SafeWave Deliverable 2.7 Development Of Guidelines For Environmental Monitoring

Muxika, I.; Bourhis, E.; Felis, I.; Imperadore, A.; Uriarte, A.; Vinagre, P.; Bald, J. (2024). SafeWave Deliverable 2.7 Development Of Guidelines For Environmental Monitoring. Report by AZTI. Report for European Union (EU). https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.28638.96329

@techreport{Muxika-2024-2080696,
author = {Muxika, I and Bourhis, E and Felis, I and Imperadore, A and Uriarte, A and Vinagre, P and Bald, J},
title = {SafeWave Deliverable 2.7 Development Of Guidelines For Environmental Monitoring},
institution = {AZTI},
year = {2024},
month = {dec},
doi = {10.13140/RG.2.2.28638.96329},
url = {https://www.safewave-project.eu/project-outputs/},
keywords = {Marine Energy, Wave, EMF, Habitat Change, Noise, Fish, Physical Environment},
}

Export Citation to BibTex

TY - RPRT
TI - SafeWave Deliverable 2.7 Development Of Guidelines For Environmental Monitoring
AU - Muxika, I
AU - Bourhis, E
AU - Felis, I
AU - Imperadore, A
AU - Uriarte, A
AU - Vinagre, P
AU - Bald, J
AB - Marine data are collected by different entities (institutes, governmental organizations, or private companies) using heterogeneous instruments and sensors installed in various observing platforms. However, apart from researchers’ experience reported in technical reports and published papers worldwide, it seems that no specific guidelines are available concerning to the monitoring of the parameters covered by the SafeWAVE project, i.e., EMF, acoustics (noise), seafloor integrity, and fish communities around wave energy installations.The data acquisition methodology (e.g., spatial and temporal frames, methods and equipment used) was planned to be as standardized and homogeneous as possible among devices and test sites and was developed considering recommendations from researchers and according to the specificities of the devices and their location. Details of the methodologies and results can be consulted in Deliverable 2.1 (monitoring plans for each parameter), Deliverable 2.2 for EMF, Deliverable 2.3 for underwater noise, Deliverable 2.4 for seafloor integrity, and Deliverable 2.5 for fish communities.In the light of the results obtained and described in the above-mentioned deliverables a better understanding of EMF, acoustics, seafloor integrity, and fish communities’ data collection, processing, validation, and reporting to allow comparison among sites was developed in Deliverable 2.6. Thanks to this last exercise and the experience acquired, different lessons were learnt for each environmental parameter. In the present Deliverable 2.7 we try to translate these lessons and experience into guidelines that could be of interest when consenting processes and environmental monitoring plans will be launched for installing wave energy device arrays or farms.According to the experience and lessons learnt during the monitoring campaigns in the SafeWAVE project, one of the main conclusions of D2.7 is the need to promote monitoring techniques based on autonomous remote sensing devices that are not dependent, or are less dependent, of sea conditions and able to cover properly the temporal and spatial resolution of the expected environmental impacts coming from wave energy harnessing devices.
DA - 2024/12//
PY - 2024
SP - 23
PB - AZTI
UR - https://www.safewave-project.eu/project-outputs/
DO - 10.13140/RG.2.2.28638.96329
LA - English
KW - Marine Energy
KW - Wave
KW - EMF
KW - Habitat Change
KW - Noise
KW - Fish
KW - Physical Environment
ER -

Export Citation to RIS

Abstract

Marine data are collected by different entities (institutes, governmental organizations, or private companies) using heterogeneous instruments and sensors installed in various observing platforms. However, apart from researchers’ experience reported in technical reports and published papers worldwide, it seems that no specific guidelines are available concerning to the monitoring of the parameters covered by the SafeWAVE project, i.e., EMF, acoustics (noise), seafloor integrity, and fish communities around wave energy installations.

The data acquisition methodology (e.g., spatial and temporal frames, methods and equipment used) was planned to be as standardized and homogeneous as possible among devices and test sites and was developed considering recommendations from researchers and according to the specificities of the devices and their location. Details of the methodologies and results can be consulted in Deliverable 2.1 (monitoring plans for each parameter), Deliverable 2.2 for EMF, Deliverable 2.3 for underwater noise, Deliverable 2.4 for seafloor integrity, and Deliverable 2.5 for fish communities.

In the light of the results obtained and described in the above-mentioned deliverables a better understanding of EMF, acoustics, seafloor integrity, and fish communities’ data collection, processing, validation, and reporting to allow comparison among sites was developed in Deliverable 2.6.

Thanks to this last exercise and the experience acquired, different lessons were learnt for each environmental parameter. In the present Deliverable 2.7 we try to translate these lessons and experience into guidelines that could be of interest when consenting processes and environmental monitoring plans will be launched for installing wave energy device arrays or farms.

According to the experience and lessons learnt during the monitoring campaigns in the SafeWAVE project, one of the main conclusions of D2.7 is the need to promote monitoring techniques based on autonomous remote sensing devices that are not dependent, or are less dependent, of sea conditions and able to cover properly the temporal and spatial resolution of the expected environmental impacts coming from wave energy harnessing devices.