A review of benthic ecological surveying for marine renewable developments in Scottish waters
This study reviews different intertidal and seabed ecology survey methods, used to identify baselines for environmental assessments.
8 Stakeholder engagement, survey process flow chart and stakeholder of roles
A key aim of this study has been to establish a staged process that helps guide project developers, survey practitioners, regulators and advisors towards a consensual understanding of what might be an appropriate seabed ecology survey strategy for a given set of circumstances.
8.1 Stakeholder views on benthic survey techniques and designs
The project undertook a variety of stakeholder engagement approaches to collate views on benthic survey techniques and sampling designs from a range of different groups. One approach was to convene a steering group comprising representatives with expertise relevant to MREDs in Scotland. A second was to ask for feedback on preliminary findings from a group of sector and surveying specialists.
The questionnaire respondents were Consultants, Government Researcher, Nature Intelligence Provider, Contractor, Stakeholder Consultee, Commercial Researcher, Academic Researcher and Lecturer.
The respondents who are active in sampling projects work globally across many sectors. Nationally, the focus of roles was on offshore wind with half of the respondents involved in this sector, with wave and tidal technology sectors having less representation. Only one respondent said they worked wholly in non-renewables sectors.
The conclusions drawn from these engagements were as follows:
- Most stakeholders agreed with the study scoping assumptions made, although some useful small additions were made with regards to effects of nature enhancement, assessing residual impacts, implementation of certain novel sampling approaches and the addition of further impact mechanisms to consider.
- The importance of establishing clear objectives during the design of benthic monitoring surveys was highlighted. Further questions to be considered at this stage were highlighted as:
- What is the purpose (what is the survey trying to achieve)?
- What are the thresholds for significant impacts?
- What is the baseline?
- Could the baseline be shifting?
- It was also raised that it is important to consider the cost implications of different survey approaches and analysis and that it could be useful to stratify sampling based on habitat heterogeneity and sensitivity. Cost was considered in the evaluation matrix and habitat heterogeneity was incorporated into the recommendations for sampling approach (see Section 6) to take account for these comments.
- The use of existing datasets can be of value and importance. For example, it is possible to use existing data to make assumptions at the scoping stage of the likely significance of possible impact pathways. As such, not all pathways may necessarily need to be investigated further and surveyed.
- Data collection should be carried out in a way that ensures it can be used in ecosystem models; this would have genuine value and not just be a ‘tick-box’ exercise.
- Collecting the survey data in a way that it is MEDIN compatible would add value to the data captured and make it reusable.
There were divergent opinions across the stakeholder spectrum about the level of survey intensity needed to adequately address MRED consenting and monitoring issues. This helped to inform the three-level approach covered by standard, enhanced and comprehensive survey intensity levels based upon categorisation of environmental sensitivity and project complexity.
The ’standard’ approach to surveys and data gathering will hopefully provide the highest priority data cost effectively and can create a foundation for a more detailed follow-up survey. Where there is a key sensitivity, a priority knowledge gap, or to meet wider goals, additional control reference sites, greater survey effort and wider scope can be undertaken when required or desired.
8.2 Process list for survey planning processes and stakeholder roles
At the start of the investigation process for this project, it was anticipated that a single surveying model approach might be possible to achieve. However, it became clear that the diversity of development types, scale of arising issues, and variety of operating conditions would mean that a more flexible approach was needed.
Since the projects being catered for in this study vary from prototype testing of small new technology of a few hundred kilowatts (kW) capacity, through to large-scale commercial farms of multi-GW capacity, there is likely to be a range of survey implementation strategies adopted.
The process envisaged for that progression for a surveyor or survey planner is laid out in Table 8.1. By going through the table and checking that all the listed planning and executing practices are being undertaken, the project will have the best opportunity to handle any seabed ecology issues associated with the project.
Table 8.1 Task flow for planning and undertaking seabed survey for MRE projects around Scotland. Follow the list of factors to consider throughout the survey planning process, under ‘context; scoping; assessment and results’. There are 32 action areas defined.
Stage 1. Context
Sub-stages |
Factors to consider |
User actions to be completed |
Examples that could be covered |
|---|---|---|---|
Objective setting and priority setting |
Primary objectives |
Identify the stage of the project, the associated regulatory needs and key project objectives |
Characterisation Baseline Monitoring Decommissioning regulatory requirements |
Objective setting and priority setting |
Secondary objectives |
Identify secondary objectives, e.g., research and data gaps that aren't the key focus, but which need to be considered |
Use of local resources Early liaison with fishers Enhancement and recovery Biofouling enrichment Predator and foraging links |
Objective setting and priority setting |
Priorities |
Provide resource to deliver the objectives in order of priority |
List key actions and resources allocated |
Objective setting and priority setting |
Standards |
Identify the minimum standards that to be followed and upheld |
Statutory and advisory Lab analysis standards |
Existing knowledge of operating environment |
Habitats and species |
Collate information on seabed habitats/species across and near to the survey area. |
Mobile megafauna, epifauna, infauna (diversity, community composition, and/or abundance). |
Existing knowledge of operating environment |
Physical |
Collate information on physical aspects of the survey area. |
Seabed/subsea composition Hydrodynamics Weather |
Existing knowledge of operating environment |
Chemical |
Collate information on baseline chemical composition of the seabed within the survey area. |
Baseline information e.g., heavy metals, hydrocarbons, organic carbon. |
Existing knowledge of operating environment |
Co-located activities |
Collate information on occurrence, extent, or proximity of co-located activities or historical activities from other marine sectors. |
Cables, pipelines, oil and gas installation, oil and gas wells, disposal sites, military ranges, fish farm sites, outfalls, fishing areas, aggregate extraction areas. |
Existing knowledge of operating environment |
Operating conditions |
Collate information about and experience of operational conditions for surveying. |
Normal, extreme, patterns of change, weather windows, safe haven proximity, particular hazards etc. |
Existing data and research |
Data quality |
Identify if the quality of existing data is suitable for the purpose of the current survey. |
Type, accuracy, timeliness, coverage (extent and density). |
Existing data and research |
Data availability |
Determine if the data is accessible and able to be used. |
Data format Intellectual property and ownership |
Stage 2: Scoping
Once the user has satisfied all the objectives of Stage 1, using the data gathered move on to Stage 2.
Sub-stages |
Factors to consider |
User actions to be completed |
Examples that could be covered |
|---|---|---|---|
Habitats |
PMF, Annex I |
Identify the likely presence and distribution habitats of conservation importance in/near the survey area. |
Sandbanks Reefs |
Species/communities |
PMF, Annex I, |
Identify the likely presence and distribution of species/communities of conservation importance in/near the survey area. |
Maerl, horse mussels, ocean quahog. |
Conservation designation |
Protected sites network |
Identify the conservation designations within or in proximity to the survey area. |
SAC Nature Conservation Marine Protected Areas (NCMPA) Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) PMFs |
Impacting activities |
Direct impacts |
Identify potential pressures on habitats and species. |
Habitat loss, surface abrasion, INNS |
Impacting activities |
Indirect impacts |
Identify the pressures that may cause secondary impacts to habitats and species or co-located/nearby. |
Changing climate-linked conditions, dispersed pollutants, fishing |
Survey tools and techniques available |
Survey requirements |
Identify the suitable methods given the objectives and conditions. |
Explain why and how factors match objectives and conditions. |
Survey tools and techniques available |
Robustness |
Identify key factors determining robustness scientifically robust, sector appropriate, and MEDIN compliant. |
Explain why each factor has been chosen and how they match objectives and conditions. |
Survey tools and techniques available |
Replicability and limitations |
If novel methods are utilised, consider their robustness/longevity/suitability over lifespan of a project. |
Outline key limits on any techniques considered. |
Survey tools and techniques available |
Replicability and limitations |
Consider the feasibility of repeat application over lifespan of a project. |
Outline reasoning. |
Tools and technology |
Availability |
Identify which tools and technologies are available to use in a particular location and take positive steps to broaden availability where needed. |
Consider progressive partnership type procurement strategies which encourage capacity building locally. |
Tools and technology |
Suitability |
With reference to the Annex I: Identify which tools and technologies are most suitable for your project and the stage it is at. Consider how to best maintain consistency across multiple project stages. |
Identify best tools from matrix regards reliability, synergy, complementarity, and novelty. Seek approaches which reduce impact, footprint, mortality, noise, fuel use, carbon emissions, obstacle or obstruction to others. |
Stage 3. Survey assessment
Once the user has satisfied all the objectives of Stage 2, move on to Stage 3.
Sub-stages |
Factors to consider |
User actions to be completed |
Examples that could be covered |
|---|---|---|---|
Survey intensity |
Project complexity and environmental sensitivity factors |
Referring to Tables 6.1 and 6.2 and the results of Stage 1 and Stage 2 identify whether your survey area is categorised as "High", "Medium", or "Low." sensitivity and complexity. |
Establish the intensity of survey suggested, either ‘standard’; ‘enhanced’; or ‘comprehensive’. |
Level of community classification |
EUNIS or MHC investigation levels |
Based on the results of "Survey Intensity" and the survey objectives, identify the scale at which habitats will be classified as indicated in Table 6.4. |
Broadscale – remote sensed, physical habitat Main habitat – observed, physical habitat Biotope complexes – indicator species present. Biotope – list of dominant species. Sub-biotope – comprehensive species list. Additional research areas. |
Survey design |
Survey design and approach |
Referring to Sections 3.6.3 - 3.6.5, and the results of Stage 1 and Stage 2 identify which survey design approach is most suitable (gradient or stratified). |
Consider habitat and feature targets for sampling at pre-operational stage and to identify suitable control sites. Consider which development facilities to target as locations for future monitoring operations and ensure baseline surveys are completed. |
Survey design |
Co-located or historical activity |
Identify whether additional samples within survey area and reference/control sites are required to verify the influence or otherwise of nearby activities. |
Add sampling locations as needed. |
Sampling procedure |
Quantity |
From results of Stage 1 and Stage 2, and if needed power analysis calculations, identify how many samples at each site/habitat type are required from each category? |
Minimally, 150 m video Minimally, 10-20 photos Minimally, 1-3 grabs (sediment) Minimally, 3-5 grabs (ecological) Minimally, 1-3 grabs (chemical) |
Sampling procedure |
Location |
Sample placement throughout the survey area, including control site(s). |
Minimally, 3 per broadscale habitat (BSH) Minimally, 1 out of every 10 facility locations (generators/ sub stations) <50 m from device <5 m from cable/pipeline |
Sampling procedure |
Timing |
Based on results of Stage 1 and Stage 2 identify appropriate timings to conduct surveys that reduce temporal bias and promote the collection of high-quality data. |
Consider: weather, tidal cycle, seasonality, residual swell regime, water currents etc. |
Stage 4. Survey results
Once the user has satisfied all the objectives of Stage 3, move on to Stage 4.
Sub-stages |
Factors to consider |
User actions to be completed |
Examples that could be covered |
|---|---|---|---|
Analytical |
Biodiversity metrics |
Will the results of Stage 1 though to Stage 3 provide you with data suitable to establish/calculate the desired biodiversity metrics? If no, identify why and return to relevant row above to rectify. |
Species biodiversity metric Species richness Species biomass |
Data transparency |
MEDIN |
Will the obtained data and corresponding metadata be suitable to submit to MEDIN? If no identify why and return to relevant row above. |
Change data to be MEDIN compliant |
Data transparency |
Data sharing/data repositories |
Will the data obtained be suitable to share on a data repository (e.g., NMPi/GeMS) or wider strategic survey programme. |
Prepare to share data with others. |
Contact
Email: ScotMER@gov.scot
There is a problem
Thanks for your feedback