Offshore and Coastal Renewable Energy - Central Web Server 2

Offshore and Coastal Renewable 

Energy: 

Potential ecological benefits and 

impacts of large-scale offshore 

and coastal renewable energy 

projects 

May 2009 

Prepared by: Annie Linley (1), Karine Laffont (1), Ben 

Wilson (2), Mike Elliott (3), Rafael Perez-Dominguez (3) & 

Daryl Burdon (3). 

Institutions: (1) PML Applications Ltd, (2) SAMS, (3) IECS

Marine Renewables Scoping Study 

Final report 

NERC 

Table of contents 

Figures and tables .........................................................................................4 

Acronyms .......................................................................................................5 

Executive summary .......................................................................................7 

1 Introduction .......................................................................................12 

2 Current status of marine renewable energy and associated 

environmental research ..............................................................................13 

2.1 Review of offshore wind energy in Europe..........................................13 

2.1.1 Research at offshore windfarm sites............................................................ 13 

2.1.2 Status of offshore windfarms in the UK........................................................ 15 

2.1.3 Summary of wind energy research status .................................................... 16 

2.2 Tidal-stream energy research in the UK and Europe ..........................17 

2.2.1 Tidal energy research .................................................................................. 17 

2.2.2 European Marine Energy Centre (EMEC), Orkney....................................... 17 

2.2.3 Marine Current Turbines Ltd / Sea Generation Ltd....................................... 18 

2.2.4 SuperGen marine ........................................................................................ 18 

2.2.5 Equitable Testing and Evaluation of Marine Energy Extraction Devices in 

terms of Performance, Cost and Environmental Impact (Equimar) .......................... 19 

2.2.6 Summary of tidal-stream energy research status......................................... 19 

2.3 Wave energy research in the UK ........................................................19 

2.3.1 Wave Hub.................................................................................................... 19 

2.3.2 EMEC (European Marine Energy Centre).................................................... 21 

2.3.3 Oregon State University (OSU) / Hatfield Marine Science Center (HMSC), 

USA. .................................................................................................................... 22 

2.4 Summary of wave energy research status ..........................................23 

2.5 Summary of status of renewable research in UK and Europe.............24 

2.6 Summary of status of renewable projects outside Europe ..................24 

3 Organisations currently involved in marine renewable energy 

research........................................................................................................26 

3.1 Introduction - research perspectives ...................................................26 

3.1.1 The regulator ............................................................................................... 26 

3.1.2 The developer.............................................................................................. 26 

3.1.3 Research scientists...................................................................................... 27 

3.2 Organisations delivering research in the UK .......................................27 

3.3 Agencies funding renewable energy research ....................................30 

3.4 Research coordination ........................................................................31 

3.4.1 Role of BERR (now DECC) / COWRIE Research Advisory Group (RAG).... 31 

3.4.2 EMEC RAG ................................................................................................. 31 

3.4.3 WAVE HUB research for developers ........................................................... 34 

3.5 Research funded by NERC.................................................................34 

4 Workshop and consultation .............................................................40 

4.1 Summary of post-NERC workshop responses....................................42 

4.2 Post workshop consultation on critical science gaps...........................43 

4.2.1 Resource ..................................................................................................... 43 

4.2.2 Impacts on Fauna and Flora ........................................................................ 43 

May, 2009 2/124


Final report 

NERC 

4.2.3 Significance ................................................................................................. 48 

4.2.4 Scaling up from device to array to multiple arrays........................................ 49 

4.2.5 Research tools – technology and model development ................................. 50 

4.2.6 Influence on developing industry.................................................................. 52 

5 Fundamental ‘Blue skies’ vs applied science.................................53 

6 Potential future NERC Work Programmes......................................55 

6.1 Overview critical research gaps ..........................................................55 

6.1.1 ‘Whole system’ approach to new research................................................... 55 

6.1.2 Technology, ecosystem models and methods development ........................ 55 

6.1.3 Ecosystem restoration and opportunities for ecosystem benefits................. 56 

6.1.4 Nature of research (experiment, modelling, observation etc). ...................... 56 

6.2 Risk, advantages / disadvantages.......................................................57 

6.3 Fit with existing NERC themes............................................................57 

6.4 Overview of structural / coordination issues........................................58 

7 Bibliographic review .........................................................................60 

8 Conclusions.......................................................................................70 

9 References.........................................................................................71 

10 Appendices........................................................................................83 

Appendix 1: Marine Renewable Energy Developments: Compiled List of 

Environmental Issues and Research Topics (RAG & COWRIE, 2007)..........83 

Appendix 2: Table summarising stakeholder interests in marine renewable 

energy ....................................................................................................96 

Appendix 3: Summary of Workshop – Tidal Energy and the Marine 

Environment.................................................................................................107 

Appendix 4: Summary of UKERC workshop Edinburgh, March 24 th / 25 th ...110 

Appendix 5: Wind, tidal and wave projects outside the UK..........................118 

May, 2009 3/124


Final report 

NERC 

Figures and tables 

Figures 

Figure 1 – Summary of the workshop “Environmental protection and management for 

wave and tidal energy converters: best practice approaches. 3rd September 2008. 32 

Figure 2 – Renewable energy developments and ecologically relevant interactions 

(Gill, 2005) .............................................................................................................. 41 

Figure 3 – Dendrogram mapping out the responses following the NERC workshop 

26 th Feb, 2009 ......................................................................................................... 42 

Figure 4 – Summary of research questions appropriate to device, array and multiple 

array scale projects ................................................................................................. 50 

Figure 5 – Illustrating the potential for marine space use within offshore windfarm 

footprints ................................................................................................................. 56 

Figure 6 – Number of peer-reviewed articles with the term ‘renewable energy’ (and 

derivative terms) published between 1974 and 2009 (after Gill, 2005)..................... 60 

Figure 7 – Number of peer-reviewed articles with the term ‘renewable energy’ AND 

‘coastal or offshore’ (and derivative terms) published between 1974 and 2009. ...... 61 

Figure 8 – Breakdown of subject areas within which the published articles were 

included (243 articles in total).................................................................................. 61 

Tables 

Table 1 – Review of the progress - Round 1 and Round 2 offshore windfarm 

developments in the UK (BWEA, 2007)................................................................... 15 

Table 2 – Wave energy device test sites in Europe ................................................. 23 

Table 3 – Principal organisations involved in biodiversity and ecosystems research 

plus main contacts and research capabilities........................................................... 27 

Table 4 – Current major research activities in Scottish coastal waters (Davies, 2008). 

................................................................................................................................ 30 

Table 5 – EMEC research and monitoring projects ................................................. 33 

Table 6 – Summary of major research projects carried out at Oceans 2025 Centres 

directly relevant to offshore and coastal renewable energy ..................................... 35 

Table 7 – Summarising the research responsibilities of organisations with focus on 

marine renewables sector ....................................................................................... 54 

Table 8 – Articles broken down by renewable energy type and ecological component 

................................................................................................................................ 62 

Table 9 – Results of the initial literature search undertaken in Web of Science (87 

articles in total)........................................................................................................ 63 

Table 10 – Marine Renewable Energy Developments – Compiled list of 

environmental issues and research topics............................................................... 84 

Table 11 – Stakeholder interests in marine renewable energy ................................ 96 

Table 12 – International offshore wind projects ..................................................... 118 

Table 13 – International tidal projects.................................................................... 119 

Table 14 – International wave projects .................................................................. 121 

Table 15 – Other tidal and wave projects in the US: Issued Preliminary Permits for 

wave and tidal projects as of 7/05/2009................................................................. 123 

May, 2009 4/124


Final report 

NERC 

Acronyms 

ADCP Acoustic current Doppler profiler 

AERO Accompanying Ecological Research on Offshore Energy Development 

ALSF Aggregates Levy Sustainability Fund 

BERR Department for Business, Enterprise & Regulatory Reform 

BODC British Oceanographic Data Centre 

BTO British Trust for Ornithology 

BWEA British Wind Energy Association 

CCW Countryside Council for Wales 

CE Crown Estate 

CEH Centre for Ecology and Hydrology 

COWRIE Collaborative Offshore Wind Research Into The Environment 

DECC Department of Energy and Climate Change 

DEFRA Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs 

DTI Department of Trade and Industry, now BERR 

EIA Environmental Impact Assessment 

EMEC European Marine Energy Centre 

EMF Electromagnetic fields 

EPSRC Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council 

ERI Environmental Research Institute 

ESRC Economic and Social Research Council 

ETI Energy Technologies Institute 

FEPA Food and Environment Protection Act 1985 

FFHCA Flora-Fauna Habitat Compatibility Assessment 

FRS Fisheries Research Services 

HMSC Hatfield Marine Science Center 

ICIT International Centre for Island Technology 

ICL Imperial College London 

IECS Institute of Estuarine and Coastal Studies 

KT Knowledge transfer 

JNCC Joint Nature Conservation Committee 

MBA Marine Biological Association 

MCA Maritime and Coastguard Agency 

MCT Marine Current Turbines Ltd 

MDIP Marine Data and Information Partnership 

MFA Marine and Fisheries Agency 

MRED Marine Renewable Energy Device 

MS Marine Scotland 

MSP Marine Spatial Planning 

NE Natural England 

NOCS National Oceanography Centre, Southampton 

OREEF Offshore Renewables Energy Environmental Forum 

OSU Oregon State University 

OWF Offshore wind farm 

OWT Offshore wind turbines 

OWET Oregon Wave Energy Trust 

PML Plymouth Marine Laboratory 

POD Acoustic Porpoise Detector 

POL Proudman Oceanographic Laboratory 

PRIMaRE Peninsular Research Institute for Marine renewable Energy 

PSO Public Service Obligation 

May, 2009 5/124


Final report 

NERC 

QUB Queen's University Belfast 

RAG Research Advisory Group 

RCEP Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution 

ReDAPT Reliable Data Acquisition Platform for Tidal 

ROV Remotely Operated Vehicles 

SAHFOS Sir Alister Hardy Foundation for Ocean Sciences 

SAMS Scottish Association for Marine Science 

SEA Strategic Environmental Assessment 

SEPA Scottish Environment Protection Agency 

SIA Seascape Impact Assessment 

SNH Scottish Natural Heritage 

SMRU Sea Mammal Research Unit 

SWRDA South West of England Regional Development Agency 

SUNR Sustainable Use of Natural Resources 

SuperGen Sustainable Power Generation and Supply Initiative 

TADS Thermal Animal Detection System 

TSB Technology Strategy Board 

TSEC Towards a Sustainable Energy Economy 

UKERC UK Energy Research Centre 

WEC Wave Energy Converter 

May, 2009 6/124


Final report 

NERC 

Executive summary 

The purpose of this report is to identify research needed to determine the impacts 

and benefits of large-scale marine renewable energy projects, and to allow NERC to 

develop detailed plans for research activities in the 2009 Theme Action Plans. The 

overarching research challenge is to demonstrate the benefits of including 

environmental thinking in energy technology development, and to raise the profile of 

environmentally focused, as opposed to technologically driven, science in the energy 

arena. Our review therefore focuses on : (i) identification of the key science 

challenges and research opportunities and (ii) indications of where NERC science 

can contribute most and institutions which should be involved. 

Environmental research in relation to marine renewable energy is progressing 

against a background of a complex funding and research landscape with a wide 

diversity of organisations involved, with research being undertaken on behalf of 

regulatory bodies, policy makers and developers. The main focus of research to date 

has been the DECC / COWRIE Research Programme overseen by a multi agency 

Research Advisory Group. This group has prioritised and commissioned research to 

support deployment and licensing of arrays of wind turbines, and is now focussing 

mainly on the needs of the wave and tidal energy sector. All Oceans 2025 partners 

have been involved in delivering some of this research, which has included 

development of appropriate methods and novel technologies for studying organisms 

in hostile environments, studies focussed on individual species and communities and 

their interactions with renewable energy technologies, as well as exploring the nature 

of potential ecosystem and economic benefits. 

We have synthesised the key science challenges and research opportunities 

associated with biodiversity and ecosystems into the major science areas as shown 

in the table below : 

 

Research priorities 

(I) Whole system 

Development and expansion of 

ecosystem modelling capability to allow 

assessment of regional scale impacts of 

energy extraction : 

- potential impact of multiple arrays on 

whole range of ecosystem services 

e.g. nutrient regeneration, CO 2 

sequestration to food production, 

- potential of MREDs (plus cumulative 

impacts of extractive activities.) to 

cause major system changes / tipping 

point given context of CC and OA; 

- ecosystem functioning changes in 

relation to the resilience of the system 

and the ability to naturally or 

anthropogenically mitigate or 

compensate effects. 

Effects of multiple systems as 

interference for natural processes at the 

Feeder 

projects 

TSEC 

UKERC 

phase 2 

MARBEF 

As above 

Main elements/nature of research Impact / 

utility* 

(1) desktop data collation to set up 

scenarios (spatial and range of 

values from lit for services), 

(2) modelling development to allow 

simulation of potential impact at 

MRED array scale (1nm 

resolution now possible) 

(3) test different combinations 

MRED /footprints at regional 

scale 

(4) Field observations / 

experimental to fill gaps (see (VI) 

below) 

(5) Run models for whole range of 

scenarios 

(6) If significant KT to policy 

development process 

(1) Field monitoring, field 

experimentation and mesocosm 

NERC 

UKERC 

DEFRA 

DECC 

May, 2009 7/124


Final report 

physical and biological level (latter at 

individual, population and community 

levels): 

- degradation and recovery trajectories; 

- response by alien species and 

resulting community effects; 

- determinations of cumulative effects 

and relationship with 

mitigation/compensation. 

(II) Mammals 

Development of research method to 

allow quantification / assessment of 

collision risk 

Consequences of large scale 

displacement of predators and prey from 

arrays or spatial bottlenecks / movement 

corridors. Displacement due to physical 

presence, noise, habitat changes, EMF 

etc. 

(III) Birds 

Behavioural and functioning studies 

Better impact prediction models with 

uncertainty/risk modelling 

Site-specific to generic assessments – 

linked to mitigation and compensation 

issues; 

Carrying capacity determination of 

offshore areas for large and mobile 

predators. 

Cumulative impacts on populations 

(IV) Fish 

Sub-lethal and behavioural effects and 

linked population effects 

- interference with migration routes at 

open sea scales; 

- feeding 

Quantifying carrying capacity and its 

Equimar 

WP6 

effects; 

(2) Coupled physical and biological 

models 

(1) Observational studies to 

determine the probability of 

encounters, avoidance 

behaviours, population 

consequences, monitoring 

technologies and mitigation 

options. (Particularly relative 

risks for different design 

concepts within device families). 

(2) Locate at different sites e.g. 

Strangford Lough, Ramsay 

Sound, Wave Hub 

As above (1).Observational studies (e.g., 

Black craig / Falls of Warness / 

Ramsay Sound / Wave Hub 

(2) Comparative studies for tools 

development : surveys, 

telemetry, remote sensing, 

modelling 

(3) Existing remote sensing data – 

identify where needs extending 

inshore for predicting 

displacement / feeding hotspots 

etc. 

(4) Field studies across 

discontinuities near MREDs 

Ongoing 

BTO 

Oceans 

2025 

Cefas 

EMPA 

FISH 

(1) Collision issues in poor visibility 

and darkness; 

(2) Generic aspects of data 

gathering with distance offshore 

(development of remote 

techniques and ground-truthing 

of radar and thermal imaging); 

(3) Effects on energetic and 

population viability as well as risk 

and vulnerability; 

(4) Cumulative/in-combination 

assessment methods 

(1) Audiograms on hearing 

specialist and development of 

noise exposure criteria based 

on behavioural effects 

(2) Modelling of sublethal 

responses at ecologically 

NERC 

NE / SNH 

DEFRA 

NE / SNH 

/ 

CCW 

DEFRA 

NE / SNH 

/ 

CCW 

DEFRA 

NE / SNH/ 

CCW 

DEFRA 

MFA 

May, 2009 8/124


Final report 

NERC 

modification at sites, between sites: 

- input to models at differing scales; 

- quantifying use of differential habitats; 

Socio-economic and environmental 

benefits of creating no-take zones in 

relation to fisheries. 

(V) Benthos 

Development of research methods for 

studying benthos in tidal rapids : 

- routine characterisation of communities 

(biodiversity) 

- to measure productivity (functional 

significance) 

- input to ecosystem models at device 

array multiple array scale. 

- Determination of functional response of 

benthic organisms to energy changes 

through substratum modifications. 

- Habitat creation/modification/ 

enhancement potential 

- Biogeochemical repercussions of insitu 

deployment and substratum 

modifications and knock-on effects for 

nutrient dynamics/fluxes and 

exchange. 

(VI) Water column 

Characterisation / functioning of plankton 

communities (to input to several research 

questions above) 

- environmental impact of energy 

extraction on core ecosystem 

processes (info for (I) above) 

- role of fronts/discontinuities in driving 

locations of biodiversity/ feeding 

hotspots for birds/cetaceans 

- to provide key information for 

interpretation of benthic /pelagic 

processes and testing models in (I) 

above 

- assess risk of locating in areas 

susceptible to HABs etc 

- economic valuation of ecosystem 

goods and services 

(VII) Acoustics 

Development and testing of new 

technology (T-pods and surface sensors) 

Assessment of sensitivity of individual 

species to noise and consequences for 

behaviour, survival etc. 

Wave Hub 

EMEC 

MCT 

ReDAPT 

Supergen 

UKERC 

FP6 ‘Cost 

impact’ 

Equimar 

WP6 

Ditto 

relevant endpoints 

(3) Assessment with non invasive 

techniques (i.e. acoustic, video 

tracking). Sensitivity analysis 

(4) Control exposure experiments 

in the field 

(5) Displacement of species and 

cascade effects on community 

structure 

(1) Statistical and predictive 

modelling approaches on system 

change; 

(2) Policy-oriented research on level 

of data required to understand 

the system. 

(3) Testing ecological theory 

regarding the trajectories of 

change and resilience/hysteresis 

in the system 

(1) Theoretical desk top study 

focused on spatial and temporal 

variability and statistical 

considerations in experimental 

design 

(2) Field studies of pre and post 

deployment water column 

processes, focusing on 

ecosystem functions (e.g.. Wave 

Hub in parallel with CTD / 

hydrodynamics studies.) 

(3) Influence of multiple structures 

on upwelling and downwelling 

systems and large circulation 

patterns 

Field testing at existing 

demonstrator sites initially then 

acquisiton of further information 

from development sites elsewhere 

(1)Population & ecosystem 

consequences of auditory 

damage Development of 

alternatives and mitigation. 

(2)Operational noise studies wrt 

NE / SNH/ 

CCW 

NERC 

UKERC 

DEFRA 

MFA 

DECC 

DEFRA 

Developers 

DEFRA 

NE /SNH/ 

CCW 

May, 2009 9/124


Final report 

NERC 

(VIII) EMFs 

Outstanding issues for fish possibly 

cross refer DECC 

(IX) Technology and model development 

Resource assessment and measurement 

- tidal and wave 

Develop methodologies to identify areas 

of high population significance that are 

not indicated by absolute abundance e.g. 

migration corridors 

(X) Significance 

Where impacts can be demonstrated or 

predicted, a second level of assessment 

is required – ecological significance. 

Extend and apply existing tools (such as 

PVA) to allow regulators to quantitatively 

assess projected impacts alongside 

other human activities & measures of 

uncertainty, climate change scenarios 

etc to assess if impacts are within 

acceptable ecological bounds. 

Objective needs to be a better set of 

decision tools than currently available 

including better ways to detect signals in 

noisy marine datasets. Will allow better 

use of pre-installation monitoring 

programmes and the identification of true 

effects 

(XI) Impacts of scaling up 

Device, array and multiple array scale 

research and monitoring will all 

contribute, in the longer term, to a body 

of knowledge which will inevitably 

converge to inform adaptive 

management - individual devices will 

need to be assessed for their 

environmental impacts and arrays of 

devices will invariably have a different 

set of impacts. There may need to be 

trade offs between devices with different 

energy extraction and environmental 

impact characteristics 

University 

of 

Cranfield 

RASCAL 

POL/PML 

ERSEM 

See IEEM 

review 

EMEC 

ReDAPT 

PRIMaRE 

(XII) Opportunities for improved site sustainability 

Opportunities for improved site 

sustainability by enhancement of 

ecological and socio-economic benefits: 

- quantify potential socio-economic 

benefits of alternative uses of OWF 

DECC 

‘reef 

effects’ 

UKERC 

EMPA- 

background levels to assess 

noise pollution vs necessary 

acoustic warning 

(1) review technology and modelling 

gaps and future needs 

(2) national capability assessment to 

include computing 

(1) A theoretical research study to 

define what is significant in 

ecological and spatial/temporal 

terms for all ecosystem 

components i.e. mammals, birds, 

fish, benthos, water column, 

(seasonal, decadal, random - 

signal to noise); 

(2) review status of all biodiversity 

components – at gene, species, 

population level 

(3) Define what field observations 

etc need to be undertaken 

(4) Development of decision tools 

with regulators 

This is likely to continue to be 

opportunistic for a number of years 

as devices are licensed and 

deployed. We should take every 

opportunity to undertake 

environmental assessment in 

parallel with performance 

measurements i.e. observational / 

field studies of mammal and bird 

interactions where they feed into 

the need for understanding about 

individual species or groups. 

Long term support for monitoring at 

demonstrator sites to provide basis 

for research and investigation. 

(1) Desk top data mining from 

existing sites / proxies gap 

analysis 

(2) Field observations (Loch Linnhe 

artificial reef, aqua -culture test 

DEFRA 

NE / SNH 

NERC 

EPSRC 

TSB 

DEFRA 

NE / SNH 

/ CCW 

Developers 

DEFRA 

DECC 

NERC 

ESRC 

UKERC 

DEFRA 

MFA 

May, 2009 10/124


Final report 

footprints 

- opportunities include : ecosystem 

restoration, no-take MPAs, food 

production – e.g.. mussels / algal 

culture, recreational use etc. 

- do benefits of resultant no-fish zones 

spill-over to surrounds and what 

impacts do displaced fisheries have at 

their destinations 

- test effects of climate change / OA and 

cumulative impacts of marine space 

use – does this result in overall greater 

socio-economic benefit 

FISH 

MARBEF 

(*Priorities to be inserted after consultation with DECC RAG) 

site AWI, City University HK - 

aqua culture / artificial reef 

remediation sites etc.) 

(3) insert into POL-PML ERSEM 3D 

model to test different scenarios 

(4) utilize economic valuation of 

ecosystem goods and services 

to assess pros and cons of 

options 

(5) KT to regulators / policy makers 

and operators plus KT to wave 

and tidal sectors 

NERC 

NE / SNH 

/ 

CCW 

Finally, it is clear that because of the requirement to demonstrate knowledge transfer 

and the economic impact of its science, NERC now has a clear need to engage 

directly with the end user / stakeholder community. In the case of the marine 

renewable energy sector, this community already exists, and it is just a question of 

NERC situating itself for optimum benefit. Most of those we consulted during this 

study wanted to see NERC take a leading role in this research in future. One 

outcome of our analysis was recognition of the common research agenda between 

NERC and the DECC RAG. There is clear evidence that the DECC RAG programme 

is burdened by too many projects and too little resource, and consequently our 

recommendation is that high level discussions are initiated between NERC and 

DECC to consider joint resourcing of this research programme, with NERC providing 

input to reviewing, commissioning and QA of research projects. This would contribute 

new momentum and drive to the programme and above all, contribute much needed 

resource to deal with the most pressing problems faced by the wave and tidal 

sectors. 

Although it is tempting to suggest that NERC sets up its own RAG and stakeholder 

network, it would be much more efficient and cost effective to build on what exists 

already. Again the DECC based OREEF and the stakeholder community evolving 

around UKERC phase 2, together with the EMEC RAG and emerging Wave Hub 

RAG all need drawing together in a coherent structure, which ensures the most 

effective engagement at all levels and across organisations. Consequently, and to 

avoid duplication of effort, we recommend careful consideration and consultation 

before new structures are developed. Given appropriate representation, existing 

structures could evolve with input from NERC, to enable research scientists much 

better engagement with end users, and would allow NERC itself to test directly the 

economic impact and commercial benefits of its research. 

Given more time and resource, this research area would benefit from closer scrutiny 

regarding the potential economic impact of the science. However, our view is that in 

the short term (


Final report 

NERC 

1 Introduction 

The expansion of society’s footprint into the marine environment and constant 

pressure to develop and use marine space, means that UK coastal waters are 

already heavily used by several extractive and marine space users. The carrying 

capacity of the natural environment, and the extent to which deployment of marine 

renewables devices exacerbates the cumulative impacts of all these activities on 

surrounding ecosystems has yet to be determined. This also includes the detection of 

local natural and anthropogenic changes against the moving baselines of global 

changes due to ocean acidification and climate change. It is imperative to identify 

areas of deficient knowledge to ensure protection, as well as to provide regulators 

and industry with well-defined environmentally-focused guidelines for the renewable 

energy sector. 

The current study was commissioned to review existing biodiversity and ecosystems 

research effort in relation to marine renewable energy generation, and to identify 

critical research gaps in the current programme. This is to establish the extent to 

which implementation of marine renewable energy production is compatible with 

sustainable use of natural resources, and to provide additional depth and confidence 

to research-led evidence to ensure an energy extraction process which is 

environmentally acceptable. In particular, it is emphasised that environmental policy 

and management should be informed by the best science and that science should be 

fit-for-purpose. 

In addition, NERC has recognised the need for a research programme which 

acknowledges the opportunities presented by energy technology deployments to 

enhance ecosystem recovery/restoration and maintain the health of existing 

ecosystems. This ensures that renewable marine energy development accords with 

the resilience and responsiveness of the marine system to climate change. This 

concept goes beyond mitigation and compensation at the site scale – but considers 

the potential offered by energy production sites holistically in regional seas context. 

Consequently NERC commissioned a workshop involving research scientists and 

others from the principal universities and organisations involved in marine renewable 

energy research in the UK. The outcomes of the workshop provided initial evidence 

for this review. 

The main research themes which emerged from the workshop as relevant for future 

NERC programmes included: 

understanding the significance of energy extraction for physical processes 

(scoping study 1) biodiversity and ecosystem functioning (scoping study 2); 

emphasising that an understanding of the latter could not be achieved without 

a better understanding of the former; 

predicting the pace of ecological change at different scales (device to array to 

multiple array) using improved models; 

developing innovative solutions for building ecosystem resilience into 

management and planning of marine space use at increasing spatial and 

temporal scales. 

This report collates data from a variety of sources together with the responses to 

consultation undertaken after the workshop to identify the main gaps and 

opportunities in the current research programmes which meet the strategic goals of 

NERC science under the SUNR and Biodiversity themes. 

May, 2009 12/124


Final report 

NERC 

2 Current status of marine renewable energy and 

associated environmental research 

2.1 Review of offshore wind energy in Europe 

This section provides a brief summary of published literature on offshore wind energy 

by the different European countries and funding bodies. 

2.1.1 Research at offshore windfarm sites 

Köller et al. (2006) 1 reviewed current environmental research associated with 

offshore wind energy in Europe and although they focussed on Germany they 

included approaches undertaken by other European countries where research 

activities were more comprehensive than required by EU Directives or national 

licensing requirements for individual projects (see Bruns & Steinhauer, 2006 2 ). The 

review clearly showed that different countries chose different research approaches to 

investigate the marine effects of offshore facilities. The research activities (and 

funding bodies) related to offshore wind energy in each country is briefly summarised 

below. 

Germany (funded by the German Government under the AERO programme) 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Impact of sound emissions and vibrations of offshore wind turbines (OWT) 

on marine mammals and fish; 

Abundance and habitat patterns of marine mammals in the North and 

Baltic Seas related to the ecological relevance of potential areas for 

offshore windfarms or protected areas respectively; 

Bird migration and possible influence on migration paths in the North and 

Baltic Seas related to potential offshore windfarm areas; 

Bird collisions with offshore wind turbines (OWT); 

Time and area related dynamics of sea bird resting and reaction of resting 

birds to anthropogenic influence related to potential offshore windfarm 

areas; 

Impact of electromagnetic fields emitted by sea cables on marine 

organisms; 

Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA), Environmental Impact 

Assessment (EIA, and Flora-Fauna Habitat Compatibility Assessment 

(FFH Assessment). 

Denmark (funded as a Public Service Obligation (PSO) for Horns Rev and 

Nysted demonstration projects) 

 

 

Monitoring of the number and distribution of staging, moulting and 

wintering birds in the windfarm areas; 

Visual and radar observations to investigate changes in bird migration 

routes; 

1 Köller, J., Köppel, J. & Peters, W. (Eds.), 2006. Offshore wind energy: research on 

environmental impacts. Springer-Verlag, Berlin. 

2 Bruns, E. & Steinhauer, I., 2006. European review of environmental research on offshore 

wind energy. In: Köller, J., Köppel, J. & Peters, W. (Eds.). Offshore wind energy: research on 

environmental impacts. Springer-Verlag, Berlin. 

May, 2009 13/124


Final report 

NERC 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Investigations on the collision risk for birds, e.g. using Thermal Animal 

Detection Systems (TADS); 

Monitoring of harbour porpoises by visual surveys and Acoustic Porpoise 

Detectors (PODS); 

Aerial surveys, satellite tracking and video monitoring of seals; 

Monitoring of fish communities e.g. sand eel investigations and studies on 

the effects of electromagnetic fields of cables on fish migration; 

Hard bottom substrate monitoring; 

Infauna monitoring; 

Modelling of morphological changes; 

Sociological investigations of the acceptance of windfarms by local 

communities; 

Noise measurements. 

United Kingdom (funded by the Crown Estate (COWRIE), Defra, DTI (and its 

successors BERR/DECC)) 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Assessment of the significance of changes to the inshore wave regime as 

a consequence of an offshore wind array; 

Development of generic guidance for sediment transport monitoring 

programmes in response to construction of offshore windfarms; 

Investigation of the potential range of socio-economic impacts on the 

fishing industry from offshore developments; 

Aerial surveys of water birds in strategic windfarm areas; 

Further developing and enhancing the capacity of surveyors collecting 

acceptable quality of data on seabird distribution in UK waters; 

Production of methodology for assessing the marine navigation safety risk 

of offshore windfarms; 

Guidance for offshore windfarm developers on Seascape Impact 

Assessment; 

A study to assess fishing activities that may be carried out in and around 

windfarms. 

The Netherlands (funded by the Dutch Government under the CO 2 reduction 

policy) 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Birds: flight patterns, occurrence, intensity, season, day/night in relation to 

estimated collision risk; 

Birds: disturbance of habitat/forage area; 

Birds: barrier effects; 

Valuation of landscape and habituation to the windfarm; 

Impact of underwater noise on fish and marine mammals; 

Variation and densities of underwater life and the function as a refuge; 

Consequences of North Sea users, particularly commercial fishers; 

Risks to shipping and consequential damage; 

Consequences for mining of minerals and raw materials; 

Morphological changes. 

Sweden (funded by the Swedish Government) 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Fish; 

Marine invertebrates; 

Marine mammals (especially Baltic harbour seals); 

Hydrography; 

Migrating bats; 

Wintering seabirds; and 

Inventory of habitats and species in twenty offshore banks. 

May, 2009 14/124


Final report 

NERC 

In general the research conducted at windfarm sites (UK and elsewhere in Europe) 

appeared to be operationally-based (and thus EIA-related) by assessing the status of 

biological components (benthos, marine mammals, birds, and fish) to define baseline 

conditions for the measuring of potential impacts during construction and operation 

(decommissioning is not included [it should be under any EIA]). In most cases this 

did not include long-lasting or whole ecosystem assessments with functional 

integration of various biological elements. Given the industry and applied focus of 

most of this research, it has included little ‘blue skies’ speculative conceptual 

science. 

2.1.2 Status of offshore windfarms in the UK 

As an indication of the level of development, the UK now has many operational 

offshore windfarm sites as well as three further sites being proposed for the Greater 

Wash Region: Dudgeon East (300MW, Warwick Energy), Triton Knoll (1200MW, 

nPower renewable) and Westernmost Rough (240MW, DONG Energy). 

Table 1 – Review of the progress - Round 1 and Round 2 offshore windfarm 

developments in the UK (BWEA, 2007 3 ). 

Windfarm Location Region Turbines Power MW Status Developer 

Barrow 7km Walney 

Island 

North 

West 

30 3 90 Operational DONG Energy / 

Centrica 

Renewable 

Energy 

Beatrice Beatrice Oilfield, Scotland 2 5 10 Operational Scottish & 

Moray Firth 

Southern 

Blyth Offshore 1km Blyth 

Harbour 

North 

East 

2 2 3.8 Operational E.ON UK 

Renewables 

Burbo Bank 5.2km Crosby North 

West 

25 3.6 90 Operational DONG Energy 

Cirrus Array 

(Shell Flats) 

7km Cleveleys 

North 

West 

Cromer 7km Cromer East of 

England 

Docking Shoal 

Greater 

Gabbard 

Gunfleet Sands 

I 

Gunfleet Sands 

II 

Gwynt y Mor 

Humber 

Gateway 

Inner Dowsing 

Greater 

Wash 

90 0 270 Withdrawn 

after 

submission 

30 4 108 Withdrawn 

after 

approval 

0 0 500 Submitted 

(S36) 

Celt Power / 

DONG Energy / 

Shell Wind 


EdF 

Centrica 


Energy Ltd 

26km off Orford, Thames 0 0 500 Approved Airtricity 

Norfolk Estuary 

7km Clacton-on- East of 30 3.6 108 Under DONG Energy 

Sea 


construction 

8.5km off East of 18 3.6 64 Under DONG Energy 

Clacton-On-Sea England 

construction 

13-15km North 250 0 750 Approved nPower 

offshore Wales 

renewables 

Withernsea Yorkshire 70 3 300 Submitted E.ON UK 

& 

(S36) Renewables 

Humber 

5.2km East 27 3.6 16 Under 

Ingoldmells Midlands 

construction 

Centrica 



Inner Dowsing 5.2km East 27 3.6 81 Operational Centrica 

3 BWEA, 2007. British Wind Energy Association. Website Accessed April 2009. 

www.bwea.com 

May, 2009 15/124


Final report 

NERC 

(Part) Ingoldmells Midlands Renewable 


Kentish Flats 8.5 km offshore South 30 3 90 Operational Vattenfall 

from Whitstable East 

Lincs 

8km off 

Skegness 

Greater 

Wash 

0 0 250 Approved Centrica 


London Array 

Lynn 

Lynn (Part) 

North Hoyle 

Ormonde 

Race Bank 

24km off 

Clacton-on-Sea 

5.2km 

Skegness 

5.2km 

Skegness 

Thames 

Estuary 

East 

Midlands 

East 

Midlands 

7.5km Prestatyn North 

& Rhyl Wales 

off Walney North 

Island West 

Greater 

Wash 

Rhyl Flats 8km Abergele North 

Wales 

Scarweather 5.5km Sker South 

Sands Point (nr Wales 

Porthcawl) 

Scroby Sands 3km NE Great East of 

Yarmouth England 

Sheringham Sheringham, East of 

Shoal 

Solway 

Firth/Robin Rigg 

A 

Solway 

Firth/Robin Rigg 

B 

Greater Wash 

9.5km 

Maryport/8.5km 

off Rock Cliffe 

9.5km 

Maryport/8.5km 

off Rock Cliffe 

Teeside/Redcar 1.5km NE 

Teesmouth 

Thanet 

Walney 

West of Duddon 

Sands 

11-13km 

Foreness Point, 

Margate 


North 

West 

North 

West 

Yorkshire 

& 

Humber 

Thames 

Estuary 

14km Walney North 

Island, Irish Sea West 

N. Irish Sea North 

West 


271 0 1000 Approved DONG Energy / 

Shell Wind 

Energy / E.On 


0 3 16 Under 

construction 

Centrica 



30 3 81 Operational Centrica 



30 2 60 Operational nPower 

renewables 

30 5 150 Approved Eclipse Energy 

88 0 620 Submitted 

(S36) 

Centrica 



nPower 

25 3.6 90 Under 

construction renewables 

30 3.6 108 Approved DONG Energy/ 

E.ON UK 

30 2 60 Operational E.ON UK 


0 0 315 Approved Scira Offshore 


30 3 90 Under E.ON UK 

construction Renewables 

30 3 90 Under 

construction 

30 0 90 Approved EdF 

0 0 300 Under 

construction 

E.ON UK 


Warwick Energy 

42 3.6 450 Approved DONG Energy 

160 3.6 500 Approved DONG Energy/ 

ScottishPower 

Renewables/ 

Eurus Energy 

2.1.3 Summary of wind energy research status 

Although the development of the offshore windfarm sector is well behind that 

anticipated by government, there have been major policy and financial issues which 

have led to some developers withdrawing from some sites. Developers, regulators 

and scientists have already recognised major issues which require research input 

emerging from the present developments and these have yet to be taken up by the 

research community. These mainly relate to the opportunities for socio-economic 

benefits and are discussed in more detail later. 

May, 2009 16/124


Final report 

NERC 

2.2 Tidal-stream energy research in the UK and Europe 

2.2.1 Tidal energy research 

The development of the so called “wet renewables” tidal-stream and wave (see 

below) energy extraction is considerably behind the offshore wind industry which has 

benefitted from the large experience of onshore developments,. Thus taking wet 

renewables offshore has meant starting with clean slate for almost all aspects – 

moorings, fundamentals of energy capture, specifics of energy capture, water column 

location and so on. With such strong political and economic drivers now in place, 

these two industries are now expanding extremely quickly. But this rapid growth and 

lack of terrestrial parents has meant that a wide diversity of fundamentally different 

concepts are being progressed simultaneously and the inevitable winnowing of 

designs has yet to happen to any significant degree. This poses a significant 

challenge to the academic research community interested in the environmental 

interface. Lessons learnt from studies of one device are likely to be less applicable to 

another in the way that comparisons of wind turbines has been performed. In 

addition, the early stage of development has also meant that studies of 

environmental interactions have been device or site specific in their nature. Almost all 

of the significant environmental studies of tidal-stream devices are ongoing and so, 

unlike wind, there is little yet in the peer reviewed literature upon which to draw here. 

Nevertheless, there are fundamental similarities between wind structures and other 

devices with respect to possible effects on ecosystems and some inferences could 

be drawn (i.e. effects of EMF, piling noise and behavioural responses, effects of the 

substratum, trawl hindrance, etc.). [note that we have 5 decades of putting offshore 

structures in place - lessons learned from the presence of structures] 

The following sections summarise the key studies/players that are at the forefront of 

addressing issues of environmental interactions of tidal-stream devices. 

2.2.2 European Marine Energy Centre (EMEC), Orkney 

As well as wave test facilities, EMEC provides multi-berth, purpose-built test facilities 

for tidal-stream energy converters in semi-sheltered marine waters. The tidal site is in 

the Fall of Warness off the island of Eday where currents run up to 4m.sec -1 (7.8 

knots) at spring tides. The facility offers five test berths at depths ranging from 25m to 

50m in an area c2km by 4km. 

The concept is that EMEC provide assistance (physical infrastructure and logistics) 

for developers wanting to test scale-equipment at the prototype stage. As part of that 

service EMEC have developed generic Impact Assessments and runs several 

research projects. These have focussed on marine mammals and seabirds because 

these are thought to be the main environmental sensitivities of that site. The research 

project underway are outlined below : 

 

Wildlife Displacement: Observations Programme 

This project aims to provide an overall understanding of whether or not a 

change or displacement has occurred in the resident wildlife due to the 

presence and operation of marine energy devices. Observations began in July 

2005 and are ongoing. An additional key output will be the production of a 

suitable methodology (generated in collaboration with SMRU), which could act 

as a guideline for future marine renewable developments, including further 

testing of devices at the EMEC facility. 

May, 2009 17/124


Final report 

NERC 

 

 

 

 

Sub-Surface Interactions: Sonar System. 

The possibility of damage to wildlife through physical collision with wave or tidal 

devices is an issue of concern across environmental stakeholders. With 

limitations on video coverage, due to both turbidity and natural light constraints, 

EMEC together with SMRU are using sonar to investigate possible collision 

damage. 

Tidal Rapid Seabed Ecology: ROV analysis 

This project will utilise the large catalogue of EMEC data from seabed video 

surveys to assess benthic impacts and contribute to the development of 

suitable surveying guidelines. 

Acoustic Output from Devices: Acoustic Characterisation and Monitoring 

Concern over acoustic emissions of devices for marine mammals, some fish 

species and possibly diving birds are widespread across the industry. This 

project has worked with SAMS to develop novel measurement technologies 

and acoustic mapping to assess the spatial acoustic footprint of the industry. 

Energy Extraction by Tidal Devices 

A large amount of physical modelling work has been completed in research 

programmes elsewhere (e.g. SuperGen Marine). EMEC is ground-truthing 

these models by utilising data collected using acoustic current doppler profilers 

(ADCPs). 

EMEC funding has come from BERR (now DECC), HIE, the Scottish 

Government (SG), Orkney Islands Council, Scottish Enterprise, Carbon Trust, 

and the EU. 

2.2.3 Marine Current Turbines Ltd / Sea Generation Ltd 

Marine Current Turbines Ltd (MCT) are a leading tidal-steam turbine developer and 

have been operating a small test turbine (Seaflow) off Devon since 2003. They own a 

subsidiary company (Sea Generation Ltd) which operates a 1.2 MW tidal energy 

converter. This was installed in Strangford Lough, N. Ireland in April 2008. Owing to 

considerable environmental sensitivities of the site, an extensive EIA study was 

carried out and a FEPA licence to operate has been granted to operate for five years. 

Research / monitoring work is ongoing and being carried out by Royal Haskoning 

with Queens University Belfast and the Sea Mammal Research Unit providing the 

science input 

2.2.4 SuperGen marine 

The Sustainable Power Generation and Supply Initiative (SuperGen) Consortium 

focuses on the potential for exploitation of the marine energy resource. Funding is 

provided by EPSRC. SuperGen Marine Phase 1 (October 2003 - September 2007) 

brought together University research staff (Universities of Edinburgh, Robert Gordon, 

Lancaster, Heriot-Watt and Strathclyde) to undertake generic research on the 

extraction of energy from the sea; reduce risk and uncertainty and enable 

progression of marine technology into future energy portfolios. 

Phase 2 (4 yrs, ongoing) aims to increase knowledge of device-sea interactions from 

model-scale to full size in the open sea. Crucially this phase includes the 

environmental impacts associated with these technologies. 

May, 2009 18/124


Final report 

NERC 

2.2.5 Equitable Testing and Evaluation of Marine Energy Extraction Devices in 

terms of Performance, Cost and Environmental Impact (Equimar) 

Equimar is a three year EC FP7 project that started in 2008. The project brings 

together a consortium of 22 partners to develop comparative metrics for tidal-stream 

and wave technologies for a wide range of disciplines from pure engineering to 

economic perspectives. One work stream is purely dedicated to environmental issues 

and covering standardisation of impact assessment, marine mammal monitoring 

techniques and collision risk assessment. One Portuguese (WAVEC) and three UK 

institutions (EMEC, SAMS, SMRU) are involved in this work package. 

2.2.6 Summary of tidal-stream energy research status 

Research on the environmental interactions of tidal-stream devices is at an early 

stage. The bulk of this work has either had a specific geographical focus (preinstallation 

surveys and data compilation - EMEC & SeaGen Strangford Lough) or 

predictive modelling (Scottish Executive, SEA). The imminent progression of the 

industry to producing scale installations will provide many more opportunities to test 

previous modelling work and investigate less predictable aspects (e.g.. behavioural 

responses of animals to turbines). However a variety of factors in combination 

(diversity of the device concepts, short duration first-deployments, company specific 

research funding, complexity of target sites) is likely to hinder the development of a 

generic understanding of how this multi-faceted industry will interact with the 

environment. Accordingly, without funded research focussing on generic issues, our 

basic understanding of environmental interactions is likely to significantly lag behind 

site/device specific issues. 

2.3 Wave energy research in the UK 

As mentioned above the development of wave energy is well behind that of wind and 

because of the diversity of devices currently being progressed, the level of generic 

understanding applicable to the offshore wind sector is still a distant future goal in the 

wave industry. There are however already a variety of devices undergoing 

performance testing, and because of some similarities in the challenges, wave and 

tidal energy research can often transfer between sectors. Although there are several 

initiatives of note outside the UK, the main facilities at present are at EMEC and are 

in development off the north coast of Cornwall. 

2.3.1 Wave Hub 

Wave Hub is a renewable energy demonstration project in the South West of 

England that aims to create the UK's first offshore facility for the demonstration and 

proving of the operation of arrays of wave energy generation devices. The 

development of the Wave Hub has been financed by the South West of England 

Regional Development Agency (SWRDA) to provide the electrical infrastructure 

necessary to support and encourage developers of wave energy converter devices 

(WECs) to test the feasibility of generating electricity from wave energy. It will allow 

developers the opportunity to test groups (arrays) of devices over several years to 

prove the technologies will operate effectively, in realistic offshore marine conditions 

and that they will produce the expected amounts of power. Wave Hub will support the 

UK government’s energy policy by contributing towards the UK’s drive to meet the 

challenges and achieve the goals of the new energy policy including a 60% reduction 

May, 2009 19/124


Final report 

NERC 

in carbon emissions by 2050. In addition, Wave Hub will support the South West 

region’s commitment to encouraging technologies for renewable energy generation 

that will contribute to the region's renewable energy target of 11% - 15% of electricity 

production by 2010. If the necessary consents are granted, it is expected that the 

Wave Hub will be installed in the spring/early summer of 2010 and for the first WECs 

to be installed from that time. 

http://www.southwestrda.org.uk/what-we-do/projects/renewable-energy/wavehub/index.shtm 

2.3.1.1 PRIMaRE 

In addition to supporting the Wave Hub infrastructure, a new research cluster 

developed by the Marine Institute of the University of Plymouth in partnership with 

the University of Exeter, PRIMaRE (Peninsular Research Institute for Marine 

renewable Energy), brings together a unique team of world-class researchers to 

provide expertise and research capacity to address the wider considerations of all 

aspects of marine renewable energy. 

PRIMaRE has identified and is currently focussed on the following six priority 

research areas at the Wave Hub site: 

Resource Characterisation 

Marine Renewable Energy Systems 

Environmental and Biodiversity Impacts 

Safe Operations and Navigational Risk 

Underwater and Surface Electrical Systems 

Socio-Economic Factors 

Within the ‘Biodiversity impacts’ priority area, 4 projects are currently running 4 : 

 

Benthos – invertebrates and fish associated with the seabed 

The benthos team is monitoring infauna, epifauna and benthic fish to assess 

the direct effects of the Wave Hub construction and Wave Energy Convertors 

on the benthos. They will also assess indirect effects to the benthos caused by 

the implementation of the Wave Hub safety zone, which will exclude other 

maritime activities, so that we can advise on how to maximise the benefits of 

future offshore renewable energy installations. Quantitative assessment of 

benthic assemblages is mainly achieved using multi-season video sampling at 

each site using cameras mounted on drop-down frames and Remote Operated 

Vehicles. This is supplemented by non-destructive trapping and potting 

programmes to determine whether the Wave Hub boosts local populations of 

commercial species such as crabs and lobsters. 

 

Marine Vertebrates 

Marine renewable energy installations are likely to have impacts at both local 

and wider ecosystem scales. The potential negative impacts have been well 

documented although many of these effects have yet to be convincingly 

demonstrated empirically. 

4 All these 4 projects are relevant to wind and tidal devices 

May, 2009 20/124


Final report 

NERC 

There is also the possibility that the marine renewable developments may be 

beneficial to the local ecosystem. In effect, sites will have reduced fisheries 

pressure, and form ‘artificial reefs’ which have, in some cases, been shown to 

benefit benthic communities and fish populations, which in turn, via trophic 

cascade effects, may benefit higher vertebrates. 

The ‘Wave-Hub’ project may have direct and indirect impacts on the 

surrounding ecosystem, including local marine mammal and bird populations. 

Many of these populations have large ranges and are migratory or transient 

which makes detecting any impacts rather difficult unless sampling is carried 

out in a rigorous and systematic manner. We have, therefore, developed a 

survey program, utilising distance sampling survey techniques and static 

acoustic arrays to maximise our ability to detect any effects of the ‘Wave Hub’. 

 

Fisheries (pelagic and demersal) 

Population structure, distribution and movements of marine bioresources 

associated with the Wave Hub 

This programme will monitor fish movements and distribution, population 

structure, and genetic variability of commercially important species and those of 

conservation importance to detect any changes as a result of the Wave Hub. 

The team will also deploy a state-of-the-art acoustic monitoring array to track 

the long-term movements of tagged fish and model their behaviour, before, 

during and after the development. 

Data storage tags fitted to fish in the same area will determine their broader 

scale dispersion, space use and behaviour. Additional sampling will enable 

population-level genetic variability to be determined for commercial and 

vulnerable species in comparison to populations from other regions. 

 

Habitat enhancement 

Incorporating biological habitat enhancement into marine renewable schemes 

Increasing amounts of artificial habitat are being placed in the marine 

environment, particularly as a result of the expansion of the offshore renewable 

energy sector. However, there are concerns that this may have negative 

impacts on the environment. Using a cross-disciplinary engineering and 

ecological approach the habitat enhancement team are currently developing 

and trialling marine engineering construction to maximise the potential 

outcomes for marine life, including commercially important species. Specifically 

we are manipulating various types of engineering to enhance the outcomes for 

marine biodiversity at a hierarchy of spatial scales. The outcomes will be of 

direct relevance for a range of marine engineering applications (e.g. renewable 

energy devices, coastal defence etc.) as well as fisheries and the environment. 

2.3.2 EMEC (European Marine Energy Centre) 

In addition to the tidal testing site at the Falls of Warness, EMEC provides multiberth, 

purpose-built, open sea test facilities for testing wave energy converters at 

Billia Croo, on the west of Mainland Orkney. The wave test site receives 

uninterrupted Atlantic waves of up to 15m. The monitoring currently underway at the 

wave test site is as follows: 

 

Wildlife Displacement: Land-based Observations Programme 

May, 2009 21/124


Final report 

NERC 

The aim of the wildlife observations monitoring project is to detect any change 

or displacement that may occur in the resident wildlife due to the presence and 

operation of marine energy devices. 

Whilst the tidal site observations are ongoing, in the project at the wave site, 

funded jointly by Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH) and nPower, the process and 

statistical approach to data analysis will be re-assessed and amended to make 

it appropriate for the very different environment at the wave test site. This 

project will also operate in combination with a dedicated camera (also funded 

by nPower) to investigate wildlife interactions visible at the sea surface. 

 

 

Surface Interactions with Wave Devices : High Specification Camera 

Observations 

The objective of this project is to inform wave energy device operators, as well 

as regulatory and other decision makers, about the frequency and nature of 

specific interactions between marine mammals and birds, and those parts of 

devices which are on or above the sea surface. The outcomes should help allay 

some of the concerns about possible interactions. The project is funded by 

nPower and has seen a dedicated high magnification camera placed at the 

existing lookout post on Blackcraig. It is hoped that this investigation will 

provide a methodology for assessing the effects of the protruding elements of 

wave devices on marine mammals and birds, using a high resolution camera. It 

is also hoped that a correlation between the tow observations datasets may 

indicate the adequacy of using the camera alone for monitoring surface 

interactions. 

Resource Assessment: Monthly Reports 

EMEC continuously collects real time data at its wave test site, covering 

variables such as wave and current alongside weather parameters such as 

wind, precipitation and temperature. EMEC has commissioned ICIT 

(International Centre for Island Technology) to undertake routine monthly 

analysis of the MetOcean data gathered. The reports produced are available to 

developers deploying at the wave site and inform in sufficient detail on the 

conditions, which help in device design and assessment. 

2.3.3 Oregon State University (OSU) / Hatfield Marine Science Center (HMSC), 

USA. 

Research scientists in the USA are now becoming interested in the potential of wave 

energy. OSU/HMSC held a workshop on “Ecological Effects of Wave Energy 

Development in the Pacific Northwest” in October 2007. During this workshop, 

participants repeated concerns that the lack of information and data describing the 

nature of the wave energy technologies, and the incomplete understanding of marine 

resources and coastal zone dynamics, introduce substantial uncertainty into the 

assessment of cumulative effects. All groups pointed out that given the lack of 

baseline information and information concerning effects of the construction and 

operation of wave energy structures, monitoring is a key component of the 

development of wave energy projects. Monitoring specific fauna (e.g., sea birds, 

marine mammals) is needed to understand the changes that could occur for project 

construction and implementation. There is therefore an urgent need for 

environmental studies of wave energy conversion and associated interactions with 

biodiversity. Throughout the workshop, the importance of evaluating ecological 

effects at any wave energy demonstration study sites or pilot scale facilities was 

stressed. 

May, 2009 22/124


Final report 

NERC 

The Oregon Wave Energy Trust (OWET) have recently awarded funds to a 

consortium of consultancies to initiate data collection and analysis to prepare the 

methods for undertaking cumulative impacts assessment in relation to wave energy. 

Following the recent visit of Prof George Boehlert from the Hatfield Institute, 

PRIMaRE and PML are developing relationships with OWET and the Hatfield 

institute with a view to closer cooperation in future. 

2.4 Summary of wave energy research status 

None of the ongoing European projects for testing wave energy devices (except at 

WaveHub and EMEC) have – to our knowledge – an environmental dimension. The 

Equimar project will however provide developers with a suite of protocols for EIA and 

monitoring, but the need for underpinning research remains, as highlighted by the 

Oregon workshop. 

Table 2 below provides a summary of wave energy device test sites in Europe. We 

are aware of two additional sites in Australia off Perth and Sydney but have no 

details to hand at present. Although we are still awaiting information from developers 

who are carrying out trials of prototypes, only Wave Hub and EMEC are undertaking 

or have undertaken environmental baseline surveys and are considering detailed 

environmental monitoring / research projects 

Table 2 – Wave energy device test sites in Europe 

Name of Developers / Devices Location Environmental monitoring 

project/site 

Wave Hub Orecon – Orecon buoy 

Ocean Power Technologies – 

PowerBuoy 

Fred Olsen – FO3 

WestWave – Pelamis 

Cornwall, UK Yes – PRIMaRE 

Benthos – invertebrates and 

fish associated with the 

seabed 

Marine Vertebrates 

Fisheries (pelagic and 

demersal) 

Habitat enhancement 

EMEC Pelamis Wave Power – 

Pelamis 

AW Energy – WaveRoller 

Aquamarine Power – Oyster 

(Autumn 2009) 

Ocean 

Energy Test 

Site 

Wavebob Ltd – Wavebob (¼ 

scale) 

Ocean Energy Ltd – OE Buoy 

(¼ scale) 

Scotland, UK 

Galway Bay, 

Ireland 

Limpet Wavegen – Limpet Scotland, UK No 

Wave 

Dragon 

MG 

Wave Dragon Denmark No 

Aguçadoura 

Wave 


Park 

Pelamis Wave Power – 

Pelamis 

Portugal 

SEEWEC Fred Olsen – FO3 Norway No 

Wave Star 

– small 

scale 

Wave Star Energy – Wave Star Nissum 

Bredning, 

Denmark 

prototype 

Yes 

Wildlife Displacement 

Surface Interactions 

No 

Apparently soundscape only 

(WEAM project) 

Video recording each year in 

August, noise measurements 

May, 2009 23/124


Final report 

NERC 

2.5 Summary of status of renewable research in UK and Europe 

Although offshore wind, wave and tidal sectors are at different stages of 

development, and the environmental research in relation to wet renewables is in its 

infancy, research and monitoring to date has been focussed primarily on supporting 

developers and regulators to get devices deployed and tested. If anything, 

environmental considerations are regarded as a barrier to progress by developers, 

but by those with an awareness of environmental issues, there is recognition that 

their industries face an uncertain future unless research quality evidence is available 

to support the project development and implementation process. Some of the most 

enlightened device designers have incorporated environmental mitigation measures 

into their designs – but whether this has lead to reduced energy conversion 

performance has yet to be tested. Consequently we see a continuing need to push 

ahead with integration across all research areas, to work towards sustainability 

through major advances at design, commissioning, construction and throughout the 

operational life of offshore energy projects. This constitutes a major challenge to the 

research councils and researchers themselves in building multi-disciplinary teams. 

2.6 Summary of status of renewable projects outside Europe 

Although offshore wind, wave and tidal projects are currently mostly being developed 

in North-West Europe, the USA, Canada, New Zealand and Australia have all joined 

the race to develop marine renewable energy (see list of projects in Annex 5). 

In the USA more than 6 offshore windfarms developments have been proposed, all of 

them on the Atlantic coast, but no offshore windfarm is operational for the time being. 

Tidal and wave projects have been increasing in number for the past few years, with 

27 (East coast) and 10 (West coast) pre-permits granted by the Federal Energy 

Regulatory Commission. A few tidal (e.g. RITE) and wave (e.g. Rhode Island) 

projects seem to be on a promising track. Canada has at least 2 offshore windfarms 

being considered, whilst two ambitious tidal projects (CORE and Bay of Fundy) are 

also being developed, and possibly one wave project. New Zealand has several tidal 

projects in Kaipara Harbour and Cook Strait whilst Australia has at least 3 wave 

projects being considered. In South Korea 2 potential tidal developments are 

underway with government funding. The information on offshore renewable energy in 

China is limited (or not available in English). Apparently a cooperation agreement 

was signed between the Chinese Government in Dandong City and Tidal Electric in 

2004 to develop a tidal lagoon, but no recent information has been found to confirm 

this. We have encountered a high degree of interest in marine renewables during a 

recent mission to China and are aware of initiatives through UKERC to assist with 

capacity building and knowledge transfer. 

It is clear that an international network of relationships is developing across UK 

universities and research institutions with their counterparts worldwide, especially in 

North America and Australia / NZ, and across all the renewable energy sectors. The 

current interest in using UK research know-how and demonstrator sites to test new 

devices, and the challenging legislative context within which we have to operate, has 

resulted in the UK already playing a leading international role in providing primary 

research input and advice across engineering, environmental and socio-economic 

disciplines. The continuing development of appropriate methods and research quality 

May, 2009 24/124


Final report 

NERC 

evidence of the scale and significance of the impacts (both positive and negative) of 

renewable energy technologies, will lead to consolidation of the UK’s position as a 

leading research provider for the benefit of ALL the marine renewable sectors, which 

could be lead and encouraged by appropriate international funding opportunities. 

May, 2009 25/124


Final report 

NERC 

3 Organisations currently involved in marine 

renewable energy research 

3.1 Introduction - research perspectives 

3.1.1 The regulator 

The perspective of regulators is that research needs to be targeted on species for 

which the UK has statutory obligations (e.g. Habitats regulations, European protected 

species etc.). For example, a recent workshop attended primarily by UK regulators 

(JNCC, SNH, FRS, SEPA etc) identified and prioritised as key issues impacts on 

pelagic marine vertebrates. Other issues such as habitat alterations were ranked 

much lower (see Figure 1). Feedback from the NERC workshop (26 th Feb, 2009) on 

the other hand, indicated that there were concerns that discussion had focussed on 

conceptual ideas for research and on topics of academic or commercial interest to 

the institutions concerned, rather than on the more pressing research needs of 

regulators to ascertain the environmental consequences, if any, that marine 

renewable energy developments might have. Worthwhile though some of the 

proposals may be, in the long-term, they will not address the urgent ‘show stopping’ 

scientific problems that need to be tackled now if the industry (wave and tide) is 

going to progress beyond the demonstration stage and start contributing, significantly 

to government’s renewable energy targets. Regulatory decisions for the offshore 

windfarm sector have to a large extent relied on the long term and detailed studies 

supported by the Danish government at the OWF sites of Nysted and Horns Rev. 

These studies provided crucial information and evidence over a sustained period of 

five years which allowed assessment of the impact of OWFs on natural resources off 

Denmark at least, and have been extrapolated to some extent, to UK locations. 

There are still many uncertainties with respect to construction effects especially 

piling, noise and effects on behaviour of sensitive species like herring. 

3.1.2 The developer 

Most developers are currently focussed on the engineering challenge of getting their 

devices in the water and resolving these within the financial constraints that they are 

operating. Most developers commission environmental consultants to obtain the 

necessary consents for deploying devices on their behalf. These invariably include 

initial environmental evaluation / scoping studies, baseline environmental 

characterisation studies, an EIA to accompany planning application then 

environmental monitoring of specific aspects as required by regulator. There is often 

the problem of scant resources for these studies because of the need to focus on 

getting technology in the water and functioning properly, and from a research point of 

view, there are often questions regarding the usefulness of data generated by these 

studies. Although protocols for environmental sampling are available, monitoring is 

undertaken by a range of different survey / consultancy organisations and data often 

not available to external bodies who might make use of it to design and progress 

more detailed research projects. In addition, the disconnect and budget constraints 

under which government has operated have lead to monitoring requirements being 

requested with little or no reference to adequate contextual information to ensure that 

the monitoring has a worthwhile and useful outcome. Rarely are the spatial or 

May, 2009 26/124


Final report 

NERC 

temporal considerations of monitoring programmes scaled to adequately consider 

processes that operate beyond the scales of the development, leading to inevitable 

conclusion that for some species, monitoring is either completely pointless or raises 

more questions than it answers. This means that EIA studies and monitoring at 

device testing sites outside formal managed facilities such as EMEC, probably have 

limited applicability for research purposes. 

3.1.3 Research scientists 

Currently the main activity of research scientists in relation to marine renewables is 

opportunistic in response to tender calls in their research area and by those scientists 

living near to existing or prospective marine renewable energy installations. Some 

research scientists have a historic interest in particular groups of organisms – and 

have transferred their interest to a range of issues raised by renewables. However, 

finding funds to support the research in this area has presented many marine 

scientists with a major problem – this applies particularly to those whose main source 

of funding has in the past been the NERC. 

Current funding streams to support research are linked directly to the industry needs, 

which are in turn focussed on applied research. However, numerous scientists 

working on marine ecology, fisheries biology, behavioural ecology, marine protected 

areas, biotope classification and in general marine research at any level of 

organization, including socio-economic aspects, undertake funded research that is 

relevant to the effects of marine renewables on ecosystems. Thus, there are 

institutions and individuals that, given the possibility of funding will be able (and 

willing) to focus on direct linkages between their own research interest and research 

needs in the field of marine renewables. There is a major opportunity at the present 

time to ensure that biodiversity and ecosystem research in relation to wave and tidal 

energy does not suffer the same fate as the offshore wind sector, which is still 

managing (as risk) issues which could have been addressed by the research 

community when the first offshore windfarm sites were licensed. 

3.2 Organisations delivering research in the UK 

Table 3 – Principal organisations involved in biodiversity and ecosystems research 

plus main contacts and research capabilities 

Sea Mammal Research Unit (SMRU) 

Dr. Ian Boyd and co-workers 

http://www.smru.st-andrews.ac.uk/ 

Scottish Association for Marine 

Science (SAMS) 

Drs. Ben Wilson, Bob Batty, Kenny 

Black, Tom Wilding 

http://www.sams.ac.uk/ 

Plymouth Marine Laboratory (PML) 

Drs Mel Austin, Stephen Mangi, Jerry 

Blackford, Jim Readman, Mike Kendall, 

Peter Miller, Jamie Shutler 

http://www.pml.ac.uk/ 

Interest in accumulating evidence and predicting the 

effects of some renewable energy technologies on 

marine mammals. 

Environmental interactions between Marine 

Renewable Energy Devices (MREDs or kinetic 

energy devices) and marine vertebrates (fish, 

mammals and diving birds) 

- risks of collision between marine vertebrates 

and tidal turbines 

- underwater acoustic impact of MRED 

technologies on sensitive species 

- artificial reef effects & design 

Ecosystem modelling, benthic community impacts, 

interactions fisheries and MREDs, potential for socioeconomic 

benefits, biofouling problems associated 

with MREDs, remote sensing applications 

Marine Biological Association (MBA) Understanding the mechanisms underlying the 

May, 2009 27/124


Final report 

Professor David Sims and team 

http://www.mba.ac.uk/ 

NOC 

Dr Antony Jensen, Dr. Ken Collins 

http://www.noc.soton.ac.uk/ 

Universities Non NERC 

Queen’s University 

Belfast Marine Laboratory 

Dr Graham Savidge 

http://www.qub.ac.uk 

University of Exeter Dr. Brendan 

Godley 

http://www.exeter.ac.uk/ 

University of Plymouth 

Prof. Martin Atrill / Dr.Richard 

Thompson 

http://www.plymouth.ac.uk/ 

PRIMaRE 

http://www.primare.org/ 

Cranfield University 

Dr Andrew B Gill 

http://www.cranfield.ac.uk/ 

Aberdeen University 

Dr. Beth Scott 

http://www.abdn.ac.uk/ 

Bangor University 

Prof Mike Kaiser 

http://www.bangor.ac.uk 

Hull University 

Professor Mike Elliott 

http://www.hull.ac.uk/ 

NERC 

spatial movements, behaviour and population 

structure of marine fish, and how this relates to larger 

scale responses of populations to climate and fishing 

impacts. 

Behaviour and ecology of sharks and rays, taxa that 

are particularly sensitive to electrical discharges 

associated with offshore renewable energy devices 

Artificial reef research and inshore fisheries 

Membership of the IAPEME expert panel that audited 

the science coming from the two Danish windfarms 

at Horns Rev (North Sea) and Rods (Baltic) 

Close involvement in the development of the 

Environmental Impact Assessment for the MCT 

SeaGen Tidal Turbine in Strangford Narrows, 

Northern Ireland and the subsequent development 

and initiation of the Environmental Monitoring 

Programme (EMP) for the project 

Supervision of long-term ongoing contract for 

monitoring of large animal activity and benthic 

community structure and ADCP measurements as 

required for the SeaGen EMP 

Partner with Heriot-Watt University in WorkStream 10 

(WS 10) of EPSRC-funded SuperGen 2 Consortium 

project investigating the ecological consequences of 

wave and energy extraction systems. 

Marine biology (fish, cetaceans and bird monitoring) 

and the physical/ coastal effects (sediment transport/ 

beach morphology/ currents). Biological habitat 

enhancement of structures for biodiversity benefit. 

Particular focus on fish foraging ecology and trophic 

interactions between predators and prey and how 

humans can influence them. 

potential effects on electromagnetic (EM) sensitive 

fish of EM field emissions associated with subsea 

electrical cables, particularly those associated with 

offshore renewable energy 

Marine ecosystem studies focusing on the functional 

linkages between oceanographic processes, flexible 

individual life history traits and population dynamics. 

In particular using Individual Based Models (IBM) as 

tools that explore the variation in individual growth, 

maturation and reproductive output with temporal 

and spatial overlap in food resources. 

Biodiversity and ecosystems research focussing on 

fisheries management and marine protected areas. 

Impacts and benefits of conventional and renewable 

energy generation in the coastal and offshore 

environment and my Institute has recently received 

>£0.75 million for researching the impacts of marine 

renewable energy in the UK and elsewhere (both 

windpower and tidal stream power). I have 

participated in and chaired workshops and meetings 

on these energy sources and tidal barrages, and co- 

May, 2009 28/124


Final report 

NERC 

Non governmental Non NERC research 

British Trust for Ornithology 

Dr Mark Rehfisch, Director of 

Development 

http://www.bto.org/ 

Consultancies 

ABP Marine Environmental Research 

Ltd 

Bill Cooper 

http://www.abpmer.co.uk 

Aquatera 

http://www.aquatera.co.uk 

Xodus 

http://www.xodusgroup.com/ 

Hartley Anderson Ltd 

John Hartley 

http://www.hartleyanderson.com 

authored evidence-based papers for Defra for the UK 

Marine Bill and for BERR-DECC on offshore 

windpower monitoring. I have reviewed Defra marine 

research programmes and led workshops on seabed 

disturbance; I chair the Expert Panel for BEEMS 

(British Energy Estuarine & Marine Studies project). 

Environmental factors that affect waterbird population 

dynamics, such as developments, including the 

Cardiff Bay barrage and renewables. 

Quality assessment of model used to estimate bird 

collision-risk from windfarms 

development of Population Viability Analysis 

approach to place windfarm loses in context of 

species population dynamics, and developing new 

methodological approaches for Cumulative Impact 

Assessment. 

Developing guidance, best practice and industry 

standards to assist project development for offshore 

wind, tidal stream and wave energy project 

Fully integrated lifecycle support for renewable 

energy and other environmental projects ; 

Environmental assessment, surveying and 

management ; Technical and operational support ; 

Public and stakeholder communications 

Examples of projects: Highland Renewable Energy 

Strategy, Marine Renewables EIA Guidance 

Procedures (EMEC)… 

The Xodus Group is an international, independent oil 

and gas and energy consultancy providing solutions 

for subsea, oil and gas, technological challenges with 

offices in the UK and in Australia: problem solving for 

marine renewable projects ; specialist input into 

environmental permit and consent applications ; 

inshore hydrographic, bathymetric and 

meteorological surveys in support of consent 

applications and EIA. 

Promotion of science to underpin environmental 

management decisions 

Independent environmental consultancy to 

governments, conservation bodies and the energy 

and other industries 

Programme manager for the portfolio of RAG 

research on marine renewables since July 2006 

Marine renewable test sites (UK only) 

EMEC 

Since its opening in 2004, EMEC has built up 

Dr Jennifer Norris 

detailed knowledge of the processes relating to the 

Research & Consents Manager consenting of wave and tidal energy devices, and the 

http://www.emec.org.uk/ 

main issues of concern that are associated with such 

deployments. This has entailed very close liaison 

with regulators and key stakeholders 

Wave Hub 

Nick Harrington, Project manager 

http://www.wavehub.co.uk/ 

Wave Hub is a renewable energy demonstration 

project in the South West of England that aims to 

create the UK's first offshore facility for the 

demonstration and proving of the operation of arrays 

of wave energy generation devices. 

May, 2009 29/124


Final report 

NERC 

3.3 Agencies funding renewable energy research 

Table 4 below summarises the review undertaken by Davies (2008) 5 of 

environmental research activities in relation to wet renewables (wave and tidal power 

generation). This review was part of a wider study which aimed to develop proposals 

for strategic research activities that would encourage the development of power 

generation from wet renewable sources in Scottish coastal waters. 

Table 4 – Current major research activities in Scottish coastal waters (Davies, 2008). 

Contractor General research area Funding 

European Marine 

Energy Centre 

(EMEC), Orkney 

MCT Ltd. 

SUPERGEN 

consortium project 

Sea Mammals 

Research Unit 

(SMRU) and 

SMRU Ltd. 

activities related to 

offshore 

renewable energy 

MREDS 

consortium project 

University of the 

Highlands and 

Islands / Heriot 

Watt University / 

Field testing of wave and tidal devices, 

environmental monitoring, interactions of 

wildlife with energy devices 

Field testing of a tidal turbine device in the 

entrance to Strangford Lough 

SUPERGEN 1: 

Energy Resources & Converters: 

Environmental Interaction Device and 

environmental engineering, economics, 

field validation and testing procedure, etc. 

SUPERGEN 2: 

Numerical and physical convergence 

Combined wave and tidal effects 

Arrays, wakes and near field effects 

Engineering and moorings 

Economic analysis 

Ecological consequences of tidal and wave 

energy conversion 

Distribution and behaviour of marine 

mammals, interactions with marine energy 

devices, technology for the detection of 

mammals around energy devices. 

Framework project including academia, 

SMEs, developers, oil industry etc. 

Lays out broad themes for work areas and 

associates key personnel and associated 

personnel. Seeking funding 

opportunistically for the various work 

areas. 

Coastal Physical Processes, 

Hydrodynamics and Water Column 

Processes, Benthic Dynamics, Ecological 

Considerations and Consequences. 

SG 

Industry (developers) 

Industry (developers) 

EPSRC (main funder) in 

partnership with BBSRC, 

ESRC, NERC and the Carbon 

Trust. 

SUPERGEN 1 received £32M, 

£2,61M for marine. 

SUPERGEN 2: formed and 

funded. Current EPSRC 

portfolio linked to SUPERGEN 

is £42M. 

NERC 

Government 

Industry 

Strategic Research 

Development Grant (£1M). 

£0.5M from Orkney sources to 

fund the Steering Group. 

Strategic Research 

Development Grant (£1M). 

Part of MReds funding. 

5 Davies, I., 2008. Strategic research assessment for wet renewable. Fisheries Research 

Services Internal Report 11/08. 

May, 2009 30/124


Final report 

NERC 

EMEC Project 

‘Advancing Marine 

Renewable Energy 

Research Capacity 

in Scotland’ 

COWRIE 

BERR RAG 

Collaborative Offshore Wind Research Into 

the Environment (COWRIE). 

Effects of electromagnetic fields (EMF) on 

fish, aerial and boat-based bird surveys, 

displacement of birds from feeding areas, 

effects of underwater noise on marine 

mammals. 

UK Research Advisory Group on marine 

renewable energy. 

Wide range of research related to marine 

windfarms, now addressing wave and tidal 

energy. Further details are provided below 

(Table XX). 

£450,000. 

From refundable deposits paid 

by developers and held by 

Crown Estate. 

Projects funded by UK 

Government, mainly DTI 

(BERR) and Defra. 

3.4 Research coordination 

3.4.1 Role of BERR (now DECC) / COWRIE Research Advisory Group (RAG) 

Table 10 (see Appendix 1) provides a summary of the current version of the DECC / 

COWRIE joint list of environmental research project needs to support licensing of 

wind, tidal and wave projects. Note: the project status reflects work funded by a 

range of bodies including RAG and COWRIE. These projects have been jointly 

identified by members of the RAG and prioritised amongst the RAG members and 

progressed under the supervision of Dr. John Hartley, chairman of the RAG. The 

activity progressed under this programme has acted as the main focal point for 

research associated with marine renewable energy, covering all the main issues from 

key elements of biodiversity – mammals and birds – to issues of conflict with 

navigation and fisheries. 

3.4.2 EMEC RAG 

Following a workshop in September 2008, EMEC set up both a Research Advisory 

Group and Monitoring Advisory Group to guide its activities in the future. The main 

objective of these groups is to make sure that EMEC makes use of all opportunities 

to attract research effort to the demonstrator sites for the benefit of developers and 

also that the monitoring needs are prioritised and adequately funded for regulatory 

purposes. (see also section 2 above details of ongoing monitoring) 

May, 2009 31/124


Final report 

NERC 

Figure 1 – Summary of the workshop “Environmental protection and management for 

wave and tidal energy converters: best practice approaches. 3rd September 2008 

Contributors are shown on lowest branch. 

May, 2009 32/124

Marine Renewables scoping study NERC 

Final report 

Table 5 – EMEC research and monitoring projects 

May, 2009 33/124

Marine Renewables scoping study 

Final report 

NERC 

3.4.3 WAVE HUB research for developers 

Although the research community centred on Wave Hub have yet to set up a 

research advisory group, the following issues have been identified by developers in 

their regular monthly meetings as important areas for further research: 

Underwater Noise 

Better understanding of the impacts of noise from wave energy devices on different 

aspects of marine life and behaviour, 

Device Specific Mitigation – anchoring strategies. 

Developers are currently required to remove all elements of an installation following 

decommissioning. Some developers may wish to leave moorings in situ for a 

number of reasons, further investigation into the benefits of not decommissioning 

sites entirely or novel means of enhancing moorings to support marine life through 

design may be beneficial. 

 

 

 

Integrating WECs into different marine protected areas and Impacts on Coastal 

Landscape Designations 

Developing Cost effective Survey (Geotechnical, Geophysical and Ecological) 

Techniques and Protocols 

Collation / Coordination of National and International Research for Marine 

Devices 

It is difficult to assess, at this stage, where there may be key issues for long term 

monitoring, however the above list is based on consultation and preliminary 

consenting work undertaken by developers in relation to Wave Hub. 

3.5 Research funded by NERC 

Although we are not aware of specific proposals which have been progressed 

through NERC responsive mode in relation to marine renewable energy, research 

which is underway through the Oceans 2025 programme (Themes 1, 9, 10 and 6) 

can be adapted to analysis of problems and issues facing the marine renewable 

sector. Also there are some small elements of the forthcoming phase 2 of UKERC 

which will represent an advance in modelling capability and development of 

economic valuation research methods to support the phase 2 project. Table 6 below 

(supplied by Phil Williamson, to meeting of directors 6 th Feb, 2009) summarises 

research undertaken by Oceans 2025 partners to date in relation to marine 

renewable energy, and illustrates the breadth of funding which they have accessed to 

undertake research in this field. 

We are aware of at least five proposals which have been submitted to NERC to 

support fundamental research needed to address problems raised by renewable 

energy sector, amounting in total to some £1.5m, which have not been successful. 

These have covered topics including physical impacts and trophic interactions 

downstream of renewable energy devices, and implications of devices and 

associated structures for enhanced populations of commercial species. None of the 

proposals was successful and the PIs were unsure whether it was the quality of the 

proposals or their direct reference to the need to conduct the research at renewable 

energy sites, (and thus implicating an applied research dimension) which had 

resulted in their failure to gain NERC funding. 

May, 2009


Final report 

Table 6 – Summary of major research projects carried out at Oceans 2025 Centres directly relevant to offshore and coastal renewable energy 

Collation by Phil Williamson (Oceans 2025 Science Coordinator): update 17 Feb 2009 Commercial in confidence 

1. GENERIC or MULTI-TECHNOLOGIES 

Project title 

Lead contractor 

(partners) 

1.1 UKERC Energy and PML 

Environment theme Phase (POL) 

II 

1.2 Review of environ-mental 

impacts of offshore 

renewables 

1.3 SEA 8 review of 

hydrography 

Funding source Brief description Value/ 

resources 

UK Energy 

Research Centre 

(UKERC) 

Date/ 

duration 

To develop tools for assessing the environmental impact of 

energy exploitation/carbon abatement in the marine environment 

and to optimise opportunities for improved sustainability (including 

integration of socio-economic valuation of ecosystem goods and 

services into technology evaluation) 


Final report 

seas 

1.8 Mapping of UK marine 

renewable energy 

resources 

1.9 Environmental impact 

assessment: WP6 of 

EquiMar project 

1.10 Scottish Sustainable 

Marine Environmental 

Initiative – Sound of Mull 

1.11 Marine Renewables 

Strategic Environmental 

Assessment 

1.12 Statistical methods for 

analysing visual 

monitoring of predators 

1.13 Passive acoustic buoy 

system for monitoring 

offshore sites 

1.14 Environmental risk 

management procedure 

modified for offshore 

renewables 

1.15 Supply of environmental 

data to offshore 

renewables 

ABP Marine 

Environmental 

Research 

(POL, MetOffice) 

University of 

Edinburgh 

(SAMS and 22 

others for project as 

a whole) 

SAMS 

SAMS 

SMRU 

DTI (now 

BERR/DECC) 

EU FP7 

Scottish Executive, 

SNH, Crown 

Estate 

Scottish Executive/ 

Government 

EMEC, BERR and 

industry 

ecosystem models, to improve maps of benthic habitats; iii) 

model sensitivity, to determine responses to changes in forcing; 

and iv) trends, due to natural and anthropogenic effects 

Preparation of atlas of marine renewable energy resources 

(wind, wave and tidal) for UK waters, using POL model outputs. 

Atlas now online at www.renewables-atlas.info 

Estimating collision risk of fish, birds and marine mammals with 

submerged devices, as component of EquiMar: Equitable Testing 

and Evaluation of Marine Energy Extraction Devices in terms of 

Performance, Cost and Environmental Impact 

Develop & implement a Sound of Mull marine spatial plan 

including renewables 

Expert input into Marine Renewable Energy Devices SEA on 

collision risks for marine mammals, fish and diving birds 

Includes development of observation programme at EMEC tidalstream 

site (Orkney) 

~£60k 2003-4 

(Atlas 

update in 

2008) 

£170k 

(SAMS) 

2008-11 

£20k 2007-10 

£40K 2007 

~£50k 2005-08 

SMRU nPower ~£150k 2 yr 

SMRU BERR ~£300k 1 yr 

SMRU (SMRU Ltd) ~£300k ongoing 

May, 2009 36/124


Final report 

2. TIDAL (barrage and tidal stream) 

Project title 

2.1 ReDAPT: Reliable Data 

Acquisition Platform for 

Tidal 

2.2 Tapping the tidal power 

potential of the eastern 

Irish Sea 

2.3 Acoustic output from 

devices: acoustic 

characterisation and 

monitoring 

2.4 Acoustic warning for 

marine mammals of tidal 

stream devices 

Lead contractor 

(partners) 

Rolls Royce (PML, ETI: Energy 

Tidal Generation Ltd, Technologies 

Garrad Hassan, Institute (private 

University of sector - 

Edinburgh, EDF government 

Energy, E.ON, partnership) 

EMEC) 

University of 

Liverpool 

(POL) 

Funding source Brief description Value/ 

resources 

North West 

Regional Development 

Agency 

A 1MW tidal turbine will be installed at the European Marine 

Energy Centre (EMEC) site in Orkney. Detailed environmental 

performance information to include assessing implications of 

biofouling and micro-scale environmental impacts 

Technical evaluation of potential barrage energy yields in six 

major river estuaries in NW England. Includes assessment of 

environmental impacts and effects on coastal flood risks. 

SAMS EMEC Ltd Development of equipment for collection of acoustic baseline 

data 

SAMS 

Scottish 

Government 

Investigating the use of acoustic warning devices to the tidalstream 

renewable energy industry. Combines modelling and insitu 

sound measurements. 

Date/ 

duration 

~£500k 2008 - 

Total £290k 2005-08 

£65k 2007-08 

£43k 2009-10 

2.5 Tidal resource modelling SAMS SNH Scottish west coast high-resolution tidal stream modelling. £50k 2008 

2.6 Environmental risk SMRU 

Industry (Marine Environmental risk assessment and monitoring at world’s first ~£1m 2008-13 

management for the (Queen’s University Current Turbines) commercial-scale tidal turbine (Strangford Lough, N Ireland) 

Strangford Lough Turbine Belfast) 

2.7 Development of sonar 

monitoring systems for 

tidal turbines 

3. WIND 

SMRU 

nPower, BERR, 

industry 

Development of sonar systems to monitor seal movements at 

tidal turbines 

~£400k 2008-10 

Project title Lead contractor Funding source Brief description Value/ Date/ 

May, 2009 37/124


Final report 

3.1 Review of reef effects of 

offshore windfarm 

structures and potential for 

enhancement and 

mitigation 

3.2 Cardigan Bay Offshore 

Wind Farm - Review of 

the marine ecology 

3.3 Aberdeen Offshore Wind 

Farm 

(partners) resources duration 

PML 

BERR 

Investigation of reef effects on finfish, shellfish and other marine


Final report 

NERC 

MBA, Marine Biological Association of the UK; NOCS, National Oceanography Centre, 

Southampton; PML, Plymouth Marine Laboratory and PML Applications Ltd; POL, Proudman 

Oceanographic Laboratory; SAHFOS, Sir Alister Hardy Foundation for Ocean Sciences; 

SAMS, Scottish Association for Marine Science; SMRU, Sea Mammal Research Unit 

To note: 

i) Research studentships, minor consultancies and marine bioenergy projects (with the 

exception of 3.5) not included above. 

ii) “Sustained observations” (Theme 10) of Oceans 2025 provide additional contextual 

information on marine environmental parameters (physical, chemical and biological) and 

their spatial and temporal variability. 

iii) There are also a large number of other research projects carried out at Oceans 2025 

Centres (supported by NERC, EU and other sources) that provide relevant underpinning in 

climate change, hydrography, benthic surveys, sediment dynamics and other seabed 

processes, biogeochemistry, biodiversity, fishery management, aquaculture and socioeconomic 

valuation. 

May, 2009 39/124


Final report 

NERC 

4 Workshop and consultation 

The NERC Marine Renewable Energy workshop on 26 th February, 2009 identified the 

main gaps in knowledge and research opportunities, and these have been 

synthesised as a workshop report – (draft submitted 14 th April). Gill (2005 6 ) 

summarised the environmental impacts of renewable energy devices during the 

whole life cycle of offshore energy production, and discussed the significance of 

different types of impact. This analysis together with NERC workshop outputs 

provides a useful starting point for the analysis presented in this report. 

The UKERC workshop on March 24 th / 25 th 2009 provided further input regarding the 

research priorities with respect to progressing sustainable arrays, and the key 

outputs of the UKERC workshop will be considered in our analysis below, as integral 

to the final recommendations of our report. 

6 Gill, A.B., 2005. Offshore renewable energy: ecological implications of generating electricity 

in the coastal zone. Journal of Applied Ecology, 42, pp. 605-615. 

May, 2009 40/124


Final report NERC 

Figure 2 – Renewable energy developments and ecologically relevant interactions (Gill, 2005) 

May, 2009 41/124


Final report 

NERC 

4.1 Summary of post-NERC workshop responses 

Figure 3 – Dendrogram mapping out the responses following the NERC workshop 26 th 

Feb, 2009 

May, 2009 42/124


Final report 

NERC 

4.2 Post workshop consultation on critical science gaps 

4.2.1 Resource 

A good understanding of the resource available for exploitation is required to assess 

the potential of the marine renewable industry and its eventual environmental 

footprint. Although the research community can and no doubt will, play a role in 

developing new technologies to support resource assessment, the assessments of 

resource are most likely to be generated by Government agencies and the 

commercial sector (and not research entities), although the impacts of climate 

change on future wind and wave resource regimes in particular, is likely to fit well 

with NERC capabilities. 

4.2.2 Impacts on Fauna and Flora 

4.2.2.1 Mammals 

Injurious noise and displacement of marine mammals during construction using pile 

driving is already an issue of key concern partly as a result of studies associated with 

early stage offshore wind installations. This issue is likely to continue to be significant 

with the expansion of the offshore wind industries and tidal-stream developments. A 

better understanding of the impacts, the development of alternative methods of fixing 

structures and noise mitigation are urgently required. 

Once in place, offshore wind farms are likely to have lesser direct impacts for marine 

mammals than other for large fauna. In terms operational interactions of wave and 

tidal energy devices much less is known. Key issues are as follows: 

Collisions: A widely acknowledged potential “show-stopper” for the tidal-stream 

industry in particular is the issue of marine mammal collisions with rotating structures 

in moving water. The combination of swim speeds, turbine tip velocities, water 

motion, low visibility and recently recognised high incidence of ship-whale strikes all 

make collisions with tidal-stream devices highly plausible. Several studies of this 

issue from modelling to monitoring are ongoing but these studies are basic given the 

potential importance of the problem to the developing industry and regulators. 

Compounding this is the wide variety of tidal-devices being developed and their 

associated diversity of parameters relevant to strike risks (turbine blade number, 

rotation speed, size, placement in the water column etc). To address this issue, a 

combination of approaches are urgently required to assess the risk, determine the 

key parameters of device construction, investigate marine mammal behaviour when 

encountering such devices, determine what detection cues are available (acoustic or 

otherwise) and ways to monitor and evaluate any interactions. Collisions with other 

devices such as wave devices are less likely to be problematic though entanglement 

with mooring lines or collisions with surface devices in rough seas are possible. 

The behavioural responses (attraction, avoidance etc) of marine mammals on 

encountering wind, wave and tidal-stream devices is little known and potentially of 

importance when arrays of devices enter marine systems particularly movement 

corridors or favoured habitats. 

Other issues, such as chemical pollution, maintenance boat traffic etc, are less 

unique to renewable energy developments. However, several issues upon which 

there may already be substantial data collected may benefit from re-evaluation. For 

example, there has been substantial information collected on foraging, locomotory or 

May, 2009 43/124


Final report 

NERC 

other marine mammals behaviours however its investigation relative to tidal flow 

rates and associated collision concerns may be valuable. 

There is a need for further support for development of best methods for collecting 

data underwater, in the vicinity of underwater energy structures with moving parts. 

However, we think it is essential that as this is such a fast moving area, a detailed 

research mapping exercise is undertaken in relation to mammal research before 

decisions are made about new investment. New research needs to build on existing 

(best available) methods that have been or are being developed e.g. by EMEC 

and/or MCT, with involvement from SMRU (including SMRU Ltd), SAMS, QUB etc. 

However, these methods being developed now will have moved on by the end of the 

year, when any funding decisions from NERC will be made. 

4.2.2.2 Birds 

The primary effects for birds of offshore windfarms are: 

Indirect Habitat Loss – avoidance of the turbines will lead to an effective loss of 

habitat, not just of the windfarm area but in a buffer zone area around it. In EIAs for 

offshore windfarms, a ‘worst case’ approach is typically taken in relation to this effect 

in which disturbance is assumed to lead to complete avoidance of the windfarm area 

(and buffer zone) and that there is no habituation. If alternative habitat is limited in 

quality or extent and already occupied – i.e. at or close to carrying capacity – then 

increased densities may lead to intense competition for available resources and thus 

increased mortality and a decline in the size of the local population. 

Collision Risk – i.e. the risk of direct mortality from collisions. 

Barrier Effects – disruptions to the flight-lines of birds due to the barrier presented by 

windfarms may lead to an increase in the energetic costs of the daily movements of 

birds or of migrants. 

In relation to these effects, there remains a need for research to address several 

issues: 

i. Recent research has shown that it is currently difficult to detect changes in 

numbers of birds at sea using aerial survey data, primarily due to their natural 

variability (Maclean et al. 2006, 2007b). An improved approach incorporating 

oceanographic variables to explain some of this variation is required to be able 

to better detect changes in population resulting from displacement from 

windfarms. 

ii. 

Further recent research has shown that for most species likely to be affected by 

offshore windfarms, sufficient demographic data exist to carry out population 

viability analyses (Maclean et al. 2007a), which could be used to evaluate the 

impacts of collisions with turbines. However, there are some limitations with 

regards to what population viability analysis can achieve. Mortality resulting 

from windfarms may reduce competition for resources, thus reducing the rate of 

natural mortality. The extent of the latter cannot be determined solely through 

conventional population viability analysis, but also requires detailed 

understanding of the extent to which demographic parameters are densitydependent. 

Further work is thus still required to evaluate the impacts of 

collisions on populations. 

May, 2009 44/124


Final report 

NERC 

iii. 

Following on from these two issues, there remains a need to evaluate the true 

cumulative impacts from multiple offshore windfarms of collisions, barrier 

effects and indirect habitat loss. Whilst further AMEC/BTO/PMSS work for 

COWRIE has addressed the need for a standard approach to the assessment 

of cumulative impacts in EIAs (King et al. 2009), the predictions used in these 

assessments require testing. 

Likely Interactions between birds and wave and tidal-stream devices are less well 

known. Clearly such devices have less surface expression than wind turbines so in 

air-collisions are less obvious though problems of low flying birds at night colliding 

with wave devices has been suggested. Diving birds also have the opportunity to 

collide with subsurface structures particularly tidal turbines (Wilson et al. 2007). Little 

work has yet been done on this subject or the relationship between bird diving activity 

and tidal flow rates to determine how likely interactions might be at times of 

significant collision risk. However, observations are underway at EMEC and Wave 

Hub, and these need to be built on with behavioural and population functioning 

studies, better impact prediction models with uncertainty/risk modelling, site-specific 

to generic assessments linked to mitigation and compensation issues. There is also a 

need for carrying capacity determination of offshore areas for large and mobile 

predators and to consider the cumulative impacts on populations. 

4.2.2.3 Fish 

Fish populations may potentially be affected by activities during the construction of 

marine renewable energy sites (e.g. by the noise and vibration from piling), also 

operational noise of devices. Our understanding of sub-lethal (mainly behavioural) 

and cumulative impacts on fish communities is lacking. For example underwater 

noise and effects on hearing specialist such as herring is urgently needed to devise 

proper mitigation measures during construction of new arrays. Moreover, production 

of energy/electricity interact with the coastal environment, particularly those key 

species (e.g. predators) that are sensitive to the operational disturbance such as 

electromagnetic fields emitted by the subsea cables and the noise transmitted by the 

devices through the water. Research linking these different trophic levels is required 

to establish the scale of this potential effect on fish populations and its temporal 

extent. Effects of energy capturing structures and whole arrays on recruitment and 

aggregating devices have received some consideration along with the de facto 

creation of temporary or permanent no trawling zones and derived effects on 

diversity 

As with marine mammals, issues of collisions with fixed and moving structures in 

high velocity currents is a widespread concern. Concern should be particularly 

focussed on large species such as basking sharks (as the probability of encounter 

scales strongly with body size) and also with schooling fish (where their evasion 

behaviour of a group may be less appropriate than taken by an individual). In addition 

to the simple risk of physical injury that is shared with marine mammals, the transient 

sound or pressure pulse associated with a turbine blade near-miss may or may not 

also have the capacity to impact the buoyancy and auditory structures of fish. In 

addition, this pulse may trigger an escape response and reduce (or maybe eliminate) 

collision at all times day and night or in turbid conditions. Research using modelling, 

experimental exposures and measurements on scale or full size deployments will be 

desirable and require collaboration between biologists and physicists with expertise 

in fluid dynamics. 

May, 2009 45/124


Final report 

NERC 

As with marine mammals and birds, the behaviour of fish relative to wave and tidal 

regimes is little known. It may be possible to re-examine existing data (for example, 

to look at swimming depth for basking sharks or herring) with respect to sea state or 

tidal flows to investigate potential spatio-temporal overlap with marine renewables 

and times of maximal risk. 

In the longer term, renewable energy infrastructures may provide habitat for fish 

species, and the project scale developments refuges / areas for recovery with 

potentially spill over effects. However any benefits need to be weighed against the 

implications of the displaced fisheries targeting other areas. 

4.2.2.4 Benthos 

Although there are studies underway to characterise communities potentially affected 

by installation of energy projects at both the Wave Hub site, EMEC and at several 

tidal demonstrator sites e.g. Deltastream project in Pembrokeshire, these are 

characterised by development and research into appropriate technology and 

methods development to support industry needs. In the immediate future, 

experimental studies will be restricted to single devices or small groups of devices, 

so modelling (physical and ecological) will be a necessary tool. There will be a need 

to focus funding on selected life forms or communities e.g. high velocity benthic 

communities; bottom communities and scour from cables; sediment transport effects 

on soft bottom communities. Studies will inevitably require a mix of short term, or 

equivalently small distance scale, and long term or large distance scale studies 

investigating, for example, the consequences of changes in larval distributions or 

changes in large animal movements or migrations. 

For the larger scale studies, the further development of interactive physical-biological 

modelling techniques will be required. A fundamental requirement for any modelling 

approaches is for sound base-line data: certain of these may be available from 

NERC climate change initiatives. Also there is a requirement for an assessment of 

available techniques for establishing state change in low signal to noise quality 

variables at biologically meaningful effect size. 

4.2.2.5 Water column 

As far as we have been able to establish, there has been limited research 

undertaken to address the implications of marine renewables for water column 

communities (but see Brostrom et al, 2009, J. of Marine Systems, Prof Mike Elliott, 

pers comm). This is because the perspective of regulators is that water column 

communities do not constitute a potentially significant impact in relation to 

deployment of devices, and there are no legal provisions covering lower echelons of 

the food web. However, the virio-bacterio-phyto-zooplankton assemblage is 

fundamentally important in delivering ecosystem services on which the entire marine 

food web ultimately depends, and thus too, productivity and biodiversity at all levels 

of organisation. Consequently if we are to establish with confidence that the 

sustainable use of natural resources by the marine renewable energy sector does not 

compromise delivery of ecosystem services, whether in terms of carbon dioxide 

sequestration, nutrient regeneration, delivery of food, support for fishery and larval 

stages prior to settlement etc. research in relation to the water column assemblage 

has to be integral to whole system thinking. In addition, we need to project our 

thinking to consider future climate change scenarios and cumulative effects of 

May, 2009 46/124


Final report 

NERC 

intensification of marine space use, before our coastal zone becomes cluttered with 

more arrays of devices than is sustainable when whole system environmental 

carrying capacity is considered. 

4.2.2.6 Whole systems approach 

There are multiple synergies between the different ecosystem components and the 

spatio-temporal organisation of coastal environments. Impacts at one level may 

influence performance in a multiplicity of quality elements. Ultimately design 

constraints on the devices and design of arrays along with the construction 

methodology, will define the impacts on the pre-existing ecology. Conversely, in the 

longer term, renewable energy structures may provide habitat for new species or 

increase carrying capacity, and the project developments themselves act as refuges / 

areas for recovery with potentially spill over effects. As far as we are aware there is 

no active research using an integrated ecosystem approach cutting across all 

scientific disciplines incorporating all biological quality elements (mammals, birds, 

fish, benthos and water column). A holistic approach - (multi disciplinary with for e.g. 

physicists working with biologists) which aims to define the ‘whole system’ carrying 

capacity is notably absent from the applied research approach which currently 

(understandably) prevails. There is a need for better defined conceptual models as a 

precursor to further quantifying and numerically modelling ecosystem processes, a 

need for different approaches for different groups (e.g. observational for pelagic, 

modelling for benthic) and at spatial and temporal scales relevant to the species / 

habitats concerned. 

It is becoming clear that these whole system considerations need to be 

contextualised within the moving baseline resulting from climate change and ocean 

acidification, with assessments undertaken across the whole life cycle of projects (i.e. 

exploratory / construction / operation and decommissioning phases). At the scale of 

devices and arrays, there is a need to consider the role of devices in removing / 

impacting habitats negatively and conversely, as sites for species to colonise, 

(possibly even as sites for the encouragement of invasive species). Scour mitigation 

methods and creation of non-native habitats and their implications for ecosystems 

into which they are introduced need to be similarly investigated both in the short and 

longer term. 

The challenge to scientists is to develop an approach to integrating all ecosystem 

components for assessing the risk of energy extraction from the natural environment 

to all populations / species – based on a whole system approach and qualitative and 

quantitative information. Decision tools need to be developed which provide 

appropriate guidance for regulators – both with regard to project design optimisation 

and monitoring requirements. Then as projects are monitored decision tools can be 

tested and improved over time. The Oregon Wave Energy Trust has taken the step 

of thinking in terms of cumulative impacts of arrays of devices at the outset, by 

initiating the development of a framework for assessing cumulative / interactive 

effects of energy extraction with other energy arrays and / or uses of marine space. 

This leads to the further requirement for obtaining socio-economic information – 

which when integral to decision making tools, finally allows not only whole (eco) 

system considerations, but also an appraisal of overall sustainability. 

May, 2009 47/124


Final report 

NERC 

4.2.2.7 Ecosystem restoration and resilience 

The main focus on research to date has been on understanding the negative 

consequences of energy extraction from the marine environment. However, it is clear 

that against the background of rapidly expanding human footprint, innovative thinking 

which puts the environment and sustainable use of natural resources at the forefront 

of research and before technology deployment is necessary at the present time. The 

policy imperatives which are driving the expansion of marine renewables indicate that 

we need to identify opportunities which allow the environment to recover against a 

background of increasing demand for resources and continued intensification of 

marine space use. 

The main opportunities which have been consistently identified relate to the potential 

to promote, design and model optimal conditions for building resilience and 

ecosystem recovery in relation to renewable energy sites. There is perhaps a need to 

assess the value of practices from other earth systems applicable to marine 

ecosystems e.g. ‘fallow’ sea areas / rotating extractive uses of sea bed / new 

strategies for spatial management – to create reservoirs of restoration / resilience in 

a sea of over exploited / dredged and over fished sea bed. It is evident that 

innovative research in this area needs to acknowledge the constraints and 

requirements of the Marine and Coastal Access Bill and the EU Maritime Strategy 

and Marine Strategy Framework Directive, while informing the Defra ‘Charting Seas’ 

initiative, the inter-linked MPA projects and the OSPAR Quality Status Report 

requirements. But there is potential for exploring these concepts by using quantitative 

data from proxies and systems already in place elsewhere in the world. For e.g. 

beneficial / reef effects for ‘whole systems’, as well as different fisheries management 

alternatives at existing offshore windfarms and proxies such as artificial reefs in UK 

and in China (combined with aquaculture), all provide useful natural laboratories as 

the starting point for this research. There may also be some OWF areas where the 

proximity of species / communities under threat raises the possibility of potential 

benefits / gains at different levels - individual species (e.g. Native oyster) to 

communities and whole systems, 

Renewable energy sites could also be used as monitoring hubs to learn from and 

support research endeavour – i.e. control / reference points vs other monitoring 

points and to test the connectivity of renewable energy footprints in regional seas 

(e.g. OWFs in Liverpool Bay). It is possible that when effectively closed to all activity 

other than maintaining turbines – do OWFs act as ecosystem reserves / recovery 

areas for the regional sea as a whole In any event it is necessary to consider the 

whole range of scientific and socio-economic benefits and at different geographical 

locations and range of spatial scales – the connectivity of sites for biodiversity 

benefits, proximity to population centres, potential for regeneration of communities 

etc. In taking forward this type of research, there is a need to capture stakeholder 

knowledge - including historical and anecdotal e.g. state of the environment and 

fishery knowledge, the benefits of liaison with adjacent sea user communities at an 

early stage of renewable projects can ultimately lead to much reduced lead times to 

project implementation and immediate take up of economic opportunities for the 

benefit of the wider community. 

4.2.3 Significance 

Although at present the perception of the engineering design fraternity is that marine 

renewable technologies are benign and only very low environmental impact, we do 

May, 2009 48/124


Final report 

NERC 

not at the present time have the evidence to substantiate this. How to define what is 

significant in ecological and spatial/temporal terms for all ecosystem components i.e. 

mammals, birds, fish, benthos, water column, and at seasonal, decadal, random - 

signal to noise is central to understanding ultimately whether renewable technologies 

can be promoted as one of the solutions to living in a low carbon world. In the first 

instance it is necessary to characterise (in physical terms) the impact of energy 

extraction from wind/ wave / tidal devices and associated infrastructure (eg cables), 

then to assess the impact (in ecological terms) on ecosystems and biodiversity. 

There is also a need to be able to separate the different types of significance 

(statistical, biological and societal) depending on the interests of the stakeholder 

group concerned. It is increasingly important to be able to extrapolate to consider 

economic and socio-economic significance, and thence derive holistic measures of 

sustainability, (for eg. devices which reduce fishing pressures (such as beamtrawling), 

and create de-facto MPAs whilst allowing ecological recovery and other 

economic activities). We therefore need to develop numerical tools which allow 

regulators to quantitatively compare the performance and environmental footprints of 

different device technologies. Some of the research tools development to support this 

type of analysis will shortly get underway in the forthcoming UKERC phase 2 

programme. 

4.2.4 Scaling up from device to array to multiple arrays 

Although there are currently a small number of projects involving deployment of 

single devices, and arrays of wind turbines (30+ towers) are now accepted as the 

norm for offshore windfarms, scaling up to full scale arrays (whether tidal or wave 

energy) represents a major challenge to the sector. It is already clear that it is 

important to determine which questions can confidently be answered during device 

scale testing, then used to inform scaling up to arrays, as even in trials involving the 

same device, it is likely that arrays will provoke a whole new set of impacts not 

necessarily noted or identified during single device trials. In addition consideration of 

whole life cycle impacts needs to be included in research programmes for individual 

devices, as they can differ significantly during different life cycle stages and between 

devices. This is not the only reason why there was strong support at the workshop 

(and subsequently) for encouraging research at demonstrator sites for the benefit of 

the whole sector. The question of how to resource them adequately for benefit of the 

industry and part of this is the need to agree adequate and appropriate control areas 

for inclusion into monitoring programmes. 

May, 2009 49/124


Final report 

NERC 

LOCAL 

Site based micro 

scale effects 

Device 

Bay / estuary 

scale effects 

Array 

Regional seas 

scale effects 

Multiple 

arrays 

REGIONAL 

Local Impacts 

Eg. Feeding 

disturbance, 

Collisions, 

EMFs, Noise etc. 

Questions : Have 

we considered ALL 

ecosystem 

components 

Could there be 

better integration 

with design 

process – device 

optimisation 

Cumulative / 

interactive 

impacts 

Opportunities 

for ecosystem and 

biodiversity 

benefits 

Questions : Shouldn’t 

we focus on obtaining 

high level confidence at 

demonstrator sites 

Would coordinated 

OWF programme 

focussing on 

environmental gains 

achieve the best 

outcome 

Potential regional 

scale impacts 

(uncertainty re : 

delivery of key 

ecosystem services 

+ interaction with 

climate change and 

ocean acidification ) 

Questions : 

Potential for using 

existing UK wide 

programmes to 

integrate Q’s re 

marine renewable 

energy 

Figure 4 – Summary of research questions appropriate to device, array and multiple 

array scale projects 

Whilst the industry as a whole is still at the stage of properly understanding the 

engineering performance and environmental impacts of individual devices – some 

devices will be deployed as arrays at the outset – for e.g. at Wave Hub, and this will 

allow us to consider interactive and cumulative impacts of energy generation over 

wider areas and in relation to other marine space uses such as fishing, navigation 

and aggregates production. 

4.2.5 Research tools – technology and model development 

The renewable energy sector is already driving significant innovation in technology – 

because of the challenge of measuring parameters which have as yet not been of 

significant interest, and also because they often need to be measured in hostile 

physical environments. Consequently one of the first priorities in relation to 

technology tools and model development should be to scope how existing 

measurement technology and modelling capabilities can be applied in locations such 

as Pentland Firth “to deliver a sustainable, environment-enhancing supply of energy 

from the marine environment” (Scottish first minister, March 2009) 

It is clear that a new generation of methods, tools and technologies for observing, 

recording and monitoring, for prediction, analysis and interpretation of data as well as 

decision tools, are needed to support the marine renewable energy sector - including 

developing remote sensing (e.g. HF Radar applications), for measuring sediment 

processes, extending altimetry into coastal zone etc. and direct sensor technologies 

There is also a need to have an adequate understanding of risk and to be able to 

deliver an acceptable level of confidence to all stakeholders. 

There is also a need to develop and improve the quality of predictive models, for 

some specific ecological / biological components but also for resource prediction in 

May, 2009 50/124


Final report 

NERC 

the context of a changing climate, and how this might affect physical locations of 

renewable energy sites. Predictive capability needs to be extended (ideally) to spatial 

and temporal scales relevant to energy project life cycles (~15 to 25yrs) and 

technology interaction with climate change, ocean acidification other factors (>25yrs 

to 2050) needs to be built into research concepts. 

Although it is useful to have thought in advance about which questions can be 

addressed in mesocosm / simulated laboratory based experiments or require 

appropriate observational context to support methods / tools and technology 

development – there is currently a major disconnect between what information is 

needed and what is collected at present. This is mainly because EIA baseline 

environmental characterisation surveys do not provide adequate quality data for 

developing models and in respect of the soundscape for e.g. there is no noise 

baseline - not even methods guidance or agreement on the best technology to use. 

Consequently, if the development of methods and techniques is to progress in a 

timely fashion it is imperative that it is integrated with decisions about scale of models 

to develop – (setting boundary conditions etc.) what baseline information needs to be 

collected to parameterise models, what should be collected at different scales of 

development (i.e. what questions and at what spatial and temporal scales). Then 

there is the question of prioritising technology development within timescales which 

are relevant to the end users – there are some developments for which we need 

input now, whereas for others the medium term (2020 / 2025) is adequate and for still 

others the longer term is fine (2050). 

Over these timescales there is also likely to be a need for high power [super] 

computers to run 3D ecological models – as will no doubt become apparent as a 

result of the upcoming National Capability advisory group review. 

4.2.5.1 Monitoring and accessibility of data 

Developer led monitoring as a condition of their consents may slowly provide some 

answers to the questions of environmental impact of individual devices and ultimately 

of arrays - but only in a piecemeal, uncoordinated and poorly integrated fashion. It is 

also likely to be beset by difficulties surrounding commercial confidentiality and the 

fact that regulators can only require monitoring that is pertinent to the provision of 

consent and not that which is necessary for the wider benefit of the industry or 

scientific community. 

An answer to this would be a multi-disciplinary, comprehensive and objective 

monitoring programme of one or more of the early wave and tidal arrays, funded 

through a partnership of Regulators / Government, Industry, the Crown Estate (as 

‘landowner’) and the Research Councils. The broad based nature of such funding 

reflects the fact that meeting renewables targets is a high level Government objective 

and not the responsibility of any one Department, Agency or Industry. An analogue 

may be found in the comprehensive monitoring programme established by the Danish 

Government of the Nysted Offshore Windfarm (http://www.ens.dk/sw42531.asp ), a 

landmark initiative which provides a unique resource for studies of the impacts of such 

developments not just in Denmark but worldwide. 

Such a programme would have (indeed, require) three key characteristics not readily 

delivered through any developer led study, namely: 

Monitoring of a wide range of environmental parameters relating to 

hydrodynamics, sediment processes, species distribution and behaviour, 

May, 2009 51/124


Final report 

NERC 

 

 

meteorology etc. (i.e. all issues pertinent to answering the questions above) 

the results of which could be integrated; 

Establishment of control or reference sites at which at least some of these 

environmental parameters would be recorded, to enable discrimination of 

anthropogenic effects from natural variability; 

Establishment of a monitoring baseline, ideally at least 2 years prior to 

development. 

Availability of historical data, new data acquisition and access to ongoing / recent 

research is a major issue which applies to all research scientists – any coordinated 

programme would need to include an agreed strategy for data collection (including 

who should be responsible for data management) Baseline (environmental 

characterisation) data collected by users as part of their licensing, has limited use in 

research context – but is nevertheless useful in some cases. Similarly monitoring to 

support licence requirements has potential to facilitate adaptive management for 

sector; in absence of primary research to underpin regulatory need, 

Data sharing is essential if optimal outcomes to be achieved – and this needs to 

occur across the sectors and ultimately integration with ALSF, MDIP, BODC would 

be the preferred outcome. Funding of long term monitoring studies is a major issue 

for all users of natural resources from the marine environment as it is a crucially 

important needs to be addressed and we need to consider potential role of NERC in 

contributing to long term studies in collaboration with other stakeholders. 

4.2.6 Influence on developing industry 

It would be entirely possible for the NERC community to focus exclusively on 

methodical measurement of interactions of marine renewable devices and arrays on 

the environment, and to provide evidence which inspires greater confidence in the 

industry to a wider group of stakeholders in the longer term. However, because these 

industries are growing and evolving rapidly themselves, there is a major opportunity 

for NERC to develop science capabilities to fundamentally influence the speed and 

nature of the sectors’ (wind wave and tidal) continuing development. At a most basic 

level, the NERC community could apply its expertise on the natural environment to 

help winnow out trivial environmental factors, where developers are currently 

required to demonstrate insignificant impact at the EIA stage. This exercise would 

simplify, cheapen and better focus the environmental consenting process. At a more 

strategic level, the input of a high-quality academic research understanding of how 

devices and environments interact, could help developers (essentially engineering 

companies) design their devices with inherently lower environmental footprints before 

reaching the EIA and consenting stages. Closer cooperation between scientists in 

developing engineering proposals with an environmental (and socio-economic) 

dimension will help facilitate this thinking. 

May, 2009 52/124


Final report 

NERC 

5 Fundamental ‘Blue skies’ vs applied science 

There is a need to shed light on the blue skies vs applied science debate, to 

generate better understanding of who does what in relation to renewables 

environmental research, and where NERC fits into this research continuum – and 

ultimately to communicate this to the wider stakeholder community. The 

‘fundamental’ whole system research science which drives the SUNR and 

biodiversity themes is as significant in relation to marine renewables as it is to climate 

change itself – unless we fully understand the impact of renewables on our earth 

system, and on the integrity and functioning of marine ecosystems in particular, 

renewables will have no credibility or future as a solution to low carbon energy 

production. It became apparent both at the NERC workshop and in subsequent 

consultation that the majority of stakeholders believe that there is no other possible 

route to funding an adequate research effort, which mobilises marine scientists from 

across all disciplines to focus on these problems, unless NERC becomes involved 

and takes a leading role in this research. 

The research which has been funded to date in relation to marine renewables has 

been focussed on regulator needs of DEFRA and DECC with strategic funding input 

from COWRIE. The approach is necessarily one of facilitating implementation of 

projects and environmental damage limitation – either through locating projects to 

minimise ecological impacts in the first place, or through commissioning studies 

which will contribute to an adaptive management ‘pipeline’ and thus inform future 

projects and decision making. Depending on how risk averse you are, research 

commissioned through RAG to support regulatory needs is only achieving an 

‘adequate’ level of research understanding to support the wind, wave and tidal 

sectors against a background of considerable uncertainty in our changing world. The 

budget for DECC going forward for 2009 / 10 is £500K – and this is for all aspects of 

regulatory need in relation to marine renewables including navigation, fisheries, 

socio-economics etc. Only a limited depth of research is feasible at this level of 

funding. Consequently the whole system approach which puts the environment 

centre stage is needed to complement work already underway and provide additional 

depth and confidence in the conclusions from an environmental perspective. 

There is open research ground for NERC to occupy in this inherently applied sector. 

By rising above the individual development or location issues focussed on by 

company funded or agency reactive research, NERC has the opportunity to focus on 

the generic issues of how these developments will interact with the environment. A 

non-specific approach to device-environment interactions (both within device families 

and between them) would provide a better academic understanding of the scale(s) of 

impact of these developments and provide regulators with tools to compare across 

different technologies rather than simply approving those with acceptable impacts 

(e.g. weighing up environmental consequences of exploiting wind vs wave energy for 

a region). 

The potential future economic impact of research undertaken by NERC in the 

renewables sector is currently very difficult to assess. The UK currently has a leading 

international role in wind, wave and tidal energy development – but acquiring 

research quality evidence is crucial to support the development of the sectors 

worldwide, including the necessary policy and management through knowledge 

transfer. Our study has revealed significant opportunities to scale up and activate the 

KT / innovation pipeline through targeting appropriate funding for the benefits of the 

marine renewable energy sector. The end user community – both developers and 

May, 2009 53/124


Final report 

NERC 

regulators – would benefit significantly from direct involvement of a wider academic 

community in focussing on the environmental research problems they are facing. For 

example, appropriate advice regarding design of monitoring programmes for offshore 

windfarms could have averted wastage of resources and funds – and unusable 

outcomes as a result of advice on spatial and temporal understanding of the 

communities involved. 

Table 7 – Summarising the research responsibilities of organisations with focus on 

marine renewables sector 

Research Principal research areas Responsibility 

Fundamental 

strategic research 

which is 

applicable to NERC 

Ecology and functioning of ecosystems / 

communities and individual species in response to 

energy extraction by devices or arrays of devices 

introduced into the natural environment, 

NERC 

themes : 

SUNR 

Biodiversity 

Technology etc. 

Responses – whether behavioural or physiological 

– to novel physical factors potentially disrupting 

status quo – again at ecosystem, community or 

species level – eg. hydrodynamic / sediment 

characteristics, noise, EMFs, etc. 

Medium to longer term / climate change 

considerations 

Technology development, modelling and methods 

to support the necessary research, 

Innovative thinking about new sets of problems 

which arise as result of changes in the natural 

resource base 

Applied research to 

support 

implementation and 

licensing of 

renewable sector 

projects focussing 

on actual obstacles 

to development 

Strategic research 

linking 

environmental and 

socio-economic 

aspects for 

improving 

sustainability 

Strategic research 

linking 

environmental and 

engineering 

research for 

improved 

sustainability 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Individual species with legal protection (Habitats 

Regulations and European protected species) or 

highly sensitive / significant in ecosystem terms 

Targetted on specific known problem species or 

communities / or known problems from other marine 

sectors 

Development of industry best practice in 

collaboration with industry representatives – 

including survey and monitoring guidance / 

protocols for different organism groups, training for 

observations etc. 

Development of industry standards including 

environmental standards 

Focussing on better cross disciplinary development 

of tools and methods 

Including valuation of ecosystem goods and 

services and development of appropriate decision 

tools 

Carbon footprinting and links with LWEC 

DECC RAG 

(includes issues 

raised by MFA, 

NE, developers) 

COWRIE 

NERC – ESRC 

Focussing on better cross disciplinary development NERC – EPSRC 

of tools and methods 

Needed at concept stage and for whole life cycle of 

technology 

For all marine renewable technologies – wind wave 

and tidal, as well as preliminary evaluation of novel 

ocean technologies 

Closer communication and relationship building 

between scientists in designing / undertaking 

research – not just high level communications 

between NERC and EPSRC research programmes 

May, 2009 54/124


Final report 

NERC 

6 Potential future NERC Work Programmes 

6.1 Overview critical research gaps 

Appendix 1 summarises the current research inventory developed by the DECC 

Research Advisory Group, covering all the major issues which are of concern to 

developers, regulators and policy makers at the present time. The table also shows 

which projects have been completed and which are active. The NERC workshop 

yielded a remarkably similar list of issues and research gaps, and the draft workshop 

report submitted 14 th April summarises the workshop sessions and identifies the main 

themes. The section below discusses briefly the main themes which emerged as 

priorities for the NERC strategy, and the SUNR in particular. 

Research priorities from NERC perspective 

6.1.1 ‘Whole system’ approach to new research 

It was generally agreed amongst those present at the workshop that the science 

evidence base is not adequate or mature enough to support the decisions which are 

being made with respect to the impacts of renewable energy on biodiversity and 

ecosystems in the longer term when questions of carrying capacity are considered. 

There is a need to provide greater confidence, depth and substance to some of 

existing research and the whole system approach needs to be used as the basis for 

designing a future research programme across all biodiversity groups and 

ecosystems. The research community in the UK is acutely aware of need to engage 

with the environmental research challenges presented by development of the 

renewable energy sector, but is currently limited by opportunities to seek appropriate 

funding to support research. Currently the PRIMaRE research programme underway 

with SWRDA support at the Wave Hub site, is the only managed programme which 

seeks to take a ‘whole system’ approach. However even this programme stops short 

of including funded studies into water column processes, which provide the essential 

parameters to feed into ecosystem models, and yield the information necessary for 

economic valuation of essential ecosystem services, such as carbon dioxide 

sequestration and nutrient regeneration. 

6.1.2 Technology, ecosystem models and methods development 

The consensus of the workshop was that technology and methods development to 

support the renewable energy sector is potentially a highly significant development 

science area for NERC. This is partly because of the need to measure / observe and 

record in hostile environments (as yet only poorly known to science) and to measure 

and record complex behaviours such as vertebrates interactions with underwater 

devices. These needs require a step change improvement in existing technologies. 

Integration with existing NERC programmes will yield important synergistic outcomes 

by building capacity in existing research clusters. However opportunities for new 

collaborations amongst academics were identified at the workshop to respond to the 

needs of renewables sector and these could be facilitated via a coordinated 

programme. 

May, 2009 55/124


Final report 

NERC 

6.1.3 Ecosystem restoration and opportunities for ecosystem benefits 

Further discussion on this aspect at the UKERC workshop in Edinburgh indicated 

that although this is not currently a priority for regulators / developers, there is a wide 

recognition of the opportunity presented by development of the renewable energy 

sector to explore this potential from an environmental perspective. This is particularly 

important as the UK environmental footprint continues to move offshore and pressure 

on marine space use from diverse stakeholder groups continues to exacerbate 

conflicts between different activities. 

Before 

OWF 

Construction 

Options 

Full Closure 

Partial closure 

Fixed gears, 

eg.Potting 

Partial closure 

Recreational 

fishing eg. sea 

bass 

Artificial reefs 

Fixed gears 

eg. potting 

Artificial reefs 

+ aquaculture 

eg. Hong Kong 

Biodiversity 

recovery (eg. 

native oyster 

Kentish Flats) 

Ecosystem 

and 

biodiversity 

benefits 

Ecosystem 

restoration/ 

recovery + 

potential fishery 

benefits 

Enhanced 

fishery 

benefits 

Ecosystem 

restoration/ 

recovery 

Fisheries 

Remediation of 

enhancement 

aquaculture 

Impacts 

Ecosystem 

restoration and 

biodiversity 

benefits 

Figure 5 – Illustrating the potential for marine space use within offshore windfarm 

footprints 

6.1.4 Nature of research (experiment, modelling, observation etc). 

It is clear that in order to address the wide range of research questions posed by the 

interactions of biodiversity, ecosystems and marine renewables, that the nature of 

the research undertaken will need to include modelling, observational studies and 

experiment studies involving mesocosms and other experimental systems. The 

Oceans 2025 partners between them have access to all the necessary facilities to 

progress the entire range of studies. There is however, an important issue with 

regard to the device testing / demonstrator sites, since neither EMEC nor Wave Hub 

have their future assured in terms of infrastructure funds to maintain their staff and 

supporting facilities. EMEC is actively seeking funds from diverse sources to meet 

the needs of specific developers for research, as well as addressing generic research 

needs of the wave and tidal sectors. Wave Hub has set up a developer discussion 

forum, and has yet to progress to more coherent structures to respond to the sector 

needs directly. Nevertheless, both sites have the potential to contribute significant 

opportunities to wave and tidal device developers to test the performance of their 

technologies, and by encouraging research scientists to undertake their research at 

these sites, it helps to build up a body of understanding and research quality 

evidence which is of direct value to the whole industry, not only in the UK but 

internationally. Government advisors and developers from overseas are already 

seeking advice from UK institutions on the environmental research which is 

underway at demonstrator sites and in various UK universities. 

May, 2009 56/124


Final report 

NERC 

6.2 Risk, advantages / disadvantages 

The opportunities presented by the marine renewable sector to NERC in terms of 

research challenges, constitute very low risk research science. A significant body of 

the research which needs to be undertaken in the first instance, is desk based and 

/or the experimental systems are already in existence and therefore need not involve 

significant investment in new capital equipment. As mentioned above, experimental 

facilities such as mesocosms are available in at least two of the partners institutions, 

and artificial reef facilities are available through SAMS and NOC. By building on 

research capability which is already present within the Oceans 2025 community and 

encouraging participation by external partners, the core team collaborating within the 

Oceans 2025 programme are able to ensure efficient resource use, avoid time lost in 

setting up new structures and add value through their experience of working 

collaboratively. The main risk that we have identified is that because of competing 

demands on NERC’s resources, this programme is under resourced, and despite the 

challenging targets set by government, and the urgent need to obtain appropriate 

research evidence, that the programme fails to deliver on the research as a result. 

6.3 Fit with existing NERC themes 

• NERC integration with existing DECC RAG research 

The need to convince NERC of the urgency of engaging with marine renewable 

energy research in competition with other pressing areas of research, leaves the 

science community wondering if development of wet renewables will follow the path 

of wind – with the UK once again losing its leading international position because of 

inadequate support to address the risks – including those relating to environmental 

sustainability. The environmental and socio-economic research needs relating to 

licensing and progressing deployment and testing of renewable energy sites have 

been clearly identified, and those which appear on the DECC RAG inventory have 

already been collectively prioritized by RAG members. 

Given the need to establish contact with the end user community, it is clear that 

rather than set up its own research forum, one route for NERC to explore is 

partnership with the DECC RAG, combined with the offer of matching funds to 

progress the critical research needed by the sector. There seems little point in 

replicating the stakeholder forums already in existence and the fastest route from 

research to knowledge transfer within and across a broad range of private /public and 

NGO sector interests, would be for NERC to become directly involved in both the 

RAG and OREEF – the stakeholder forum where regulators, policy makers, coastal 

and marine managers, users of marine space (fisheries, aggregates, navigation oil 

and gas, nature conservation) and their institutional representatives, developers of 

renewable energy projects and their consultants are all represented. This option 

needs to be discussed directly with DECC. 

 

Key partnerships with demonstrator sites 

There was a high degree of consensus at the workshop and subsequently in post 

workshop consultation, that NERC funded research can be effectively and efficiently 

progressed by building on existing science communities associated with EMEC and 

PRIMaRE. This will optimize integration of new research effort and ensure 

sustainability of science programmes at both demonstrator sites. EMEC will primarily 

support testing at single device scale, whereas Wave Hub will host arrays of devices 

(four bays) and encouraging research focus at these sites will ensure maximum 

May, 2009 57/124


Final report 

NERC 

opportunities for data sharing and collaborative programmes across all ecosystem 

components. Possibly the most important contribution to understanding the impacts 

of offshore wind to date have developed from intensive research and monitoring at 

Nysted and Horns Rev offshore windfarms. Even the UK regulators know more about 

the impact of offshore windfarms on biodiversity and ecosystems from these studies 

supported by the Danish government, than from any of the monitoring required as 

part of licensing at UK sites. As in Denmark, focussing effort at EMEC and Wave Hub 

will also facilitate KT at all levels and across all science disciplines between device 

developers, DEFRA, DECC, MFA, NE and through the BERR RAG project 

developers and other commercial interests. 

 

RCEP integration 

Although government thinking is gradually seeping into the collective consciousness, 

there is still a degree of confusion amongst engineering, environmental, social and 

economic scientists about how the different initiatives for energy join up. In particular 

the roles of UKERC and ETI – and how integration will be achieved - how 

collaboration between EPSRC – NERC – ESRC might yet develop to address a new 

set of issues. Although there are embryonic indications that EPSRC through 

SuperGen, is beginning to recognize the need for integration, there is much greater 

need for pro-activity than is apparent at present. On the ground research 

collaborations are evolving to address this need. 

 

International collaboration 

Although we are aware that many research scientists have diverse international 

relationships with countries developing marine renewables, there is a degree of 

replication which could be rationalized for everyone’s benefit across the UK. Because 

of the high degree of specialisation, there is in fact only a small degree of overlap in 

research interests and ideally there needs to be research representation on behalf of 

UK marine renewable energy sector research community – to present an outward 

facing front to the rest of the world. It may be possible to embed this function within 

UKERC, but wherever located resources will be needed to support development of 

the UK profile in the sector to the international community. 

6.4 Overview of structural / coordination issues 

Research need Issues Solutions 

Biodiversity and 

ecosystem 

characterisation - 

environmental setting of 

MRE sites 

Post implementation 

monitoring 

Assessment of what is 

significant in temporal 

and spatial terms for all 

ecosystem components 

Common approaches to baseline 

surveys 

Data storage/ management 

including QA 

Data quality for research 

purposes 

Data availability to research 

community 

Research currently 

commissioned on agreed needs 

basis by RAG – need holistic 

approach 

Significance determined thro 

licensing process 

Research often not available to 

support decisions 

Joined up strategy for data 

acquisition, management, and 

access involving all stakeholders – 

(eg. one possible route is 

expansion of OREEF to include 

research community) 

This report identifies priorities for 

individual species 

Re-balance research effort to 

reflect whole system approach 

KT effort needs to be stepped up 

May, 2009 58/124


Final report 

NERC 

Assessment of what is 

significant against 

background of moving 

baseline (natural / 

climate change 

induced) 

Step change in 

technologies / methods 

/ models to support 

industry 

Framework integrating 

all ecosystem 

components for 

assessing risk to 

populations / species – 

based on qualitative 

and quantitative 

information 

Existing research could be better 

packaged 

Research could be made 

available to decision makers in 

more accessible format 

Information needed for hostile 

environments – to date not well 

studied – new approaches 

needed 

Lack of integration with research 

community – potential for 

application of existing models 

not exploited 

Needs developing using 

research quality information 

No programme in place to 

consider cumulative / interactive 

effects 

As above 

Engage research community more 

directly with end user community 

(ie. regulators / developers) 

Build on EMEC and PRIMaRE 

emergent stakeholder liaison 

groups 

Set up UK wide managed 

programme to integrate findings 

from disparate sources 

Need coordinated research 

programmes at demonstrator sites 

May, 2009 59/124


Final report 

NERC 

7 Bibliographic review 

The purpose of this section is to investigate the literature published within the scope 

of the current study. The articles were identified using Web of Science 7 , and as such 

only include peer-reviewed articles. This section does not attempt to review the 

literature available on coastal and offshore renewable energy but aims to give an 

indication of where published studies have been focussed. 

Gill (2005) reviewed offshore renewable energy, in particular the ecological 

implications of generating electricity in the coastal zone. As part of his review the 

number of peer-reviewed articles with the term ‘renewable energy’ (or derivative 

terms) published between 1974 and 2003 were presented. These results have been 

updated as part of the current review. A total of 9,413 peer-reviewed articles are 

highlighted (Figure 6) within this field between 1974 and 2009. There is a clear 

increase in the number of publications within this field since the start of the 1990s, 

from less than 100 publications per year in 1990 to more than 1500 articles being 

published in 2008. 

Figure 6 – Number of peer-reviewed articles with the term ‘renewable energy’ (and 

derivative terms) published between 1974 and 2009 (after Gill, 2005). 

This approach has been further developed here to include the number of peerreviewed 

articles specifically related to coastal/offshore renewable energy during the 

same period (see Figure 7). 

7 All of these searches have been carried out using Web of Science data from the expanded Science Citation Index 

(SCI-EXPANDED), Social Science Citation Index (SSCI), Arts and Humanities Citation Index (A&HCI) and 

Conference Proceedings Citation Index – Science (CPCI-S). 

May, 2009 60/124


Final report 

NERC 

Figure 7 – Number of peer-reviewed articles with the term ‘renewable energy’ AND 

‘coastal or offshore’ (and derivative terms) published between 1974 and 2009. 

A similar pattern is observed, with increasing publications since 1990, however, it is 

of note that there are relatively few published papers relating to coastal/offshore 

renewable energy (243 articles) when compared to the general renewable energy 

literature as discussed above (9,413 articles). 

Further analysis of these results shows that the majority of these papers were 

published in the USA (21%), UK (17%) and Germany (9%), with Australia, Denmark, 

Japan and Sweden each accounting for 3% of the total papers published (8 articles 

each). 

These articles (243 in total) were further analysed with respect to the subject area(s) 

within which they were published (Figure 8). A total of 77 subject areas were 

included within the analysis however for the purpose of this report similar categories 

were grouped together for example ‘Environmental & Biological Sciences’ and 

‘Engineering’ both include 11 individual subject areas and the ‘Others’ category 

includes 54 individual subject areas, with very few papers published in each of these 

individual fields. It is clear that the majority of the published articles relate to 

engineering aspects of offshore/coastal renewable energy (35%), with the remaining 

subject areas having a similar number of articles within their respective fields (22% 

each). 

Figure 8 – Breakdown of subject areas within which the published articles were 

included (243 articles in total). 

Given the scope of the present study, the articles within the environmental & 

biological science category only were further analysed with respect to the type of 

May, 2009 61/124


Final report 

NERC 

offshore/coastal renewable energy they discuss (e.g. wind, wave and tidal stream) 

and the various ecological aspects of the marine environment (birds, fish, mammals, 

benthos and water column) which may be impacted upon (Table 8). The majority of 

literature within this subject focussed on wind energy, followed by wave and tidal 

stream, respectively. The majority of the papers within this subject discussed fish, 

followed by benthos (invertebrates), birds, the water column and marine mammals, 

respectively. 

A full list of these articles is provided in the list below. 

Table 8 – Articles broken down by renewable energy type and ecological component 

Element No. of articles (out of 87) % 

Renewable Energy Type 

Wind 17 20 

Wave 9 10 

Tidal Stream 7 8 

Ecological Component 

Birds 3 3 

Fish 10 11 

Mammals 1 1 

Benthos (Invertebrates) 4 5 

Water column 2 2 

This brief review has therefore demonstrated that although there has been a growing 

literature on renewable energy since the early 1990s, there is still not a great deal of 

published information relating to offshore and coastal renewables. Within this limited 

literature, the majority of articles relate to the engineering aspects of offshore/coastal 

wind energy generation with only very few peer-reviewed articles relating to potential 

impacts of such developments on the marine ecosystems and biodiversity. Those 

which do exist are summarised in the reference section of this report – this being a 

synthesis of references used in two major recent reviews by Linley and Laffontl 

(2009) (for Rolls Royce) and Inger et al (in press). Surprisingly, we were not able to 

identify any articles which appeared in both the inventory below in Table 9 and the 

reference section of this report, suggesting a sharp division between the research 

groups working on environmental and engineering research in the renewable sectors. 

May, 2009 62/124


Final report 

Table 9 – Results of the initial literature search undertaken in Web of Science (87 articles in total) 

Authors Title Journal Year Volume Issue 

No. 

Proceedings of The ASME 

Angeles, ME; Gonzalez, JE; The impacts of climate changes in the renewable energy 

International Solar Energy 

Erickson, DJ; Hernandez, JL resources in the Caribbean region 

Conference 

Asamoah, J 

Greening electricity generation in South Africa through wind 

energy 

Greenhouse Gas Control 

Technologies, Vols I And Ii, 

Proceedings 

Pages 

2007 467 481 

2003 1349 1352 

Baker, C Tidal power Energy Policy 1991 19 8 792 797 

Performance evaluation of the "large SMADES" 

Banat, F; Jwaied, N; Rommel, M; 

autonomous desalination solar-driven membrane distillation Desalination 2007 217 01-Mar 17 28 

Koschikowski, J; Wieghaus, M 

plant in Aqaba, Jordan 

Bermudez-Contreras, A; Renewable energy powered desalination in Baja California 

Desalination 2008 220 01-Mar 431 440 

Thomson, M; Infield, DG Sur, Mexico 

Evaluation and emergy analysis of the Cobscook Bay 

Campbell, DE 

Northeastern Naturalist 2004 11 355 424 

ecosystem 

Colombo, D; De Gerloni, M; Reali, 

An energy-efficient submarine desalination plant Desalination 1999 122 02-Mar 171 176 

M 

Cooper, WS; Hinton, Cl; Ashton, 

N; Saulter, A; Morgan, C; Proctor, 

R; Bell, C; Huggett, Q 

Davies, PA 

Demirbas, A 

Ducrotoy, JP; Elliott, M 

Elhadidy, MA; Shaahid, SM 

An introduction to the UK marine renewable atlas 

Wave-powered desalination: resource assessment and 

review of technology 

Global renewable energy resources 

The science and management of the North Sea and the 

Baltic Sea: Natural history, present threats and future 

challenges 

Wind resource assessment of eastern coastal region of 

Saudi Arabia 

Proceedings of The Institution Of 

Civil Engineers-Maritime 

Engineering 

2006 159 1 1 7 


Energy Sources Part A-Recovery 

Utilization And Environmental 

Effects 

2006 28 8 779 792 

Marine Pollution Bulletin 2008 57 01-May 8 21 


Falnes, J; Lovseth, J Ocean wave energy Energy Policy 1991 19 8 768 775 

Fan, J; Sun, W; Ren, DM 

Renewables portfolio standard and regional energy 

structure optimisation in China 

Energy Policy 2005 33 3 279 287 

May, 2009 63/124


Final report 

Authors Title Journal Year Volume Issue Pages 

No. 

A stand alone complex for the production of water, food, 

Fath, HES; El-Shall, FM; Vogt, G; 

electrical power and salts for the sustainable development Desalination 2005 183 01-Mar 13 22 

Seibert, U 

of small communities in remote areas 

Faulkner, RD 

Gaudiosi, G 

Gibbons, J; Papapetrou, M; Epp, 

C 

Gill, AB 

Gill, AB; Kimber, AA 

Heimiller, D; Haymes, S; 

Schwartz, M; Musial, W 

Hlebcar, B 

Hlebcar, B 

Horvath, L 

Inoue, K; Abe, Y; Murakami, M; 

Mori, T 

Jin, D; Grigalunas, TA 

Jo, CH; Jeong, H; Park, RS; Cho, 

WC 

Jones, AT; Rowley, W 

Fossil water or renewable resource - the case for one 

Arabian aquifer 

Offshore wind energy potential in the Mediterranean 

Assessment of EU policy: Implications for the 

implementation of autonomous desalination units powered 

by renewable resources in the Mediterranean region 

Offshore renewable energy: ecological implications of 

generating electricity in the coastal zone 

The potential for cooperative management of 

elasmobranchs and offshore renewable energy 

development in UK waters 

Proceedings of The Institution Of 

Civil Engineers-Water Maritime And 


Renewable Energy : Technology 

And The Environment, Vols 1-5 

1994 106 4 325 331 

1992 1622 1633 


Journal of Applied Ecology 2005 42 4 605 615 

Journal of The Marine Biological 

Association Of The United Kingdom 

2005 85 5 1075 1081 

Offshore wind resource potential of the United States 2007 Oceans, Vols 1-5 2007 675 682 

Influence of dispersed electricity production on distribution 

networks 

Dispersed electricity production on the open electricity 

market 

Wind energy as a part of a coastal zone sustainable 

development strategy 

Feasibility study of desalination technology utilizing the 

temperature difference between seawater and inland 

atmosphere 

Environmental compliance and energy exploration and 

production - application to offshore oil and gas 

Application of Floating Tidal Current Power System in 

Cooling Water Channel 

Global perspective: Economic forecast for renewable ocean 

energy technologies 

Energy And The Environment 2004, 

Vol II 


Vol Ii 

2004 165 173 

2002 193 199 

Periodicum Biologorum 2000 102 531 535 


Land Economics 1993 69 1 82 97 

Proceedings of The Eighteenth 

(2008) International Offshore And 2008 466 468 

Polar Engineering Conference, Vol 1 

Marine Technology Society Journal 2002 36 4 85 90 

May, 2009 64/124


Final report 


No. 

Jones, AT; Rowley, W 

Recent developments and forecasts for renewable ocean 

energy systems 

Oceans 2001 Mts/Ieee: An Ocean 

Odyssey, Vols 1-4, Conference 

Proceedings 

Pages 

2001 575 578 

Jungbluth, N; Bauer, C; Dones, R; Life cycle assessment for emerging technologies: Case International Journal of Life Cycle 

2005 10 1 24 34 

Frischknecht, R 

studies for photovoltaic and wind power 

Assessment 

Junginger, M; Agterbosch, S; 

Renewable electricity in the Netherlands Energy Policy 2004 32 9 1053 1073 

Faaij, A; Turkenburg, W 

Kannen, A 

Kershman, SA; Rheinlander, H; 

Gabler, H 

Kershman, SA; Rheinlander, R; 

Neumann, T; Goebel, O 

Kim, YC 

The need for integrated assessment of large-scale offshore 

windfarm development 

Seawater reverse osmosis powered from renewable energy 

sources - hybrid wind/photovoltaic/grid power supply for 

small-scale desalination in Libya 

Hybrid wind/PV and conventional power for desalination in 

Libya - GECOL's facility for medium and small scale 

research at Ras Ejder 

Assessment of California's ocean wave energy recovery 

Managing European Coasts: Past, 

Present And Future 

2005 365 378 



California And The World Ocean '97 

- Taking A Look At California's 

Ocean Resources: An Agenda For 

The Future, Vols 1 And 2, 

Conference Proceedings 

1998 175 182 

Kull, A; Laas, A 

Sustainable management of wind resources in coastal 

areas in Estonia 

Sustainable Planning And 

Development 

2003 6 69 78 

Kuo, C; Sukovoy, O 

Contributions of naval architecture to offshore windfarm 

developments 

Proceedings of The Fourteenth 

(2004) International Offshore And 

Polar Engineering Conference, Vol 

1 

2004 136 141 

Lai, CM; Huang, JL 

Combination of renewable energies and a simple 

desalinator used in land aqua-farms in Taiwan 

Water Resources Management Iii 2005 80 221 226 

Lai, CM; Lin, TH 

Potential assessment of the use of green energy to meet 

the electricity demand in a land aquafarm 

Sustainable Development And 

Planning II, Vols 1 And 2 

2005 84 653 660 

May, 2009 65/124


Final report 


No. 

Pages 

Effects of wind turbines on flight behaviour of wintering 

Larsen, JK; Guillemette, M common eiders: implications for habitat use and collision Journal of Applied Ecology 2007 44 3 516 522 

risk 

Livnat, A 

Desalination in Israel - emerging key component in the 

regional water-balance formula 


Madsen, PT; Wahlberg, M; Wind turbine underwater noise and marine mammals: 

Tougaard, J; Lucke, K; Tyack, P implications of current knowledge and data needs 

Marine Ecology-Progress Series 2006 309 279 295 

Magadza, CHD 

Climate change impacts and human settlements in Africa: Environmental Monitoring And 

Prospects for adaptation 

Assessment 

2000 61 1 193 205 

Weather data and analysis of hybrid photovoltaic - wind 

Mahmoudi, H; Abdul-Wahab, SA; 

power generation systems adapted to a seawater 

Goosen, MFA; Sablani, SS; 

greenhouse desalination unit designed for arid coastal 

Perret, J; Ouagued, A; Spahis, N 

countries 


Majdandzic, L; Sauer, DU 

Project of a self-sufficient solar building on the island of Krk Energy And The Environment 2002, 

2002 

- Croatia 

Vol I 

85 90 

Renewable energy sources and their role in the sustainable 

Majstrovic, M; Jelavic, B; Vujcic, R Periodicum Biologorum 

development of the Adriatic littoral area 

2000 102 469 474 

Mander, S 

The role of discourse coalitions in planning for renewable 

energy: a case study of wind-energy deployment 

Environment And Planning C- 

Government And Policy 

2008 26 3 583 600 

Mangin, A; Guevel, P; Murray, CN 

Renewable energy sources and requirements needed to 

substitute one million tons of CO2 atmospheric emissions in 

Europe 

Greenhouse Gas Mitigation: 

Technologies For Activities 

Implemented Jointly 

1998 513 521 

Markevicius, A; Katinas, V; 

Marciukaitis, M 

Marshall, N 

Masud, J 

Morthorst, PE 

Wind energy development policy and prospects in Lithuania Energy Policy 2007 35 10 4893 4901 

Mangrove conservation in relation to overall environmental 

considerations 

Wind power project at Pasni 

Offshore windfarms and a green certificate market. 

Hydrobiologia 1994 285 01-Mar 303 309 

Greenhouse Gas Mitigation: 

Technologies For Activities 

Implemented Jointly 


Technologies 

1998 595 604 

2001 845 850 

May, 2009 66/124


Final report 

Authors Title Journal Year Volume Issue Pages 

No. 

The cost of reducing CO2 emissions - Methodological 

Morthorst, PE 

Biomass & Bioenergy 1998 15 04-May 325 331 

approach, illustrated by the Danish energy plan 

Offshore wind electricity: A viable energy option for the 

Musial, W 


coastal united states 

Muyungi, RS 

Ohman, MC; Sigray, P; 

Westerberg, H 

Osawa, H; Miyazaki, T 

Paredes, AR; Gonzalez, BR 

Managing land use, protecting land and mitigating land 

degradation: Tanzania case study 

Offshore windmills and the effects electromagnetic fields an 

fish 

Wave-PV hybrid generation system carried in the Offshore 

Floating Type Wave Power Device "Mighty Whale" 

Green power for protected natural areas in Mexico focused 

on conserving and improving the quality of life 

Climate And Land Degradation 2007 437 445 

Ambio 2007 36 8 630 633 

Oceans '04 Mts/Ieee Techno-Ocean 

'04, Vols 1- 2, Conference 

Proceedings, Vols. 1-4 

Proceedings of The Fifty-Fourth 

Annual Gulf And Caribbean 

Fisheries Institute 

2004 1860 1866 

2003 709 715 

Paulsen, K; Hensel, F 

Design of an autarkic water and energy supply driven by 

Desalination 

renewable energy using commercially available components 

2007 203 01-Mar 455 462 

Pelc, R; Fujita, RM Renewable energy from the ocean Marine Policy 2002 26 6 471 479 

Portman, M 

Involving the public in the impact assessment of offshore 

renewable energy facilities 

Marine Policy 2009 33 2 332 338 

Performance simulation of integrated water and power 

Rheinlander, J; Perz, EW; Goebel, 

systems - software tools ipsepro and resyspro for technical, Desalination 

O 

economic and ecological analysis 

2003 157 01-Mar 57 64 

Rodgers, M; Olmsted, C 

Engineering and regulatory challenges facing the 

development of commercially viable offshore wind projects 


Sagie, D; Feinerman, E; Aharoni, 

E 

Potential of solar desalination in Israel and in its close 

vicinity 


Sandyswinsch, C; Harris, PJC Green development on the cape-verde islands Environmental Conservation 1994 21 3 225 230 

Santora, C; Hade, N; Odell, J 

Managing offshore wind developments in the United States: 

Legal, environmental and social considerations using a case Ocean & Coastal Management 2004 47 03-Apr 141 164 

study in Nantucket Sound 

Sclavounos, P Floating offshore wind turbines Marine Technology Society Journal 2008 42 2 39 43 

May, 2009 67/124


Final report 


No. 

Pages 

Shim, S; Kim, MH 

Proceedings of The Eighteenth 

Rotor-floater-tether coupled dynamic analysis of offshore 

(2008) International Offshore And 2008 

floating wind turbines 

Polar Engineering Conference, Vol 1 

455 460 

Side, J; Jowitt, P 

Technologies and their influence on future UK marine 

resource development and management 

Marine Policy 2002 26 4 231 241 

Smit, T; Junginger, M; Smits, R 

Technological learning in offshore wind energy: Different 

roles of the government 


Born to lose .1. Measures of tissue loss and regeneration by 

Stancyk, SE; Golde, HM; 

the brittlestar microphiopholis-gracillima (echinodermata, Marine Biology 

Papelindstrom, PA; Dobson, WE 

ophiuroidea) 

1994 118 3 451 462 

Steiner, ZB; Steiner, I 

The role of oil and gas in contemporary energetics and in Energy And The Environment 2002, 

2002 

the future 

Vol I 

299 303 

Stephens-Romero, S; Samuelsen, Demonstration of a novel assessment methodology for International Journal Of Hydrogen 

GS 

hydrogen infrastructure deployment 


2009 34 2 628 641 

Poor evidence-base for assessment of windfarm impacts on 

Stewart, GB; Pullin, AS; Coles, CF Environmental Conservation 

birds 

2007 34 1 1 11 

Stuyfzand, PJ; Kappelhof, JWNM 

Floating, high-capacity desalting islands on renewable multienergy 

supply 


Svel-Cerovecki, S 

Petroleum hydrocarbons and the Mediterranean 


2004 

Vol I 

67 74 

Oceans 2003 Mts/Ieee: Celebrating 

Utilization of a very large mobile offshore structure for clean 

Takagi, K; Yano, W; Yamamoto, K The Past...Teaming Toward The 

energy conversion 

Future 

2003 866 872 

Takeuchi, M; Matsumiya, N; Niwa, 

S 

Study on CO2 global recycling system 


Technologies 

1999 433 438 

Tavner, P Wind power as a clean-energy contributor Energy Policy 2008 36 12 4397 4400 

Thompson, R 

Uyterlinde, MA; Junginger, M; De 

Vries, HJ; Faaij, APC; 

Turkenburg, WC 

Valerio, D; Beirao, P; DA Costa, 

JS 

Reporting offshore wind power: Are newspapers facilitating 

informed debate 

Implications of technological learning on the prospects for 

renewable energy technologies in Europe 

Optimisation of wave energy extraction with the Archimedes 

Wave Swing 

Coastal Management 2005 33 3 247 262 


Ocean Engineering 2007 34 17-18 2330 2344 

May, 2009 68/124


Final report 


No. 

Van Der Veen, HH; Hulscher, 

SJMH; Lapena, BP 

Seabed morphodynamics due to offshore windfarms 

River, Coastal And Estuarine 

Morphodynamics: Rcem 2007, Vols 

1 And 2 

Pages 

2008 1061 1066 

Waters, JK; Mayer, RH Ocean energy design projects at the US Naval Academy Oceans 2005, Vols 1-3 2005 1415 1420 

The development and use of individuals-based models to 

West, AD; Caldow, RWG predict the effects of habitat loss and disturbance on waders Ibis 2006 148 158 168 

and waterfowl 

Wilhelmsson, D; Malm, T 

Fouling assemblages on offshore wind power plants and 

adjacent substrata 

Estuarine Coastal And Shelf Science 2008 79 3 459 466 

Yuval; Broday, DM 

Assessing the long term impact of power plant emissions on 

Journal of Environmental Monitoring 2009 11 

regional air pollution using extensive monitoring data 

2 425 433 

May, 2009 69/124


Final report 

NERC 

8 Conclusions 

The marine renewable sector represents a significant commercial opportunity for the UK 

economy, and the recent targets set by government across all low carbon sectors constitute 

a major challenge to all research science sectors to support its development. The focus on 

technology development and performance testing to date, has resulted in the environment 

being seen as an impediment to progress, with the result that research effort has been 

focussed on UK statutory obligations to protect designated or European protected species. 

The research which is now needed, to derive an adequate holistic understanding and 

evidence of the impact of deploying arrays of renewable energy technology in our coastal 

waters is, however, essential if development of these technologies is to fulfil its potential – 

not only in the UK but worldwide. Consequently, putting the marine environment centre 

stage and posing fundamental questions about environmental carrying capacity and 

maintenance of biodiversity and ecosystem functions, will enable us to assess whether low 

carbon technologies deployed into the marine environment are compatible with sustainable 

use of the natural resource. 

As a result of recent meetings and workshops (EMEC, September 2008, NERC workshop 

(Feb 26 th, ) and the UKERC workshop (March 24 th 25 th ) we have derived as complete a 

synthesis of the research needs of policy makers, regulators and developers relating to 

biodiversity and ecosystems as possible. An updated inventory of the research needs was 

produced recently by DECC and it is clear that there is a very significant body of research 

covering all elements of biodiversity and environmental impacts of marine renewables which 

is needed to support sector development, but not yet funded. Many of the research 

questions and issues were confirmed and discussed in depth during our consultation and 

workshop sessions as constituting priority research issues for regulators, developers and 

policy makers. The main hurdle to progressing more research projects in the short term 

appears to be lack of resource. Our recommendation therefore is that NERC considers the 

possibility of feeding funds through the DECC RAG as a partner organisation in the RAG. 

This would need to be discussed at the highest level with those concerned, but rather than 

create a new stakeholder / end user forum to bring academics closer to the end user 

community, this would avoid replication and provide a ready made route for businesses, 

policy makers and regulators to benefit directly from novel research delivered through 

NERC strategic programmes. 

Because of the complexity of the NERC strategic research focussing on potentially on the 

main opportunities identified in relation to whole systems, technology / methods 

development and ecosystem restoration and socio-economic opportunities, the most efficient 

way to deliver the research in a timely and cost effective manner is almost certainly to opt for 

a managed programme. This would minimise the project management time in research 

groups and ensure proper integration across all research areas, including potentially with 

research underway and coordinated by the DECC RAG. 

May, 2009 70/124


Final report 

NERC 

9 References 

ABPmer (2008). Atlas of UK Marine Renewable Energy Resources. Report from ABP Marine 

Environmental Research Ltd to The Department for Business, Enterprise & 

Regulatory Reform 

ABPmer (2006). The potential nature conservation impacts of wave and tidal energy 

extraction by marine renewables development. CCW Policy Research Report No. 

06/7. 

Andersson, M.H., Dock-Åkerman, E., Ubral-Hedenberg, R. & Öhman, M.C. (2007) 

Swimming behaviour of roach (Rutilus rutilus) and three-spined stickleback 

(Gasterosteus aculeatus) in response to wind power noise and single-tone 

frequencies. Ambio, 36, 636-638 

AquaEnergy Group, Ltd. (2006). “AquaBuOY Wave Energy Converter.” Available at 

www.aquaenergygroup.com. 

Archimedes Wave Swing. (2006). “Archimedes Wave Swing Website.” Available at 

www.waveswing.com. 

Arnett, A.B., Brown, W.K., Erickson, W.P., Fiedler, J.K., Hamilton, B.L., Henry, T.H., Jain, A., 

Johnson, G.D., Kerns, J., Koford, R.R., Nicholson, C.P., O’Connell, T.J., Piorkowski, 

M.D. & Tankersley, R.D. (2008) Patterns of bat fatalities at wind energy facilities. 

North America. Journal of Wildlife Management, 72, 61-78. 

Baerwald, E.F., D’Amours, G.H., Klug, B.J. & Barclay, R.M.R. (2008) Barotrauma is a 

significant cause of bat fatalities at wind farms. Current Biology, 18, R695-696. 

Balmford, A., Gravestock, P., Hockley, N., McClean, C.J. & Roberts, C.M. (2004) The 

worldwide costs of marine protected areas. Proceedings of the National Academy of 

Sciences, 101, 9694-9697 

Bedard, R. (2005). Oregon Offshore Wave Energy Demonstration Project: Bridging the Gap 

Between the Completed Phase 1 Project Definition Study and and the Next Phase – 

Phase 2 Detailed Design and Permitting Electrical Power Research Institute Report 

E21 EPRI WP-010 OR. Palo Alto, CA. 

Bedard, R., et al. (2005). Final Summary Report, Project Definition Study, Offshore Wave 

Power Feasibility Demonstration Project, EPRI Global WP 009 − US Rev 1, Jan. 14, 

2005. Electrical Power Research Institute. Palo Alto, CA. 

Bohnsack, J.A, Harper, D.E., McClellan, D.B. & Hulsbeck, M. (1994) Effects of reef size on 

colonisation and assemblage structure of fishes at artificial reefs off south-eastern 

Florida, USA. Bulletin of Marine Science, 55, 796-823. 

Bottom, D., J.A. Lichatowich and C.A. Frissell. (1998). Variability of Pacific Northwest Marine 

Ecosystem and Relation to Salmon Production. In: McMurray, G.R. and R.J. Bailey 

(eds.). Change in Pacific Northwest Coastal Ecosystems. NOAA Coastal Ocean 

Program Decision Analysis Series No. 11. Silver Spring, MD. 

Braun, G.M. (2005). Draft White Paper: Benthic infauna at the mouth of the Columbia River. 

Institute for Natural Resources, Oregon State University. Corvallis, OR 

Brock, R.E. & Norris, J.E. (1989) An analysis of the efficacy of four artificial reef designs in 

tropical waters. Bulletin of Marine Science, 44, 934-941. 

Bulleri, F. & Airoldi, L. (2005) Artificial marine structures facilitate the spread of a nonindigenous 

green algae, Codium fragile ssp. Tomentosoides, in the north Adriatic 

Sea. Journal of Applied Ecology, 42, 1063-1072 

May, 2009 71/124


Final report 

NERC 

Cada, G., J. Ahlgrimm, M. Bahleda, S.D. Stavrakas, D. Hall, R. Moursund and M. Sale. 

(2007). Potential impacts of hydrokinetic and wave energy conversion technologies 

on aquatic environments. Fisheries (32):174-181. 

Carstensen, J., Henriksen, O.D. & Teilmann, J. (2006) Impacts of offshore wind farm 

construction on harbour porpoises: acoustic monitoring of echo-location activity using 

porpoise detectors (T-PODs). Marine Ecology Progress Series, 321, 295-308. 

Casini, M., Lövgren, J., Hjelm, J., Cardinale, M., Molinero, J. & Kornilovs, G. (2008) Multilevel 

trophic cascades in a heavily exploited open marine system. Proceedings of the 

Royal Society of London, Series B, 275, 1793-1801. doi:10.1098/rspb.2007.1752. 

Castro, J.J., Santiago, J.A. & Santana-Ortega, A.T. (2002) A general theory on fish 

aggregation to floating objects: An alternative to the meeting point hypothesis. 

Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries, 11, 255-277. 

Chamberlain, D., Freeman, S., Rehfisch, M., Fox, A. and Desholm, M. (2005). Appraisal of 

Scottish Natural Heritage’s Wind Farm Collision Risk Model and its Application. 

Report by the British Trust for Ornithology under contract to English Nature. BTO 

Research Report No. 401. 

Christensen, L., (2006), e-mail from Christensen (Wave Dragon ApS, Copenhagen, 

Denmark) to L. Habegger (Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne, Ill.), June 22. 

Clark, N.A. (2006) Tidal barrages and birds. Ibis, 148, 152-157. 

Clark, S. & Edwards, A.J. (1999) An evaluation of artificial reef structures as tools for marine 

habitat rehabilitation in the Maldives. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater 

Ecosystems, 9, 5-21. 

Claudet, J. et al. (2008) Marine reserves: size and age do matter. Ecology Letters, 11, 481- 

489. 

Connell, S.D. & Glasby, T.M. (1999) Do urban structures influence local abundance and 

diversity of subtidal epibiota A case study from Sydney Harbour, Australia. Marine 

Environmental Research, 47, 373-387. 

Connell, S.D. (2001) Urban structures as marine habitats: an experimental comparision of 

the composition and abundance of subtidal epibiota among pillings, pontoons and 

rocky reefs. Marine Environmental Research, 52, 115-125. 

Cotton P.A., Sims D.W., Fanshawe S., and Chadwick M. (2005) The effects of climate 

variability on zooplankton and basking shark (Cetorhinus maximus) relative 

abundance off southwest Britain, Fisheries Oceanography 14 (2), 151–155 

Coull, K.A., Johnstone, R. and Rogers, S.I. (1998). Fisheries Sensitivity Maps in British 

Waters. United Kingdom Offshore Operators Association. 

Cox, D. (2005). Draft White Paper: Sediment transport and nearshore hydrodynamics at the 

mouth of the Columbia River. Institute for Natural Resources, Oregon State 

University. Corvallis, OR. 

Croll, D.A., Clark, C.W., Calambokidis, J., Ellison, W.T.& Tershy, B.R. (2001) Effect of 

anthropogenic low-frequency noise on the foraging ecology of Balaenoptera whales. 

Animal Conservation, 4, 13-27. 

Dal Ferro, B. (2006) Wave and tidal energy its emergence and the challenges it faces. 

Refocus, 7, 46-48. doi:10.1016/S1471-0846(06)70574-1. 

David, J.A. (2006) Likely sensitivity of bottlenose dolphins to pile-driving noise. Water and 

Environment Journal, 20, 48-54 

DEFRA (2007). Cost impact of marine biodiversity policies on business – The Marine Bill. 

Report from ABP Marine Environmental Research Ltd to DEFRA 

Dempster, T. & Taquet, M. (2004) Fish aggregation device (FAD) research: gaps in current 

knowledge and future directions foe ecological studies. Reviews in Fish Biology and 

Fisheries, 14, 21-42. 

May, 2009 72/124


Final report 

NERC 

Department of the Navy. (2003). Evironmental Assessment, Proposed Wave Energy 

Technology Project, Marine Corps Base Hawaii, Kaneohe Bay, Hawaii, Jan. Emmett, 

R. 2007. Personal communication 

Desholm, M. & Kahlert, J. (2005) Avian collision risk at an offshore wind farm. Biology 

Letters, 1, 296-298. 

Desholm, M., Fox, A.D., Beasley, P.D.L. & Kahlert, J. (2006) Remote techniques for 

counting and estimating the number of bird-wind turbine collisions at sea: a review. 

Ibis, 148, 76-89 

Diederichs, A., Nehls, G., Dähne, M., Adler, S., Koschinski, S., Verfuß, U. (2008). 

Methodologies for measuring and assessing potential changes in marine mammal 

behaviour, abundance or distribution arising from the construction, operation and 

decommissioning of offshore windfarms. Report commissioned by COWRIE 

(COWRIE CHANGE-06-2007) 

Dolman, S.J., Green, M. & Simmonds, M.P. (2007) Marine renewable energy and 

cetaceans. Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society SC/59/e10 

http://iwcoffice.org/_documents/sci_com/SC59docs/SC-59-E10.pdf 

Dooling, R. (2002) Avian hearing and avoidance of wind turbines. Report to the National 

Renewable Energy Laboratory. NREL/TP-500-30844. http://www.osti.gov/bridge/ 

Drewitt, A.L. & Langston, R. H. W. (2006) Assessing the impacts of wind farms on birds. Ibis, 

148, 29-42 

DTI (2005). Guidance on the assessment of the impact of the offshore windfarms: Seascape 

and Visual Impact Report. Report prepared by Enviros Consulting Ltd for the 

Department of Trade and Industry (DTI). 

DTI (2002). A scoping study for an environmental impact field programme in tidal current 

energy. Report from the Robert Gordon University, Aberdeen, to The Department of 

Trade and Industry (DTI) 

Eden, S.M.E, Teilmann, J., Dietz, R., Carstensen, J. (2004) Effects from the construction of 

Nysted offshore wind farm on seals in Rødsand seal sanctuary based on remote 

video monitoring. Technical report to Energy E2 A/S. National Environmental 

Research Institute, Roskilde. 

EMEC (2005). Environmental impact assessment (EIA) guidance for developers at the 

European Marine Energy Centre. European Marine Energy Centre. Orkney. Wave 

Energy Ecological Effects Workshop 51 

Energetech (2006). “Media Release: Port Kembla Trial Deployment Results,” Nov. 2005. 

Available at www.energetech.com.au. 

European Thematic Network on Wave Energy (ETNWE) (2003). Results from the Work of 

the European Thematic Network on Wave Energy, ERK5-CT-1999-2001, 

2000−2003. Available at www.wave-energy.net. 

Evans, P.G.H. (1980). Cetaceans in British Waters. Mammal Review, 10, 1-52. 

Evans, P.G.H. (1990). Whales, Dolphins and Porpoises. The Order Cetacea. Pp. 299-350. 

In: Handbook of British Mammals. (Eds. G.B. Corbet and S. Harris) Blackwell, 

Oxford. 588pp. 

Evans, P.G.H., Anderwald P. and Baines M.E. (2003). UK cetacean status review. Final 

report to English Nature and the Countryside Council for Wales. Sea Watch 

Foundation, Oxford, UK, 150pp. 

Faber Maunsell and METOC PLC (2007). Scottish Marine Renewables SEA Environmental 

Report. Scottish Executive, Strategic Environmental Assessment 

Fayram, A.H. & de Risi, A. (2007) The potential compatibility of offshore wind power and 

fisheries: An example using bluefin tuna in the Adriatic Sea. Ocean and Coastal 

Management, 40, 597-605. 

May, 2009 73/124


Final report 

NERC 

FERC (2006). Preliminary Draft Environmental Assessment: Makah Bay Offshore Wave 

Energy Pilot Project. FERC Docket No. DI02-3-002. Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission. Washington, DC. 

FERC (2007). Pre-Application Document: Reedsport OPT Wave Park. Reedsport Wave 

Energy Project, LLC, FERC Project No. 12713. Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission. Washington, DC. 

Fox, A.D., Desholm, M., Kahlert, J., Christensen, T.K. & Petersen, I.K. (2006) Information 

needs to support environmental impact assessment of the effects of European 

marine offshore wind farms on birds. Ibis, 148, 129-144 

Fraenkel, P.L. (2006) Tidal current energy technologies. Ibis, 148, 145-151 

Friedlander, A.M., Brown, E. & Monaco, M.E. (2007a) Coupling ecology and GIS to evaluate 

efficacy of marine protected areas in Hawaii. Ecological Applications, 17, 715-730. 

Friedlander, A.M., Brown, E. & Monaco, M.E. (2007b) Defining reef fish habitat utilization 

patterns in Hawaii: comparisons between marine protected areas and areas open to 

fishing. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 351, 221-233. 

Galanidi, M., Kaiser, M.J., Neill, S.P., Elliot, A.J., Caldow, R.W.G., & Sutherland, W.J. (In 

review) Prediction of key feeding areas for diving seaducks in relation to nearshore 

wind farms. Journal of Applied Ecology. 

Garthe, S. & Huppop, O. (2004) Scaling possible adverse effects of marine wind farms on 

seabirds: developing and applying a vulnerability index. Journal of Applied Ecology, 

41, 724-734. 

Gill, A.B. & Kimber, J. (2005) The potential for cooperative management of elasmobranchs 

and offshore renewable energy developments in UK waters. Journal of the Marine 

Biological Association of the United Kingdom, 85, 1075-1081. 

Gill, A.B. (2005b) Offshore renewable energy: ecological implications of generating electricity 

in the costal zone. Journal of Applied Ecology, 42, 605-615. 

Gill, A.B., Gloyne-Phillips, I., Neal, K.J. & Kimber, J.A. (2005a). COWRIE 1.5 

Electromagnetic field review - The potential effects of electromagnetic fields 

generated by sub-sea power cables associated with offshore wind farm 

developments on electrically and magnetically sensitive marine organisms – a 

review. Report commissioned by COWRIE (COWRIE-EM FIELD 2-06-2004). 

GLOBEC (1997). North Pacific Carrying Capacity and Climate Change (CCCC) Science 

Plan. Report Number 16. U.S. Global Ocean Ecosystem Dynamics (GLOBEC) 

Program. 

GLOBEC (2001). Ocean surface drafters released off the Oregon Coast, wind driven 

circulation off Oregon. Global Ocean Ecosystem Dynamics (GLOBEC) Northeast 

Pacific Program. Available at: http://diana.oce.oregonstate.edu/drift/wind-driven.shtml 

Gould, J.L. (2008) Animal Navigation: The Evolution of Magnetic Orientation. Current 

Biology, 18, R482-R484. doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2008.03.052. 

Greenland, D. (1998). Variability and Stability of Climatic/Oceanic Regimes in the Pacific 

Northwest. In: McMurray, G.R. and R.J.Bailey (eds.). Change in Pacific Northwest 

Coastal Ecosystems. NOAA Coastal Ocean Program Decision Analysis Series No. 

11. Silver Spring, MD 

Guidetti, P. & Sala, E. (2007) Community-wide effects of marine reserves in the 

Mediterranean Sea. Marine Ecology-Progress Series, 335, 43-56 2007. 

Gwynt y Môr: Photomontages, nPower Renewables 

Hagerman, G, & Bedard, R. (2004). Offshore Wave Power in the US: Environmental Issues. 

Global Energy Partners, LLC. E21 Global EPRI-007-US. 

May, 2009 74/124


Final report 

NERC 

Hagerman, G., Bedard, R. and Previsic, M. (2004). E21 EPRI Survey and Characterization 

of Potential Offshore Wave Energy Sites in Oregon. Electrical Power Research 

Institute Report E21 EPRI WP-OR-003. Palo Alto, CA. 

http://www.natwindpower.co.uk/gwyntymor/montages.asp 

Halpern, B.S. (2003) The impact of marine reserves: do reserves work and does reserve 

size matter Ecological Applications, 13, S117-S137. 

Hammond, P.S., Northridge, S.P., Thompson, D., Gordon, J.C.D., Hall, A.J., Aarts, G. and 

Matthiopoulos, J. (2005). Background information in marine mammals for Strategic 

Environmental Assessment 6. A report for the Department of Trade and Industry, 

Strategic Environmental Assessment Programme, 73pp. 

Hawkins, J.P., Roberts, C.M., Dytham, C., Schelten, C. & Nugues, M.M. (2006) Effects of 

habitat characteristics and sedimentation on performance of marine reserves in St. 

Lucia. Biological Conservation, 127, 487-499. 

Helvey, M. (2002) Are southern Californian oil and gas platforms essential fish habitat 

ICES Journal of Marine Science, 59, 266-271. 

Henriksen, O.D., Teilmann, J., Carstensen, J. (2003) Effects of the Nysted offshore wind 

farm construction on harbour porpoises - the 2002 annual status report for the 

acoustic T-POD monitoring programme. National Environmental Research Institute, 

Roskilde 

Herzing, D. L. & Mate, B. R. (1984). Gray whale migrations along the Oregon coast, 1978- 

1981. In: The Gray Whale (M. L. Jones, S. Swartz and S. Leatherwood, eds.), 

Academic Press, pp. 289-307 

Higgs, G. (2006) Integrating multi-criteria techniques with geographical information systems 

in waste facility location to enhance public participation. Waste Management and 

Research, 24, 105-117 

Hiscock, K., Tyler-Walters, H. & Jones, H. (2002). High Level Environmental Screening 

Study for Offshore Wind Farm Developments – Marine Habitats and Species Project. 

Report from the Marine Biological Association to The Department of Trade and 

Industry. New & Renewable Energy Programme. (AEA Technology, Environment 

Contract: W/35/00632/00/00.) 

Hodder, J. (2005). Marine mammal use of the nearshore waters along Clatsop Spit: an 

assessment of distribution, abundance, and potential effects from dredge spoil 

deposition adjacent to the south jetty of the Columbia River. Review Draft. Institute 

for Natural Resources, Oregon State University. Corvallis, OR. Wave Energy 

Ecological Effects Workshop 52 

Holt T.J., Rees, E.I., Hawkins, S.J., and Seed, R., (1998). Biogenic Reefs: An overview of 

dynamic sensitivity characteristics for conservation management of marine SACs. 

Scottish Association of Marine Science/UK Marine SACs Project, Oban, Scotland. 

Horowitz, C. & Jasny, M. (2007) Precautionary Management of Noise: Lessons from the 

U.S. Marine Mammal Protection Act. Journal of International Wildlife Law & Policy, 

10:3, 225 – 232. doi: 10.1080/13880290701769288 

Ingram, S.N. and Rogan, E. (2002). Identifying critical areas and habitat preferences of 

bottlenose dolphins Tursiops truncatus. Marine Ecology Progress Series 244: 247- 

255 

Japan Marine Science and Technology Center (JAMSTEC) (2006). “Wave Energy Research 

and Development at JAMSTEC, Offshore Floating Wave Energy Device, Mighty 

Whale.” Available at www.jamstec.go.jp/jamstec/MTD/Whale/index.html. 

Jensen, A. (2002) Artificial reefs in Europe: perspectives and future. ICES Journal of Marine 

Science, 59, 3-13. 

May, 2009 75/124


Final report 

NERC 

Kaiser, M.J., Clark, K.R., Hinz, H., Austen, M.C.V., Somerfield, P.J. & Karakassis, I. (2006) 

Global analysis and recovery of benthic biota to fishing. Marine Ecology-Progress 

Series, 311, 1-14. 

Kaiser, M.J.,Galanidi, M., Showler, D.A., Elliot, A.J., Caldow, R.W.G., Rees, E.I.S., Stillman, 

R.A. & Sutherland, W.J. (2006) Distribution and behaviour of common scoter 

Melanitta nigra relative to prey resources and environmental parameters. Ibis, 148, 

110-128. 

Keister J. & Peterson, W. (2003). Zonal and seasonal variations in zooplankton community 

structure off the central Oregon coast, 1998-2000. Progress in Oceanography 

(57):341- 361. 

Kennedy, M.C., Ford, E.D., Singleton, P., Finney, M. & Agee, J.K. (2008) Informed multiobjective 

decision-making in environmental management using Pareto optimality. 

Journal of Applied Ecology, 45, 181-192. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2664.2007.01367.x 

Kosro, P.M. (2007). Ocean Currents Mapping Lab. Available at: 

http://bragg.coas.oregonstate.edu/. 

Kramer, K.L. & Heck, K.L. (2007) Top-down trophic shifts in Florida Keys patch reef marine 

protected areas. Marine Ecology-Progress Series, 349, 111-123. doi: 

10.3354/meps07083 

Lamb, J. & Peterson, W. (2005). Ecological zonation of zooplankton in the COAST study 

region off central Oregon in June and August 2001 with consideration of retention 

mechanisms. Journal of Geophysical Research (110). 

Lance, Monique M., Richardson, Scott A. and Allen, Harriet A. (2004). Sea Otter Recovery 

Program, Sate of Washington. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Wildlife 

Program. Olympia, WA. 

Landry, M.R., Postel, J.R., Peterson, W.K. and Newman, J. (1989). Broad-scale patterns in 

the distribution of hydrographic variables. p. 1-41. In: M.R. Landry and B.M. Hickey. 

Coastal Oceanography of Washington and Oregon. Elsevier Press, Amsterdam 

Lane, N. (2007). Issues Affecting Tidal, Wave, and In-Stream Generation Projects. 

Congressional Research Service RL33883. 

Langhamer, O. & Wilhelmsson, D. (2007) Wave power devices as artificial reefs, 

Proceedings of the 7th European Wave and Tidal Energy Conference, 11-13 

September 2007, Porto, Portugal. 

Langston, R.H.W. & Pullen, J.D. (2003). Windfarms and Birds: An analysis of the effects of 

windfarms on birds, and guidance on environmental assessment criteria and site 

selection issues. Report to the Standing Committee on the Convention on the 

Conservations of Wildlife and Natural Habitats. Council of Europe, Strasbourg. 

Larsen, J. K. & Guillemette, M. (2007) Effects of wind turbines on flight behaviour of 

wintering common eider: implications for habitat use and collision risk. Journal of 

Applied Ecology, 44, 516-522. 

LASAR (2007). Preliminary laboratory results for EPA-funded Coastal Environmental 

Mapping and Assessment Program (EMAP). Lab Analytical Storage and Retrieval 

(LASAR) System, Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, Laboratory Division. 

Portland. 

Lewis ,E.J. and Evans P.G.H. (1993). Comparative ecology of bottle-nosed dolphins 

(Tursiops truncatus) in Cardigan Bay and the Moray Firth. In: PGH Evans Ed. 

European Research on Cetaceans – 7. European Cetacean Society, Cambridge, 

England, pp. 57-62. 

Linley E.A.S., Wilding T.A., Black K., Hawkins A.J.S. and Mangi S. (2007). Review of the 

reef effects of offshore wind farm structures and their potential for enhancement and 

mitigation. Report from PML Applications Ltd and the Scottish Association for Marine 

May, 2009 76/124


Final report 

NERC 

Science to the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform (BERR), 

Contract No: RFCA/005/0029P 

Liret, C., Allali, P., Creton, P., Guinet, C. and Ridoux, V. (1994). Foraging activity pattern of 

bottlenose dolphins around Ile de Sein, France and its relationship with 

environmental parameters. In: PGH Evans Ed. European research on cetaceans – 8. 

Proc. 8th Annual Conference ECS Montpellier, France, 2-5 March 1994. European 

Cetacean Society, Lugano, Switzerland, 288pp. 

Love, M.S., Caselle, J.E. & Snook, L. (1999) Fish assemblages on mussel mounds 

surrounding seven oil platforms in the Santa Barbara Channel and Santa Maria 

Basin. Bulletin of Marine Science, 65, 497-513. 

Luschi, P., Benhamou, S., Girard, C., Ciccione, S., Roos, D., Sudre, J. & Benvenuti, S. 

(2007) Marine turtles use geomagnetic cues during open-sea homing. Current 

Biology, 17, 126-133. 

Mackinson, S., Curtis, H., Brown, R., McTaggart, K., Taylor, N., Neville, S. and Rogers, 

S.,(2006). A report on the perceptions of the fishing industry into the potential 

socioeconomic impacts of offshore wind energy developments on their work patterns 

and income. Sci. Ser. Tech Rep., Cefas Lowestoft, 133: 99pp 

Madsen, P.T., Wahlberg, M., Tougaard, K., Lucke, K. & Tyack, P. (2006) Wind turbine 

underwater noise and marine mammals: implications of current knowledge and data 

needs. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 309, 279-295. 

Magorrian, B. H. and M. Service (1998). Analysis of underwater visual data to Identify the 

impact of physical disturbance on horse mussel (Modiolus modiolus) beds. Marine 

Pollution Bulletin, 36 (5): 354-359. 

Massutí, E. & Vidal, S. (1997) La llampuga: un mite de la tardor. Edicions Documenta 

Balear. Palma de Mallorca. 195 pp. 

Mate, B.R. and Harvey, J. (1984). Ocean movements of radio-tagged gray whales. In: The 

Gray Whale (M. L. Jones, S. Swartz and S. Leatherwood, eds.), Academic Press, pp. 

577-589. 

Mate, B.R., Lagerquist, B.A., and Urban-Ramirez, J. (2003). A note on using satellite 

telemetry to document the use of San Ignacio Lagoon by gray whales (Eschrichtius 

robustus) during their reproductive season. J. Cetacean Res. Manage. 5(2):149-154. 

Mate, B.R. & Urban-Ramirez, J. (2003). A note on the route and speed of a gray whale on its 

northern migration from Mexico to central California, tracked by satellite-monitored 

radio tag. J. Cetacean Res. Manage. 5(2):155-157. 

McClanahan, T. R., and Mangi, S. (2000) Spillover of fishes from a marine park and its effect 

on the adjacent fishery. Ecological Applications, 10, 1792- 1805. 

McClanhan, T.R., Graham, N.A.J., Calnan, J.M., & MacNeil, A. (2007) Towards pristine 

biomass: Reef fish recovery in coral reef marine protected areas in Kenya. Ecological 

Applications, 17, 1055-1067. 

Michel, J., Dunagan, H., Boring, C., Healy, E., Evans, W., Dean, J.M., McGillis, A. and Hain, 

J. (2007) Worldwide synthesis and analysis of existing information regarding 

environmental effects of alternative energy uses on the outer continental shelf. U.S. 

Department of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Herndon, VA, MMS OCS 

Report 2007-038. 254 pp. 

MMS (2006). Technology White Paper on Wave Energy Potential on the U.S. Outer 

Continental Shelf. Renewable Energy and Alternate Use Program, Minerals 

Management Service, Reston, VA. 

MMS (2007). Programmatic Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Alternative Energy 

Development and Alternate Uses on the OCS. Minerals Management Service, 

Reston, VA. 

May, 2009 77/124


Final report 

NERC 

Navarro, J.M. and Thompson, R.J. (1997). Biodeposition by the horse mussel Modiolus 

modiolus (Dillwyn) during the spring diatom bloom. Journal of Experimental Marine 

Biology and Ecology, 209, 1-13. 

Nedwell, J. & Howell, D. (2004) A review of offshore wind farm related underwater noise 

sources. COWRIE Report No. 544 R 0308:1-57. 

Nedwell, J.R., Langworthy, J., and Howell, D. (2003). Assessment of sub-sea acoustic noise 

and vibration from offshore wind turbines and its impact on marine wildlife; initial 

measurements of underwater noise during construction of offshore windfarms, and 

comparison with background noise. Subacoustech Report ref: 544R0423, published 

by COWRIE. 

Nedwell, J.R., Parvin, S.J., Edwards, B., Workman, R., Brooker, A.G., Kynoch, J.E. (2007) 

Measurement and interpretation of underwater noise during construction and 

operation of offshore windfarms in UK waters. Report commissioned by COWRIE 

(COWRIE NOISE-03-2003), 

NMFS (2003). Large whale entanglement report 2001 (updated 2003). National Marine 

Fisheries Service, Protected Resources Division. Glouster, MA. 

NMFS (2005). Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Management Plan: Essential Fish Habitat 

Designation and Minimization of Adverse Impacts. Final Environmental Impact Statement. 

NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service. Seattle, WA 

Norman, T., Buisson, R. and Askew, N. (2007). COWRIE workshop on the cumulative impact of 

offshore windfarms on birds Peterborough, 3rd May 2007. Report commissioned by COWRIE 

(COWRIE CIBIRD-01-2007) 

Northridge, S.P. Tasker, M.L. Webb, A. and Williams, J.M. (1995). Distribution and relative 

abundance or harbour porpoises (Phocoena phocoena L), white-beaked dolphins 

(Lagenorhynchus albirostris Gray) and minke whales (Balaenoptera acutorostrata 

Lacepède) around the British Isles. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 52: 55-66. 

Nowacek, D.P., Thorne, L.H. Johnson, D.W. & Tyack, P.L. (2007) Responses of cetaceans 

to anthropogenic noise. Mammal Review, 37, 81-115. 

Ocean Power Delivery Ltd. (2006). “World’s First Wave Farm − Shipping of First Machine to 

Portugal,” Press Release, March 14. Available at www.oceanpd.com. 

Ocean Power Technologies 2006. “Making Waves in Power.” Available at 

www.oceanpowertechnologies.com 

ODFW Nearshore Team (2006). The Oregon Nearshore Strategy. Oregon Department of 

Fish & Wildlife, Marine Resources Program, Newport, OR. 

Öhman, M.C., Sigray, P. and Westerberg, H. (2007) Offshore wind farms and the effects of 

electromagnetic fields on fish. Ambio, 36, 630-633. 

Page, H.M., Dugan, J.E., Culver, C.S. and Hoesterey, J.C. (2006) Exotic invertebrate 

species on offshore oil platforms. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 325, 101-107. 

Pearcy, W.G. (2005). Draft White Paper: Marine Fishes. Institute for Natural Resources, 

Oregon State University. Corvallis 

Pearson, W.H. (2005). Issues concerning Dungeness crabs and the demonstration project 

for the Columbia River Nearshore Beneficial Use Project. Review Draft. Institute for 

Natural Resources, Oregon State University. Corvallis, OR. 

Pelc, R. & Fujita, R.M. (2002) Renewable energy from the ocean. Marine Policy, 26, 471- 

479. 

Perkol-Finkel, S. & Benayah, Y. (2007) Differential recruitment of benthic communities on 

neighbouring artificial and natural reefs. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and 

Ecology, 240, 25-39. 

Perrow, M.R., Skeate, E.R., Lines, P., Brown, D. and Tomlinson, M.L. (2006) Radio 

telemetry as a tool for impact assessment of wind farms: the case of Little Terns 

Sterna aibifrons at Scroby Sands, Norfolk, UK. Ibis, 148, 57-75. 

May, 2009 78/124


Final report 

NERC 

Peterson, W.T. (2007). Personal communication 

Petersen, J.K. & Malm, T. (2006) Offshore wind farms: Threats to or possibilities for the 

marine environment. Ambio, 35, 75-80. 

Pickering, H., Whitmarsh, D., and Jensen, A. (1998) Artificial reefs as a tool to aid 

rehabilitation of coastal ecosystems: investigating the potential. Marine Pollution 

Bulletin, 37, 505-514. 

PMFC (2006). Measures to prohibit fishing for krill in the Exclusive Economic Zone off the 

West Coast. Pacific Fishery Management Council. Portland, OR. 

Polaski, K. (2003). “Waiting for the Waves,” The IEA Ocean Energy Systems Newsletter, 

Issue 2,Sept. Available at http://www.iea-oce ans.org/newsletters/news2.pdf. 

Popper, A.N., Fewtrell, J., Smith, M.E. and McCauley, R.D. (2003) Anthropogenic sound: 

effects on the behavior and physiology of fishes. Marine Technology Society Journal, 

37, 35-40. 

Ramage, J. (2004) Renewable energy (ed G. Boyle), pp 148-194. Oxford University Press. 

Reid, J., Evans P.G.H. and Northridge, S. (Eds) (2003). An atlas of cetacean distribution on 

the northwest European continental shelf. Joint Nature Conservation Committee, 

Peterborough, 77pp. 

Rhinefrank, K. (2005). “Wave Energy Research, Development, and Demonstration at 

Oregon State University,” presented at Energy Ocean 2005, April 26−28, 

Washington, D.C. Wave Energy Ecological Effects Workshop 54 

Richards, S.D., Harland, E.J. and Jones, S.A.S.. (2007). Underwater Noise Study Supporting 

Scottish Executive Strategic Environmental Assessment for Marine Renewables. 

QinetiQ Ltd. Farnborough, Hampshire 

Richardson, W.J., Greene, C.R.J., Malme, C.I., & Thomson, D.H. (1995). Marine Mammals 

and Noise. Academic Press, Inc., San Diego, CA. 

Rilov, G. & Benayahu, Y. (1999) Rehabilitation of coral reef fish communities: importance of 

artificial-reef relief to recruitment rates. Bulletin of Marine Sciences, 70, 185-197. 

Roberts, C.M., Hawkins, J.P. & Gell, F.R. (2005) The role of marine reserves in achieving 

sustainable fisheries. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 360, 123- 

132. 

Roberts, C.M., Bohnsack, J.A., Gell, F., Hawkins, J.P. & Goodridge, R. (2001) Effects of 

marine reserves on adjacent fisheries. Science, 294, 1920-1923. 

Roberts, P.D., Stewart, G.B. & Pullin, A.S. (2006) Are review articles a reliable source of 

evidence to support conservation and environmental management A comparison 

with medicine. Biological Conservation, 132, 409–423. 

Rogan, E., Ingram, S., Holme, B. and O’Flanagan, C. (2002). A survey of bottlenose 

dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) in the Shannon Estuary. Marine Resources Series, 

Dublin 

Rooker , J.R., Dokken, O.R., Pattengill, C.V. & Holt, G.J. (1997) Fish assemblages on 

artificial and natural reefs in the Flower Garden Banks National Marine Sanctuary, 

USA. Coral Reefs, 16, 83-92. 

Rosenzweig, C., Karoly,D., Vicarelli M., Neofotis, P., Wu, Q., Casassa, G., Menzel, A., Root, 

T.L., Estrella, N., Seguin, B., Tryjanowski, P., Liu, C., Rawlins, S. & Imeson, A. 

(2008) Attributing physical and biological impacts to anthropogenic climate change. 

Nature, 453, 353-357 doi: 10.1038/nature0693783 

Rosenzweig, M.L. (2003) Win-Win Ecology: How The Earth's Species Can Survive In The 

Midst of Human Enterprise. Oxford University Press, USA. 

Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, (RCEP). (2004). Turning the Tide: 

Addressing the Impact of Fisheries on the Marine Environment (Cm 6392), The 

Stationery Office, London. 

May, 2009 79/124


Final report 

NERC 

RPS (2006). Collision risk analysis – review of errors and recommended format. A report to 

SNH. RPS, St Ives, Cambridge. 

Russ, G.R., Cheal, A.J., Dolman, A.M., Emslie, M.J., Evans, R.D., Miller, I., Sweatman, H., & 

Williamson, D.H. (2008) Rapid increase in fish numbers follows creation of the 

world’s largest marine reserve network. Current Biology, 18, R514-R515. 

Sale, P.F., Cowen, R.K., Danilowicz, B.S., Jones, G.P., Kritzer, J.P., Lindeman, K.C., 

Planes, S., Polunin, N.V.C., Russ, G.R., Sadovy, Y.J. & Steneck, R.S. (2005) Critical 

science gaps impede use of no-take fishery reserves. Trends in Ecology and 

Evolution, 20, 74-80. 

Samoilys, M.A., Martin-Smith, K.M., Giles, B.G., Cabrera, B., Anticamara, J.A., Brunio, E.O. 

& Vincent, A.C.J. (2007) Effectiveness of five small Philippines’ coral reef reserves 

for fish populations depends on site-specific factors, particularly enforcement history. 

Biological Conservation, 136, 584-601. 

Samuel, Y., Morreale, S.J., Clark, C.W., Greene, C.H. & Richmond, M.E. (2005) Underwater, 

low frequency noise in a coastal sea turtle habitat. Journal of the Acoustical Society 

of America, 117, 1465-1472 

SNH (2000). Windfarms and birds: calculating a theoretical collision risk assuming no 

avoidance action. SNH Guidance Note Series. SNH, Battleby. 

SNH (2005). Survey methods for use in assessment of the impacts of proposed onshore 

wind farms on bird communities. SNH Guidance Note Series. SNH, Battleby. 

Sonnenholzner, J.I., Ladah, L.B. & Lafferty, K.D. (2007) Cascading effects of fishing on 

Galapagos rocky reef communities. Marine Ecology-Progress Series, 343, 77-85. 

doi: 10.3354/meps03915. 

Sound & Sea Technology Ocean Engineering (2002). Wave Energy (WET) Environmental 

Impacts of Selected Components. Report 02-06. Prepared for Belt Collins Hawaii 

Stewart,G.B., Pullin, A.S. & Coles, C.F. (2007) Poor evidence-base for assessment of wind 

farm impacts on birds. Environmental Conservation, 34, 1-11. 

Strong, C. (2005). Marine bird use of the nearshore waters along Clatsop Spit: an 

assessment of composition, abundance, and potential effects from dredge spoil 

deposition adjacent to the south jetty of the Columbia River. Review Draft. Institute 

for Natural Resources, Oregon State University. Corvallis, OR. 

Sutherland, W. J., Bailey, M. J., Bainbridge, I. P., Brereton, T., Dick, J. T. A., Drewitt, J., 

Dulvy, N. K., Dusic, N. R., Freckleton, R. P., Gaston, K. J., Gilder, P. M., Green, R. 

E., Heathwaite, L., Johnson, S. M., Macdonald, D. W., Mitchell, R., Osborn, D., 

Owen, R. P., Pretty, J., Prior, S. V., Prosser, H., Pullin, A. S., Rose, P., Stott, A., 

Tew, T., Thomas, C. D., Thompson, D. B. A., Vickery, J. A., Walker, M., Walmsley, 

C., Warrington, S., Watkinson, A. R., Williams, R. J., Woodroffe, R., Woodroof, H. J. 

(2008). Future novel threats and opportunities facing UK biodiversity identified by 

horizon scanning. Journal of Applied Ecology, 45, 821-833. doi: 10.1111/j.1365- 

2664.2008.01474.x 

Sutherland, W.J., Armstrong-Brown, S., Armsworth, P. R., Brereton, T., Brickland, J., 

Campbell, C. D., Chamberlain, D. E., Cooke, A. I., Dulvy, N. K., Dusic, N. R., Fitton, 

M., Freckleton, R. P., Godfray, H. C., Grout, N., Harvey, H. J., Hedley, C., Hopkins, 

J. J., Kift, N. B., Kirby, J., Kunin, W. E., MacDonald, D. W., Markee, B., Naura, M., 

Neale, A.R., Oliver, T., Osborn, D., Pullin, A. S., Shardlow, M. E. A., Showler, D. A., 

Smith, P. L., Smithers, R. J., Solandt, J.-L., Spencer, J., Spray, C. J., Thomas, C. D., 

Thompson, J., Webb, S. E., Yalden, D.W., Watkinson, A. R. (2006) The identification 

of one hundred ecological questions of high policy relevance in the UK. Journal of 

Applied Ecology, 43, 617-627. 

Sutor, M., Cowles, T., Peterson, W. and Pierce S. (2005). Acoustic observations of finescale 

zooplankton distributions in the Oregon upwelling region. Deep-Sea Research II 

(52):109-121 

May, 2009 80/124


Final report 

NERC 

Takahashi, P. & Trenka, A. (1996) Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion. New York: Wiley. 

Taylor, D. (2004) Wind Energy. (ed G. Boyle), pp 244-293.Oxford University Press 

Thomsen, F., Lüdemann, K., Kafemann, R., and PiperEffects, W. (2006). Impacts of offshore 

wind farm noise on marine mammals and fish. Report commissioned by COWRIE 

(BIOLA report) 

Thorpe, T.W. (1999). A Brief Review of Wave Energy, ETSU Report R-122, prepared for the 

United Kingdom Department of Trade and Industry. 

Tillin, H.M., Hiddink, J.G. Jennings, S. Kaiser, M.J. (2006) Chronic bottom trawling alters the 

functional composition of benthic invertebrate communities on a sea-basin scale. 

Marine Ecology-Progress Series, 318, 31-45. 

Tougaard, J., Carstensen, J., Teilmann, J. & Bech, N.I. (2005) Effects of the Nysted offshore 

wind farm on harbour porpoises. Technical Report to Energi E2 A/S. NERI, Roskilde. 

UK BAP website http://www.ukbap.org.uk/ 

USDOE (2006). Proceedings of the hydrokinetic and wave energy technologies technical 

and environmental issues workshop. Prepared by RESOLVE, Inc. for US Department 

of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Wind and Hydropower 

Technologies Program. Washington, DC. 

USEPA (1998). Guidelines for Ecological Risk Assessment. US Environmental Protection 

Agency, Risk Assessment Forum. EPA/630/R-95/002F. 

Valberg, P.A. (2005). Memorandum addressing electric and magnetic field (EMF) questions. 

Cape Wind Energy Project, Nantucket Sound. 

Vella, G., Rushforth, E., Mason, A., Hough, R.,England, P.,Styles, P., Holt, T. & Thorne, P. 

(2001) Assessment of the effects of noise and vibration from offshore wind farms on 

marine wildlife. DTI/Pub URN 01/1341. http://www.berr.gov.uk/files/file20261.pdf 

Villareal, T.A., Hanson, S., Qualia, S., Jester, E.L.E., Grande, H.R. & Dickey, R.W. (2007) 

Petroleum production platforms as sites for the expansion of ciguatera in the 

northwestern Gulf of Mexico. Harmful Algae, 6, 253-259. 

Wahlberg, M. & Westerberg, H. (2005) Hearing in fish and their reactions to sound from 

offshore wind farms. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 288, 295-309. 

Walker, T.I. (2001) Review of Impacts of High Voltage Direct Current Sea Cables and 

Electrodes on Chondrichthyan Fauna and Other Marine Life. Basslink Supporting 

Study No. 29. Marine and Freshwater Resources Institute No. 20. Marine and 

Freshwater Resources Institute, Queenscliff, Australia. 

Wave Dragon (2005), “Technology.” Available at http://www.wavedragon.net. WavePlane 

Production A/S = WPP A/S, 2006, Home page. Available at www.waveplane.com. 

West, A.D. & Caldow, R.W.G. (2006) The development and use of individuals-based models 

to predict the effects of habitat loss and disturbance on waders and waterfowl. Ibis, 

148, 158-168. 

Wilhelmsson, D., Malm, T., Öhman, M.C. (2006) The influence of offshore windpower on 

demersal fish. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 63, 775-784. 

Wilhelmsson, D., Öhman, M.C.,Ståhl, H., & Shlesinger, Y. (1998) Artificial reefs and dive 

ecotourism in Eilat, Isreal. Ambio, 27, 764-766. 

Wilson, B. (1995). The ecology of bottlenose dolphins in the Moray Firth, Scotland: A 

population at the northern extreme of the species’ range. PhD Thesis, University of 

Aberdeen 

Wildish, D.J., Fader, G.B.J., Lawton, P. and MacDonald, A.J. (1998). The acoustic detection 

and characteristics of sublittoral bivalve reefs in the Bay of Fundy. Continental Shelf 

Research, 18, 105-113. 

Wildish, D.J. and Fader, G.B.J. (1998). Pelagic-benthic coupling in the Bay of Fundy. 

Hydrobiologia, 375/376, 369-380. 

May, 2009 81/124


Final report 

NERC 

Wilson, B., Thompson, P.M. and Hammond, P.S. (1997). Habitat use by bottlenose dolphins: 

seasonal distribution and stratified movement patterns in the Moray Firth, Scotland. 

Journal of Applied Ecology 34: 1365-1374. 

Wilson, B. Batty, R. S., Daunt, F. & Carter, C. (2007) Collision risks between marine 

renewable energy devices and mammals, fish and diving birds. Report to the Scottish 

Executive. Scottish Association for Marine Science, Oban, Scotland, PA37 1QA. 

Wiltschko, W & Wiltschko, R. (2005) Magnetic orientation and magnetoreception in birds and 

other animals. Journal of Comparative Physiology A – Neuroethology and Sensory 

Neural and Behavioral Physiology, 191, 675-693. doi 10.1007/s00359-005-0627-7 

Würsig, B., Greene, C.R. & Jefferson, T.A. (2000) Development of an air bubble curtain to 

reduce underwater noise of percussive piling. Marine Environmental Research, 49, 

79-93. 

May, 2009 82/124


Final report 

NERC 

10 Appendices 

Appendix 1: Marine Renewable Energy Developments: Compiled List of 

Environmental Issues and Research Topics (RAG & COWRIE, 2007) 

Table 10 provides a summary of the fourth revision of the RAG list of issues raised and 

research needs for offshore renewable energy originally compiled in early 2004 for the 

Government’s Research Advisory Group (V4-170206) and the COWRIE Environment 

Working Group list (V2-050406). The list covers windfarms and wave and tidal stream 

devices. Note, project status reflects work funded by a range of bodies including RAG and 

COWRIE. 

May, 2009 83/124


Final report 

Table 10 – Marine Renewable Energy Developments – Compiled list of environmental issues and research topics. 

Theme Issue Subject Description Application Status Funder 

Ref. 

Birds 1.1 UK gap analysis Review and analysis of existing offshore seabird survey effort (ESAS All Active 

DTI through SEA 

database) to identify significant gaps in spatial and temporal coverage. 

Draft Report Received programme 

Birds 1.2 Baseline surveys of R2 

strategic areas 

Wind (chiefly) Active 

RAG Project No. 1.2 

Birds 1.3 Indicative Sensitivity 

Mapping 

Birds 1.4 Observer training for boat 

based surveys of birds. 

Birds 1.5 Survey Best Practice 

Guidance 

Birds 1.6 Displacement of birds 

(especially common 

scoter) from benthic 

feeding areas 

Birds 1.7 Field testing of radar 

(flight pattern and 

collision risk) 

Birds 1.8 Post-Construction - Use 

of Radar Techniques 

(Flight patterns and 

collision risk) 

Birds 1.9 Field testing of Infra-Red 

Systems (flight patterns 

and collision risk 

Winter and summer aerial surveys of water bird distribution and 

abundance in the Thames Estuary, Greater Wash and Liverpool Bay 

Round 2 areas. The programme is aimed at providing site specific 

regional data on the distribution, abundance and main feeding/roosting 

patterns of water birds. Project in 2 phases covering surveys in year 

04-05 and year 05-06. 

Garthe & Huppop (2004) developed a Windfarm Sensitivity Index 

(WSI) for seabirds. This may provide a strategic tool for use in 

planning future UK offshore wind leasing and with modification and 

further work may also be applicable to other devices. 

JNCC to provide two residential ship-board training courses for seabird 

surveyors working for or to be employed by ecological consultants 

A comparison of ship and aerial sampling methods for marine birds, 

and their applicability to offshore windfarm assessments. Guidance 

produced. 

Field studies in the eastern Irish Sea and development of a model to 

assist in predicting the effect of offshore windfarms (individually and 

cumulatively) on Common Scoter due to habitat loss and change. 

Guidance on the use of the model to assist developers in carrying out 

Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs). 

To field test radar to provide baseline information on distribution, 

altitude, movements and flight behaviour, seasonality, weather 

conditions, including nocturnal, assessment of migration flights and 

risk to migrants. (Technique development). 

To deploy radar, post-construction in R2 strategic areas, to provide 

information on distribution, movement and flight behaviour, including 

avoidance of turbines and collisions. 

Once suitable Infrared systems have been identified trials of the 

systems will take place at suitable offshore windfarms. 

All 

All 

Wind 

Active 

RAG Project 

No. 1.4 

Completed 

COWRIE Project No. 

BAM-02-2002 

Completed COWRIE 

Project No. BEN–03– 

2002 

DTI, Defra, 

developers, CCW 

(yr 1), EN (yr 2) 

DTI 

Wind Not active N/A 

Wind Not active (Some 

developer surveys 

using radar have been 

undertaken). 

N/A 


Birds 1.10 Review of monitoring Collate and interpret site monitoring results at national/regional scale Wind Not active N/A 

COWRIE 

COWRIE 

May, 2009 84/124


Final report 

results from R1 and R2 

sites. 

Birds 1.11 Collision Detection 

Systems 

and report on changes in distribution, movement and Birds behaviour 

to determine disturbance, exclusion, flight patterns, collisions, habitat 

loss and direct mortality on populations, from the results of individual 

site monitoring. Determine if any consistent patterns or trends evident. 

To develop and test collision detection systems e.g. vibration sensors 

in R2 strategic areas. 

(Awaiting sufficient 

monitoring data.) 


Birds 1.12 Deterrents and other 

mitigation to reduce bird 

impacts 

Birds 1.13 Best practice guidance 

for the use of remote 

techniques for observing 

bird behaviour in relation 

to offshore windfarms 

Birds 1.14 Manual of post 

development monitoring 

requirements 

Birds 1.15 Impacts of sub-surface 

structures on birds 

Birds 1.16 Windfarm casualties and 

bird population viability 

To develop mitigation measures, eg shutdown, warning paint, turbine 

spacing & alignment, navigation lighting etc (taking account of potential 

visual intrusion implications). Establish database of mitigation 

measures together with documentation of their effectiveness (or lack 

of) under different circumstances. 

Desk based study and international workshop. Project aims were to 

provide: 1) An objective assessment of the utility of remote 

technologies for the specific study of bird/wind turbine and 

bird/windfarm interactions and specifically their ability to meet 

objectives set for their use 2) Guidance on current best practice of the 

most suitable technologies 3) Recommendations for further 

methodological development to increase utility. 

Establishment of guidelines for good monitoring practice and to detail 

data gathering protocols in a methods manual. These guidelines would 

ensure that data gathered as part of Before-After-Control-Impact 

(BACI) studies provide a good cost/benefit return in terms of assessing 

the impact of projects on their environments, and also that the data 

collected can contribute to multi-site analyses aiming to generate 

results of generic value. 

Investigation of the potential impacts of wave and tidal generation 

devices on birds (particularly diving birds), including collision. 

Development of demographic models for a set of species selected to 

be representative of the range of life-histories encountered in the UK 

i.e. small, short-lived species to large long-lived species. These 

models should make it possible to estimate the number of birds that 

can be lost before a population is affected. 

Birds 1.17 Migration corridors Establish large scale (radar) study to investigate migration across the 

North Sea to UK waters. Migration volume, timing, altitude and spatial 

distribution. 


Wind 

Wind 

Completed 

COWRIE 

Project 

REMOTE-05- 

2004 

Not active (Potential 

linkage to issue 1.10 

above) 

COWRIE 

N/A 

Wave and Not active N/A 

Tidal 


Wind N/A 

Not active 

(Software is being 

developed to allow 

bird migration to be 

observed from Met 

Office radar.) 

May, 2009 85/124


Final report 

Birds 1.18 Predictive modelling Predictive modelling of seabird distributions – i.e. having an idea of 

where the birds will be before going to look for them. 

Birds 1.19 Seabird movements Marking, ringing and/or tagging studies to clarify site fidelity and wider 

movement patterns of key species e.g. common scoter 

Birds 1.20 Energetic costs of barrier Desk research on the potential energetic costs to birds of the presence 

effects on birds of offshore windfarms 

Wind Dormant N/A 

All Not active N/A 

Wind 

Active 

RAG Project 

1.20 

Birds 1.21 Monitoring at Kentish Additional ornithological monitoring at Kentish Flats Wind Not active 

Flats 

Birds 1.22 Tern tagging preconstruction 

Expand on EON's investigation of little tern using Scroby Sands by Wind Not active 

looking at their movements on the north Norfolk coast pre-construction 

Birds 1.23 Offsetting bird impact Consideration of mitigation for displacement e.g. managing other areas Wind Not active 

of sea as seabird feeding roosting areas 

Birds 1.24 Develop design protocol 

for maintenance boats 

and recommendations for 

carrying out visits 

Assess effects of disturbance and nature of response by birds to boat 

profile, approach speed, noise and frequency of passage by boats 

Wind Not active 

Birds 1.25 Displacement and 

habituation 

Study of enhanced measurement of displacement distances from 

turbines under different conditions. Long term assessment to 

determine the degree of habituation 

Bats 2.1 Collision Risk Identify if any migration routes and flight paths between feeding 

and roosting/resting areas impinge on offshore windfarms. 

Marine 

Mammals 

Marine 

Mammals 

Marine 

Mammals 

3.1 Survey methodology - 

standardisation of marine 

mammal survey, 

assessment and 

monitoring techniques 

3.2 Remote survey 

techniques for marine 

mammals 

3.3 Determine sensitivity of 

selected marine 

mammals and other 

receptors to underwater 

noise and vibration: 

physical damage, 

Survey methodology - Best practice guidance - Develop standard 

survey methodology. A 2 stage project, the first phase to review 

existing techniques and guidance including the recent JNCC Marine 

Mammal Common Standards Guidance and the second phase to 

produce guidance. 

A possible project to expand on the remote techniques and birds 

evaluation, but to include marine mammals and other wildlife groups. 

For example we are all being asked to consider use of e.g. 

hydrophones and porpoise detectors in surveying marine mammals 

but the equipments available appears to be problematic in some 

environments 

Collate results at a national / regional scale and report on changes in 

the distribution of marine mammals recorded at individual sites. 

Assessment of implications at a population level to be included. 

Interpretation in light of Phase 1 and 2 of COWRIE study (see issue 

5.1 and 3.6) 

DTI 

Wind Proposed COWRIE 

DISP-02-2006 

Wind Dormant N/A 

All 

Not active (Linked 

with RAG issue 3.5.) 

All Not active 

N/A 


May, 2009 86/124


Final report 

Marine 

Mammals 

Marine 

Mammals 

Marine 

Mammals 

Marine 

Mammals 

Marine 

Mammals 

behaviour 

3.4 Improving the information Review of existing understanding for significant gaps and potentially 

base on the distribution initiate new studies of the distribution of marine mammals: 

of marine mammals • day/night 

• seasonal 

• migration routes 

• seal haul out sites 

• breeding/pupping sites 

3.5 Seal tagging Use of seal satellite tagging to investigate behaviour and ecology 

during and post-construction. 

3.6 Response of marine 

mammals to underwater 

noise from construction, 

operation and/or 

decommissioning 

3.7 Tidal stream rotor 

interaction with marine 

mammals 

3.8 Entanglement of marine 

mammals (and other 

animals) 

Seascape 4.1 Effectiveness of visual 

limits used in R2 

Seascape 4.2 Monitoring windfarm - 

seascape interactions 

(Public acceptance of 

offshore renewables) 

There is currently insufficient information on the likely response of 

marine mammals to subsea noise. Information is particularly required 

on impacts on behaviours. Indirect impacts may occur. Likely 

cumulative impacts, particularly in respect of noise from construction 

activities occurring simultaneously at different sites, are also not well 

known. However the issue is much broader than renewables and there 

is potential for a high level review paper as a first step. COWRIE 

project should inform. 

Studies needed to clarify if current turbines present risks of physical 

injury or behavioural change to marine mammals. Results may have 

application to bird and fish interactions. 

Wave generators will typically entail a range of surface equipment and 

mooring cables. Some cetaceans and turtles are known to become 

entangled in for example lobster pot buoy ropes. Although 

entanglement in wave generator installations seems unlikely in view of 

the size, rigidity and tension, the subject needs to be explored through 

an initial review of evidence. 

Testing and refining for future licensing rounds the visual limits used in 

R2 (Note CCW, and SEA, for R2 used modified ‘Sinclair’ threshold 

distances for high, moderate and low visual impact.) Empirical study 

(Perception issues dealt with in 4.2) 

Collate results at a national/regional scale and report on changes in 

public perception in communities near individual sites (questionnaire 

surveys) Monitor change in UK public perception of offshore windfarms 

(internet based tools, focus group, Beaufort omnibus) Ground truth 

photomontages used in individual site EIAs Interview representatives 

of tourist industry, visitors, sea users, residents and other target 

All 

All 

Not active (Variety of 

local regional & 

international studies 

recently completed or 

planned) 

Active Potential to 

extend existing 

developer seal 

tagging studies 

N/A 


Tidal stream Not active 

DTI SEA 

N/A 

Wave Not active N/A 



May, 2009 87/124


Final report 

groups. Undertake a tourism cost benefit analysis 

Seascape 4.3 Seascape baseline Assessment of regional seascape units: 

• visibility of the sea 

• character of coastline 

• quality 

• value 

• capacity to accommodate change 

Seascape 4.4 Development of 

seascape assessment 

tools/techniques and 

mitigation 

Soundscape 5.1 

Monitoring of underwater 

noise and vibration 

generated by windfarm 

construction and 

operation 

Desk-based study to produce practical guidance for developers and 

their landscape consultants for offshore windfarm sites on seascape 

issues. A further objective of the work was to assist standardisation of 

the guidance offered to developers by Government agencies in 

England and Wales thereby improving the quality of seascape 

assessment. 

Project aims to provide field data in relation to the potential impact of 

sub-sea acoustic noise and vibration produced from offshore wind 

turbines. Building on existing desk based research the field data will be 

assessed to determine any behavioural or other effects on marine 

wildlife. 

Phase One – literature review and measurements at one or more 

existing windfarms. 

All 

All 

Wind 

Not active (However 

extensive work has 

been undertaken by 

CCW, SNH and 

others) 

Completed 

RAG Project 

No. 4.4 

Completed COWRIE 

NOISE-03-2003 

Active 

N/A 

DTI 

COWRIE 



Sources of underwater 

noise and vibration 

generated by wave and 

tidal installation 

construction and 

operation 

Noise and vibration 

mitigation study and 

guidance (for 

construction, operation 

and decommissioning) 

Phase Two - field measurements from pre-construction to operation 

Collate information on the nature of noise and vibration generated from Wave and 

these devices as a basis for assessing whether further work is required Tidal 

(along the lines of 5.1 above) on noise from the construction, operation 

and decommissioning. 

A review of the efficacy of proposed mitigation and possible 

alternatives (e.g. bubble curtains etc) is required studying the technical 

solutions available and the efficacy, reliability and practicality of those 

solutions. The development of guidance on industry best practice for 

effective mitigation for eg piling A review of the efficacy of deterrents 

such as pingers and scarers is required particularly in the context of 

long periods of construction or similar during which receptors may 

become conditioned to such measures 

Not active 

All Proposed N/A 

Soundscape 5.4 Methods for prediction of Guidance for developers is required dealing with assessment of noise All Not active (Phase 1 N/A 

May, 2009 88/124


Final report 

Fish, 

Shellfish and 

Benthos 

Fish, 


Benthos 

Fish, 


Benthos 

underwater noise levels 

and propagation, and 

assessment of effects 

6.1 Statistical basis for 

seabed benthic 

monitoring as a tool for 

environmental 

management in the 


industry 

6.2 Benthic survey 

techniques 

6.3 Review of cabling 

techniques and effects 

applicable to the offshore 

windfarm industry. 

Fish, 6.4 Methods for EMF 

Shellfish and measurement 

Benthos 

levels from piling and the prediction of impacts (models, differing site 

conditions and bathymetry). 

and 2 of COWRIE 

study should inform – 

see issue 5.1 above). 

Active Contractor 

selected, awaiting 

sufficient data to 

initiate 

Study aims are to: 

• Review and evaluate the ability of currently applied or recommended 

benthic survey strategies to detect and monitor the anticipated diffuse 

and subtle effects of windfarm construction and operation in shallow 

water areas with high natural variability in sediment and biological 

conditions. 

• Develop guidance for government and developers on suitable benthic 

biological effects monitoring strategies for offshore windfarms 

All 

DTI/Defra 

It has been agreed that work already exists in this area and this N/A Dormant N/A 

research project will not continue. 

The project aims to provide an information resource and guidance to 

government and developers on the range of cable installation 

techniques available, their likely effects and potential mitigation, 

drawing on windfarm and other marine industry practice and 

experience. 

Develop standard survey methods for EMF measurement in the field. 

Largely addressed by COWRIE studies 

All 

Active RAG Project 

6.3 

All See 6.5 below N/A 

DTI/Defra 

Fish, 6.5 Measurement and effects Phase 1 of the COWRIE EMF study was a desk based study to 


Benthos 

of EMF 

calculate the strength, frequencies and wavelengths of the 

electromagnetic fields produced by 33 kV (EPR) and 132 kV (XLPE) 

cables. The study also calculated the effects of burial and / or shielding 

(at various depths, strata, sediment type and thickness) on 

electromagnetic fields. 

The interim investigation (Phase 1.5) aimed to prioritise those fish 

species most likely to interact with the EMFs generated by offshore 

windfarm cables. A key objective was to produce practical guidance to 

developers where possible for discussion of FEPA licensing 

conditions. To assist in this process, the study considered monitoring 

that would be appropriate in light of the review undertaken. An 

overview of possible survey methods for electrically and magnetically 

sensitive species were included, together with advantages and 

disadvantages. This included suitable monitoring that could be 

All 

Complete 

COWRIE EMF-01- 

2002 

Completed 

COWRIE 

EMF-06-2004 

COWRIE 

May, 2009 89/124


Final report 

undertaken and an overview of possible survey methods for electrically 

and magnetically sensitive species, their advantages and 

disadvantages. 

Phase 2, Stage 1 - Development of project execution plan and 

experimental 

Methodology 

Active 

COWRIE EMF-01-06 

Proposed 

COWRIE EMF-04-06 

Phase 2, Stage 2 - Experimental mesocosm study 

Fish, 6.6 EMF mitigation measures A project to investigate mitigation measures relative to: cable type, All See 6.5 above N/A 

Shellfish and and guidance 

cable burial depth in different sediments, cable shielding, and cable 

Benthos 

voltage strength. To produce guidance on: maximum fields, cable type, 

and burial depth. Largely addressed by COWRIE studies. 

Fish, 6.7 Underwater noise and Effects of noise and vibration on fish and invertebrates - linked with All See 5.1, 5.2 & 3.6 N/A 

Shellfish and vibration and fish and marine mammals/noise and vibration studies. 

Benthos 

invertebrates 

Fish, 


Benthos 

Fish, 


Benthos 

Fish, 


Benthos 

Fish, 


Benthos 

Fish, 


Benthos 

6.8 Reef effects, guidance 

and mitigation 

6.9 Included in 6.8 

6.10 Spawning/nursery areas 

– risk assessment for 

Habitats Directive and 

UKBAP species 

The aim of the project is to provide a scientifically credible review of 

two aspects of the physical presence of windfarm structures: 

1. the likely reefs effects on fish, shellfish and other marine biota 

2. the potential to enhance the reef effect for commercial species 

The review is expected to result in testable predictions on these two 

aspects and proposals for field studies necessary to test the 

predictions. 

Review of information base on the distribution of spawning / nursery 

areas for 

priority marine species 

6.11 Recovery rates To collate and synthesise the benthic monitoring results from the R1 

sites. Note this will be informed by the results of project 6.1 - see 

above 

6.12 Biological implications of 

the removal of energy 

from the marine 

environment 

Monitoring to confirm the validity of predictions for different 

technologies. Review of the reliance of habitats and species on energy 

(wave and tidal stream) in the marine environment. Predictions of the 

biological impact of energy extraction (wave and tidal). Assessment of 

the scaling up of projects from demonstrator to commercial farms will 

require consideration in the future – for example what will be the 

Wind 

Active 

RAG Project 6.8 

All Dormant N/A 


Wave and 

Tidal 

Active 

DTI/Defra 

CCW/CE project will 

address primarily 

biological issues 

CCW & CE 

May, 2009 90/124


Final report 

Fish, 


Benthos 

Fish, 


Benthos 

Fish, 


Benthos 

Fish, 


Benthos 

Fish, 


Benthos 

Fish, 


Benthos 

Seabed and 

Coastal 

Processes 

impact of arrays on wave regimes First step in a broader 

consideration could be a high level position paper developed by 

physical oceanographer, sedimentologist and ecologist. 

6.13 Tidal rapid communities There is a need for strategic information in tidal rapid communities to 

inform decisions on tidal stream generator deployments. Information 

needed includes habitat distribution, biological characteristics, 

controlling variables etc. A staged approach is proposed starting with a 

review of existing UK and other relevant information, potentially 

followed by targeted field surveys. 

6.14 Non commercial fish Information on marine fish is heavily skewed to commercial species. 

There are numerous other fish species some of which are of 

conservation interest but comparatively little is know of their 

distribution, ecology or status. Although it is difficult to envisage 

significant threats to these species posed by marine renewable 

developments, a review of the scale of the information gap and 

existing work in progress or planned is proposed. 

6.15 EMF Sensitive species and life stages. Identification of key species and 

their sensitivities to EMF to be established (including consideration of 

different life stages) 

6.16 Fish tagging The lower cost "non-electronic" tagging of fish and their recording of 

their activity. This could be a long duration project, therefore of generic 

use amongst the wind and fishing industries 

6.17 Impacts of offshore 

windfarms on commercial 

fisheries and shellfish 

6.18 Potential impact of chalk 

cuttings on the marine 

environment 

7.1 Review of Round 1 

sediment process 

monitoring data – 

lessons learned 

Further monitoring work is required on commercial fisheries and 

shellfisheries - to assess impacts because of offshore windfarm 

development. Due to spatial and temporal variations monitoring would 

have to be over a long time period (10 years+) and large geographical 

area to determine the impacts and assess causality. Given the 

timeframes and scale the costs of such a study could be overly 

burdensome/prohibitive for individual developers to undertake so a 

COWRIE/RAG (government) funded project would seem sensible. 

London Array development in the Thames lends itself to this type of 

assessment 

Research into the issue of chalk cuttings/slurry and their potential 

impacts on the marine environment. Also appropriate disposal of this 

waste stream. 

Sediment process monitoring work carried out on Round 1 

developments will be drawn together and reviewed. The review will 

assess the requirements, methods, data, results and impacts in order 

to make recommendations for monitoring of R2 developments. 

Tidal stream Not active 

N/A 





Wind but All Not active 

Wind 

Active 


NB UKOOA PhD 

Studentship on 

effects of cuttings 

DTI/Defra 

May, 2009 91/124


Final report 



Processes 



Processes 



Processes 



Processes 



Processes 

7.2a Scroby Sands sediment 

transport monitoring for 


construction 

7.2 Dynamics of scour pits 

and scour protection 

7.3 Monitoring of actual 

impacts in context of 

natural change of 

dynamic systems. 

74 Identification of subtidal 

features of potential 

importance 

7.5 Impacts of tidal stream 

and wave devices on 

coastal processes 

Measurement and models to predict effects on seabed and coastal Wind 

processes. Effect of seabed scouring and sedimentation caused by 

windfarms on shipping lanes. To assess the magnitude and 

significance of changes to the nearshore sediment transport and 

sediment transport pathways as a result of the construction of an 

offshore windfarm on Scroby Sands. Consider: wave diffraction, 

coastal process impacts; erosion pits, cable depths and seabed 

morphology; the extent of erosion around piles of different types; the 

effectiveness of different scour protection. Would look at seabed 

scouring and sedimentation affecting navigable channels including port 

approaches and anchorages. Might consider a range of possible future 

seabed scenarios based on both construction and operation. Would 

need to be capable of generic application to gain Government support. 

Thames estuary seen as exceptionally important area. Cumulative 

impact issues with projects such as new container port and EA flood 

defence schemes need assessing. 

The project will proceed in two stages. The first stage will be to review Wind 

sediment scour and scour protection. Stage 2, if necessary, will involve 

marine surveys to collect new data that would enable reliable 

modelling of the processes. Finally the results will be published to give 

recommendations on the use of scour protection. 

A methodology for the studying of long-term impacts and a programme Wind 

of monitoring is required to confirm the validity of predictions 

Geophysical mapping and ground truthing of some SEA areas. Map 

extent of subtidal features of earth science importance (equivalent to 

GCR sites) 

Information is needed on the physical influence of wave and tidal Wave and 

stream marine renewable technologies on the water body and coastal Tidal 

processes including effects of energy removal, turbulent wake effects, 

sediment movement etc. See 6.12 for biological aspects. It is proposed 

that strategic data is obtained from prioritised studies at demonstrator 

projects so that the potential implications of large scale deployment 

can be modelled and assessed. Following initial review it may prove 

necessary to investigate rotor and wave effects separately. 

All 

Active 

RAG Project No.7.2a; 

DEFRA AE0262) 

Active 


Not active 

(Should be reviewed 

in light of results of 

RAG Project 7.1) 

Not active 

(However developer, 

DTI SEA and other 

mapping has filled 

some gaps) 

Not active 

(But see 6.12) 

Defra 

DTI/Defra 

Seabed and 7.6 Channel migration A review of evidence for past natural migration of navigation channels Wind and Active DTI/Defra 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

May, 2009 92/124


Final report 


Processes 



Processes 



Processes 



Processes 

Socio- 

Economics 

Socio- 

Economics 

Water 

Quality 

7.7 Impact of gravity base 

and hybrid structures on 

coastal processes 

7.8 Cumulative impact of 

monopile wakes 

7.9 Upgrading the WaveNet 

site in the Greater Wash 

to full SmartBuoy 

8.1 Impacts on recreational 

users of the sea 

8.2 Socio-economic issues 

with offshore windfarm 

projects 

in UK waters with emphasis on R1 and R2 areas. Aims to identify 

whether potential for channel movement is a significant factor for siting 

of windfarms and wave generators. 

wave RAG project No. 7.6 

Review and potentially modelling of the hydrodynamic and other All Not active N/A 

effects of gravity base and hybrid structures. A range of alternatives to 

the currently deployed turbine base structures exist and there is limited 

information on the relative differences in terms of effects on coastal 

processes. 

A review or studies to answer the question "Are wakes from monopiles Wind Not active N/A 

(and by extension, other structures) cumulative and are they of 

sufficient magnitude to cause effects on water column structure and 

seafloor sediments". 

The Thames and NW strategic areas already have SmartBuoys Win Not active N/A 

providing good quality data to underpin EIA and monitoring (this is 

coincidental to, and not because of, the Strategic Areas). A modest 

cost of £15-20K would allow the existing WaveNet Buoy in the Wash to 

be upgraded so that each strategic area has access to comparable 

and consistent data. 

Understanding spatial and temporal use of coastal seas for recreation 

and potential conflicts of renewable energy projects with various 

recreational user groups (yachting, surfing, kiting etc). Consideration of 

relative economic values of loss of recreational space and increasing 

of generation capacity. 

Research into better integration of windfarm projects (development 

phase through to operation) with local economics and general issue of 

socio economics and offshore wind 

9.1 Impact on water quality Consider effects of antifouling paints, cathodic protection etc and 

report on incidents and spills during construction and maintenance 

Best practice guide based on other industries 

Navigation 10.1 Marine traffic survey 

database 

Navigation 10.2 Interference by windfarm 

structures with marine 

communications, 

navigation and radar 

Two phase project. Primary objective is to develop a database, which 

can be used in a uniform process, initially to assess Round 2 offshore 

windfarm siting and layout proposals. Its primary users are expected to 

be the Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA) and the windfarm 

developers. Updating will take account of changes in routeing, 

shipping movements, and fishing patterns. 

Desk, laboratory and field investigation. Research enabling mariners, 

emergency services, offshore oil and gas installations, VTS and Port 

Authorities to assess the potential effects of offshore windfarms on 

their operational activities and safety. These groups to include all 


Wind Not active 

All Dormant N/A 

All Active DTI 

All Complete DfT/ MCA/nPower 

renewables 

May, 2009 93/124


Final report 

systems 

Navigation 10.3 Marine navigational 

safety risk assessment 

methodology for offshore 

windfarms 

Cumulative 

Impacts 

Cultural 

Heritage 

Cultural 

Heritage 

Cultural 

Heritage 

11.1 Assessment of 

cumulative and 

synergistic effects 

12.1 Location and features of 

archaeological remains 

and historic landscapes 

recreational and fishing craft. To be used also in assessing the siting of 

shore based radar, the application of safety zones and the optimum 

clearances of windfarm boundaries from navigational routes. 

Project aimed to develop a consistent methodology for use by both 

developers and Government in assessing the effects of offshore 

windfarms on navigation risk and marine safety 

Wind 

primarily 

Complete 

Develop and agree standard cumulative methodology All Dormant 

Not just a marine 

renewable issue, MSP 

implications, other 

work underway 

Appraisal of historic environment issues in nominated SEA areas. 

More detailed and consistent data on archaeological features needed 

in assessments. Reviews conducted for SEA process and through 

Aggregate Levy Sustainability Fund 

DTI 

N/A 


12.2 Strategic guidance for 

offshore industry: general 

New edition of JNAPC Code of Practice for Seabed Developers issued All Completed N/A 

12.3 Strategic guidance for 

All 

COWRIE 2 

offshore developers 

Other 13.1 Identification of 

monitoring requirements 

- Lessons from Round 1 

Other 13.2 Round 1 framework 

document 

Fishing 14.1 Investigation into fishing 

activities that might take 

place within and around 

windfarms 

Development of offshore renewables specific guidance for 

determining, recording and responding to the presence of 

archaeological material encountered or discovered during preliminary 

site assessment, the construction phase, operational maintenance and 

decommissioning of offshore windfarms and other offshore renewable 

power generation projects. 

Production of a report identifying all s36, FEPA and TWAO conditions 

applied to Round 1 projects, which would be a useful reference when 

monitoring requirements discussed for Round 2 projects. 

All issues subject to monitoring by R1 projects: 

- A structure for period collation, analysis and dissemination of 

information arising from the R1 projects is required 

- A framework should be provided for regulators and advisors to use 

R1 data to appraise FEPA conditions and inform future conditions for 

R2 and beyond 

Study objectives are to: 

• Determine whether the interactions between offshore windfarms and 

fishing will necessarily produce conflicts of interest or whether they can 

work together successfully. 

• Review fish and shell fish species and their related fisheries in R2 

areas 

Active 

COWRIE-ARCH-11- 

05 


Wind 

Wind 

Active 

DEFRA have 

produced a draft 

process 

Active 

Draft report received 

DTI 

May, 2009 94/124


Final report 

Fishing 14.2 Investigation of the 

potential range of 

socioeconomic impacts 

on the fishing industry 

from offshore 

developments 

• Review fishing vessel and gear types operating in R2 areas 

• Assess potential effects of seabed infrastructure on fishing operations 

• Identify which fishing activities might be possible in or around 

offshore windfarms. 

Review existing approaches to determining the usage of the sea by Wind 

commercial and amateur fishermen in the areas of proposed 

windfarms. If necessary, undertake complementary surveys of fishing 

communities utilising such areas. Consider possible socio-economic 

losses or gains to the fishing industry and make recommendations on 

the feasibility of different options. 

Active 

Draft report received 

Defra 

Fishing 14.3 Voluntary Log Book 

Scheme 

Voluntary Log Book Scheme to encourage the sub-10m vessels to 

divulge activity. Objective is to better understand important areas for 

small fishing vessel activity 

All Not active 

May, 2009 95/124


Final report 

Appendix 2: Table summarising stakeholder interests in marine renewable energy 

(Searchable in XL) 

Table 11 – Stakeholder interests in marine renewable energy 

Category Name Email Address Organisation Interest EoI 

Industry orgs Abbie Badcock abbie@tidaltoday.com Tidal Today supply market intelligence to the tidal 

industry 

Academic 

AbuBakr Salem Bahaj, 

Prof 

A.S.Bahaj@soton.ac.uk University of Southampton fundamental and applied research and 

pre-industrial development 

Academic Ailsa Hall ajh7@st-andrews.ac.uk SMRU marine mammals Y 

Academic Alan Hughes jah3@noc.soton.ac.uk NOC scotlands seas 

Consultants Alan Moore alanmoore@firenet.uk.net COWRIE chair wind 

Marine Alan Mortimer Alan.mortimer@scottishpower.com Scottish Power renewables Hd of renewables policy /marine 

Industry 

Academic Alan Owen a.owen@rgu.ac.uk Robert Gordon University Director, Energy Centre 

Academic Alejandro Souza ajso@pol.ac.uk POL Turbulence and sediment processes Y 

Academic Alex Ford alex.ford@port.ac.uk School of Biological Sciences, General interest in the environmental Y 

University of Portsmouth impact of renewable energy device 

Govt Andrew Brown andrew.d.brown@scotland.gsi.gov.uk Scottish Government fisheries 

Academic Andrew Gill a.b.gill@cranfield.ac.uk Cranfield University fish foraging ecology and trophic 

interactions. EMFs 

Y 

Consultants Andrew Hough andy@cmacsltd.co.uk Centre for Marine and coastal EIAs for coastal developments 

studies 

Public Bodies Andrew Prior andrew.prior@jncc.gov.uk JNCC OREEF 

Govt Angela Wratten Angela.Wratten@berr.gsi.gov.uk BERR/DECC Offshore Wind 

NGOs Ann Clark anne.clark@virgin.net Islay Energy Steering group develop renewable energy projects 

Academic Annie Linley anli@pml.ac.uk Plymouth Marine Laboratory Decision making/ valuation Y 

Y 

May, 2009 96/124


Final report 

Academic Antony Jensen acj1@noc.soton.ac.uk University of Southampton Artificial reef research and inshore 

fisheries 

Public Bodies Archie Johnstone archiej@nlb.org.uk Norhern Lighthouse Board SDCtidal, navigation 

Marine Barrie Shepherd bshepherd@doosanbabcock.com Doosan Babcock Energy commercialisation of technologies 

Industry 

NGOs Becky Boyd bboyd@swt.org.uk Scottish wildlife trust NIMAS report 

Academic Ben Wilson ben.wilson@sams.ac.uk SAMS risks of collision, underwater acoustic 

impact of MRED 

Y 

Y 

Academic Bernie mcconnell bm8@st-andrews.ac.uk SMRU Seals 

Academic Beth Scott b.e.scott@abdn.ac.uk Zoology School of Biological biology 

Sciences, University of 

Aberdeen 

Public Bodies Bill Band bill.band@snh.gov.uk SNH National Strategy Manager 

Consultants 

Bill Cooper 

bcooper@abpmer.co.uk 

ABP Marine Environmental 

Research Ltd 

Developing guidance, best practice and 

industry standards 

Academic 

s.j.boyes@hull.ac.uk 

Institute of Estuarine and Did Irish sea study on zoning 

Boyes, S., Warren, L. 

Coastal Studies, University of 

& Elliott, M. 

Hull 

Academic Brendan J. Godley b.j.godley@exeter.ac.uk University of Exeter School of Mammals and birds 

Biosciences 

Marine 

Industry 

Brian Lockhart 

Scottish and Southern Energy Renewable energy projects, primarily wind 

and hydro 

brian.lockhart.smith@scottishsouthern.co.uk 

speaker Bridget Woodman bridget.woodman@exeter.ac.uk Exeter University Wavehub/social 

NGOs Calum Duncan scotland@mcsuk.org Marine Conservation Society NIMAS report 

NGOs Catherine Quigley catherine.quigley@rspb.org.uk RSPB Conservation Planning - birds 

Public Bodies Chris Pater monika.lowerre@englishheritage.org.uk 

English Heritage 

OREEF member 

Academic Christine 

Gommenginger 

cg1@noc.soton.ac.uk NOCS characterising wind, waves and currents - 

datasets 

Academic Claire Haggett claire.haggett@ed.ac.uk University of Edinburgh Sustainable Development, public response 

to windfarms 

Y 

Y 

May, 2009 97/124


Final report 

Public Bodies Claire McSorley Claire.mcsorley@jncc.gov.uk JNCC Seabirds 

Consultants Colin Morgan morgan@bristol.garradhassan.co.uk Garrad Hassan Offshore projects, Front End Engineering 

Development studies 

Public Bodies Craig White craig.white@thecrownestate.co.uk The Crown Estate accept 

ed 

D J Webb Deep.Oceans@talktalk.net Deep Oceans Consulting 

Limited 

tides and need to better understand the 

effect of tidal barrages on the environment 

Marine D McGinnes d.mcginnes@pelamiswave.com Pelamis/MCT Wave converter 

Industry 

Govt Darius Campbell darius.campbell@defra.gsi.gov.uk DEFRA Marine Strategy and Evidence 

Academic Dave Gunn Dave.gunn@sams.ac.uk SAMS KT and commercial 

NGOs David Cameron info@communityenergyscotland.org.uk North harris trust balancecommunity environment and 

renewables 

Public Bodies David Connor david.connor@jncc.gov.uk JNCC Mapping of seabed, biotopes 

public Bodies David Cotton dcott@oceannet.org POL/BODC DATA 

Academic David Ingram david.ingram@ed.ac.uk University of Edinburgh Equimar project 

Consultants David Lambkin dlambkin@abpmer.co.uk ABP Marine Environmental 

Research Ltd 

potential effects of windfarm structures on 

patterns of wave action and sediment 

transport 

Academic David Long dal@bgs.ac.uk BGS bathymetry 

Govt David Mallon David.Mallon@scotland.gsi.gov.uk Scottish Government policy 

NGOs David Shiel and sff@sff.co.uk 

Scottish Fishermans Fisheries 

James Brown 

federation 

Academic David Sims, Prof dws@mba.ac.uk MBA spatial movements, behaviour and 

population structure of marine fish 

Academic David Toke d.toke@bham.ac.uk Birmingham University social construction for innovation in marine 

Academic David Woolf David.woolf@thurso.uhi.ac.uk ERI, UHI GIS mapping for siting, Marine Energy Y 

Standards 

Academic Deborah Greaves deborah.greaves@plymouth.ac.uk Plymouth University: 

PRIMaRE 

Wave Hub baseline data and monitoring Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

May, 2009 98/124


Final report 

Industry orgs Duncan Ayling duncan@bwea.com BWEA BWEA's strategies on offshore wind, wave 

and tidal stream energy 

Govt Duncan Huggett duncan.huggett@environmentagency.gov.uk 

Environment Agency UKBAP 

NGOs Duncan McLaren HTodd@foe-edinburgh.org.uk FOE CEO 

Academic Emma Sheehan emma.sheehan@plymouth.ac.uk Plymouth University: Birds mammals conservation 

PRIMaRE 

NGOs Euan Dunn euan.dunn@rspb.org.uk RSPB sand eels/birds 

Govt Frank Thomsen frank.thomsen@cefas.co.uk CEFAS underwater noise 

Laboratories 

Marine Fraser Johnson contact@orecon.com Orecon Wave converter 

Industry 

Marine Gareth Davies gareth.davies@aquatera.co.uk Aquatera Environmental services 

Industry 

Govt Gary Shanahan gary.shanahan@decc.gsi.gov.uk BERR/DECC Severn Tidal Power 

Gary Tulie C-Questor Corporation 

UK Representative Office 

Academic George H Smith g.h.smith@exeter.ac.uk School of Geography, 

Archaeology and Earth 

Resources, University of 

Carbon Trading, through Renewable 

Energy, and Energy Efficiency 

Marine biology and the physical/ coastal 

effects 

Exeter 

Public Bodies George Lees George.Lees@snh.gov.uk Scottish Natural Heritage marine renewables research 

Academic Georgy Shapiro, Prof gshapiro@plymouth.ac.uk Plymouth University modelling physical processes Y 

NGOs Graham Russell grussell@uun.ed.ac.uk Scottish Coastal Forum brings interest grops together 

Academic Graham Savidge g.savidge@qub.ac.uk Queen’s University Belfast 

Marine Laboratory 

MCT SeaGen Tidal Turbine in Strangford 

Narrows 

Public Bodies Graham U'ren graham.u_ren@rtpi.org.uk Royal Town Planning Institute MSP 

Consultants Gregory Dudziak gregory.dudziak@sgurrenergy.com SGURRENERGY analysis and prediction of marine energy 

yields 

Public Bodies Hannah Cherry Hannah.Cherry@thecrownestate.co.uk The Crown Estate MaRS model for spatial planning 

Academic Henry Jeffrey henry.jeffrey@ed.ac.uk University of Edinburgh Marine Engineer 

Y 

Y 

Y 

May, 2009 99/124


Final report 

Academic Ian Boyd ilb@st-andrews.ac.uk Marine Science 

cross uni project and S seas 

Scotland/SMRU St Andrews 

Academic Ian Bryden Ian.Bryden@ed.ac.uk University of Edinburgh Supergen 

Govt Ian Davies I.M.Davies@marlab.ac.uk FRS Raodmap for scottish govt Y 

Laboratories 

Academic Ian Marshall i.w.marshall@lancaster.ac.uk Lancaster University sediment dynamics Y 

Govt Jack Farnham Jack.farnham@berr.gsi.gov.uk BERR/DECC Marine Policy 

Marine James Ives james.ives@openhydro.com OPEN Hydro designs and manufactures tidal turbines 

Industry 

Marine James Milner-Smith james.milner-smith@airtricity.com Airtricity currently building a very large offshore site Y 

Industry 

(Greater Gabbard) 

Academic Jason Holt jholt@pol.ac.uk POL atlas of renewable energy resources, tidal Y 

dynamics in the eastern Irish Sea 

Industry orgs Jason Ormiston jason@scottishrenewables.com Scottish Renewables Forum Marine and Bio Energy 

NGOs Jean McSorley nocontact@uk.greenpeace.org Greenpeace Nuclear 

Govt Jennifer Norris Jenny.Norris@emec.org.uk EMEC Testing of prototypes and standards Y 

Laboratories 

Academic Jim McDonald, Prof 

j.mcdonald@eee.strath.ac.uk 

University of Strathclyde Electrical Power Systems and 

engineering. 

Academic Jingjing Xu Jingjing.xu@plymouth.ac.uk Plymouth University Social economic impacts 

NGOs Joan Edwards enquiry@wildlifetrusts.org Wildlife Trust Hd marine policy 

Govt John Allen j.allen@csl.gov.uk Central Science lab (DEFRA) Env impacts 

Laboratories 

Public Bodies John Briggs j.briggs@ccw.gov.uk CCW seascape 

John Hancox john.hancox@rolls-royce.com Rolls Royce development of offshore renewables Y 

Govt John Hartley jph@hartleyanderson.com RAG/BERR, Hartley Anderson Promotion of science to underpin Y 

environmental management decisions 

Academic John Harwood jh17@st-and.ac.uk SMRU University of St mammals 

Marine 

Industry 

John Kemp or Chris 

George 

prof.kemp@talk21.com 

owel@sycamoreinnovation.com 

Andrews 

Offshore Wave Energy Ltd OWEL Grampus wave energy converter 

May, 2009 100/124


Final report 

Academic John Paul Latham j.p.latham@imperial.ac.uk Imperial College London Rock and concrete armouring, 

Y 

fluid/structure interactions 

Govt 

laboratories 

Jon Rees jon.rees@cefas.co.uk CEFAS sediment dynamics Y 

Academic Jonathan Side, Prof j.c.side@hw.ac.uk ICIT, Heriot-Watt University 

(HWU), 

Environmental conflicts and conflicts 

between sea-users, Physical and 

biological modelling 

Academic Jorge Kubie, Prof j.kubie@napier.ac.uk Napier university Mechanical Engineering 

Govt June Graham , Alan 

Hills, Tom 

Leatherlands 

jgraham@sepa.org.uk SEPA Environment protection 

Academic Justin Dix J.K.Dix@noc.soton.ac.uk NOCS shelf sediment dynamics Y 

Consultants Justine Saunders jsaunders@abpmer.co.uk ABP Marine Environmental Marine consultant: Involved in SP model 

Research Ltd 

Consultants Kelvin Reay ( not sure kelvin.reay@mottmac.com Mott Mcdonald Engineering and development 

who best) 

Academic Ken Collins kjc@noc.soton.ac.uk University of Southampton / Study of artificial reefs/habitats 

Marine 

Industry 

Lars Christensen, 

Taus Noehrland 

NOC 

lc@wavedragon.net Wavedragon Wave converter 

Academic Laurence Mee Laurence.Mee@sams.ac.uk SAMS Environmental impacts of marine energy 

technologies 

Public Bodies Leigh Jones leigh.jones@naturalengland.org.uk Natural England Marine ecology and marine energy :Office: 

01733 455194 Mob:07979 246057 

Academic Lorraine Gray Lorraine.Gray@nafc.uhi.ac.uk NAFC Marine Centre Shetlands SSMEI 

Industry orgs Louise Smith Louise.smith@hient.co.uk Highlands and Islands Pentland Firth Tidal Energy Project 

Marine 

Industry 

Mark Crawford 

mark.crawford@npowerrenewables.com 

enterprise 

NPower Renewables Renewables developer 

Public Bodies Mark Pepper Mark.Pepper@thecrownestate.co.uk The Crown Estate MARs model for spatial planning 

Mark Rehfisch Mark.Rehfisch@BTO.org British Trust for Ornithology waterbird population dynamics, collision 

risk 

Y 

Y 

Y 

May, 2009 101/124


Final report 

Public Bodies Mark russell russell@qpa.org Marine Aggregate Levy ALSF progress of research 

Sustainability Fund 

Academic Mark Shields mark.shields@thurso.uhi.ac.uk UHI Ecological effects 

Academic Mark Winskel mark.winskel@ed.ac.uk University of Edinburgh sociologist 

Academic Martin Attrill, Prof 

Plymouth University: climate variabiity on marine ecosystems 

M.Attrill@plymouth.ac.uk 

PRIMaRE 

NGOs Martin Brough RNLI SDC tidal 

Marine Martin Wright martin.wright@marineturbines.com Seagen MD 

Industry 

Marine Matthew Swanwick Matthew.swanwick@eon-uk.com Eon-UK Renewables developer 

Industry 

Academic Mel Austen mcva@pml.ac.uk Plymouth Marine Laboratory valuation ecosystem services 

Industry orgs Melanie Hay melanie.hay@scotent.co.uk Scottish Enterprise 

NGOs Melissa Moore melissa@mcsuk.org Marine Conservation Society NIMAS report 

Marine Michael Barrett info@sperboy.com Embley Energy Sperboy wave OWC generator 

Industry 

NGOs Mick Green info@wdcs.org Whale and Dolphin cetaceans 

Conservation Society WDCS 

Academic Mike Cowling, Prof mikejc@eng.gla.ac.uk University of Glasgow Marine 

Technology Centre 

+ Crown Estate 

environmental impact assessmt 

Academic Mike Elliot mike.elliott@hull.ac.uk Institute of Estuarine and irish sea study, director 

Coastal Studies, University of 

Hull 

Industry Mike Osborne info@SeaZone.com Seazone MD Data 

Marine Miles Willis enquiries@swanturbines.co.uk Swann Turbines CYGNET site development manager 

Industry 

Marine Monika Bakke Monika.Bakke@waveenergy.no Wave Energy, Norway Wave device developer 

Industry 

Industry orgs Morna Cannon morna@scottishrenewables.com Scottish Renewables Forum Marine and Bio Energy 

Govt Neal Rafferty neal.rafferty@scotland.gsi.gov.uk Scottish Govt Energy 

Y 

Y 

May, 2009 102/124


Final report 

Govt 

Laboratories 

Neil Kermode neil.kermode@emec.org.uk EMEC MD 

Neil Robertson 

neil.robertson@cornwallenterprise.co.u 

k 

Neil Robertson neil.robertson@newpark.co.uk New Park, Forss Business 

and Technology park, Forss 

Thurso Caithness KW14 7UZ 

01847 861316 Mobile: 07745 

346133 

Govt Neil Weatherley neil.weatherley@environmentagency.gov.uk 

Environment Agency 

Cornwall Enterprise WAVE HUB accept 

ed 

Science and Technology Parks, Business 

incubation 

conduit to and represent EA policy and 

operational users of the science 

Govt Nick Grieve 

Govt Nick Harrington nick.harrington@southwestrda.org.uk South West RDA Wave Hub Y 

Academic Nick Jenkins n.jenkins@umist.ac.uk University of Manchester, UKERC 

Joule Centre 

Consultants Nicola Meakins meakinsN@bv.com Black & Veatch Engineering, EIA 

Marine 

Industry 

Niels Nielsen andrea.tyrrell@lunarenergy.co.uk Lunar Energy ocean energy, hydropower and dam 

engineering 

Academic P.K.Stansby p.k.stansby@manchester.ac.uk University of Manchester Sediment transport Y 

Public Bodies Paul Gilliland paul.gilliland@naturalengland.org.uk Natural England MSP Cumulative effects 

Marine Paul Jordan pjordan@oceanpowertech.com OPT PowerBuoys 

Industry 

Academic Paul Leonard paul.leonard@brunel.ac.uk Visiting Professor, Plymouth prioritisation of the selection of R&D to Y 

University - Honorary 

Professor, Brunel University 

assess the environmental impact of 

offshore renewables e.g. through 

COWRIE 

Paul Rouse paul.rouse@esrc.ac.uk ESRC Environment, Education and Governance 

Academic Paul S. Bell psb@pol.ac.uk POL wave diffraction effects associated with Y 

windfarms, sediments and hydrodynamics 

Public Bodies Paul Townsend paul.townsend@mcga.gov.uk Maritime and coastguard Shipping, maritime safety 

agency 

NGOs Peter Dow hq@salmon-trout.org Salmon and Trout Association Game angling 

Y 

May, 2009 103/124


Final report 

Marine 

Industry 

Peter Fraenkel peter.fraenkel@marineturbines.com SeaGen Marine Current 

Turbines 

Tidal device developer 

Public Bodies Peter Fraser p.fraser@abdn.ac.uk Royal Institute of navigation, Animal Navigation 

University of Aberdeen 

Marine Peter Hodgetts info@searoc.com SeaRoc Marine eng 

Industry 

Consultants Peter Hughes Peter.Hughes@halcrow.com Halcrow Group Ltd Environmental Impact Assessment Y 

Public Bodies Peter Lawrence peter.lawrence@thecrownestate.co.uk The Crown Estate 

Industry orgs Peter Madigan p.madigan@bwea.com BWEA OREEF 

Govt Peter Singleton peter.singleton@sepa.org.uk SEPA Environmental futures 

Govt Phil Gilmour Phil.Gilmour@scotland.gsi.gov.uk Scottish Govt Marine energy SPG 

Academic Phillip Hammond psh2@st-andrews.ac.uk pop dynamics of cetaceans and seals 

Academic Phillip Williamson p.williamson@uea.ac.uk University of East Anglia marine ecosystem behaviour, 

biogeochemical processes, climate 

Y 

Marine 

Industry 

change and biodiversity 

Quentin Huggett quentin@geotek.co.uk Geotek director, surveys and equipment 

Public Bodies Rachael Mills coastal.management@mfa.gsi.gov.uk MFA Marine and fisheries OREEF 

agency , exec agency of 

DEFRA 

Marine Ray Hunter Ray.hunter@res-ltd.com Renewable energy systems Marine RE 

Industry 

RES 

Consultants Richard Boud boudr@entecuk.co.uk Entec Marine Energy Challenge 

Academic Richard Burrows r.burrows@liverpool.ac.uk Department of Engineering 

The University of Liverpool 

Potential for tidal power generation in NW 


NGOs Richard Dixon scotland@wwf.org.uk WWF Hd Scotland 

Public Bodies Richard Knight richard.knight@eti.co.uk ETI development and deployment of lowcarbon 

technologies 

Academic Richard Thompson R.C.Thompson@plymouth.ac.uk Plymouth University: habitat enhancement around OREDs 

Govt 

Laboratories 

PRIMaRE 

Richard Walls r.walls@csl.gov.uk FERA (ex CSL) Birds 

Y 

Y 

May, 2009 104/124


Final report 

Marine Richard Yemm enquiries@pelamiswave.com Pelamis Wave Power Wave device developer 

Industry 

Academic Robert Batty rsb@sams.ac.uk SAMS Mammals 

Academic Robert Batty rsb@sams.ac.uk SAMS Mammals 

Academic 

Robert Gatliff and 

Mike Stephenson 

r.gatliff@bgs.ac.uk 

mhste@bgs.ac.uk 

BGS geology Y 

Academic Robin Wallace robin.wallace@ed.ac.uk University of Edinburgh UKERC 

Govt Rodney Anderson Rodney.anderson@defra.gsi.gov.uk DEFRA 

Public Bodies Roger Barker Trinity House Navigation 

NGOs Rowena Langston rowena.langston@rspb.org.uk RSPB Birds 

Academic Russell B Wynn rbw1@noc.soton.ac.uk NOCS sediment dynamics and seafloor Y 

ecosystems 

Academic ruth Brennan ruth.brennan@sams.ac.uk policy 

Govt Sacha leigh snbl@nerc.ac.uk NERC 

Marine Sandra Painter sandra.painter@amec.com AMEC Wind Wind energy 

Industry 

Public Bodies Sandy Downie sandy.downie@snh.gov.uk SNH Marine energy 

Academic Sandy Kerr S.Kerr@hw.ac.uk HERRIOT WATT economist/communities 

Academic Sarah Cornell sarah.cornell@bristol.ac.uk University of Bristol Design and development of wind, wave Y 

and tidal energy systems - robotics… 

NGOs Sarah Fowler sarahfowler@naturebureau.co.uk Nature Conservation Bureau sharks and rays 

Public Bodies Sarah Wood s.wood@ccw.gov.uk CCW seascape 

Academic Shunqi Pan shunqi.pan@plymouth.ac.uk Plymouth University Sediment dynamics Y 

Academic Sigrid Stigl S.Stigl@sussex.ac.uk Sussex University Social economic impacts 

Industry orgs Stephanie merry, smerry@r-e-a.net REA hd of marine enrgy 

Academic Stephen R. Turnock srt@soton.ac.uk University of Southampton fluid dynamics for maritime system design Y 

and analysis 

Public Bodies Stephen Wyatt stephen.wyatt@carbontrust.co.uk Carbon trust Head of technology acceleration 

Consultants 

Steve Hull 

shull@abpmer.co.uk 

ABP Marine Environmental 

Research Ltd 

environmnetal impact of marine 

renewables 

May, 2009 105/124


Final report 

Govt Stuart Rogers stuart.rogers@cefas.co.uk CEFAS SP Model and ecosystems experts 

Laboratories 

Govt Sue Golighey DEFRA 

Academic Suzana Ilic s.ilic@lancaster.ac.uk Lancaster University Interaction of coastal structures with 

coastal hydrodynamics, sediment 

processes and morphology 

Academic Tariq Muneer, Prof t.muneer@napier.ac.uk Napier university Energy 

Marine TBA Wave Dragon Wave device developer 

Industry 

NGOs Theresa redding theresa.redding@coastnet.org.uk Coastnet social 

NGOs Theresa Redding theresa.redding@coastnet.org.uk Coastnet social 

Academic Tim Cockerill t.cockerill@imperial.ac.uk Imperial College London Policy implications and environmental 

impacts 

Public Bodies Tim Norman tim.norman@thecrownestate.co.uk The Crown Estate 

Consultants Toby Roxburgh training@entecuk.co.uk Entec valuation 

Academic Tom Wilding Tom.Wilding@sams.ac.uk SAMS artificial reefs 

Govt Trevor Raggatt trevor.raggatt@berr.gsi.gov.uk BERR/DECC Marine Renewables Deployment Fund 

(MRDF) 

Govt 

Laboratories 

Vanessa 

Steltzenmuller 

Public Bodies Victoria Copley 

vanessa.stelzenmuller@cefas.co.uk CEFAS Team leader 

Victoria.copley@naturalengland.org.uk Natural England Northminster 

House: Peterborough 

Marine ecology and marine energy :Office: 

01733 455194 Mob:07979 246057 

Marine 

info@pure.shetland.co.uk Pure Energy Centre Shetland renewables 

Industry Vincenzo Ortisi 

Academic W J Langston wjl@mba.ac.uk MBA Water quality issues in the Severn Estuary Y 

Public Bodies Zoe Crutchfield Zoe.Crutchfield@jncc.gov.uk JNCC OREEF 

Public Bodies mailto:richard.wakef 

ord@scotland.gsi.go 

v.uk 

richard.wakeford@scotland.gsi.gov.uk 

Association of Scottish 

community councils 

Academic Energy systems research unit 

NGOs nffo@nffo.org.uk National fishermen's 

federation 

Fisheries 

Y 

Y 

Y 

May, 2009 106/124


Final report 

NERC 

Appendix 3: Summary of Workshop – Tidal Energy and the Marine 

Environment 

Hosted by University of Aberdeen and Robert Gordon University 

Thursday 8 th March, 2007, Aberdeen University 

Purpose : To provide an opportunity for knowledge dialogue concerning the 

development of tidal energy and the understanding of the interaction of devices with 

the marine environment and to identify the current knowledge gaps and the 

challenges in filling those gaps. This interaction took place between engineers, 

developers, modellers, regulators and ecologists. To this end the consensus was that 

the meeting was very successful, with a greater awareness between disciplines and 

that more of this type of cross discipline interaction needs to occur. 

Summary 

Development and regulatory process 

At the spatial and temporal scales at which tidal energy will be extracted there 

is a general lack of knowledge of both the possible physical and biological effects 

due to the placement of devices. Over the last few years, the collective group within 

the SuperGen project has gone some way to producing mathematical models, tank 

models and supporting work on full scale devices like the SNAIL which can be 

deployed as collectors of both biological and physical information in the areas of high 

speed tidal currents. The detailed hydrological models are revealing that the scale or 

dimensions at which we view the physical process can give very different answers 

but that physical effects can be felt at least 7 km from the location of deployment. 

Developers are acutely aware of the current level of uncertainty and that the 

best practice is to review the entire ‘life cycle’ of a development. This requires a 

much greater level of certainty than we currently have as well as much better 

coverage of basic baseline data. There is general concern that the current practice in 

the production of Scoping documents, which are not encompassing, relies too much 

on desktop studies such that the unknowns remain unknown. 

There are environmental guidelines from current European Directives (Birds 

and Habitat) and UK DTI deployment policies. However, due to the lack of 

uncertainty concerning the possible environmental effects of tidal development, the 

statutory advisory bodies stress that this has to be an adaptive/learning process, with 

a flexible approach which changes with gains in knowledge (as envisaged by 

regulatory guidance issued by the DTI). This requires a high level of interaction and 

knowledge dialogue between all interested parties taking into consideration changes 

to the current regulatory processes. The transposition of the Water Framework 

Directive into transitional and coastal waters for engineering works not regulated by 

the Water Environment (Controlled Activities) (Scotland) Regulations 2005, and the 

introduction of the Marine Bill may coincide with the expansion of prototype energy 

deployments within and outside designated test facilities. 

The DTI Research Advisory Group (RAG) provides the knowledge transfer 

between statutory groups, government, developers and consultants. DTI and Cowrie 

have provided the funding and tender opportunities for the vast majority of research 

projects in the marine renewables arena. However the system needs to be more 

flexible and inclusive to new concerns, understandings and data gathering 

techniques. At present there is an under representation of academic input to the 

various advisory groups. 

May, 2009 107/124


Final report 

NERC 

Current data collection and analysis 

It was clear from this exchange of current knowledge that so much less is 

known about the ecology and exact physics of the marine environment than the 

equivalent area of study for terrestrial regions where wind renewables have been 

sited. Ecological effects of tidal mixing on ecosystems are both direct, influencing 

the ability of animals to catch their prey and indirect, determining the level of primary 

production which ultimately determines the fate of food availability up the entire 

trophic chain in marine ecosystems. 

At present MCT and EMEC are at the forefront of the novel collection of 

physical, biological and behavioural data at appropriate biological spatial and 

temporal scales in the locations of actual tidal device deployment in the UK. The 

ecological research is coordinated by SMRU (and SMRU Ltd.), and focuses on the 

visible behaviours of marine mammals and seabirds. The MCT study also covers 

research on the before and after aspects of tidal deployments on benthos and 

sediment but there is a gap in the study of fish and plankton. SMRU is moving 

towards the establishment of a generic marine mammal monitoring methodology and 

is putting the data into a risk framework such that levels of probability of specific 

events/longer term changes can be quantified. They also are investigating the set up 

of a data gateway. 

Desk-top studies by SAMS and CEH have highlighted the large gaps in 

knowledge of direct and indirect effects of tidal schemes on marine mammals, fish 

and birds. However models that draw on work from other studies (e.g. boat / 

propeller strikes on marine mammals, fish behaviour in relation to fishing nets, 

behavioural strategies, range shifts, population dynamics) increases our 

understanding of the risks proposed by tidal devices. 

Studies at U of Aberdeen are indicating that the amount and location of 

primary production may play a more important role in determining when and where 

seabirds and marine mammals spend their time foraging than has previously been 

thought. These ‘hotspots’ are very limited in space, but all evidence points towards 

them being driven mainly by small differences in the amount of tidal mixing and 

potentially being affected by changes in tidal energy extraction. 

As tidal energy extraction development comes closer to a reality more will be 

demanded to be known about both the direct and indirect ecological effects of the 

placement of tidal devices and the need for long-term, continuous tidal stream 

datasets that encompass a range of seasonal and spatial influences. How we get to 

the point of being able to deliver such needs depends on filling the following gaps 

and challenges. 

Gaps and challenges to fill 

Gaps in knowledge dialogue 

There is a strong case to be made for more academic (ecological and engineering) 

input into the established network of statutory government groups, developers and 

consultants. How to achieve this – apply for funding for a working group to develop 

the following research areas set out below. 

Gaps in marine ecology 

Ecologists need to investigate the basic behavioural / food web /ecological 

interactions that are key for a wide range of animals and plant species in areas of 

high tidal flows. How to achieve this - there is good possibility of a Consortium NERC 

grant application. 

Gaps in monitoring techniques/ data analysis 

Engineers, ecologist and regulatory bodies need to work together and decide what 

exactly needs to be monitored/surveyed, and how best/efficiently that can be done: 

May, 2009 108/124


Final report 

NERC 

How to achieve this – a series of small targeted projects and a greater usage of 

existing data already being collected by MCT and EMEC. Not all variables can be 

satisfactorily and cost-effectively measured with existing protocols. What locations 

will the DAQ kit operate from; seabed, water column, surface, aircraft and satellite all 

offer different aspects. Possible funding routes can include the DTI, EU, EPSRC and 

NERC projects with joint Post-doctoral positions and PhD studentships. 

Gaps in site specific developments 

Developers, engineers, ecologists and regulatory bodies should help each other in 

choosing appropriate sites for the collection of baseline data and dealing with funding 

issues for supporting the necessary research: How to achieve this - possible funding 

for larger scale projects from DTI / Cowrie and energy companies. Careful and well 

resourced application of marine spatial planning (through the marine bill) and 

Strategic Environmental Assessment (as required by legislation). 

List of attendance 

Ainsworth, David 

Burnett, Robin 

Boyd, Ian 

Daunt, Frances 

Goucher, Tim 

Hartley, John 

Hayes, Peter 

Mitchell, Paul 

Norris, Jenny 

Owen, Alan 

Prior, Andrew 

Ruscoe, John 

Scott, Beth 

Thompson, Paul 

Wilson, Ben 

MCT 

SSE Ltd. 

SMRU 

CEH 

SSE Ltd. 

DTI representative 

FRS 


EMEC 

RGU 

JNCC 

HW ICIT 



SAMS 

Not present – but involved 

Couch, Scott University of Edinburgh 

Crutchfield, Zöe JNCC 

Gibberd, George Tidal Generation 

Heath, Malcolm E.ON 

Meade, Simon Lunar Energy 

Priestley, Ruth SNH 

Side, Jon 

HW ICIT 

Wratten, Angela DTI 

May, 2009 109/124


Final report 

NERC 

Appendix 4: Summary of UKERC workshop Edinburgh, March 24 th / 25 th 

Summary of notes from UKERC Sustainable marine renewable arrays workshop 

Edinburgh March 24 th / 24 th 

Session 1 – Fisheries 

Issues: 

Space use 

Consequences of displacement 

Conflict 

Safety of fishers (J.S) 

Fleet viability 

Knock-on effects 

Behaviour of fishers 

Lack of data / knowledge (*) + research / integration to inform policy + 

management 

(*) Local knowledge of resource, working in area (MS) 

Relationship with other activities / sectors 

o Marine conservation 

o Energy sites (all) (opportunity for local fishing vessels supporting marine 

developments – MS) 

o Wild vs mariculture / aquaculture 

o Habitat protection 

o Coastal defence / protection 

Learn from oil industry experience (J.S) 

Research gaps: 

Spatial / temporal (and methodological!! J.S.) scale of research needs extending. 

Biological too! (SB) 

To include research on biological impacts of projects/devices (positive as well as 

negative) (M.C.) 

De facto MPAs (E.S.) – Potential for MSP compromises 

Geographical scope of research too limited 

Detailed studies at single sites needed (demonstrator at OWF) 

Cross-disciplinary studies 

Governance 

Join up please! 

Proactive 

Crown Estate steeling their thunder! 

On post-its: 

Fishing shipping communities loss of access safety 

Displacement of fishing activity 

Behavioural responses to displacement 

Multiple uses of sea areas: use of commons. Strategy crucial. Cannot simply assume 

prior use constitutes right to priority ongoing use 

Near shore pre-commercial marine energy arrays – interaction with static gear 

fishermen 

Research to underpin policy development for fisheries 

Vulnerability to displacement of fishing and other marine activities 

How do you handle space use by small fisheries poor data 

May, 2009 110/124


Final report 

NERC 

Session 1 – Energy extraction 

Priorities: 

Resource understanding (for wave / tidal / wind) 

Regarding tidal: technology (improve existing + new) / methods development 

(RASCAL) (tidal equivalent of wave buoy) 

Resource assessment 

Future proofing resources wind/wave 

Near + far field effects (different for each technology) 

Developers – major barriers to development is understanding resource (tidal) 

(same for policy makers / regulators) 

Session 1 – Healthy ecosystem 

Gap / needs: 

Create understanding of ecosystem (what about physical environment) functioning 

to parameterize models being developed, then link to risk-analysis / risk-management 

framework (relevance to policy makers) 

Define health at levels of biological organisms + focus on fitness for survival / harm 

(clarity of goals) 

Address issue: 

Studies on ecosystem functioning (overcome reliance on structure of ecosystem) 

Assess / quantify ecosystem resilience 

Use manipulative field experiments 

Migration routes 

Implications for: 

Policy makers: clarity of objectives, introduces ecological / operational realism, 

improves derivation / use of indicators 

Developers: clarity of objectives, introduces “ecological operational realism” 

Integrative approach: “it focuses on the ecosystem”! (focus on functioning of system), 

acknowledges the ability of ecosystem to absorb change 

Session 1 – Monitoring 

Description of knowledge gap/issue 

Coordinated monitoring plans to support consenting 

True monitoring involves a well defined, quantitative end point – have we got these (S.E.) 

Clearly define monitoring objectives (J.P.H.) 

Need for SMART objectives 

Environmental baseline (acknowledging climate change effects) 

Monitoring guidelines/protocols/SOPs (work planned by SNH) 

How could gap/issue be addressed: 

Environmental baseline – ensure appropriate baseline first (A…) 

o Prioritise data to be collected 

o Public sector led data collection (new for surveys, existing from desk study) 

o Identify pilot areas (areas that are available for lease vs areas that are not yet 

available for lease) 

Feedback from existing development 

Early feedback from new developments – iteration 

Development of modelling tied to actual survey work to reduce / optimise future 

survey work 

One stop shop for data – visibility + accessibility of all data 

Collaboration across national + international boundaries 

May, 2009 111/124


Final report 

NERC 


Policy makers 

o Define/ standardise methods 

o Investment plan 

o Define acceptable impacts 

Developers 

o Encourage developers to feedback/collaborate 

o Potential reduction in burden on developers 

Integrated approach 

o Develop plans with stakeholders 

Session 1 – Ports and harbours 

Description of knowledge gap/issue 

What is required, where and when, to support developments, and at what cost/benefit 

How could gap/issue be addressed: 

Leave to market forces 

Initial study on potential sites /developers requirements / timings / CBA. Fit with 

competing industries (e.g. offshore oil and gas) 

Strategic planning (stemming from initial study) 

o Regional 

o National 

Confirmation of funding package 


Policy makers 

o Fund/execute initial study 

o Regional/national responsibility 

o Support achieving targets + policy objectives 

o Budgeting for investment 

o Deliver strategic planning 

Developers 

o Fund/feed in 

o Reducing financial risk 

o Available facilities may restrict device design, deployment, maintenance and 

project development 

o Potential for shared facilities 


o Iterative process to reflect state of industry as it develops 

o Facilities need to accommodate other industries (offshore oil and gas, 

shipping, marinas/leisure, fishing) – all important to economy 

o Liaising with UK government and Scottish government 

On post-it: 

Development of port facilities for marine energy – differing requirements of developers – how 

to coordinate for best fit rather than commercially led 

Session 1 – Public perception 

Knowledge gap 

Who are the relevant stakeholders and public 

What different values do people have 

What info are they lacking 

How do we give them the info they need 

How do they interpret that info 

Are we imagining that public perceptions on land will be exported to open marine 

areas (unlikely) – are ‘public (Who) perceptions for the sea’ a red-herring (ME) 

May, 2009 112/124


Final report 

NERC 

Let’s find out! 

How do we address this 

Local immersion 

o Proactive 

o Identify local experts 

o Use local knowledge 

o Dialogue 

Case by case approach – enables identification of key local issues 

Learning from un/successful cases 

o Understand level of knowledge 

o How people access info 

Understanding value conflicts between groups 


Policy makers 

o Allow a bottom-up approach 

People opportunity to input into research agenda 

o Consistency between entities 

Developers 

o Engaging people in the right way and at right stage 

o Understanding key issues 

o Cost effective 


o Making sure research feeds into development process 

o Improving communication between academics, developers, policy makers, 

communities, government 

o “Combine” consultation processes (Marine Bill, MSP. Local Plans, Coastal 

forums) 

On post-its: 

Education: 

1. How to sell this essential technology 

2. how to make people see that they need to’ give something back’ 

Difference between public perceptions of the technologies and engineers’ vision of 

wet renewables 

Are all offshore technologies (wind, wave, tidal, etc) perceived the same, or grouped 

together in public consciousness 

Gap-separate perceived public perception from actual public perception (i.e. don’t 

assume land-based concerns become marine ones) 

Impacts can be positive as well. What about benefits Not just of the device/array but 

upstream + downstream activity 

What are the recreational water users’ perceptions 

Establishing which communities are going to be impacted + their boundaries 

Identifying and engaging key stakeholders 

Public understand scale of project 

The change (decrease) in social constraints with distance offshore 

Session 1 – Shipping/navigation 

Knowledge gap 

Compatibility of navigational interests (shipping + fishing) with Marine Renewables 

Development 

o Differs by area 

o Differs by vessel type 

o May differ by device/development type 

Is there liable to be a tending to concentrate wind farms near ports (PJF) 

Surely port entrance lanes are avoided 


May, 2009 113/124


Final report 

NERC 

 

 

 

Decision by government, based on engagement with all relevant marine interests, 

within the context of marine spatial planning structures (e.g. Marine Scotland) 

Avoid case by precedents. From (wave and tidal) developers’ perspective and marine 

org perspective it has to be case by case as devices differ significantly – different 

issues to address (NM) 

Yes, to a certain extent, case by case considerations apply. However compensation 

payments for example, set dangerous precedents. 


Policy makers 

o Need information in support of decision-making process 

o Express priorities clearly and INFORM 

Developers 

o AVOID SETTING DANGEROUS PRECEDENTS 

o Express site requirements clearly and INFORM 

o Be flexible (within reason) in site selection, mitigative measures 


o Yes! Seek opportunities for satisfying multiple interests (e.g. wave 

development arrays and marine protected areas) 

On post-its: 

General navigation problems 

Existing users: (…) priority to (…) to shipping and navigation (part is missing) 

Session 1 – Stakeholder engagement 

1) Early communication + awareness raising 

Strategic plan, feedback, justification 

Benefits 

Local plan feedback 

Empowerment 

Who Developers, government 

2) Best practice 

Flexible 

Different community types 

Inclusivity: 

o national/regional 

o local 

timing 

continuous 

3) System for lessons learned from other developments (all other developments, on + off 

shore) 

Implications P/M DEV INT 

1) Better communication 

strategies IPC/MMO/MS 

2) Enable development of BP 

but also flexible 

IPC/MMO/MS 

3) Existing fund networks/forum 

to convene 

Many doing, 

make sure all 

problem 

Improve credibility + 

consistency 

Shared database 

network/forum 

Problem share 

confidential info for 

developments (pay) 

need government but 

gain credibility: how 

do across developers 

Consistent approach 

To do 1) + 2) 

May, 2009 114/124


Final report 

NERC 

On post-its: 

How to manage large numbers of numerically small groups of stakeholders 

What is an offshore community 

o Fishing 

o Transport 

o Seabirds/mammals/fish (how are animals dealt with) 

How communities where development is proposed can be linked to communities 

where development has been successful… 

Early engagement for wave and tidal projects. How successful 

How can remote communities be protected 

What can be learned from other large rural developments E.g. Sullom Voe, Flotta 

Session 1 – Planning process 

1) SEA 

 

Bringing together all the SEAs that have been done (mapping different requirements 

around UK) 

Why The issues 

o Scotland / E+W 

o Oil+ gas / Offshore wind / Wave + tidal 

are different (I.D.) 

o Inside 12 nm / outside (12-200nm) 

Need to till basic physical 

baseline data gaps before 

SEA is done 

Can’t wait to have perfect 

knowledge in this until 

develop offshore renewables 

sector! MC 

Flexible approach is required 

as lessons will be learned as 

development occurs. H.J 

True but is this a SEA matter J.S 

OUTPUTS: 

Consistency in (interpretation of…J.N): 

o A. legislative requirements 

o B. scientific guidance 

Mapping of SEA coverage 

gaps in env/socio-economics aspects 

data gaps: 

- What 

- Who fills 

- Government 

- Developer 

2) EIA guidance 

Consistency in approach 

Across UK 

Across regions 

Across (within) statutory agencies * 

< 12nm 

New guidance coming for wave + tidal in Scotland (I.D.) 

Utilise existing and 

proposed studies for other 

initiatives. J. Saundes 

Exists as ‘ helicopter study’ rather than a true EIA 

This already exists (I.D.) 

No it doesn’t 

2 stages EIA 

Address location issues 

within R3 planning zones 

* about relative impacts 

within planning areas 

 

 

 

Survey methodologies – will be device dependent (SB) Yes, but some generic 

Monitoring requirements – will be site dependent (SB) issues 

o Guidelines being developed by SNH (L.S.) 

o Must be relevant to scale of the project – N.M. 

Best practices guidelines – not just minimum for legislative requirements 

greater certainty for developers 

and stakeholders N.M. 

3) Potential positive impacts 

How do you assess whether positive or negative impact (N.M.) 

Fish refuges 

Not strong drivers (I.D.) 

New research re. efficacy exists but need further quantifying 

May, 2009 115/124


Final report 

NERC 

 

 

 

 

Habitat diversity 

Benefits of devices as means of exclusion 

Social/economic benefits to local community (how to we maximise this) 

Coastal and flood defences (J.S.) 

Session 2 – Group 6 – Cross-cutting themes 

Knowledge gap 

Resource demonstrator sites to have a strategic approach to benefits and impacts 

and monitoring 

Processes of prioritising impacts 

Open, early and flexible deliberation processes 

o Need for an independent body to facilitate (adequate spatial data + best 

practices) 

o Good integration of all different work streams in industries in the world 


Role for EMEC/UKERC/A.N. other group to bring together knowledge and research 


Policy makers 

o Need a clear steer 

o Comfort from incremental developments feedback to all stakeholders 

Developers 

Should all ease burden on developers 

Session 2 – Mammals 

1a) Visibility of devices / Detectability 

Visual, auditory, magnetic / surface-subsurface / species specific 

Use of colour 

Lessons to learn from other sectors – relevant to all 

Tools – deterrents – radar – birds; sonar – marine mammals 

Auditory passive detection 

1b) Behaviour + collision 

what size of animal affected, i.e. plankton – no fish 

Characterising flow 

Flow tank modelling + predictions 

Include array design testing 

Shut down operation (options for wind esp.) 

Behaviour in relation to device (then arrays) 

Different species = different responses 

Linking hydrodynamics + behaviour (wet) 

Linking wind flow etc. + bird response (wind) 

What happens at night E.g. bat collisions 

Has anyone tried musak 

2) Adequate baselines 

Enables an assessment of impact 

Needs to be focussed 

1) Marine features of interest 

2) Understanding environmental change from range of devices 

Even with the best baselines, will you still be able to detect a change of relevance 

2a) Habitat usage 

Spatial + temporal 

Do animals use e.g. tidal habitats at full flow 

Impacts of arrays on habitat usage 

1.0. most important life history stage habitat use (time + spatial) 

May, 2009 116/124


Final report 

NERC 

How / Who 

Much of this is fundamental e.g. hydrographic data 

Strategic management of research 

Way 

Industry has good data but commercially sensitive 

Developments too site-specific + device specific to answer fundamental issues 

Collective industry funding but fledgling industry therefore unlikely at present 

When 

*** Now 

** Later 

* As part of adaptative management 

3) EMF 

Gaps for other species (+ other life stage), e.g. crustaceans 

Results in a response but is this ecologically significant No 

Separating the 2 components: Electric / magnetic e.g. migratory species + 

understand if any significant effect 

4) Noise 

Construction, e.g. pile driving ** 

Operational noise 

Which species of ecological importance * 

Cumulative impact assessment / mitigation (offshore wind) 

May, 2009 117/124


Final report 

Appendix 5: Wind, tidal and wave projects outside the UK 

Table 12 – International offshore wind projects 

Wind Power Projects In Progress 

NaiKun Offshore Wind Energy Project 

http://www.naikun.ca/ 

Trillium Power Wind 1, Lake Ontario 

http://www.trilliumpower.com/energy/project-wind-1/ 

Buzzards Bay Wind Farm 

http://www.southcoastwind.org/index2.html 

Delaware Offshore Wind Park 

http://www.bluewaterwind.com/delaware.htm 

Garden State Offshore Energy (GSOE) 

http://www.gardenstatewind.com/ 

Galveston Offshore Wind (Texas) 

http://www.windenergypartners.biz/gow.html 

Cape Wind (Cape Cod / Nantucket Sound) 

http://www.capewind.org/article24.htm 

Long Island – Bluewater Wind, part of LIPA Offshore Wind Park 

http://www.bluewaterwind.com/ny_overview.htm 

Country Capacity 

Canada 396MW 2014 

Expected 

Completion 

Date 

Funding 

Canada 710MW TBC Trillium Power Wind Corporation will invest 

approximately $2.5 billion 

US 300MW TBC 

US 450MW TBC Power Purchase Agreement between Delmarva and 

project company 

US 345MW 2013 Deepwater Wind in association with PSEG 


US multi-million dollar lease from the Texas General 

Land Office, signed with Galveston-Offshore Wind (a 

division of Wind Energy System Technology) 

US 420MW Turbine 

construction in 

2010 

US 140MW private 

Setana Port Japan 1.2 Operational 

since 2004 

financial support from NEDO (New Energy 

Development Corporation) 

Blue = proposed 

Green = construction started 

Red = proposal has been abandoned 

Grey = project complete 

 

May, 2009 118/124


Final report 

Table 13 – International tidal projects 

Tidal Power Projects In Progress Country Capacity 

Roosevelt Island Tidal Energy Project 

(RITE) 

www.verdantpower.com 

Expected 

Completion Date / 

status 

US 80MW Demonstration Grid 

connected array 

Technology 

Funding 

U.S. Dept of Energy (Advanced Water 

Power Project) 

Oceana’s tidal power projects at various 

stages in six states 

www.oceanaenergy.com 

US Site selection in 

progress 

Piscataqua River US Applications 

withdrawn – not 

viable, env issues 

too sensitive 

Puget Sound 

www.mytpu.org/tacomapower/conserveenergy/green-power/tidal-power.htm 

www.snopud.com/p=3546 

www.verdantpower.com 

CORE Project 

http://www.verdantpower.com/what-core 

Bay of Fundy 

www.openhydro.com 

Race Rocks Pearson College - EnCana - 

Clean Current Tidal Power Demonstration 

http://www.cleancurrent.com/technology/rr 

project.htm 

Kaipara Harbour 

www.crest-energy.com 

Oceana Energy Company 

- TIDES 

Private 

UEK Corporation of Annapolis + New 

Hampshire Tidal Energy Company 

US 7 projects, 3 proponents Various including Navy/Verdant power 

Canada 15MW 2011 Verdant Power – Free 

Flow Turbine, 

Canada 

1 MW to 

start with 

Canada 1 turbine redeployed 

2008 (Demonstrator) 

New Zealand 200MW 2018 

Consent applied for 

Ontario Government investing $2.2 

million (part of its Innovation 

Demonstration Fund) 

Autumn 2009 OpenHydro $1.7 million contract with Nova Scotia 

Power + private funding 

Clean Current tidal turbine 

generator 

Crest Energy 

Sustainable Development Technology 

Canada, Pearson College + EnCana 

Corp 

NZ government announced the New 

Zealand Marine Energy Deployment 

May, 2009 119/124


Final report 

Cook Strait 

www.neptunepower.com 

New Zealand 1MW Resource Consent 

granted 

Cook Strait New Zealand 12MW Resource Consent 

requested 

Wando Hoenggan Waterway 

www.lunarenergy.co.uk 

Neptune Power 

Energy Pacifica 

South Korea 300MW 2015 Lunar Energy – Rotech 

Tidal Turbine 

Fund in 2007, Crest was awarded 

NZ$1.85 million in May 2008 (subject to 

the granting of consents for the project). 

Total cost is NZ$600 million 

Private + Marine Energy Deployment 

Fund (Gov) 

Private + Alderney Renewable Energy 

joint venture between Lunar Energy and 

Korean Midland Power Company - 

construction cost of £500 million 

Tidal Power Plant in Garorim Bay South Korea Western Power Company Limited 

Dandong tidal lagoon 

http://www.tidalelectric.com/Projects%20C 

hina.htm 

Alderney Race/Swinge 

www.openhydro.com 

Kvalsund 

www.hammerfeststrom.com 

China 300MW Tidal Electric China has granted support to Tidal 

Electric 

Channel 

Islands 

Pilot array Open Hydro 

Norway Prototype installed in Hammerfest Strøm 

Norway 2003/9. 

Statoil New Energy, Hammerfest 

Energi, Hammerfest Naeringsinvest, 

Origo Kapital, Alta Kraftlag, Scottish 

Power 

May, 2009 120/124


Final report 

Table 14 – International wave projects 

Wave Power Projects In Progress 

Maui Wave Project 

http://www.oceanlinx.com/uploads/OCEAN 

LINXSIGNSMOUWITHRHI.pdf 

Humboldt County WaveConnect, 

California Coast 

http://www.finavera.com/en/wave/humboldt 

Makah Bay, Washington 

http://www.finavera.com/en/wave/makah_b 

ay 

Country 

Capacity 

Expected 

Completion Date / 

status 

Technology 

US (Hawaii) 2.7MW 2009 Oceanlinx wave energy 

converters 

US 2MW permit surrendered 

2/09 

US 1MW application to 

surrender license 

filed 2/09 

Finavera Renewables – 

Aquabuoy 


Aquabuoy 

Coos Bay Wave Park, Oregon US 100MW TBC Ocean Power 

Technologies – 

PowerBuoy 

Coos County Offshore, Oregon US 100MW permit cancelled w/o 

objection 6/08 

Rhode Island 

http://www.oceanlinx.com/Currentprojects.a 

sp 

Aguçadoura Wave Park 

http://www.pelamiswave.com/ 

US 

Portugal 

1.5MW then 

15 to 20MW 

Initially 

2.25MW. 

Potentially 

21MW 


Aquabuoy 

Funding 

Cost to be borne by Oceanlinx and its 

investors - $20 million. MoU with 

Renewable Hawaii, Inc., for possible 

passive investment in the project. 

Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) will 

purchase 2MW from the wave device + 

financing from developer 

Commencement of the project is 

dependent on investor finance and a 

buyer for the power 

 

TBC Oceanlinx Memorandum of Understanding 

(“MOU”) with Rhode Island State 

authority for a 1.5MW unit, followed by 

a 15 to 20MW electricity generating 

facility 

2008 Pelamis Wave Power - 

Pelamis 

€8.2m funded by a Portuguese 

consortium led by Enersis. 

Joint venture company Companhia da 

Energia Oceânica (CEO), currently 77% 

owned by a subsidiary of Babcock and 

Brown Limited and 23% by Pelamis 

Wave Power Limited 

May, 2009 121/124


Final report 

Figueira da Foz 

http://www.finavera.com/en/wave/portugal 

Portugal 

100MW 

(2MW 

demonstration 

plant) 

TBC Finavera Renewables – 

Aquabuoy 

Western Australia Wave Power Station Australia 100MW TBC Ocean Power 


PowerBuoy 

Portland 


sp 

Port Kembla 


sp 

GPP and Oceanlinx project 


sp 

Rosarito, Baja California 


sp 

Santoña, Spain 

http://www.oceanpowertechnologies.com/s 

pain.htm 

Western Cape 

http://www.finavera.com/en/wave/south_afr 

ica 

Ucluelet, BC 

http://www.finavera.com/en/wave/ucluelet 

Australia progressing the 

permitting stage 

Australia 

Namibia 

prototype 

450kW unit 

1.5MW unit 

then15MW 

Oceanlinx 

Supported by Energias de Portugal, 

Portugal's largest power utility. Finavera 

Renewables is in the final stages of 

negotiations for a 1.3m Euro grant from 

the European Commission for this 

project. 

joint partnership agreement announced 

between Ocean Power Technologies 

and Griffin Wave Power Ltd 

Oceanlinx 

Power Purchase Agreement (“PPA”) 

has been signed with Australian utility 

Integral Energy for the supply of 

electricity from the prototype 450kW 

unit. 

TBC Oceanlinx signed contract with GPP, part of the 

listed Southern African Utility SELCo for 

a 1.5MW unit 

Mexico TBC Oceanlinx jointly developed with CFE and 

DEFAESA (renewable arm of Grupo R) 

Spain 

Initially 

1.39MW 

In development; first 

phase complete 

Ocean Power 


PowerBuoy 

South Africa 20MW TBC Finavera Renewables – 

Aquabuoy 

Canada 5MW TBC Finavera Renewables – 

Aquabuoy 

Iberdrola S.A 

In process: micro-site assessment 

 

May, 2009 122/124


Final report 

Table 15 – Other tidal and wave projects in the US: Issued Preliminary Permits for wave and tidal projects as of 7/05/2009 

(Source: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission - FERC, www.ferc.gov) 

Project Project Name Permittee Waterway State 

Authorized 

MW 

Issue Date 

Expiration 

Date 

TIDAL 

12744 CHEVRON COOK INLET TIDAL CHEVRON TECHNOLOGY VENTURES, LLC. COOK INLET AK 80 06/11/07 05/31/10 

12611 ROOSERVELT ISLAND TIDAL ENERGY VERDANT POWER, LLC. EAST RIVER NY 5 02/17/09 01/31/12 

12665 ASTORIA TIDAL ENERGY NEW YORK TIDAL ENERGY CO. EAST RIVER NY 300 05/31/07 04/30/10 

12666 KENNEBEC TIDAL ENERGY MAINE TIDAL ENERGY COMPANY KENNEBEC RIVER ME 100 06/24/08 05/31/11 

12668 PENOBSCOT TIDAL ENEGY MAINE TIDAL ENERGY COMPANY PENOBSCOT RIVER ME 200 05/16/07 04/30/10 

12670 CAPE & ISLAND TIDAL ENERGY MASSACHUSETTS TIDAL ENERGY CO. VINEYARD SOUND MA 300 05/31/07 04/30/10 

12679 COOK INLET TIDAL ENERGY ORPC ALASKA, LLC. COOK INLET AK 32 04/17/07 03/31/10 

12687 DECEPTION PASS TIDAL ENERGY PUD NO 1 OF SNOHOMISH COUNTY PUGENT SOUND WA 2.8 03/01/07 02/28/10 

12689 SPEIDEN CHANNEL TIDAL ENERGY PUD NO 1 OF SNOHOMISH COUNTY SPEIDEN CHANNEL WA 8.3 02/22/07 01/31/10 

12690 ADMIRALITY INLET TIDAL ENERGY PUD NO 1 OF SNOHOMISH COUNTY PUGENT SOUND WA 22.1 03/09/07 02/28/10 

12692 SAN JUAN CHANNEL TIDAL ENERGY PUD NO 1 OF SNOHOMISH COUNTY SAN JUAN CHANNEL WA 5.3 02/22/07 01/31/10 

12698 GUEMES CHANNEL TIDAL PUD NO 1 OF SNOHOMISH COUNTY GUEMES CHANNEL WA 3.5 02/22/07 01/31/10 

12704 HALF MOON TIDAL ENERGY TIDEWATER ASSOCIATES COBSCOOK BAY ME 13.5 04/10/07 03/31/10 

12705 CENTRAL COOK INLET TIDAL ENERGY ALASKA TIDAL ENERGY COMPANY COOK INLET AK 1000 06/07/07 05/31/10 

12718 WARDS ISLAND TIDAL POWER NATURAL CURRENTS ENERGY SER, LLC. EAST RIVER NY 0.096 04/17/09 03/31/10 

12729 Willapa Bay Tidal Power NATURAL CURRENTS ENERGY SER, LLC. Willapa Bay WA 2 03/29/07 02/28/10 

12731 ANGOON TIDAL POWER NATURAL CURRENTS ENERGY SER, LLC. KOOTZNAHOO INLET AK 2 03/29/07 02/28/10 

12732 LONG ISLAND TIDAL ENERGY NATURAL CURRENTS ENERGY SER, LLC. LONG ISLAND SOUND NY 250 06/14/07 05/31/10 

12794 CAPE COD TIDAL ENERGY NATURAL CURRENTS ENERGY SER, LLC. CAPE COD CANAL MA 10 11/16/07 10/31/10 

13015 EDGARTOWN-NANTUCKET TIDAL ENERGY TOWN OF EDGARTOWN, MA NANTUCKET SOUND MA 10 03/31/08 02/28/11 

13232 HELL GATE TIDAL COASTAL POWER, INC. EAST RIVER NY 0.15 12/12/08 11/30/11 

13245 INDIAN RIVER TIDAL ENERGY UEK DELAWARE L.P. INDIAN RIVER 

DE 10 01/07/09 12/31/11 

13247 KINGSBRIDGE MARINA TIDAL ENERGY NATURAL CURRENTS ENERGY SER, LLC. MANASQUAN RIVER NJ 0.040 12/12/08 11/30/11 

13276 CUTTYHUNK/ELIZABETH ISLAND TIDAL NATURAL CURRENTS ENERGY SER, LLC. ATLANTIC OCEAN MA 0.1 12/30/08 11/30/11 

13277 ROCKAWAY INLET/QUEENS TIDAL NATURAL CURRENTS ENERGY SER, LLC. ROCKAWAY INLET NY 5 02/12/09 01/31/12 

13278 FISHERS ISLAND TIDAL NATURAL CURRENTS ENERGY SER, LLC. LONG ISLAND SOUND NY 250 02/12/09 01/31/12 

13279 SHELTER ISLAND TIDAL ENERGY NATURAL CURRENTS ENERGY SER, LLC. SHELTER ISLAND NY 36.2 02/17/09 01/31/12 

May, 2009 123/124


Final report 

SOUND 

12743 DOUGLAS COUNTY WAVE & TIDAL ENERGY DOUGLAS COUNTY UMPQUA RIVER 

WAVE 

OR 3 04/06/07 03/31/10 

12749 CoosBay OPT Wave Park 

OREGON WAVE ENERGY PARK PARTNERS 

(incl. OPT) Pacific Ocean OR 100 03/09/07 02/28/10 

12750 NEWPORT OPT WAVE PARK 

OREGON WAVE ENERGY PARTNERS II (incl. 

OPT) 

PACIFIC OCEAN OR 100 01/29/09 

3/09: permit 

surrendered 

12713 REEDSPORT OPT WAVE PARK REEDSPORT OPT WAVE PARK, LLC. PACIFIC OCEAN OR 50 02/16/07 01/31/10 

12777 CASTINE HARBOR & BADADUCE NARROWS MAINE MARITIME ACADEMY ATLANTIC OCEAN ME 1.3 10/09/07 09/30/10 

12779 PG&E HUMBOLDT WAVECONNECT PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC CO PACIFIC OCEAN CA 40 03/13/08 02/28/11 

12781 MENDOCINO WAVECONNECT PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC CO PACIFIC OCEAN CA 40 03/13/08 02/28/11 

13047 OREGON COASTAL WAVE ENERGY TILLAMOOK INTERGOVERN DEVEL ENTITY PACIFIC OCEAN OR 180 05/23/08 04/30/11 

13053 GREEN WAVE MENDOCINO GREEN WAVE ENERGY SOLUTIONS, LLC. PACIFIC OCEAN CA 100 05/01/09 04/30/12 

13058 GRAYS HARBON OCEAN ENERGY GRAYS HARBOR OCEAN ENERGY CO. LLC PACIFIC OCEAN WA 6 07/31/08 06/30/11 

CALIFORNIA WAVE ENERGY PARTNERS 

13075 CENTERVILLE OPT WAVE ENERGY PARK (incl. OPT) 

PACIFIC OCEAN CA 20 06/27/08 05/31/11 

Other pending projects: 

P-13308 San Francisco Ocean Energy Project (Grays Harbor Ocean Energy Company, LLC) filed 10/08 

P-13309 Ventura Ocean Energy Project (Grays Harbor Ocean Energy Company, LLC) filed 10/08 

P-13052 Green Wave San Luis Obispo Wave Park (Green Wave Energy Solutions, LLC) filed 10/07 

P-13376 Del Mar Landing Project (Sonoma County Water Agency) filed 2/09 

P-13377 and P-13378 Fort Ross Project- N & S (Sonoma County Water Agency) filed 2/09 

P-13379 San Francisco Ocean Energy Project (City and County of SF) filed 2/09 

May, 2009 124/124

Offshore and Coastal Renewable Energy - Central Web Server 2

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?