search.noResults

search.searching

note.createNoteMessage

search.noResults

search.searching

orderForm.title

orderForm.productCode
orderForm.description
orderForm.quantity
orderForm.itemPrice
orderForm.price
orderForm.totalPrice
orderForm.deliveryDetails.billingAddress
orderForm.deliveryDetails.deliveryAddress
orderForm.noItems
East Anglia ONE Offshore Windfarm Generation Assets Monitoring Plan


September, 2016


• Section 2: Evolution of the ornithology monitoring plan – this section summarises the documents that have been produced, discussions that have taken place, and agreements that have been reached in relation to ornithological monitoring specifically;


• Section 3: Survey specifications – this section presents the detailed methodology for undertaking ornithological surveys; and


• Section 4: Reporting of Survey Findings – this section provides an overview of the ornithology monitoring summary reports that will be produced following the completion of surveys.


2 Evolution of the ornithology monitoring plan


2.1 Summary 8.


As detailed in Section 1.3 of the approved Monitoring Plan, detailed discussions have taken place between EAOL, the MMO and Natural England in relation to the ornithological monitoring strategy for EA ONE. Discussions regarding the approach to ornithological monitoring have continued following submission (and subsequent approval) of the wider Monitoring Plan. Appendix AError! Reference source not found. presents a summary of the consultation activities specific to the ornithological monitoring strategy, in chronological order.


9.


An in principle agreement with the MMO regarding the approach to ornithological monitoring was secured in November 2015. At this stage, the MMO in their letter dated 18th December 2016 set out a number of points that they required to be addressed in a more detailed methodology. Following this, EAOL have progressed discussions with Natural England regarding a more detailed methodology through the production of an Aerial Survey Power Analysis report (April 2016) and the submission of a detailed method statement from the aerial survey contractor. The current document takes account of these documents and discussions, with Section 3 providing further detail where relevant


10.


EAOL submitted the pre-construction aerial surveys method statement to Natural England for comment on 19th July 2016. Comments were received from Natural England on 28th July 2016.


11.


Natural England raised two key points in relation to the aerial survey method statement: 


 12. No detail was provided regarding the type of proposed analysis.


Natural England’s comments have been considered and are addressed within this document. The table below details Natural England’s comments and EAOL’s response. It should be noted that the response below makes frequent reference to the Aerial Survey Power Analysis report which was submitted to Natural England on 6th April 2016 and was subsequently discussed during a meeting between EAOL and Natural England on 15th April 2016, with positive feedback being provided from Natural England during this meeting. The Aerial Survey Power Analysis provides the basis of the aerial survey design presented in this document and as such has been included in Appendix B for reference and completeness.


Natural England Comment


NE advise that pre-construction monitoring is not based on a single year therefore it is critical that the existing digital aerial survey data used to characterise the site is included


East Anglia ONE Response


The survey design presented in the aerial survey method statement was developed using a power analysis approach (submitted to Natural England 6th April 2016 – see Appendix B) and was based on identifying the optimum design which would permit reliable detection of changes in seabird distributions between a single year of pre-construction and a single year of post-construction. Furthermore, additional aspects of the proposed survey and analysis were designed such that even within year effects can be detected (i.e. without the need for a before-after type comparison). These aspects require that transects are aligned along turbine rows which considerably complicates backwards compatibility with previous surveys.


No information was provided on how data collected during the site characterisation surveys would be incorporated; and,


Page 6


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35