Annex A
Review of One-off Habitat Loss Method for Assessing Displacement Impacts
To find out more about JNCC visit
Annex A
Title of project: / Review of One-off Habitat Loss Method for Assessing Displacement ImpactsDate and time for return of tenders: / 28 November @09:00 hours
Contract Reference No: / C14-0073-0879
Address for tender submission: / 1 electronic copy to be sent to EASE DO NOT SEND TENDERS DIRECTLY TOOREA ANDERSON, DORA IANTOSCA OR GORDON GREEN VIA THEIR PERSONAL EMAIL ADDRESSES, AS THIS WILL INVALIDATE YOUR TENDER
Tender responses must be less than 10 MB in size.
On receipt of your tender, you will receive an automated e-mail to confirm receipt by JNCC Support Co. If you do not receive this automated email, please contact, in the following order:
Sue Wenlock (00 44 1733 866880) or Chris Downes (00 44 1733 866877)
Contacts for technical information relating to this project specification: / 1st point of contact: Orea Anderson, Senior MarineOffshore Industries Ornithologist (JNCC) Email: , Tel: 01733866802 or 07964 148249
2nd point of contact: Sue O’Brien, Senior Seabird Ecologist (JNCC)Email: Sue.O’ Tel: 01224 266573
Contact for any queries regarding the tendering procedure: / Dora Iantosca or Gordon Green
Finance Team
Joint Nature Conservation Committee
Email:
Tel: 01733 866894 or 01733 866806
Proposed start-date: / w/c 1 December 2014
Proposed end-date: / 30 January 2015
Review of One-off Habitat Loss Method for Assessing Displacement Impacts
Contents
1.Joint Nature Conservation Committee
2.Project Aim
3.Project Background
4.Project Objectives
5.Project Objectives: Detailed tasks
6.Outputs
7.Dissemination
8.Timescale
9.Health and safety
10.Product specification
11.Project management
12.Instructions for tender submission and costings
13.Evaluation Criteria
14.Payment
15.Additional Contractor requirements
1.Joint Nature Conservation Committee
The Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC) is the statutory adviser tothe UK Government and devolved administrations on UKand international nature conservation. Its work contributes to maintaining and enriching biological diversity, conserving geological features and sustaining natural systems.
Our role is to provide evidence, information and advice so that decisions are made that protect natural resources and systems. Our specific role is to work on nature conservation issues that affect the UK as a whole and internationally:
- advising Government on the development and implementation of policies for, or affecting, nature conservation in the UK and internationally;
- providing advice and disseminatingknowledge on nature conservation issues affecting the UK and internationally;
- establishing common standards throughout the UK for nature conservation, including monitoring, research, and the analysis of results; and
- commissioning or supporting research which it deems relevant to these functions.
Further information on JNCC can be found at
2.Project Aim
Aim: Identify and consider the validity of assumptions underlying treatment of seabird displacement impacts from offshore wind farm sites as a one-off habitat loss effect.
3.Project Background
Impacts from Offshore Wind Farms (OWFs) to seabirds are typically ascribed to three forms; collision mortality, displacement impacts and barrier impacts. This scope of work focuses on the impact of displacement on seabird populations. Displacement impacts are characterised as an impact which forces a bird to forage in a different location to those which it would typically use because of the presence of a OWF. Displacement occurs from the OWF site to another area (which could be of equal or lesser habitat quality). One assumption might be that the bird is not displaced to higher quality foraging habitat otherwise it would already occur there.Displacement differs from a barrier effect, which applies to those birds which, although not typically foraging within the OWF site, are nonetheless forced to fly around the OWF footprint to reach a chosen foraging site on the other side (i.e. the presence of the OWF necessitates longer foraging and commuting flight than if it were not there).
Displacement from an OWF does not typically affect 100% of individuals using a site. However, for those that are displaced, this effectively equals a loss in foraging habitat. This displacement effect can occur in both breeding and non-breeding seasons, and could theoretically impact seabird populations through reduced breeding success (i.e. because of reductions in adult fitness and ability to forage for chicks); and/or adult mortality rates (i.e. because of increased energetic costs of travelling further to forage, or a requirement to forage in sub-optimal habitat, or increased competition for resources with con-specifics in the reduced area of habitat left remaining outside the OWF). Adult (and immature) mortality rates could be affected in both the current breeding and subsequent non-breeding seasons.
In impact assessment, collision mortality is typically considered an additive impact that occurs repeatedly each year of the operational lifetime of an OWF. This is added to the baseline annual mortality rate and the impact of this elevated mortality considered at the population level, as to whether or not it is likely to constitute an adverse impact on the population as a whole. Typically, Statutory Nature Conservation Bodies (SNCBs) have advised that displacement impacts (while hindered by limited empirical data on both the extent and significance ofdisplacement effects on individuals and populations) also be treated as a year-on-year effect. In other words, assuming a given percentage of birds normally present within a site are displaced, and that a certain percentage die as a result; this impact would then be added annually to baseline natural mortality rates (in addition to collision predictions) and examined using a population model, projected into the future over the lifetime of the OWF.
However, in comparison with predicting the scale and duration of elevated mortality that might arise from collisions, there are several major areas of uncertainty in the equivalent assessment of displacement mortality:
i)Limited and inconsistent empirical evidence regarding the spatial extent of displacement of birds around an OWF for different species;
ii)Almost no empirical dataon appropriate mortality rates to use for species that may be displaced (or equally for likely impacts to productivity);
iii)Limited data on the temporal consistency of any displacement that may occur (i.e. birds may be more or less likely to be displaced during different times of the year);
iv)Limited evidence on the length of time (in years) over which any elevated mortality /reduced productivity would occur (i.e. whether and to what degree habituation may occur).
Currently a range of suggested frameworks for coarsely accounting for displacement impacts within an Environmental Statement have been advised by SNCBs.Recent work by the Offshore Wind Farm (OWF) developer Forewind for Dogger Bank OWF proposed a suggested change from the year-on-year impact assessment approach (i.e. whereby coarsely predicted adult mortality/chick productivity impacts from displacement are added to collision impacts as part of the impact assessment process). Forewind proposed the treatment of displacement impacts as a one-off habitat loss which results in an immediate reduction in the size of the impacted population as it reduces to equilibrate with the reduced resource availability, but thereafter suffers no additional annual mortality or reduced productivity as a result of the initial habitat loss.
However, this assessment did not provide a quantitative framework for this new technique nor a worked up case study. It would appear to rest on a number of assumptions which may not be widely applicable. For example
i)That the impacted population can be clearly identified as a closed population and potentially the sole user of the area of impact and of the sea area around it and;
ii)That the quantity of resources within the area of sea in question used by that closed population is already exploited fully such that a reduction in resource availability leads immediately to a reduction in numbers (which may or may not be proportionate).
On the other hand, assessment as a constant year on year impact also rests on a number of assumptions, which may be equally questionable, for example:
i)Any level of mortality (or of reduced productivity) has no long-term effect on the size of the “impacted” population, such that the resources within the impacted area are“required” by the same number of potential users each successive year,; denial of access to those areas each year results in the same year-on-year numbers of birds subject to displacement and hence of increased mortality risk or reduced productivity;
ii)That there is no habituation to the windfarms’ presence over time (i.e. that the baseline population would never return to its original starting point as birds move back into using the OWF site as a foraging ground, as they become used to the presence of the turbines and maintenance operations).
iii)That prey in the OWF remains constant relative to the prey abundance before the OWF was constructed, despite the change in habitat for prey brought about by construction of the OWF and absence of fishing activity in the area.
Thus there are two competing approaches, both with many underlying (and often unstated) assumptions; it is perhaps the case that reality will lie somewhere between these two extremes of a constant year on year effect and a single one off effect.
4.Project Objectives
- To identify, describe and consider the validity of all assumptions underlying treatment of displacement impacts as a one-off habitat loss (i.e. reduction in population size to equilibrium after the initial period).
- To review the empirical/theoretical evidence underpinning each assumption identified in Objective 1, allowing the assessment of which method has more empirical support.
- Provide a methodological framework for how a displacement impact assessment process would work in practice using the suggested approach, clearly sign-posting where the various assumptions fit into the framework.
- Provide final recommendations on the overall suitability of categorising displacement impacts using the ‘One-off Habitat Loss’ concept.
- Identify what additional monitoring or research could be done to shed light on some of the most critical (or least evidence based) assumptions, that could act to improve the validity and wider application of any ‘One-off habitat loss’ displacement assessment tool.
5.Project Objectives: Detailed tasks
Objective 1:
The contractor should identify and clearly describe assumptions underlying the ‘One-off habitat loss’ approach to considering displacement impacts. Definitions of exactly what is meant by a ‘year-on-year’ treatment of displacement impacts versus ‘One-off Habitat Loss’ should be provided, after considered thought has been given to the assumptions underpinning the latter approach.
We suggest the contractor might begin by examining some of the following assumptions. However, we recognise this is a short contract and the contractor will consequently have some leeway in how they propose to tackle the proposed task. The following assumptions should be treated as an indicative guide as to how the contractor might begin to approach the piece of work. But the contractor is not limited to examination of all these assumptions, and can indeed explore others as they see fit.
- Assumptions regarding the likelihood (or not) of habituation to OWF sites, and what impact this may have on annual or seasonal changes to habitat utilisation patterns;
- Assumptions regarding relative importance of displacement impacts to chick productivity versus adult survival, and the extent to which these two elements can be feasibly combined and addressed within the proposed assessment process;
- Assumptions regarding the relative suitability of the habitat from which the birds are being displaced (i.e. if the habitat is high quality, does this affect the likelihood of a proportion of the birds being displaced, and how do the assumptions of this withstand the application of either of the two suggested approaches);
- Assumptions made regarding density-dependence, and potential consequences of increased numbers of birds using areas outside the OWF site due to displacement;
- Assumptions regarding the magnitude of effects on adult survival across different temporal periods (i.e. if more mortality is predicted to occur in the non-breeding season, would this affect whether or not displacement is better treated as a year-on-year or ‘one-off habitat loss’ effect);
- Assumptions regarding integration of displacement, barrier and collision impacts within an impact assessment framework.
Objective 2:
The contractor will carry out a short review of the peer-reviewed and grey literature to find any evidence in support of, or contrary to, each assumption. This is not intended as a comprehensive review of all evidence, due to the short nature of the contract. However, some evidence in support or contrary to the various assumptions underpinning the approach should be identified. For example, the contractor may identify thata‘One-off Habitat Loss’ approach requires density-dependent assumptions to be applied to the behaviour of bird populations outside the area in question. In which case, the contractor should present evidence describing the validity and applicability of this assumption and whether it fits only within the context of the ‘One-off Habitat Loss’ approach, or is an issue for consideration across multiple approaches to the treatment of displacement impact. A short characterisation of the nature of the evidence base (i.e. a few referenced, sourced and summary sentences characterising the current thinking on this issue) should be provided in the final report to JNCC.
Objective 3:
The contractor should consider and review any methods currently in use (or suggested) to assess displacement impacts as a ‘year-on-year’ effect and/or a ‘One-off Habitat Loss’ effect and suggest means of improving (or replacing) existing approaches if the ‘One-off Habitat Loss’ approach is deemed to have merit.The contractor should then lay out a roadmap that would allow an external lay person to follow the newly prescribed method of assessing displacement impacts to seabirds from OWF in an ES context (assuming that data of sufficient quality were not a constraint).
This should not extend to attempting to quantify levels of uncertainty or provide detailed quantitative frameworks, but rather lay out a clear theoretical framework for how either approach might be worked through in a ‘real world’ scenario, including critical pinch points where larger assumptions are forced to be made because of the nature of the framework (due to current lack of evidence base).
Objective 4:
The contractor should make a recommendation on whether or not a ‘One-off Habitat Loss’ approach to assessing the impacts of displacement is likely to offer a best practice interim solution, relative to other commonly used approaches, and in the face of current limited empirical data. This recommendation should be fully explained and justified. It may be that a combination of elements of various approaches could be suitable in some instances, or it may be that when circumstances differ one approach is more appropriate than the other (i.e. species-specific treatment of displacement impacts may be required). Recommendations should aim to cover all probable scenarios.
Objective 5:
It is recognised that there is a lack of empirical information on the way that displacement impacts on seabird populations. The contractor should identify what post-consent monitoring would most effectively address the lack of information on those critical assumptions underpinning any ‘One-off Habitat Loss’ treatment of displacement impacts within an assessment context.
6.Outputs
1)Initial outline of how the contractor proposes to tackle the contract within the limited timescale of the project. This can be mainly in the form of the tender submitted as well as presentation given as part of the start-up meeting.
2)Draft report provided with several days remaining on the contract time so that comments can be fully addressed/integrated into the final report.
3)Presentation of recommendations to JNCC (and potentially other SNCBs) at a ½ day meeting near the end of the contract period. Due to the short nature of the contract, it may be this meeting happens via VC or teleconference.
4)Final report completed by the 30 January deadline. It is anticipated that the bulk of the contract will take c. 10 days FTE to complete, with c. 2 days following this for wash-up meeting and integrating comments received on the draft report.
7.Dissemination
The report produced under this contract will be a JNCC product and shall not be published or disseminated without the written permission of JNCC. It may at some point be published on the JNCC website and all material and concepts supplied as part of this contract shall remain copyright of JNCC.
It may be necessary to share the submitted tender application with experts from other Statutory Nature Conservation Bodies (SNCBs), who may form part of the selection panel reviewing tender submissions. Hence, submission of a tender against this contract indicates agreement from the contractor that this tender may be shared among other SNCBs as part of the tender review process.
8.Timescale
Provisional dates for delivery of the contact outputs are set out below. Exact dates are to be agreed at the start-up meeting.
Contract Component / Milestone / TimetableStart-up meeting / Meet with JNCC and any other SNCBs that wish to be involved, to ensure contract aims and objectives are correctly understood. / 1st wk Dec 2014
(but can be later if required)
Draft report / JNCC will receive the first draft of the report for comment. / Anticipated 10 days FTE, to be completed any time within the contract period.
First draft to be received no later than 16 Jan 2015.
JNCC comments delivered / JNCC will send comments on the draft report to the Contractor. / 8 working days after 1st draft received.
Briefing meeting / Opportunity to discuss key issues raised by JNCC on the draft report and to finalise last steps towards completion of the contract and provision of a suitable final report. / 28 Jan 2015
Final report / JNCC will receive the final report with JNCC’s comments addressed. / 2 working days after JNCC comments received.
9.Health and safety
The Contractor is expected to follow appropriate Health & Safety procedures and undertake appropriate risk assessments, evidence of which should be supplied to JNCC. (NB under no circumstances should any work or service commence prior to the receipt of written approval of the risk assessment by JNCC H&S advisor)