High Level Environmental Screening Study for Offshore Wind Farm Developments – Marine Habitats and Species Project

High level environmental screening study for offshore wind farm developments – marine habitats and species This report provides an awareness of the environmental issues related to marine habitats and species for developers and regulators of offshore wind farms. The information is also relevant to other offshore renewable energy developments. The marine habitats and species considered are those associated with the seabed, seabirds, and sea mammals. The report concludes that the following key ecological issues should be considered in the environmental assessment of offshore wind farms developments: • likely changes in benthic communities within the affected area and resultant indirect impacts on fish, populations and their predators such as seabirds and sea mammals; • potential changes to the hydrography and wave climate over a wide area, and potential changes to coastal processes and the ecology of the region; • likely effects on spawning or nursery areas of commercially important fish and shellfish species; • likely effects on mating and social behaviour in sea mammals, including migration routes; • likely effects on feeding water birds, seal pupping sites and damage of sensitive or important intertidal sites where cables come onshore; • potential displacement of fish, seabird and sea mammals from preferred habitats; • potential effects on species and habitats of marine natural heritage importance; • potential cumulative effects on seabirds, due to displacement of flight paths, and any mortality from bird strike, especially in sensitive rare or scarce species; • possible effects of electromagnetic fields on feeding behaviour and migration, especially in sharks and rays, and • potential marine conservation and biodiversity benefits of offshore wind farm developments as artificial reefs and 'no-take' zones. The report provides an especially detailed assessment of likely sensitivity of seabed species and habitats in the proposed development areas. Although sensitive to some of the factors created by wind farm developments, they mainly have a high recovery potential. The way in which survey data can be linked to Marine Life Information Network (MarLIN) sensitivity assessments to produce maps of sensitivity to factors is demonstrated. Assessing change to marine habitats and species as a result of wind farm developments has to take account of the natural variability of marine habitats, which might be high especially in shallow sediment biotopes. There are several reasons for such changes but physical disturbance of habitats and short-term climatic variability are likely to be especially important. Wind farm structures themselves will attract marine species including those that are attached to the towers and scour protection, fish that associate with offshore structures, and sea birds (especially sea duck) that may find food and shelter there. Nature conservation designations especially relevant to areas where wind farm might be developed are described and the larger areas are mapped. There are few designated sites that extend offshore to where wind farms are likely to be developed. However, cable routes and landfalls may especially impinge on designated sites. The criteria that have been developed to assess the likely marine natural heritage importance of a location or of the habitats and species that occur there can be applied to survey information to assess whether or not there is anything of particular marine natural heritage importance in a development area. A decision tree is presented that can be used to apply ‘duty of care’ principles to any proposed development. The potential ‘gains’ for the local environment are explored. Wind farms will enhance the biodiversity of areas, could act as refugia for fish, and could be developed in a way that encourages enhancement of fish stocks including shellfish.

On the Potential of Surfers to Monitor Environmental Indicators in the Coastal Zone

The social and economic benefits of the coastal zone make it one of the most treasured environments on our planet. Yet it is vulnerable to increasing anthropogenic pressure and climate change. Coastal management aims to mitigate these pressures while augmenting the socio-economic benefits the coastal region has to offer. However, coastal management is challenged by inadequate sampling of key environmental indicators, partly due to issues relating to cost of data collection. Here, we investigate the use of recreational surfers as platforms to improve sampling coverage of environmental indicators in the coastal zone. We equipped a recreational surfer, based in the south west United Kingdom (UK), with a temperature sensor and Global Positioning System (GPS) device that they used when surfing for a period of one year (85 surfing sessions). The temperature sensor was used to derive estimates of sea-surface temperature (SST), an important environmental indicator, and the GPS device used to provide sample location and to extract information on surfer performance. SST data acquired by the surfer were compared with data from an oceanographic station in the south west UK and with satellite observations. Our results demonstrate: (i) high-quality SST data can be acquired by surfers using low cost sensors; and (ii) GPS data can provide information on surfing performance that may help motivate data collection by surfers. Using recent estimates of the UK surfing population, and frequency of surfer participation, we speculate around 40 million measurements on environmental indicators per year could be acquired at the UK coastline by surfers. This quantity of data is likely to enhance coastal monitoring and aid UK coastal management. Considering surfing is a world-wide sport, our results have global implications and the approach could be expanded to other popular marine recreational activities for coastal monitoring of environmental indicators.

The potential use of mapped extent and distribution of habitats as indicators of Good Environmental Status (GES)

The Healthy and Biologically Diverse Seas Evidence Group (HBDSEG) has been tasked with providing the technical advice for the implementation of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) with respect to descriptors linked to biodiversity. A workshop was held in London to address one of the Research and Development (R&D) proposals entitled: ‘Mapping the extent and distribution of habitats using acoustic and remote techniques, relevant to indicators for area/extent/habitat loss.’ The aim of the workshop was to identify, define and assess the feasibility of potential indicators of benthic habitat distribution and extent, and identify the R&D work which could be required to fully develop these indicators. The main points that came out of the workshop were: (i) There are many technical aspects of marine habitat mapping that still need to be resolved if cost-effective spatial indicators are to be developed. Many of the technical aspects that need addressing surround issues of consistency, confidence and repeatability. These areas should be tackled by the JNCC Habitat Mapping and Classification Working Group and the HBDSEG Seabed Mapping Working Group. (ii) There is a need for benthic ecologists (through the HBDSEG Benthic Habitats Subgroup and the JNCC Marine Indicators Group) to finalise the list of habitats for which extent and/or distribution indicators should be considered for development, building upon the recommendations from this report. When reviewing the list of indicators, benthic habitats could also be distinguished into those habitats that are defined/determined primarily by physical parameters (although including biological assemblages) (e.g. subtidal shallow sand) and those defined primarily by their biological assemblage (e.g. seagrass beds). This distinction is important as some anthropogenic pressures may influence the biological component of the ecosystem despite not having a quantifiable effect on the physical habitat distribution/extent. (iii) The scale and variety of UK benthic habitats makes any attempt to undertake comprehensive direct mapping exercises prohibitively expensive (especially where there is a need for repeat surveys for assessment). There is a clear need therefore to develop a risk-based approach that uses indirect indicators (e.g. modelling), such as habitats at risk from pressures caused by current human activities, to develop priorities for information gathering. The next steps that came out of the workshop were: (i) A combined approach should be developed by the JNCC Marine Indicators Group together with the HBDSEG Benthic Habitats Subgroup, which will compile and ultimately synthesise all the criteria used by the three different groups from the workshop. The agreed combined approach will be used to undertake a final review of the habitats considered during the workshop, and to evaluate any remaining habitats in order to produce a list of habitats for indicator development for which extent and/or distribution indicators could be appropriate. (ii) The points of advice raised at this workshop, alongside the combined approach aforementioned, and the final list of habitats for extent and/or distribution indicator development will be used to develop a prioritised list of actions to inform the next round of R&D proposals for benthic habitat indicator development in 2014. This will be done through technical discussions within JNCC and the relevant HBDSEG Subgroups. The preparation of recommendations by these groups should take into account existing work programmes, and consider the limited resources available to undertake any further R&D work.