OFFSHORE WIND ENERGY AND BENTHIC HABITAT CHANGES - Tethys
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
SPECIAL ISSUE ON UNDERSTANDING THE EFFECTS OF OFFSHORE WIND ENERGY DEVELOPMENT ON FISHERIES
OFFSHORE WIND ENERGY
AND BENTHIC HABITAT CHANGES
Lessons from Block Island Wind Farm
By Zoë L. Hutchison, Monique LaFrance Bartley, Steven Degraer,
Paul English, Anwar Khan, Julia Livermore, Bob Rumes, and John W. King
58 Oceanography | Vol.33, No.4
ABSTRACT. The Block Island Wind Farm (BIWF), situated offshore of Block Island, We first provide a contextual overview
Rhode Island, is the first commercial offshore wind farm (OWF) in the United States. of benthic ecology and related fish pat-
We briefly review pre-siting studies, which provide contextual information about the terns in the broader area of Block Island
benthic habitats and fish in the Block Island Sound area before the BIWF jacket foun- Sound (BIS). We then briefly describe
dations were installed in 2015. We focus on benthic monitoring that took place within the RODEO benthic monitoring effort at
the BIWF. This monitoring allowed for assessments of spatiotemporal changes in sed- the BIWF and highlight benthic changes
iment grain size, organic enrichment, and macrofauna, as well as the colonization of observed. These changes and their poten-
the jacket structures, up to four years post-installation. The greatest benthic modifica- tial ecological importance are discussed
tions occurred within the footprint of the foundation structures through the develop- with respect to their cascading effects
ment of mussel aggregations. Within four years, changes in benthic habitats (defined as and relevance to managed species. The
biotopes) were observed within the 90 m range of the study, clearly linked to the mussel- overarching lessons learned from the
dominated colonization of the structures, which also hosted numerous indigenous implementation of the RODEO benthic
fish species. We discuss the evident structural and functional effects and their ecolog- monitoring effort provide insights that
ical importance at the BIWF and for future US OWFs, drawing on similarities with can guide recommendations for future
European studies. While reviewing lessons learned from the BIWF, we highlight the efforts. We conclude by drawing paral-
need to implement coordinated monitoring for future developments and recommend a lels with European OWF environmen-
strategy to better understand environmental implications. tal monitoring regimes, providing pos-
sible paths forward for future US OWF
INTRODUCTION Time Opportunity for Development monitoring efforts.
Offshore wind has proven to be a valu- Environmental Observations (RODEO)
able source of clean energy, particularly program in 2015. Thus, evaluation of the BENTHIC ECOLOGY OF
in Europe, where over 75% of the global effects of early OWFs can inform man- BLOCK ISLAND SOUND
capacity is installed (GWEC, 2019). In agement about how to avoid or mitigate BIS is an ecologically and socioeconomi-
2019, China and the United States were impacts of future facilities and how to cally important area, and to help select an
the greatest contributors of new wind prioritize future monitoring efforts. The appropriate site for the BIWF, the Rhode
installations (onshore and offshore com- BIWF provided the first opportunity in Island Ocean Special Area Management
bined), and with 15 offshore leases, the the United States to evaluate the inten- Plan (OSAMP; CRMC, 2010) was devel-
United States has potential as a strong sity, duration, and spatial scale of per- oped. As part of this multidisciplinary
contributor to the future offshore wind ceived impacts. During the construction effort, the benthic ecology, habitats, and
industry (BOEM, 2019; GWEC, 2019). and/or operational phases, assessments of fishery resources of BIS and Rhode Island
Located 4.5 km from Block Island, sediment disturbances, sound emissions, Sound (RIS) were characterized (Malek
Rhode Island, the Block Island Wind visual disturbances, and effects on the ben- et al., 2010; LaFrance et al., 2014). We
Farm (BIWF) is the first commer- thic environment were made (e.g., HDR, briefly review the knowledge gained,
cial offshore wind farm (OWF) in the 2019, 2020a,b). Here, we focus on the focusing on the benthic ecology and
United States. The BIWF consists of five RODEO benthic monitoring effort during demersal fish of BIS to provide context for
jacket-foundation turbines (150 m tall, the initial operational phase and report on the broader BIS area prior to the BIWF.
15,000 tons, 150 m rotor diameter, 30 MW the effects of the BIWF on benthic ecol- The pre-siting OSAMP study mapped
total capacity) spaced approximately 1 km ogy within four years post-construction benthic habitats within a 138.6 km2 area
apart. The foundations were installed by (late 2016 to late 2019). This relatively of BIS (LaFrance et al., 2014). Water
mid-2015, and the facility became oper- short-term monitoring aimed to evaluate depth in this area ranges from 13–44 m.
ational in late 2016, primarily supplying near-field spatiotemporal changes in sed- The seafloor was found to be a hetero-
power to Block Island, with excess power iment grain size, organic enrichment, and geneous environment, consisting of five
transmitted to the mainland via a 34 km benthic macrofauna due to the presence glacial depositional environment types
subsea export cable (HDR, 2019). of the BIWF foundations. This effort later (moraine shelf, inner shelf moraine, delta
To understand the environmental expanded to evaluate the benthic changes plain, alluvial fan, lake floor basin) and
effects of OWFs, the US Department occurring closer to and under the foun- a range of seabed types (flat/featureless
of the Interior Bureau of Ocean Energy dation structures and the colonizing com- areas, sheet sands, sand waves, small
Management (BOEM) initiated the Real- munity on the structures. dunes, boulder fields). The area was gen-
erally described as a coarse sediment
FACING PAGE. The University of Rhode Island team preparing to deploy the benthic grab sampler environment with medium to very coarse
in the Block Island Wind Farm. Photo credit: Monique LaFrance Bartley sands dominating, though areas of finer
Oceanography | December 2020 59
sediments were recorded. Generally, ben- used to describe biological and phys- terns (Malek et al., 2010; Kritzer et al.,
thic macrofauna communities were dom- ical characteristics and to define hab- 2016). Both the demersal fish assem-
inated by amphipods, polychaetes, and itats referred to as biotopes (FGDC, blage and stomach contents of fish were
bivalves. The macrofauna community 2012). Within the OSAMP BIS study dependent on the geographical loca-
composition in BIS was influenced by area, 12 distinct biotopes were identified tion and benthic habitat where fish were
mean water depth, benthic surface rough- (Figure 1, which also identifies the BIWF caught (Malek et al., 2010). Compared to
ness, geological features, and sediment site; LaFrance et al., 2014). the neighboring RIS, BIS had lower fish
types at fine and/or broad scale resolu- The pre-siting OSAMP study also species abundance and biomass possibly
tions (LaFrance et al., 2014). The Coastal highlighted that the benthic habitat het- due to lower primary production; how-
and Marine Ecological Classification erogeneity and associated prey species ever, BIS had greater species diversity,
Standard (CMECS; the US standard) was played a role in driving demersal fish pat- likely due to greater habitat complexity
(Malek et al., 2010; Nixon et al., 2010).
In addition to benthic habitat heteroge-
neity, the demersal fish community was
influenced by water depth (Malek et al.,
2010). Generally, communities with more
even species distribution and greater
abundance and biomass were found in
deeper waters, while lower density yet
more diverse communities occurred in
shallow waters. Overall, the heteroge-
neous benthic habitats of BIS support a
rich diversity of fish species important to
both recreational and commercial fishing
communities (Malek et al., 2010).
POST-CONSTRUCTION RODEO
MONITORING STRATEGY AT
THE BIWF
The Monitoring Effort
The RODEO benthic monitoring pro-
gram was completed over three sampling
years spanning four calendar years after
the BIWF foundations were installed
(from late 2016 to late 2019). This pro-
gram was initially designed in 2015 based
on strategies and key findings from mon-
itoring programs and studies in Europe.
At that time, there was some evidence
of sediment fining, organic enrichment,
and benthic macrofaunal changes close
(
offshore areas. Foundations were pro- BOX 1. THE RODEO BENTHIC MONITORING
posed as biomass “hotspots” with poten- METHODS AT A GLANCE
tially high exports to local areas (Krone
Sampling regimes targeted BIWF Turbines 1, 3, and 5
et al., 2013). Additionally, benthic ecolog-
ical changes linked to enrichment effects
were well documented around some
fixed oil and gas structures in the United PRIMARY SAMPLING EFFORT (YEARS 1, 2, 3)
States and Europe (Wolfson et al., 1979;
Focused on the near-field area (30–90 m from the center point of the
Page et al., 1999; Manoukian et al., 2010),
foundations)
although these structures are much larger.
The RODEO benthic monitoring pro- Randomized sampling stratified within near, intermediate, and far distance bands
(30–49 m, 50–69 m, and 70–90 m, respectively)
gram therefore originally aimed to detect
the presence of any measurable close- Samples also collected within three control sites representative of comparable
biotopes defined from the OSAMP map (Figure 1; LaFrance et al., 2014)
range spatiotemporal differences in sed-
iment composition, organic content, Benthic grab sampler collected surficial sediment for analysis of grain size,
and/or benthic macrofaunal communi- organic enrichment, and benthic macrofauna
ties (HDR, 2020a). The primary sam- Macrofauna identified to species level where possible, assessing abundance,
pling effort was later supplemented with species richness, and community composition; biomass was an additional metric
data collection using scientific divers in in year 3
years 2 and 3 (Box 1) to allow further ben- GoPro video camera deployed with grab sampler for broader contextual
thic data collection closer to and under information of the seabed
the structures, as well as characterization Data collected allowed biotope classification according to the CMECS framework
of the community colonizing the struc- (FGDC, 2012) for the areas 30–90 m from the turbine center each year
tures. Overall, the monitoring program Further statistical comparisons drawn between turbines, turbine and control
was iterative in its design and expanded areas, and distance bands
to examine aspects of the three-dimen- High-resolution seabed photography obtained along drifting transects
sional benthic effects that OWFs have on (Roman et al., 2011)
the ecosystem.
The primary data, collected within
30–90 m of each of the three turbines tar- SUPPLEMENTAL SAMPLING EFFORT (YEARS 2, 3)
geted for sampling (Box 1), were used to
classify benthic biotopes according to Introduced in year 2 and further expanded in year 3
CMECS (FGDC, 2012). The geological Focused on the area
itoring data provide insight on the local Turbine 1, mussel aggregations estimated of the mussel habitat, and a monkfish
spatiotemporal changes occurring as a to be up to 50 cm deep developed on the (Lophius americanus) was resident at one
result of the BIWF. seabed and foundation grate, while aggre- of the turbines.
gations within Turbines 3 and 5 exhibited Within the 30–90 m distance bands,
Benthic Changes at the BIWF lesser spatial coverage and density and no strong gradients of change in sedi-
The greatest benthic changes have took longer to appear (Figure 3). Multiple ment grain size, enrichment, or benthic
occurred on or within the footprints of abundant predators associated with the macrofauna were observed at the turbines
the jacket structures four years post- mussel communities included moon investigated. Within this area, Turbines 3
installation. HDR (2020a) provides a full snails (Naticidae), crabs (Cancer sp.), and and 5 had the most stable biotopes, dom-
account of the results. sea stars (Asterias forbesi). inated by polychaetes (Figure 5). Across
All submerged parts of the founda- Over time, there was also a notable all three sampling years, the Turbine 3
tion structures studied were colonized increase in black sea bass (Centropristis biotope was classified as Polycirrus spp.
by epifauna dominated by the blue mus- striata) around the structures, estimated in coarse sand with small dunes within
sel (Mytilus edulis) along their full vertical to exceed 100 individuals per turbine glacial alluvial fan. The Turbine 5 study
extents (Figure 2). Other epifauna species in year 3 (Figure 4). Scientific divers area was the most heterogeneous,
were present in comparatively lower cov- also reported the frequent presence of with three different biotopes. One bio-
erage, including hydroids, algae, sponges, Atlantic striped bass (Morone saxatilis) tope, Polycirrus spp., in pebble, gravel,
and anemones such as Metridium senile. schooling at the base of the turbines, and coarse sand within moraine shelf,
Additional species identified and com- bluefish (Pomatomus saltatrix) observed remained stable over the study period.
mon to the region included the wide- in midwater around the turbines, scup A second biotope characterized by
spread nonindigenous invasive tunicate (Stenotomus chrysops) at the base of the Polygordius spp. in coarse sand with small
Didemnum vexillum and the indigenous structures, and occasional schools of dunes/sand waves within moraine shelf
coral Astrangia poculata (Valentine et al., dogfish (Squalus acanthias). In addition, in years 1 and 2 became dominated by
2009; Grace, 2017). Within the footprint of rock gunnels (Pholis gunnellus) made use Polycirrus spp. in year 3. The third bio-
FIGURE 2. Fauna associ-
ated with the Block Island
Wind Farm jacket structures
four years post-installation.
The jacket structures were
dominated by filter-feeding
mussels and associated
epibionts. Mussel aggrega-
tions dominated the foot-
print of the jacket struc-
tures. Predators such as
sea stars, moon snails, and
crabs, as well as numer-
ous fish had become
attracted to the structure
and associated epifauna.
From HDR (2020a)
62 Oceanography | Vol.33, No.4
tope was co-dominated by Polycirrus spp. Year 2 (2018) Year 3 (2019)
and Lumbrineris spp. in coarse sand with
small dunes within glacial alluvial fan in
year 1. In year 2, the co-dominant species
changed to Parapionosyllis longicirrata,
Turbine 1
Polycirrus spp., and Pisione spp., but in
year 3 Polycirrus spp. dominated.
Comparatively, by year 3, the biotope
at Turbine 1 exhibited substantial change.
Initially, the biotope was characterized
by the polychaete Sabellaria vulgaris in
coarse sand with small dunes within a
glacial alluvial fan. In year 2, it was dom-
inated by Polygordius sp., which had been
abundant in year 1. The change in domi- Turbine 3
nance was attributed to the patchy distri-
bution of S. vulgaris in year 1 rather than
turbine-related changes. In year 3, how-
ever, the biotope exhibited a stark change
in characterizing species, biological traits,
and function. Although polychaetes
remained in the community composi-
tion, the biotope became co-dominated
Turbine 5
by Balanus spp. (barnacles) and M. edulis.
These species were also dominant in com-
munities found on and under the jacket
structures, and so this change in biotope
was strongly associated with the presence
of the colonized foundation structures.
Furthermore, this new biotope had not FIGURE 3. Benthic macrofauna within the footprint of the BIWF jacket structures in years 2
and 3. Mussel aggregations that had fully covered the footprint of the foundation of Turbine 1
previously been recorded in the broader by year 2 (seabed and grate) intensified by year 3 to aggregations 35–50 cm thick. Changes at
BIS area (Figure 1). Turbines 3 and 5 occurred over a longer timeframe. At Turbine 3, patchy aggregations of mus-
Turbine 1 differed from the other tur- sels developed within the footprint in year 2, while at Turbine 5, none were present, and the
grate was fully exposed. By year 3, aggregations at Turbines 3 and 5 resembled earlier aggre-
bines with respect to proportions of epi- gations at Turbine 1. Numerous predators (crabs, sea stars, moon snails) were found in associa-
faunal coverage on the structure, the tion with the mussel aggregations. From HDR (2020a)
extent of mussel aggregations within
the footprint (Figure 3), and the shift in
dominant species and resultant biotope
classification. Temporal trends sug-
gest that Turbines 3 and 5 are under-
going similar changes to Turbine 1 but
at a slower pace. A gradient in benthic
species composition reflects the geog-
raphy of Turbines 1 through 3 and 5.
This spatiotemporal gradient was also
FIGURE 4. Fish presence at the BIWF. Black
sea bass (Centropristis striata) dominated the
video footage of the colonized BIWF struc-
tures four years post-construction. The base of
Turbine 3 is shown here. From HDR (2020a)
Oceanography | December 2020 63
observed in the abundance of organisms, BIS area, there may be other related fac- (e.g., sand ripples) at Turbines 3 and 5,
particularly for M. edulis within the foot- tors (LaFrance et al., 2014), such as bot- but none at Turbine 1, which is located
print of the turbines. Although depth tom current strength and degree of wind- in the deepest water (30 m) (HDR,
was identified as an influential factor for induced hydrodynamic disturbance. 2020b). Additionally, construction marks
benthic macrofauna composition in the Multibeam data showed bedform features were persistent at Turbine 1 but not at
Turbines 3 and 5 (HDR, 2020b). While
the hydrodynamics were not measured,
these observations suggests that the sea-
bed and parts of the Turbine 1 structure
may be exposed to lower hydrodynamic
energy compared to Turbines 3 and 5,
which may partially explain the more
rapid successional and benthic changes
at Turbine 1. Collectively, spatiotemporal
changes within the BIWF indicate with-
in-array heterogeneity that has also been
observed within some European OWFs
(Lefaible et al., 2019).
ECOLOGICAL IMPORTANCE
OF BENTHIC CHANGES AT
THE BIWF
The Benthos and Cascading Effects
As reported for other OWFs (Dannheim
et al., 2020), the BIWF structures were
quickly colonized and increased local
diversity through increased habitat com-
plexity (i.e., the provision of new habi-
tat). Structurally, the BIWF provided ver-
tical and horizontal hard substrate to be
colonized in an otherwise coarse sand
environment (LaFrance et al., 2014).
The strong vertical epifaunal zonation
observed on European foundation struc-
tures (Krone et al., 2013; De Mesel et al.,
2015) was not observed at the BIWF, sug-
gesting that four years post-construction,
the colonizing community may still be
in an intermediary successional stage
(Kerckhof et al., 2010). It is possible that
zonation on jacket structures such as the
Annelida Arthropoda
BIWF may differ from monopile and
Lumbrineris sp. Corophium sp.
Polycirrus sp. gravity structures, with mussels extending
Balanus spp. farther down the vertical profile (Krone
Pisione sp. Parapionosyllis longicirrata et al., 2013). However, similar properties
Mollusca
of a biomass hotspot (Krone et al., 2013)
Polygordius spp. Sabellaria vulgaris Mytilus edulis
were recorded at the BIWF, and the ben-
thic predators (snails, sea stars, crabs)
FIGURE 5. Change in dominant biota within biotopes over time at the BIWF. The 30–90 m areas present on and under the structures were
around the three turbines were reclassified each year using the Coastal and Marine Ecological likely benefiting from the new prey com-
Classification Standard (CMECS) framework. Change in dominant species is highlighted from the
OSAMP and RODEO monitoring effort. Note the strongest change occurs within the Turbine 1 bio- munities. Additionally, based on the
tope in year 3, now dominated by filter feeders Balanus spp. and Mytilus edulis. From HDR (2020a) presence of juvenile crabs (Cancer sp.),
64 Oceanography | Vol.33, No.4
the BIWF potentially serves as a nursery were recorded within 50 m of Turbine 1. ulation status (e.g., small, declining, or
ground, as suggested from increased pro- Similar patches of mussel and associated dependent on vulnerable habitats). The
duction rates for crabs (Cancer pagurus) properties near turbines (~37.5 m) were OWF artificial reef effect is now rela-
at European OWFs (Krone et al., 2017). recently recorded within the Thornton tively well characterized as benefiting
The dominant mussel community created Bank Belgian OWF and were proposed to fish and shellfish by providing refuge and
three-dimensional habitat complexity on be the result of adult mussels transported creating forage, and as attracting abun-
an otherwise smooth structure, bene- from the structures (Lefaible et al., 2019). dant and diverse communities, although
fiting small reef species such as cunner High mussel exports are expected some processes require further attention
(Tautogolabrus adspersus), while at a (Krone et al., 2013), although it is likely (Degraer et al., 2020, in this issue).
larger scale, the turbine structures hosted that the off-structure mussel aggrega- Recent meta-analysis of finfish within
abundant black sea bass (C. striata) and tions at the BIWF are not only mussels European OWFs highlights a broadly
other indigenous bentho-pelagic fish. that dropped off of the structures but positive effect on fish abundance during
Functionally, the highly abundant also new recruits. The high abundance the operational phase (Methratta and
mussel population on and within the of juveniles in the year 3 sampling indi- Dardick, 2019). Examples of increased
structures’ footprints will change the cates local spat settlement and suggests abundance and biomass of culturally
local ecosystem processes, including high suitable conditions for an expanding important species include Atlantic cod
filtration rates of local phytoplankton, population. Mussels have already been (Gadus morhua), pollock (Pollachius pol-
increased excretions to the surrounding found in areas further from the BIWF, lachius), pout whiting (Trisopterus luscus),
seabed (Maar et al., 2009), and increased beyond the spatial scope of the RODEO and crabs (Cancer sp.) (Wilhelmsson
carbon assimilation, particularly by effort, 1.6–4.8 km west of Turbine 5, et al., 2006; Bergström et al., 2013;
M. edulis (Mavraki et al., 2020). By year 3 where they were not previously recorded Reubens et al., 2014; Krone et al., 2017).
there was clear evidence of the mussel (Wilber et al., 2020). The addition of Atlantic cod and pout whiting aggregate
populations extending beyond the BIWF the BIWF mussel population and other around OWF foundations in the North
structures (30–90 m). The change in bio- epibionts could have far-reaching lar- Sea in response to increased food avail-
tope classification around Turbine 1, val distributions— tens of kilometers— ability provided by colonizing species
resulting from the change in dominant increasing connectivity between natural (Reubens et al., 2014; Mavraki, 2020).
species, demonstrates a shift in biologi- and OWF populations (Gilg and Hilbish, Metabolic analyses of both species indi-
cal traits and function in the surround- 2003; Coolen et al., 2020). The contri- cate sufficient energy for growth, suggest-
ing area related to the presence of the bution of larval connectivity to further ing localized increased fish productivity,
colonized turbine structure (Figure 4). proliferation of filter-feeding popula- but no evidence of regional effects have
While there were some biotope changes tions may then influence carbon cycling been documented (Reubens et al., 2014).
at Turbines 3 and 5, the biota remained at broader geographical scales. Models Furthermore, the degree of attraction was
dominated by polychaetes, which are indicate that the increased population of found to vary seasonally, highlighting the
deposit- and filter-feeding, burrowing, or filter feeders resulting from OWF prolif- importance of incorporating species life
tube-building or burrowing bioturbators eration in the southern North Sea Basin history and movement ecology in any
(Hutchings, 1998). Comparatively, the may lead to regional changes in primary monitoring efforts.
dominant biota of the Turbine 1 biotope productivity (Slavik et al., 2019), but as Trophic and energetic analyses of fish
were barnacles and mussels, which are yet there are no comparable modeled sce- around the BIWF structures have yet to
sessile filter feeders, and encrusting or narios incorporating the OWF expansion be conducted; however, nearby, increased
bed-forming species, which offer sedi- along the US East Coast. findings of mussels in the stomachs of
ment consolidation (Trager et al., 1990; winter flounder (Pseudopleuronectes
Riisgård et al., 2011; Fariñas-Franco et al., Potential Importance to americanus) have been recorded (Wilber
2014), while the supporting polychaete Managed Species et al., 2020). Changes in primary pro-
community contributes bioturbation in OWF structures may have direct and indi- ductivity due to increased filter-feeding
the local area. rect effects for some species, especially populations (Slavik et al., 2019) may also
The bioengineering properties of when they are situated where hard sub- become important for planktivorous fish
mussels were evident within the turbine strates and associated epifauna are scarce. in BIS (Malek et al., 2010) and future
footprints and within the new biotope These effects may be particularly import- OWF areas. Seasonality in fish use of
at select sample locations. Patches of ant for managed species, those for which the BIWF has also yet to be addressed,
adult mussels with associated fine sedi- management plans have been developed although the presence of fish suggests
ments, organic enrichment, and modi- because they are economically or cultur- they are profiting from the provision
fied benthic macrofaunal communities ally important or because of their pop- of food and/or shelter. Black sea bass
Oceanography | December 2020 65
(Figure 4) and other structure-oriented including numerous flatfish and longfin biotic changes and provided a sufficiently
species will likely benefit from future inshore squid (Doryteuthis pealeii), an high-level of classification to allow con-
US OWFs. Local fishers have targeted important prey species (Jacobson, 2005). textualization of local biotopes within
large tautog (Tautoga onitis) near BIWF Lower impacts and quicker recovery from the regional pre-siting OSAMP biotopes.
foundations and noted that Atlantic cod disturbances in soft bottoms (e.g., mud, Future studies will need to carefully con-
are attracted to the area (ten Brink and sand) have been found (Grabowski et al., sider appropriate baselines (new data
Dalton, 2018), consistent with data from 2014), but the number of species affected collection and/or pre-existing data) and
European OWFs (Reubens et al., 2014). or their ecosystem values may be larger their comparability to new data collected
Whether fish resources increase (i.e., pro- (Henriques et al., 2014; Kritzer et al., throughout the monitoring effort. A fuller
duction) around OWFs, or biomass is 2016). To date, the majority of OWFs have understanding of the benthic changes
simply redistributed (i.e., aggregation) resulted in the introduction of hard struc- observed, including a better overview of
requires clarification. Recent evidence ture into a soft sediment environment. gradients of change with proximity to the
demonstrates energy savings in juve- However, the United States has leased an turbines, was obtained from the supple-
nile Atlantic cod associated with stone area in natural, complex, hard-bottom mental sampling. However, the integra-
reef habitats compared to sand habitats, habitat that provides important ecosys- tion of primary and supplemental data
which may allow energy to be allocated tem functions (e.g., cod spawning ground; sets was challenging, and further atten-
to growth and thus increase production Zemeckis et al., 2014). While a lease in tion to the comparability of varied sam-
(Schwartzbach et al., 2020). Similar stud- this habitat type and the associated habi- pling strategies or addition of relevant
ies of metabolic rates of cod and other tat change are atypical, the ecological sig- controls may benefit future monitoring
species associated with OWFs and com- nificance will need to be defined. efforts. Longer-term monitoring would
parable local habitats would be benefi- be required to determine the climax col-
cial going forward. STRATEGIC LESSONS FROM onizing community on the structures
Managers must also consider the BENTHIC MONITORING AT THE and the potential development of verti-
value of habitat change (Gill, 2005). The BLOCK ISLAND WIND FARM cal zonation. Future monitoring efforts
OWF reefs differ from natural hard sub- The RODEO benthic monitoring philos- should also consider seasonal effects in
strates and cannot be considered a sub- ophy involved observing and quantifying biota and use targeted fish surveys to
stitute (Kerckhof et al., 2017), although near-field changes in benthic ecology at quantify abundance, community compo-
they may have added value, albeit dif- the BIWF. It was the first opportunity to sition, and the relevance of artificial reef
ferent value (Degraer et al., 2020, in this observe such changes at a US OWF, and effects to local species (e.g., quantifying
issue). The new structural habitat gained given the BIWF’s novelty, it was reason- trophic or refuge effects on fish biomass).
exceeds the seabed habitat lost in terms able to focus on small-scale spatiotem- Where grab sampling is prevented due to
of spatial extent. However, the transition poral changes. The relatively short-term mussel aggregations, the incorporation of
from natural soft-bottom substrate to seabed sampling strategy was designed to reef metrics may be useful (e.g., Hendrick
hard substrate habitat (including mussel- provide insight into changes in sediment and Foster-Smith, 2006; Gubbay et al.,
dominated biotopes) may displace spe- composition, organic enrichment, and 2007). Finally, the development of auto-
cies that prefer soft-bottom habitats and benthic macrofauna. The adaptive nature mated methods may allow rapid charac-
associated prey. Prior to construction, the of the strategy proved valuable for assess- terization from benthic photography. The
BIWF area was mostly coarse sand with ing benthic changes observed close to the appropriate application or development
some pebble and gravel substrate, essen- structures and also expanded to incor- of refined methods should be based on
tial fish habitat for 24 managed species porate artificial reef effects, providing a strategic prioritization of the ecological
(CRMC, 2010). To fully determine the multi-faceted overview of changes occur- questions to be addressed.
value of change in habitat as relevant to ring around the BIWF. The RODEO benthic monitoring effort
managed species, the habitat and fish need Complementary information was ob- provides regionally relevant (i.e., for the
to be assessed. This likely requires using tained using primary and supplemental US East Coast) observations of benthic
varied techniques that are applicable to methods (Box 1). The primary random- changes similar to those observed from
selected demersal and pelagic species ized benthic sampling across distance European and UK OWFs and establishes
(e.g., demersal trawl, hook and line sur- bands allowed a broad spatial view while a platform from which to prioritize future
veys, fyke nets, diver surveys, telemetry), assessing gradients of change in sedi- US monitoring efforts. Going forward,
targeted both at the structures and far ment, enrichment, and benthic macro- our recommendation is to move beyond
from them over valid temporal scales. In fauna from the turbines. The application the philosophy of this monitoring effort
the northwest Atlantic, several species of the CMECS framework highlighted to focusing on gaining a deeper under-
use soft-bottom habitat slated for OWFs, the importance of fully characterizing standing of the effects of OWFs on ben-
66 Oceanography | Vol.33, No.4
thic ecology and their functional rele- and targeted monitoring (Lindeboom managed monitoring programs are gen-
vance to the broader ecosystem. Benthic et al., 2015), as adopted by the Belgian erally not publicly accessible and often
ecology plays a vital role in trophic pro- WinMon.BE monitoring program that only offer short-term data series that
visions, biogeochemical processes, and encompasses eight OWFs (Degraer et al., result in information of limited value.
biodiversity (Dannheim et al., 2020). 2009; Figure 6). To remedy these issues, Belgium has
Addressing how OWFs affect these func- Basic monitoring aims to objectively opted for a single, integrated, public-
tions will require careful collection of evaluate impacts of OWFs a posteriori, authority-driven OWF environmental
empirical data at spatiotemporally rele- allowing even unforeseen impacts to be monitoring program. Active since 2005,
vant scales as well as modeling in order evaluated. Targeted monitoring aims to WinMon.BE facilitates an adaptive
to understand regional importance understand the underlying ecological approach for basic and targeted mon-
(Wilding et al., 2017). Consideration of processes behind the prioritized observed itoring (Degraer et al., 2019). The pub-
the functional changes over the life of impacts. It allows results to be extrapo- lic authority has the explicit right and
an OWF will require data collection and lated beyond the study area to enhance duty to share the monitoring data
modeling over a longer timeframe and a impact prediction and evidence-based (UNECE, 1998) and to adapt the mon-
broader spatial scale, partnered with suit- mitigation. Basic monitoring is usually itoring program according to new sci-
able long-term pre-OWF comparisons, mandatory, integrated within OWF envi- entific insights. Funding is provided by
and further should incorporate analy- ronmental permitting, whereas targeted financial contributions from all OWF
ses of cumulative effects (Wilding et al., monitoring is often dependent on gov- owners as required by the environmental
2017; Willsteed et al., 2017). ernmental research funds. license. On the other hand, the public-
Industry manages most monitor- authority-funded Dutch Governmental
ENVIRONMENTAL ing programs in Europe, informed by Offshore Wind Ecological Programme
MONITORING— national environmental permit and mon- (WOZEP), which has been active since
THE PATH FORWARD itoring standards (e.g., the StUK4 moni- 2016, does not cover the monitoring
The ecological lessons learned from the toring scheme in Germany; BSH, 2013). of specific projects but rather seeks to
BIWF benthic monitoring program— These permit-based monitoring pro- address the main knowledge gaps related
for example, observations of rapid colo- grams neither allow the flexibility needed to OWF environmental impacts, includ-
nization dominated by filter feeders and to adopt basic and targeted monitor- ing cumulative effects (WOZEP, 2016).
attraction of fish as well as indigenous ing schemes nor optimize programs as Both the WinMon.BE and WOZEP mon-
and non-indigenous species—are largely new scientific knowledge becomes avail- itoring schemes have been noted as best
similar to observations in European able. Furthermore, data from industry- practices. Situated on the cusp of exten-
OWFs (Degraer et al., 2020, in this issue).
We acknowledge that there are apparent
differences; the species (including their
TWO-TIERED MONITORING APPROACH
value and health) are region specific,
the hydrodynamic systems are different
(e.g., open coast, basin), and there may
be some influence from foundation types. BASIC MONITORING TARGETED MONITORING
However, the effects on the functioning
of the ecosystem are largely compara- Focus on a posteriori resultant Focus on cause-effect relationships of
effect quantification selected, a priori defined impacts
ble. Consequently, the underlying scien-
tific questions appear broadly applicable, Observing rather than Understanding rather than
offering great opportunities for enhanced understanding impacts observing impacts
efficiency and effectiveness of monitoring
programs as OWFs proliferate along the Basis for halting activities Basis for mitigation
US coasts. Rather than designing moni-
toring programs on a project-by-project Spatial area-specific Spatially generic
basis, resource efficiency implies that
monitoring programs should ideally
Most often mandatory Most often discretionary
focus on a careful selection of OWFs
considered representative of a region, or
FIGURE 6. Recommendations for future monitoring approaches. A two-tiered monitoring approach
suitable for a given research question. embracing basic monitoring and targeted research allows for a comprehensive overview and
This approach is exemplified by basic understanding of impacts, maximizing the value of the monitoring results.
Oceanography | December 2020 67sive OWF construction in a vast marine De Mesel, I., F. Kerckhof, A. Norro, B. Rumes, and Hendrick, V.J., and R.L. Foster-Smith. 2006. Sabellaria
S. Degraer. 2015. Succession and seasonal spinulosa reef: A scoring system for evaluating
area within the boundaries of a single dynamics of the epifauna community on off- ‘reefiness’ in the context of the Habitats Directive.
country, the United States should now shore wind farm foundations and their role as Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the
stepping stones for non-indigenous species. United Kingdom 86(04):665–677, https://doi.org/
consider implementing a similarly coor- Hydrobiologia 756:37–50, https://doi.org/10.1007/ 10.1017/S0025315406013555.
dinated monitoring strategy to allow an s10750-014-2157-1. Henriques, S., M.P. Pais, R.P. Vasconcelos, A. Murta,
Emu Limited. 2008. Kentish Flats Offshore Wind Farm M. Azevedo, M.J. Costa, and H.N. Cabral. 2014.
efficient, adaptive, combined basic and Turbine Foundation Faunal Colonisation Diving Structural and functional trends indicate fishing
targeted monitoring scheme. Survey. Report No 08/J/1/03/1034/0839, Report by pressure on marine fish assemblages. Journal of
Vattenfall, 22 pp. Applied Ecology 51(3):623–631, https://doi.org/
Fariñas-Franco, J.M., B. Pearce, J. Porter, D. Harries, 10.1111/1365-2664.12235.
REFERENCES J.M.M. Mair, A.S.S. Woolmer, W.G.G. Sanderson, Hutchings, P. 1998. Biodiversity and functioning of
Bergström, L., F. Sundqvist, and U. Bergström. 2013. J.M. Fariñas-Franco, B. Pearce, J. Porter, and polychaetes in benthic sediments. Biodiversity
Effects of an offshore wind farm on temporal and others. 2014. Marine Strategy Framework Directive & Conservation 7(9):1,133–1,145, https://doi.org/
spatial patterns in the demersal fish community. Indicators for Biogenic Reefs Formed by Modiolus 10.1023/A:1008871430178.
Marine Ecology Progress Series 485(1):199–210, modiolus, Mytius edulis and Sabellaria spinulosa: Jacobson, L.D. 2005. Longfin Inshore Squid, Loligo
https://doi.org/10.3354/meps10344. Part 1. Defining and Validating the Indicators. JNCC pealeii, Life History and Habitat Characteristics,
BOEM (Bureau of Ocean Energy Management). 2019. Report, No. 523, Heriot Watt University for JNCC, Second Edition. NOAA Technical Memorandum
Renewable Energy; Lease and Grant Information. JNCC Peterborough, 379 pp. NMFS-NE-193, US Department of Commerce,
https://www.boem.gov/renewable-energy/ FGDC (Federal Geographic Data Committee). 2012. National Marine Fisheries Service, 52 pp.
lease-and-grant-information. Coastal and Marine Ecological Classification Kerckhof, F., B. Rumes, T. Jacques, S. Degraer,
BSH (Bundesamt fur Seeschifffahrt und Standard. Marine and Coastal Spatial Data and A. Noro. 2010. Early development of the
Hydrographie). 2013. Standard Investigation of the 1643 Subcommittee (Federal Geographic Data subtidal marine biofouling on a concrete off-
Impacts of Offshore Wind Turbines on the Marine Committee). 353 pp. shore windmill foundation on the Thornton Bank
Environment (StUK4). BSH-Nr. 7003 for the German Gilg, M.R., and T.J. Hilbish. 2003. The geography (southern North Sea): First monitoring results.
Federal Maritime and Hydrographic Agency, 87 pp. of marine larval dispersal: Coupling genetics International Journal of the Society for Underwater
Coates, D.A., Y. Deschutter, M. Vincx, and with fine-scale physical oceanography. Technology 29(3):137–149, https://doi.org/10.3723/
J. Vanaverbeke. 2014. Enrichment and shifts Ecology 84(11):2,989–2,998, https://doi.org/ ut.29.137.
in macrobenthic assemblages in an offshore 10.1890/02-0498. Kerckhof, F., B. Rumes, and S. Degraer. 2017. On
wind farm area in the Belgian part of the North Gill, A.B. 2005. Offshore renewable energy: the replicability of natural gravel beds by artifi-
Sea. Marine Environmental Research 95:1–12, Ecological implications of generating elec- cial hard substrata in Belgian waters. Pp. 73–84
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marenvres.2013.12.008. tricity in the coastal zone. Journal of Applied in Environmental Impacts of Offshore Wind Farms
Coolen, J.W.P., A.R. Boon, R. Crooijmans, Ecology 42(4):605–615, https://doi.org/10.1111/ in the Belgian Part of the North Sea: A Continued
H. van Pelt, F. Kleissen, D. Gerla, J. Beermann, j.1365-2664.2005.01060.x. Move Towards Integration and Quantification.
S.N.R. Birchenough, L.E. Becking, and Grabowski, J.H., M. Bachman, C. Demarest, S. Degraer, R. Brabant, B. Rumes, and L. Vigin,
P.C. Luttikhuizen. 2020. Marine stepping-stones: S. Eayrs, B.P. Harris, V. Malkoski, D. Packer, and eds, Royal Belgian Institute of Natural Sciences,
Connectivity of Mytilus edulis populations D. Stevenson. 2014. Assessing the vulnerability of OD Natural Environment, Marine Ecology and
between offshore energy installations. Molecular marine benthos to fishing gear impacts. Reviews Management Section, Brussels.
Ecology 29(4):686–703, https://doi.org/10.1111/ in Fisheries Science & Aquaculture 22(2):142–155, Kritzer, J.P., M.B. DeLucia, E. Greene, C. Shumway,
mec.15364. https://doi.org/10.1080/10641262.2013.846292. M.F. Topolski, J. Thomas-Blate, L.A. Chiarella,
CRMC (Coastal Resources Management Council). Grace, S. 2017. Winter quiescence, growth rate, K.B. Davy, and K. Smith. 2016. The impor-
2010. OceanSAMP, Volume 2. Rhode Island and the release from competition in the temper- tance of benthic habitats for coastal fisheries.
Ocean Special Area Management Plan, 2,922 ate scleractinian coral Astrangia poculata (Ellis & BioScience 66(4):274–284, https://doi.org/10.1093/
pp., https://seagrant.gso.uri.edu/oceansamp/pdf/ Solander 1786). Northeastern Naturalist 24(sp7), biosci/biw014.
appendix/full_volume2_osamp_4.26.13.pdf. https://doi.org/10.1656/045.024.s715. Krone, R., L. Gutow, T.J. Joschko, and A. Schröder.
Dannheim, J., L. Bergström, S.N.R. Birchenough, Gubbay, S. 2007. Defining and Managing Sabellaria 2013. Epifauna dynamics at an offshore founda-
R. Brzana, A.R. Boon, J.W.P. Coolen, J.-C. Dauvin, spinulosa reefs: Report of an Inter-Agency tion – Implications of future wind power farm-
I. De Mesel, J. Derweduwen, A.B. Gill, and Workshop 1–2 May 2007. JNCC Report No. 405, ing in the North Sea. Marine Environmental
others. 2020. Benthic effects of offshore renew- JNCC, Peterborough, 26 pp. Research 85:1–12, https://doi.org/10.1016/
ables: Identification of knowledge gaps and GWEC (Global Wind Energy Council). 2019. Global j.marenvres.2012.12.004.
urgently needed research. ICES Journal of Marine Wind Report 2018. Global Wind Energy Council, Krone, R., G. Dederer, P. Kanstinger, P. Krämer,
Science 77(3):1,092–1,108, https://doi.org/10.1093/ Brussels, Belgium, 62 pp., https://gwec.net/ C. Schneider, and I. Schmalenbach. 2017. Mobile
icesjms/fsz018. wp-content/uploads/2019/04/GWEC-Global-Wind- demersal megafauna at common offshore wind tur-
Degraer, S., R. Brabant, and Partnership. 2009. Report-2018.pdf. bine foundations in the German Bight (North Sea)
Recommendations for a future monitoring of wind HDR. 2019. Field Observations During Wind two years after deployment – Increased produc-
farms in Belgium’s marine waters. Pp. 275–279 Turbine Foundation Installation at the Block tion rate of Cancer pagurus. Marine Environmental
in Offshore Wind Farms in the Belgian Part Island Wind Farm, Rhode Island. Final Report Research 123:53–61, https://doi.org/10.1016/
of the North Sea: State of the Art After Two to the US Department of the Interior, Bureau of j.marenvres.2016.11.011.
Years of Environmental Monitoring. S. Degraer Ocean Energy Management, Office of Renewable Lefaible, N., L. Colson, U. Braeckman, and T. Moens.
and R. Brabant, eds, Royal Belgian Institute for Energy Programs, OCS Study BOEM 2019-028, 2019. Evaluation of turbine-related impacts on
Natural Sciences, Management Unit of the North 281 pp., https://espis.boem.gov/final reports/ macrobenthic communities withing two off-
Sea Mathematical Models, Marine Ecosystem BOEM_2019-028.pdf. shore wind farms during the operational phase.
Management Unit, Brussels. HDR. 2020a. Benthic and Epifaunal Monitoring Pp. 47–64 in Environmental Impacts of Offshore
Degraer, S., R. Brabant, B. Rumes, and L. Vigin, During Wind Turbine Installation and Operation at Wind Farms in the Belgian Part of the North Sea:
eds. 2019. Environmental Impacts of Offshore the Block Island Wind Farm, Rhode Island – Project Marking a Decade of Monitoring, Research and
Wind Farms in the Belgian Part of the North Sea: Report. Final Report to the US Department of the Innovation. S. Degraer, R. Brabant, B. Rumes, and
Marking a Decade of Monitoring, Research and Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, L. Vigin, eds, Royal Belgian Institute of Natural
Innovation. Royal Belgian Institute of Natural Office of Renewable Energy Programs, OCS Study Sciences, OD Natural Environment, Marine Ecology
Sciences, OD Natural Environment, Marine Ecology BOEM 2020-044, Volume I, 263 pp; Volume II, and Management, Brussels.
and Management, Brussels, 134 pp. 380 pp. LaFrance, M., J.W. King, B.A. Oakley, and S. Pratt.
Degraer, S., D.A. Carey, J.W.P. Coolen, Z.L. Hutchison, HDR. 2020b. Seafloor Disturbance and Recovery 2014. A comparison of top-down and bottom-up
F. Kerckhof, B. Rumes, and J. Vanaverbeke. 2020. Monitoring at the Block Island Wind Farm, Rhode approaches to benthic habitat mapping to inform
Offshore wind farm artificial reefs affect eco- Island – Summary Report. Final Report to the offshore wind energy development. Continental
system structure and functioning: A synthesis. US Department of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean Shelf Research 83:24–44, https://doi.org/10.1016/
Oceanography 33(4):48–57, https://doi.org/ Energy Management, Office of Renewable Energy j.csr.2014.04.007.
10.5670/oceanog.2020.405. Programs, OCS Study BOEM 2020-019, 63 pp.
68 Oceanography | Vol.33, No.4Lindeboom, H., S. Degraer, J. Dannheim, Slavik, K., C. Lemmen, W. Zhang, O. Kerimoglu, Belgian WinMon.BE offshore wind farm environmental
A.B. Gill, and D. Wilhelmsson. 2015. Offshore K. Klingbeil, and K.W. Wirtz. 2019. The large-scale monitoring program. We thank Kristen Ampela, Nancy
wind park monitoring programmes, lessons impact of offshore wind farm structures on pelagic Jepsen, and Dorothy Bungert (HDR) for editing and
learned and recommendations for the future. primary productivity in the southern North Sea. graphics support. We also thank the guest editors for
Hydrobiologia 756(1):169–180, https://doi.org/ Hydrobiologia 845(1):35–53, https://doi.org/10.1007/ the invitation to contribute to this special issue.
10.1007/s10750-015-2267-4. s10750-018-3653-5.
Maar, M., K. Bolding, J.K. Petersen, J.L.S. Hansen, Steimle, F.W. 1982. The benthic macroinvertebrates AUTHORS
and K. Timmermann. 2009. Local effects of blue of the Block Island Sound. Estuarine, Coastal and Zoë L. Hutchison (zoe_hutchison@uri.edu) is
mussels around turbine foundations in an eco- Shelf Science 15(1):1–16, https://doi.org/10.1016/ Postdoctoral Research Scientist and Monique
system model of Nysted off-shore wind farm, 0272-7714(82)90032-4. LaFrance Bartley is Postdoctoral Research Scientist,
Denmark. Journal of Sea Research 62(2):159–174, ten Brink, T.S., and T. Dalton. 2018. Perceptions of both at the Graduate School of Oceanography,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seares.2009.01.008. commercial and recreational fishers on the poten- University of Rhode Island, Narragansett, RI,
Malek, A., M. LaFrance, J. Collie, and J. King. 2010. tial ecological impacts of the Block Island Wind USA. Steven Degraer is Prime Work Leader and
Fisheries ecology in Rhode Island and Block Farm (US). Frontiers in Marine Science 5(439):1–13, Professor, Royal Belgian Institute of Natural Sciences,
Island Sounds for the Rhode Island Ocean Special https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2018.00439. Operational Directorate Natural Environment, Marine
Area Management Plan 2010. Pp. 2,102–2,158 Trager, G.C., J.-S. Hwang, and J.R. Strickler. 1990. Ecology and Management, Brussels, Belgium.
in oceanSAMP, Volume 2: Rhode Island Ocean Barnacle suspension-feeding in variable flow. Paul English is Principal Consultant, FUGRO GB
Special Area Management Plan, Coastal Marine Biology 105(1):117–127, https://doi.org/ Marine Ltd., Portchester, Hampshire, UK. Anwar Khan
Resources Management Council. 10.1007/BF01344277. is Senior Program Manager, HDR, Englewood, CO,
Manoukian, S., A. Spagnolo, G. Scarcella, E. Punzo, UNECE (United Nations Economic Commission for USA. Julia Livermore is Supervising Biologist, Rhode
R. Angelini, and G. Fabi. 2010. Effects of two off- Europe). 1998. The Aarhus Convention. Island Department of Environmental Management,
shore gas platforms on soft-bottom benthic Valentine, P.C., M.R. Carman, J. Dijkstra, and Division of Marine Fisheries, Jamestown, RI, USA.
communities (northwestern Adriatic Sea, Italy). D.S. Blackwood. 2009. Larval recruitment of the Bob Rumes is Postdoctoral Research Scientist, Royal
Marine Environmental Research 70(5):402–410, invasive colonial ascidian Didemnum vexillum, sea- Belgian Institute of Natural Sciences, Operational
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marenvres.2010.08.004. sonal water temperatures in New England coastal Directorate Natural Environment, Marine Ecology
Mavraki, N. 2020. On the Food-Web Ecology of and offshore waters, and implications for spread and Management, Brussels, Belgium. John W. King
Offshore Wind Farms, the Kingdom of Suspension of the species. Aquatic Invasions 4(1):153–168, is Professor, Graduate School of Oceanography,
Feeders. Doctoral dissertation, Ghent University, https://doi.org/10.3391/ai.2009.4.1.16. University of Rhode Island, Narragansett, RI, USA.
278 pp. Wilber, D., L. Read, M. Griffin, and D. Carey. 2020.
Mavraki, N., S. Degraer, J. Vanaverbeke, and Block Island Wind Farm Demersal Fish Trawl
ARTICLE CITATION
U. Braeckman. 2020. Organic matter assimilation Survey Synthesis Report – Years 1 to 6, October
Hutchison, Z.L., M. LaFrance Bartley, S. Degraer,
by hard substrate fauna in an offshore wind farm 2012 through September 2018. 182 pp.
P. English, A. Khan, J. Livermore, B. Rumes, and
area: A pulse-chase study. ICES Journal of Marine Wilding, T.A., A.B. Gill, A. Boon, E. Sheehan,
J.W. King. 2020. Offshore wind energy and benthic
Science fsaa133, https://doi.org/10.1093/icesjms/ J.C. Dauvin, J.-P.P. Pezy, F. O’Beirn, U. Janas,
habitat changes: Lessons from Block Island Wind
fsaa133. L. Rostin, I. De Mesel, and others. 2017. Turning
Farm. Oceanography 33(4):58–69, https://doi.org/
Methratta, E.T., and W.R. Dardick. 2019. Meta- off the DRIP (‘Data-rich, information-poor’) –
10.5670/oceanog.2020.406.
analysis of finfish abundance at offshore Rationalising monitoring with a focus on marine
wind farms. Reviews in Fisheries Science & renewable energy developments and the ben-
Aquaculture 27(2):242–260, https://doi.org/ thos. Renewable and Sustainable Energy COPYRIGHT & USAGE
10.1080/23308249.2019.1584601. Reviews 74:848–859, https://doi.org/10.1016/ This is an open access article made available under
Nixon, S., S. Granger, C. Oviatt, L. Fields, and j.rser.2017.03.013. the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0
J. Mercer. 2010. Spatial and temporal variability of Wilhelmsson, D., T. Malm, and M.C. Öhman. International License (https://creativecommons.org/
surface chlorophyll, primary production, and ben- 2006. The influence of offshore windpower licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adap-
thic metabolism in Rhode Island and Block Island on demersal fish. ICES Journal of Marine tation, distribution, and reproduction in any medium
Sounds. Pp. 652–704 in oceanSAMP, Volume 2: Science 63(5):775–784, https://doi.org/10.1016/ or format as long as users cite the materials appro-
Rhode Island Ocean Special Area Management j.icesjms.2006.02.001. priately, provide a link to the Creative Commons
Plan. Coastal Resources Management Council. Willsteed, E., A.B. Gill, S.N.R. Birchenough, and license, and indicate the changes that were made to
Page, H.M., J.E. Dugan, D.S. Dugan, J.B. Richards, and S. Jude. 2017. Assessing the cumulative environ- the original content.
D.M. Hubbard. 1999. Effects of an offshore oil plat- mental effects of marine renewable energy devel-
form on the distribution and abundance of com- opments: Establishing common ground. Science of
mercially important crab species. Marine Ecology the Total Environment 577:19–32, https://doi.org/
Progress Series 185:47–57, https://doi.org/10.3354/ 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.10.152.
meps185047. Wolfson, A., G. Van Blaricom, N. Davis, and
Reubens, J.T., S. Degraer, and M. Vincx. 2014. The G.S. Lewbel. 1979. The marine life of an offshore oil
ecology of benthopelagic fishes at offshore platform. Marine Ecology Progress Series 1:81–89,
wind farms: A synthesis of 4 years of research. https://doi.org/10.3354/meps001081.
Hydrobiologia 727:121–136, https://doi.org/10.1007/ WOZEP (Dutch Governmental Offshore Wind
s10750-013-1793-1. Ecological Programme). 2016. Offshore wind
Riisgård, H.U.S., P.P. Egede, I.B. Saavedra, and energy ecological programme (Wozep); Monitoring
I. Barreiro Saavedra. 2011. Feeding behaviour of and research programme 2017–2021. Final Report,
the mussel, Mytilus edulis: New observations, with Rijkswaterstaat, Ministry of Infrastructure and the
a minireview of current knowledge. Journal of Environment, 69 pp.
Marine Biology 2011:312459, https://doi.org/10.1155/ Zemeckis, D.R., D. Martins, L.A. Kerr, and
2011/312459. S.X. Cadrin. 2014. Stock identification of Atlantic
Schröder, A., C. Orejas, and T. Joschko. 2006. cod (Gadus morhua) in US waters: An inter-
Benthos in the vicinity of piles: FINO 1 (North Sea). disciplinary approach. ICES Journal of Marine
Pp. 185–200 in Offshore Wind Energy: Research Science 71(6):1,490–1,506, https://doi.org/10.1093/
on Environmental Impacts. J. Köller, J. Köppel, icesjms/fsu032.
and W. Peters, eds, Springer Berlin Heidelberg,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-34677-7_12. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Schwartzbach, A., J. Behrens, and J. Svendsen. 2020. Study concepts, oversight, and funding for the
Atlantic cod Gadus morhua save energy on stone RODEO Program were provided by the US
reefs: Implications for the attraction versus pro- Department of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy
duction debate in relation to reefs. Marine Ecology Management, Environmental Studies Program,
Progress Series 635:81–87, https://doi.org/10.3354/ Washington, DC, under HDR’s IDIQ Contract
meps13192. No. M15PC00002. This paper contributes to the
Oceanography | December 2020 69You can also read
