The study followed a multistage process of information gathering, industry engagement and review to produce a recommendations roadmap that will be used to inform the eventual MMMP framework. Contributions from all parties were recorded and coordinated in a public file in order to ensure consistency of approach between contributors and efficient sharing of tasks. The key stages of the study are outlined below.
STEP 1: Initial Information Review
There is a considerable existing body of publically available data on current marine mammal mitigation techniques and Acoustic Deterrent Devices (ADDs) comprising: work funded by COWRIE, on-going academic research, and recent reviews of acoustic deterrents and marine mammal observer reports in parallel sectors (aquaculture and seismic). An up to date independent and concise review of all relevant, publically accessible material including industry reports, studies and research pertinent to the use and impact of soft start, PAM, MMO and ADDs formed the foundation step for discussions in Steps 2 and 3. The scope of the review included the collation of all materials on:
The use of MMOs, ADDs (and any other deterrent devices) and soft-start procedures in relation to constructed UK and European offshore windfarm projects (OWF) to date (subject to data availability);
The use of soft-start procedures in piling operations at said European windfarms;
The status, and feasibility, of available ADDs (and other deterrent devices) for the species of concern for offshore wind developments in UK waters; and
The comparative aspects of Health and Safety issues related to the range of mitigations, including current measures and the actual and potential use of ADDs.
The comparative aspects of cost, practicality and installation schedule impact related to the range of mitigations; and
The legislative implications of the actual and potential use of ADDs.Step 1
Step 2
Step 3
Step 4
Step 5
Step 6
OUTPUT
ORJIP Project 4, Phase 1 – Use of Deterrent Devices and Improvements to Standard Mitigation during Piling Assignment Number: L300100-S00
Document Number: L-300100-S00-REPT-002 120
In parallel to the review of publically available information, the research team explored all opportunities to ascertain the availability of information outside of the public domain including the parallel “Review of Post-Consent Offshore Wind Farm Monitoring Data Associated with Marine Licence Conditions” currently being carried out by SMRU Ltd for Cefas, Defra and the MMO. Because ADDs have not been extensively employed in the UK, a significant proportion of the information obtained was derived from experiences elsewhere in Europe, both at commercially deployed OWFs and from experimental work e.g. BioConsult. The study team also liaised with respective national regulatory authorities and developers to obtain available monitoring reports and supporting documents.
Knowledge gaps identified as part of this initial step were channelled into the later interview and technical analysis phases. This preliminary review was also used to inform the development of the mitigation scenarios, as outlined in the next step. All of the information/ data used to inform this project were consolidated in reference sheets to inform Project 4 Phase 2.
STEP 2: Stakeholder engagement workshops
A collaborative approach to the decisions made during the study was an overarching objective of this study.
Every effort was therefore made to capture the opinions and considerations of key stakeholders through a series of workshops, interviews and the on-going involvement of the Project Steering Group (PSG).
Workshop sessions were held on the 26th June 2013 in London and 15th July 2013 in Edinburgh. The objective of these workshops was partially to identify the key criteria or study drivers against which the various marine mammal mitigation scenarios will be evaluated, but mainly to encourage a detailed discussion around what was felt was important to take into consideration during this study and relative importance and implications of the drivers identified. The relative importance of the drivers was derived using a pair-wise comparison or Analytical Hierarchy Process (Saaty, 1980) e.g. as shown in the example table below (where N
= Neutral, S = Stronger, W = Weaker).
To ensure that the study reflected the needs and perspectives of the ‘end-users’ attendees were selected to ensure a mixture of environmental and technical/project development skills and were sought from a mixture of:
project developers, Statutory Nature Conservation Bodies (SNCBs), Non – Governmental Organisations (NGOs) and other interested parties. Awareness was raised by advertising the workshops in an ORJIP project update issued by The Crown Estate to a mailing list of interested organisations and individuals. In addition the project team presented the project scope and approach to the wider ORJIP steering group and invited feedback and input to the process.
The research question agreed by the workshop participants was:
Considering the evidence and experience from the application of existing techniques for mitigating the effects of piling noise on marine mammals (MMOs, PAM and soft starts), as well as the potential use of ADDs, what improvements can be made, and what is the best approach to adopt going forward, taking into account the future development of the offshore wind sector?
Following discussion, the key drivers identified during this workshop process were used to inform how the evaluation of mitigation solutions were identified and grouped. These drivers are listed below:
Efficacy of technique;
Unintended consequences;
Practicality;
Effects on installation schedule;
Health and safety implications;
Compliance with regulatory and legislative framework; and
Cost implications.Full details of the workshop process and findings are presented in the workshop report included in Appendix I.
ORJIP Project 4, Phase 1 – Use of Deterrent Devices and Improvements to Standard Mitigation during Piling Assignment Number: L300100-S00
Document Number: L-300100-S00-REPT-002 121
STEP 3: Information gathering exercise and technical review
The outputs of the initial information review and stakeholder engagement workshops informed the scope of the information gathering exercise, questionnaire development and parallel detailed technical review. This step provided supplementary information on the use of MMOs, soft starts and ADDs on e.g. project schedules, health and safety and any technical or practical experiences.
The questionnaire was developed to obtain as much supplementary information as possible on the following:
MMOs, ADDs or other deterrent devices if used, how they were deployed (from buoys, vessels, construction barges), location in respect of piling operation, conditions when deployed (night time, fog etc.), any issues with deployment, time between using ADD and piling;
The potential for adverse effect on protected species;
Any PAM undertaken and results;
Protocol adopted;
Any information on the effective spatial range of the method used;
Records kept (including marine mammals seen);
Any evidence of habituation of target species to the deterrent;
Any evidence of species specificity;
Costs of using MMOs/Deploying ADDs or other deterrent devices, including costs of installation, operation and maintenance;
Any implications of using MMOs/ADDs for the activities being undertaken (time delays, costs); and
EPS Licensing of activities (whether a licence was required, process to obtain).Practicality and impacts on H & S, cost and installation schedule were assessed primarily by a series of telephone interviews and working discussions between the study team and various stakeholders including project developers (attempts were made to contact all relevant UK and EU projects), mitigation solution providers (specialist service providers and technology developers), and specialist contractors (e.g. piling contractors). Efficacy and unintended consequences of each option and compliance with the regulatory and legislative framework were researched using a primary literature search and consultation with SNCBs, ADD developers and researchers and interested groups.
Key data sources used in the literature search were:
Marine mammal observer and mammal mitigation reports from construction phase of Round 1 and Round 2 projects (where available);
Marine mammal mitigation plans (MMMPs);
Peer reviewed articles; and
Industry reviews (in particular work conducted by COWRIE and studies funded by Marine Scotland and the JNCC).The output of this task was a shortlist of marine mammal mitigation techniques to be assessed. This step drew heavily on the work carried out for the Marine Scotland review (Coram et al., 2013) and the literature sources described therein.
ORJIP Project 4, Phase 1 – Use of Deterrent Devices and Improvements to Standard Mitigation during Piling Assignment Number: L300100-S00
Document Number: L-300100-S00-REPT-002 122