impact monitoring offshore wind farm
DESCRIPTION
During a ten year period Princess Amalia Wind Farm conducted impact monitoring: before, during and after construction. Results show that the introduction of hard substrate, in an otherwise sandy environment, and the prohibition of fisheries has attracted a rich benthic community and possibly had a positive effect on a burrowing fish species. Some bird species were present in lower numbers, others were clearly attracted to the new structures. Underwater noise levels during piling could have effected harbour porpoises. An acoustic deterrent device mitigated these risks. Post construction monitoring results showed that harbour porpoises did not avoid the operational wind farm. The presentation was given by Huygen van Steen, consultant renewable energy at Ecofys, during the Renewable UK Global Offshore Wind Conference in Glasgow on 12 June 2014.TRANSCRIPT
Princess Amalia Wind Farm Impact Monitoring 2003-2013 Glasgow, 12 June 2014
Huygen van Steen
.................................................................................................
........................................................................
Dutch offshore wind farms
2
Under construction
Operational
.................................................................................................
........................................................................
Impact assessment in the Netherlands
• Monitoring not included in EIA/AA • Government sets framework for monitoring in permit
–Parameter –Method –Time/Duration 3
.................................................................................................
........................................................................
Monitoring and Evaluation Program
• Approach –Design and approval –Tender and coordination –Review and approval
• 12 monitoring parameters (biotic and abiotic) • Focus here on 5 main ecological impacts
1. Sound 2. Porpoises 3. Fauna 4. Fish 5. Sea Birds
4
.................................................................................................
........................................................................
Underwater Sound
Question • How much underwater noise
during construction and operation?
Method • 2007: Piling
–Mobile measurements –Hydrophones @ 2 locations
• 2013: Operational –Fixed measurements –Hydrophones @ 2 locations
Results • Operational sound negligible • Piling sound significant
–Hammer energy 800 kJ –Steel monopile ø 4m –Sounds like...
5
.................................................................................................
........................................................................
Harbour Porpoises
Question • Do they avoid the
operational wind farm?
Method • 4 CPOD’s • In- & Outside PAWP • 1 year (2009-2010) Results • No difference in activity • High in March and
December, less activity in April-May
6
.................................................................................................
........................................................................
Macro Fauna (>1mm)
Question • How did habitat change impact
diversity and numbers?
Methods • Soft substrate
–BACI –Boxcore and Dredge samples
• Hard substrate –After construction –Video and scrape samples
Results • Soft substrate - no difference • Hard substrate
–+0.12% substrate,+10% fauna, +49% biomass
–Molluscs, Cnidaria, Crustacea… 7
.................................................................................................
........................................................................
Fish
Question • Did PAWP have a nursery effect?
Method • Fish trawls inside wind farm in
2013, compared with existing data outside
Results • Demersal fish
–Coming soon • Round fish
–17 species; mostly herring, sprat and whiting
–More greater sand eels in wind farm!
8
Gre
ate
r Sand E
el
Beam Trawl Otter Trawl
© Greenpeace © Greenpeace
© British Sea Fishing
.................................................................................................
........................................................................
Birds
Question • Did PAWP have an impact on sea birds? Method • Collision
–Method not available • Avoidance / Habitat Loss
–Ship based transects in/outside wind farms
Results • Avoidance / Habitat Loss
–Some habitat loss for some species –Love-Hate relationship!
• Possible effect wind farm density
9
Love
Hate
Neutral
Corm
ora
nt
Gulls
Gannet
© Mmo iwdg - Wikimedia Commons
© andrewchen.co
© Arthur Morris/BIRDS AS ART
.................................................................................................
........................................................................
Conclusion
10
Positive
Neutral
Negative
Construction phase
Operational phase
Positive
Neutral
Negative
Neutral
Neutral
Fauna Fish Birds
Sound Porpoises
Birds
Sound Porpoises Fish Birds
Fauna Fish Birds
.................................................................................................
........................................................................
Lessons Learned
• Similar permit requirements –Different attitude – Improved and intensified relationship with the
competent authority • Focus on knowledge gaps
–Permit requirements can be adjusted based on state of the art knowledge
–Contribute to relevant ‘holistic’ projects oORJIP: Bird Avoidance and Collision Risk oDEPONS: Impact on porpoise populations
11
DEPONS Disturbance Effects on Porpoise
Population in the North Sea
ORJIP Offshore Renewables Joint
Industry Program
http://depons.au.dk/ www.carbontrust.com
.................................................................................................
........................................................................
Thank You
• Huygen van Steen [email protected]
• Jan Dam
• Sytske van den Akker
• PAWP reports available from:
http://projecten.eneco.nl/prinses-amaliawindpark/milieumonitoring/
• LUD baseline reports available from: http://projecten.eneco.nl/eneco-luchterduinen/milieumonitoring
12
