Advertisement

Review of Offshore Wind Farm Impact Monitoring and Mitigation with Regard to Marine Mammals

  • Ursula K. Verfuss
  • Carol E. Sparling
  • Charlie Arnot
  • Adrian Judd
  • Michael Coyle
Part of the Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology book series (AEMB, volume 875)

Abstract

Monitoring and mitigation reports from 19 UK and 9 other European Union (EU) offshore wind farm (OWF) developments were reviewed, providing a synthesis of the evidence associated with the observed environmental impact on marine mammals. UK licensing conditions were largely concerned with mitigation measures reducing the risk of physical and auditory injury from pile driving. At the other EU sites, impact monitoring was conducted along with mitigation measures. Noise-mitigation measures were developed and tested in UK and German waters in German government-financed projects. We highlight some of the review’s findings and lessons learned with regard to noise impact on marine mammals.

Keywords

Offshore wind farm Impact monitoring Mitigation Marine mammals Licensing procedure 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) and the Marine Management Organisation for funding this work.

References

  1. Brandt MJ, Diederichs A, Betke K, Nehls G (2011) Responses of harbour porpoises to pile driving at the Horns Rev II offshore wind farm in the Danish North Sea. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 421:205–216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Brandt MJ, Höschle C, Diederichs A, Betke K, Matuschek R, Nehls G (2013) Seal scarers as a tool to deter harbour porpoises from offshore construction sites. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 475:291–301CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Degraer S, Brabant R, Rumes B (eds) (2012) Offshore wind farms in the Belgian part of the North Sea: heading for an understanding of environmental impacts. Management Unit of the North Sea Mathematical Models, Marine Ecosystem Management Unit, Royal Belgian Institute of Natural Sciences, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  4. Edrén SMC, Andersen SM, Teilmann J, Carstensen J, Harders PB, Dietz R, Miller LA (2010) The effect of a large Danish offshore wind farm on harbour and gray seal haul-out behavior. Mar Mamm Sci 26:614–634Google Scholar
  5. Lucke K, Siebert U, Lepper PA, Blanchet MA (2009) Temporary shift in masked hearing thresholds in a harbour porpoise (Phocoena phocoena) after exposure to seismic airgun stimuli. J Acoust Soc Am 125:4060–4070CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. McConnell B, Lonergan M, Dietz R (2012) Interactions between seals and offshore wind farms. Marine Estate research report, The Crown Estate, LondonGoogle Scholar
  7. Pehlke H, Nehls G, Bellmann MA, Gerke P, Diederichs A, Oldeland J, Grunau C, Witte S, Rose A (2013) Entwicklung und Erprobung des „Großen Blasenschleiers“zur Minderung der Hydroschallemissionen bei Offshore-Rammarbeiten. Project short title: Hydroschall OFF BW II. FKZ0325309A/B/C. Final reportGoogle Scholar
  8. Remmers P, Bellmann MA (2013) Untersuchung und Erprobung von Hydroschalldämpfern (HSD) zur Minderung von Unterwasserschall bei Rammarbeiten für Gründungen von Offshore-Windenergieanlagen. Auswertung der Hydroschallmessungen im OWP London Array. Project number1918-c-bel version 3. Itap GmbH, Oldenburg, GermanyGoogle Scholar
  9. Scheidat M, Tougaard J, Brasseur S, Carstensen J, van Polanen PT, Teilmann J, Reijnders P (2011) Harbour porpoise (Phocoena phocoena) and wind farms: a case study in the Dutch North Sea. Environ Res Lett 6:025102. doi: 10.1088/1748-9326/6/2/025102 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Skeate ER, Perrow MR (2008) Scroby Sands offshore wind farm: Seal monitoring. Analysis of the 2006 post-construction aerial surveys and summary of the monitoring programme results from 2002–2006. Final report to E.ON UK Renewables Offshore Wind Limited prepared by ECON Ecological Consultancy, Norwich, UKGoogle Scholar
  11. Skeate ER, Perrow MR, Gilroy JJ (2012) Likely effects of construction of Scroby sands offshore wind farm on a mixed population of harbour Phoca vitulina and grey Halichoerus grypus seals. Mar Pollut Bull 64:872–881CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Tougaard J, Carstensen J, Ilsted Bech N, Teilmann J (2006) Final report on the effect of Nysted Offshore Wind Farm on harbour porpoises. Technical report to Energi E2 A/S, National Environmental Research Institute (NERI), Ministry of the Environment, Roskilde, DenmarkGoogle Scholar
  13. UBA (2011) Empfehlungen von Lärmschutzwerten bei der Errichtung von Offshore-Windenergieanlagen (OWEA). Information Unterwasserlärm. Umweltbundesamt, Dessau, GermanyGoogle Scholar
  14. Verfuss UK, Hildebrandt C, Ammermann K (2012) Final report. Towards an environmentally sound offshore wind energy deployment symposium. Federal Agency for Nature Conservation, Stralsund, Germany, 23–26 Jan 2012Google Scholar
  15. Walls R, Canning S, Lye G, Givens L, Garrett C, Lancaster J (2013) Analysis of marine environmental monitoring plan data from the Robin Rigg offshore wind farm, Scotland (Operational Year 1). Technical report to E.ON Climate & Renewables UK prepared by Natural Power Consultants Ltd., Dumfries and GallowayGoogle Scholar
  16. Wilke F, Klose K, Bellman M (2012) ESRa – Evaluation of systems for ramming noise mitigation at an offshore test pile. Project reference number 0325307, final technical reportGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ursula K. Verfuss
    • 1
  • Carol E. Sparling
    • 1
  • Charlie Arnot
    • 2
  • Adrian Judd
    • 3
  • Michael Coyle
    • 4
  1. 1.Sea Mammal Research Unit (SMRU) Marine Ltd.New Technology Centre, North HaughSt. Andrews, FifeUK
  2. 2.Fugro EMU Ltd.Durley, SouthamptonUK
  3. 3.Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science (CEFAS)Lowestoft, SuffolkUK
  4. 4.Marine Management OrganisationNewcastle upon TyneUK

Personalised recommendations