infauna and epifauna? 9. What are the environmental effects in the intertidal zone of marine developments, specifically cables and substations? All species 10. Evidence is required of species response to tidal turbines which have been operating consecutively for 40 or more days. (do species habituate to arrays or is there long term impact?) 11. Have the impacts of offshore wind suggested by early reviews (Linley et al 2007, Linley et al 2008, Inger et al 2009) been realised? Research questions and knowledge needs that provide thorough evidence on baseline conditions were raised in relation to all marine fauna and habitats (questions 3,6,8). These were raised in the context of providing knowledge of sites where negative interaction was a greater risk. Greater baseline knowledge was also identified as a requirement to inform further studies of changes to species behaviour, distribution and so population level effects (questions 1,2,4,5,7,8,9) and habitat changes (questions 8 and 9). Difficulties in studying actual behavioural responses and species community effects from benthic infauna through to marine mammals was identified to also stem from the lack of wave and tidal devices in the water. Evidence to satisfy more stringent consenting under the Habitats Directive was especially challenged as this would require devices to be in the water for 40 days or more and show no impact. 13

14 The disturbance to species from construction and operation of devices was still viewed as lacking evidence despite technologies such as wind farms being present for ten years. The effects of pile driving noise, tidal turbine blades and electric and magnetic fields on marine mammals and fish at individual and population levels were identified by respondents as specific areas for further research (questions 1, 2, 5,6,7). Suggested solutions from research groups: Existing Research and Capabilities: Marine mammals 1. Behavioural responses of porpoises to pile driving noise, what are the effects on individuals and the effects on populations? 2. How do seals behave in relation to tidal turbines, what is their response to devices and arrays and how are their movement patterns effected? 3. Baseline data is required on existing distribution and movement patterns of seals and cetaceans. Question 1 has been approached in existing publications including studies by Cartensen et al (2006) and Tougarrd et al (2009) although these studies examine presence absence during pile driving and non-pile driving times. Extended studies into population implications and long term behaviour appear to be lacking. Question 2 is receiving attention at present and is being approached by the capabilities of research groups primarily in Scotland and Northern Ireland, Marine Scotland Science have commissioned projects involving the expertise of University of Aberdeen, the Sea Mammal Research Unit (SMRU) at University of St. Andrews and projects are underway at the Scottish Association for Marine Science (SAMS). Queen s University and SMRU Ltd. have conducted extensive research on seal movement patterns in relation to a tidal turbine within Strangford Loch, Northern Ireland. University of Exeter is collecting extensive baseline data within a grey seal survey in relation to the Wave Hub site, Fab Test and of relevance to Atlantic Array and future marine renewable energy developments in the South West UK. The surveys consist of composites of boat and land surveys as part of a Cornwall and Scilly Isles wide survey conducted with the Cornwall Seal Group in April of each year. Question 3 is being approached both by studies initiated by Marine Scotland Science for Scottish waters and University of Exeter s collaboration with the Cornwall Seal Group for South West UK waters. Marine Scotland Science have made maps of seal density (occurrence and abundance) available online through collaboration with SMRU. The University of St Andrew's RESPONSE project, a multi-disciplinary study focusing on causal links between marine renewable devices (MRD) and changes in the fine-scale 14

15 distribution and behaviour of marine vertebrates will also be of relevance to questions 1-3. Fish 4. Requirement for baseline information on distribution, habitat use and migratory patterns of fish species 5. How do different fish species interact with devices and arrays? 6. How do migratory fish respond to tidal turbines and arrays (specifically salmon)? 7. What are the effects of electric and magnetic fields on fish species occurrence and movement? Existing broad scale assessments exist of important nursery and spawning areas as well as the potential to utilise fisheries surveillance data and fishing vessel log book information to identify sites of high fish biomass apply to Question 4 (Coull et al 1998, Gerritsen, H. and C. Lordan (2011). More detailed assessments have been carried out on a site specific basis such as surveys with remote underwater cameras by University of Exeter and University of Plymouth through PRIMaRE and within a NERC PhD project at PML. The NERC-Defra QBEX project involving the Marine Biological Association, Plymouth, University of Exeter, University of Plymouth, Plymouth Marine Laboratory, CEFAS and Heriott-Watt University will be of specific relevance to questions 4 and 5 and potentially question 7 for both offshore wind and wave energy developments. The project will investigate fish spatial behaviour and interactions with marine renewable energy arrays (wind at North Hoyle, Irish Sea and wave at wave hub, Atlantic) in relation to environmental conditions and predation. Effects on fisheries from changes in resource abundance will also be investigated and are of interest to further questions under these topics. The specific objectives of the NERC-Defra QBEX project are, To quantify the spatio-temporal change in distribution and abundance of commercial species (e.g. thornback (Raja clavata) and blonde ray (Raja brachyura), and edible crab using novel methodologies, and in relation to environment (waves, current, noise mapping) and potential predators (seabirds and marine mammals). To determine and value any spillover effect of bioresource abundance from Marine Renewable sites to adjacent areas. To identify the extent to which changes represent spatial re-distribution or increased abundance, and role of within-species size interactions. In relation to questions 6 and 7 response of migratory fish (European eel) has been investigated at Danish windfarm sites (Horns Rev, Leonhard et al 2011) and effects of electric and magnetic fields have been investigated in mesocosm (sea pen) experiments in Scotland, funded by COWRIE and conducted by Cranfield University. Both these questions reveal current evidence gaps and research priorities, especially at larger array scales. Benthic fauna 8. What are the long term effects of tidal devices on benthic infauna and epifauna? 9. What are the environmental effects in the intertidal zone of marine developments, specifically cables and substations? 15

16 The NERC FLOWBEC project will provide direct evidence regarding question 8 whilst PhD projects at SAMS are already investigating colonization and recruitment of benthic larvae at marine artificial structures such as wind turbines and the effect on occurrence of benthic fauna on rocky shore intertidal habitats in the vicinity of wave devices. Population connectivity of intertidal species has been investigated through modelling in one project at SAMS. Question 9 specifically asks about cables and substations effects on intertidal habitats and species which although not approached by the studies mentioned above is related to the expertise present through research projects within both NERC s FLOWBEC project and NERC PhD projects as well as wider work at SAMS. All species 10. Evidence is required of species response to tidal turbines which have been operating consecutively for 40 or more days. (do species habituate to arrays or is there long term impact?) 11. Have the impacts of offshore wind suggested by early reviews (Linley et al 2007, Linley et al 2008, Inger et al 2009) been realised? Whilst question 11 is being approached by current NERC and UKERC funded PhD projects within PML it is also relevant to all research mentioned in this document, question 10 however reveals a key evidence gap. Although modelling studies have been initiated empirical evidence has not been collected on the effects of a tidal device that has been present for 40 days or more on marine species. This is of direct relevance to consenting of projects as this evidence would be required to consent even one device within a protected area (under the European Habitats Directive). The NERC-Defra funded project Optimising Array Form for Energy Extraction and Environmental Benefit (EBAO) is also of relevance to this set of questions. The EBAO project aims to establish a robust methodology to ensure that future large scale marine energy developments are designed to maximise their economic energy potential, while ensuring that constraints set by consideration of ecological consequences are recognised and respected. The EMEC test site in Orkney provide their own monitoring projects investigating the movement of wildlife in relation to devices, The surveys aim to collect data which can inform on whether or not displacement, or other alteration to behaviour and distribution, occurs in the resident wildlife due to the presence and/or operation of marine energy devices. Cameras mounted on devices are also utilised for research purposes. As part of the ReDAPT EMECs primary responsibility is the environmental monitoring work package, although EMEC are also providing 3D hydrodynamic modeling. EMEC will design a cabled environmental monitoring pod which will contain a variety of measurement equipment, including a bespoke active sonar system. Marine radar, drifting acoustic and ROV surveys are also being utilised to build up a complete monitoring package. Remaining Evidence and Research Gaps 16

17 Long term effects of pile driving noise on porpoise population How seals behave in relation to tidal turbines, what is their response to devices and arrays and how are their movement patterns effected? Effects of devices and arrays on migratory fish Effects of electric and magnetic fields on species occurrence and movement Evidence of species/fauna responses to tidal turbines which have been operating consecutively for 40 or more days. Cartensen J., Henriksen O. D., Teilmann J. (2006) Impacts of offshore wind farm construction on harbour porpoises: acoustic monitoring of echo-location activity using porpoise detectors (T-PODs). Marine Ecology Progress Series 321: Coull, K.A., Johnstone, R., and S.I. Rogers Fisheries Sensitivity Maps in British Waters. Published and distributed by UKOOA Ltd. Gerritsen, H. and C. Lordan (2011) Integrating vessel monitoring systems (VMS) data with daily catch data from logbooks to explore the spatial distribution of catch and effort at high resolution." Ices Journal of Marine Science, 68(1): Leonhard, Stenberg et al 2011 Leonhard SB, Stenberg C, Stottrup J (eds) Effect of the Horns Rev 1 Offshore Wind Farm on Fish Communities Follow-up Seven Years after Construction DTU Aqua Report No , DTU Aqua 2011 Tougaard J, Carstensen J, Teilmann J, Skov H, Rasmussen P (2009). Pile driving zone of responsiveness extends beyond 20 km for harbor porpoises (Phocoena phocoena (L.). J Acoust Soc Am Jul;126(1):11-4 A need for a joined up approach across developments with national level guidance on environmental survey design, monitoring techniques and methodologies was identified. Questions presented in relation to this issue are listed below Survey Methodology 12. Requirement to identify which scoping factors are important for a site and which can be removed, (requirement to focus effort on most important issues on site by site basis). 13. Guidance is required to ensure survey design, sampling strategy and methods produce compatible data sets between sites. 14. Is the current data being collected for baseline studies (bird, fish, seals, cetaceans) correct and adequate? 15. Requirement for the use of power analysis to define appropriate sample size. 17

18 16. Cost effective monitoring techniques are required that can provide sufficient information for baseline data within 2 years. 17. Development is required of active sonar and remote monitoring techniques to assess marine mammal behaviour. 18. Methods and means are required for collecting sufficient baseline data for Habitats Directive requirements in challenging conditions such as extreme tidal sites (such as Pentland Firth and Ramsey Sound). 19. How can we effectively share data from each demonstration array to improve understanding of environmental effects and educate wider audience on the understanding of environmental impacts? Reviews of methodologies such as those for offshore wind monitoring conducted by CEFAS (Walker et al 2010), identification of more efficient methodologies as well as national level guidance on monitoring standards that can be adapted to site specific requirements were the key messages from this category. Remote monitoring tools and techniques were of specific interest as these were viewed as providing potentially large, detailed data sets whilst being time and cost efficient. Finally a need was identified for a process that ensured data from individual monitoring programmes was made available to provide the maximum evidence base to inform key issues. Suggested solutions from research groups: Existing Research and Capabilities: 12. Requirement to identify which scoping factors are important for a site and which can be removed, (requirement to focus effort on most important issues on site by site basis). 13. Guidance is required to ensure survey design, sampling strategy and methods produce compatible data sets between sites. 14. Is the current data being collected for baseline studies (bird, fish, seals, cetaceans) correct and adequate? Questions are approached by a recent project conducted by CEFAS, Walker et al (2010) conducted a strategic review of offshore wind farm monitoring data associated with FEPA licence conditions. The aim of this desk-based review was to summarise the monitoring undertaken at each site and to compare and contrast the monitoring and licence conditions between sites to distinguish between generic and site specific issues, identify comparability of datasets, to assess which conditions can be removed or require amendment, and where possible to forecast implications of identified effects for future Rounds of offshore wind farm development. The Intelligent Energy-Europe funded SOWFIA project utilises experiences and knowledge across Europe to streamline the consenting requirements for wave and tidal energy. 18

19 The NERC funded project Optimising Array Form for Energy Extraction and Environmental Benefit (EBAO) is also of relevance to this set of questions. The EBAO project aims to establish a robust methodology to ensure that future large scale marine energy developments are designed to maximise their economic energy potential, while ensuring that constraints set by consideration of ecological consequences are recognised and respected. The MaREE project conducted between the University of the Highlands and Islands and SAMS and funded by European Union regional development funds and the Scottish Funding Council and Highlands and Islands Enterprise. Under the project studies are underway to assess the level of occurrence and habitat use of marine mammals in tidal stream sites. These directly approach Question 18 Methods and means are required for collecting sufficient baseline data for Habitats Directive requirements in challenging conditions such as extreme tidal sites (such as Pentland Firth and Ramsey Sound). Question 19; How can we effectively share data from each demonstration array to improve understanding of environmental effects and educate wider audience on the understanding of environmental impacts? The question is directly approached by a recent NERC MRE internship Development of an environmental data platform for Wave Hub. The overall objectives of this project are firstly to collate existing data for the site, and secondly to liaise with key stakeholders in order to propose a data platform, which with further development will enable access to all the relevant Wave Hub datasets to assist device developers with consenting and monitoring processes. Remaining Evidence and Research Gaps Cost effective monitoring techniques that can provide sufficient information for baseline data within 2 years. Development of active sonar and remote monitoring techniques to assess marine mammal behaviour. Although projects are underway in USA on this subject and it is possible similar developments are occurring under the work arranged by Marine Scotland Science and partners in Scottish waters. Methods and means are required for collecting sufficient baseline data for Habitats Directive requirements in challenging conditions such as extreme tidal sites (such as Pentland Firth and Ramsey Sound). Attention has been given to assessing tidal stream habitat use by marine mammals but assessment of habitat, benthic communities, epibenthos and fish remains extremely challenging with existing survey methods. How can we effectively share data from each demonstration array to improve understanding of environmental effects and educate wider audience on the understanding of environmental impacts? The projects underway through NERC funded internships and through existing COWRIE 19

20 work have developed this area but commercial sensitivity concerns and identification / categorising exactly hat data is held across industry and how it can be released to researchers appears to require extensive development Policy and planning (44% of respondents, total of 9 questions) Review of current regulations and actual impact of devices in relation to the Habitats Directive. 20. Review of the relevance of device / array impacts to the objectives of individual SACs, SPAs, and MCZs. (do devices arrays need to be banned from anywhere covered by the Habitats Directive?). 21. Identify which scoping factors are important for a site and which can be removed, (requirement to focus effort on most important issues). 22. Assessment of the scoping necessary for projects that are in, or close to sites covered by Habitats Directive regulations 23. Currently impossible for array co-location to be consented as cannot provide evidence of no impact beyond reasonable doubt required by the Habitats Directive. 24. Reassessment of the full application of the Habitats Directive to single devices or small scale test arrays. 25. Is the precautionary principal necessary for testing of single wave and tidal devices? 26. Reassessment of the home office regulations on testing avoidance behaviour of fish with devices (to reduce the restrictions for developing evidence and knowledge in the UK and cost of completing tests overseas). Within the category of Policy and Planning the deployment of devices within areas covered by European protection under the Habitats Directive was consistently raised as a barrier to progress. A call was raised for a full review of device and array impacts that would be relevant to Habitats Directive concerns. Currently views were expressed that it is impossible to provide evidence of no impact from devices required by regulations because of the lack of devices in the water (for extensive periods) to initially study. Respondents suggested a European level review of the Habitats Directive may ultimately be required. There was a need identified for the distinction between single devices being tested and the deployment of arrays of devices. A review of consent requirements and scoping to address this distinction was suggested. Suggested solutions from research groups: Existing Research and Capabilities: The strategic assessment work undertaken by the Marine Scotland Marine Energy Spatial Planning Group provides an example of processes by which areas suiting renewable energy 20

21 development can be identified. The work undertaken by the SOWFIA project to streamline consenting will also be key to this topic. In particular the workshop C report - "Navigating the Wave Energy Consenting Process: Sharing knowledge and implementation of regulatory measures " and subsequent developments. The work by CEFAS, Walker et al s (2010) strategic review of offshore wind farm monitoring data associated with FEPA licence conditions provides an initial review of the applicability of current data collection to conducting impact assessments for marine renewables. The NERC funded project Optimising Array Form for Energy Extraction and Environmental Benefit (EBAO) is also of relevance to this set of questions. The EBAO project aims to establish a robust methodology to ensure that future large scale marine energy developments are designed to maximise their economic energy potential, while ensuring that constraints set by consideration of ecological consequences are recognised and respected. Remaining Evidence and Research Gaps Review of the relevance of device / array impacts to the objectives of individual SACs, SPAs, and MCZs Reassessment of the full application of the Habitats Directive to single devices or small scale test arrays. Reassessment of the home office regulations on testing avoidance behaviour of fish with devices (to reduce the restrictions for developing evidence and knowledge in the UK and cost of completing tests overseas). Results of the NERC-Defra EBAO project are particularly relevant to this set of questions as will be the results of the NERC-Defra QBEX, REPSONSE and FLOWBEC projects as well as all related research under current PhDs and other research projects such as PRiMARE, MaREE and many others providing evidence on the habitat and species effects of marine renewables. Evidence provided by these projects is of direct relevance to ensuring the relevant precautions are applied rather than general application of the precautionary principal in the face of uncertain evidence. Evidence base for planning decisions 27. Evidence base of environmental and socio economic effects is not sufficient for planning decisions. 28. Conduct a regional Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) to provide robust baseline characterisation of key proposed development areas. The issue of insufficient baseline data was raised by respondents. Concern was expressed at the level of baseline monitoring required, with the associated resource investment expected to 21

22 be provided by developers alone. While a need for detailed baseline monitoring was recognised the issue was also regarded to be relevant to inshore and offshore marine planning and marine conservation zone designation. A joined up approach for regional Strategic Environmental Assessments was raised by one respondent as a possible solution to reduce consenting burden and risk of renewable developments and aid the marine planning and marine conservation zone designation process. Suggested solutions from research groups: Existing Research and Capabilities: The NERC funded project Optimising Array Form for Energy Extraction and Environmental Benefit (EBAO) and research under the UK ERC Energy and Environment research theme are also of relevance to this set of questions. The EBAO project aims to establish a robust methodology to ensure that future large scale marine energy developments are designed to maximise their economic energy potential, while ensuring that constraints set by consideration of ecological consequences are recognised and respected. The strategic assessment work undertaken by the Marine Scotland Marine Energy Spatial Planning Group provides an example of a SEA process that can be adapted within the South West Marine Energy Park. All environmental and socio economic research mentioned in this document will be of relevance to question Evidence base of environmental and socio economic effects is not sufficient for planning decisions. Remaining Evidence and Research Gaps Continue evidence gathering on environmental and socio-economic effects of marine renewable energy developments Interaction with fishing and existing marine activities (44% of respondents, total of 6 questions) Mapping of activity and areas used 29. Requirement for accurate and reliable mapping of area use by fishing activities to inform site selection. 30. Economic assessment of loss of grounds (especially from multiple developments) and opportunities from stock enhancement. 22