ANNEX 1 – TASK 3, THE REVIEW OF EFFECTIVENESS OF UNDERWATER VIDEO MONITORING TECHNIQUES, EQUIPMENT AND PROCESSES TO DATE Table of Contents Page 1. REVIEW OF EFFECTIVENESS OF UNDERWATER VIDEO MONITORING TECHNIQUES, EQUIPMENT AND PROCESSES - ANDRITZ HYDRO HAMMERFEST TURBINE: DETAILED TECHNICAL REVIEW 1 1.1 Introduction 1 1.2 Approach 1 1.3 Overview of dataset 1 1.4 Assessment 2 1.4.1 Planning and design 2 1.4.2 Data collection 4 1.4.3 Powering of equipment, transmission of data and data storage 6 1.4.4 Video data review and analysis 6 1.5 Summary of findings 7 2. ANDRITZ HYDRO HAMMERFEST TURBINE: ESTIMATED CAMERA POSITIONS OF VIEW 11 2.1 Camera schematic layout 11 2.1.1 Camera 1 (on TTG 3 only as Camera 1 on TTG 2 was faulty): 11 2.1.2 Camera 2 11 2.1.3 Camera 3 11 3. REVIEW OF EFFECTIVENESS OF UNDERWATER VIDEO MONITORING TECHNIQUES, EQUIPMENT AND PROCESSES - SCOTRENEWABLES SR2000 TIDAL TURBINE: DETAILED TECHNICAL REVIEW 15 3.1 Introduction 15 3.2 Approach 15 3.3 Overview of dataset 15 3.4 Assessment 16 3.4.1 Planning and design 16 3.4.2 Data collection 16 3.4.3 Powering of equipment, transmission of data and data storage 24 3.4.4 Video data review and analysis 24 3.5 Summary of findings 26 4. REVIEW OF EFFECTIVENESS OF UNDERWATER VIDEO MONITORING TECHNIQUES, EQUIPMENT AND PROCESSES - VOITH HYDRO HYTIDE TIDAL TURBINE: DETAILED TECHNICAL REVIEW 30 4.1 Introduction 30 4.2 Approach 30 4.3 Overview of dataset 30 4.4 Assessment 31 4.4.1 Planning and design 31 4.4.2 Data collection 32 4.4.3 Powering of equipment, transmission of data and data storage 37 4.4.4 Video data review and analysis 38 4.5 Summary of findings 39 i List of Figures Page Figure 1.1 Estimated positions of cameras 4 Figure 1.2 Field-of-view of underwater video cameras from TTG 3 (top left = camera 1, top right = camera 2, bottom left = camera 3, bottom right = no camera) 5 Figure 2.1 Field-of-view of underwater video cameras from TTG 3 (top left = camera 1, top right = camera 2, bottom left = camera 3, bottom right = no camera) 11 Figure 2.2 Field-of-view from each camera on turbine, Camera 1 is below and considerably closer to the rotor blades than Cameras 2 and 3 12 Figure 2.3 Estimated position of cameras on turbine 13 Figure 2.4 Direction cameras are pointing 13 Figure 2.5 Field-of-view of cameras on turbine 14 Figure 3.1 Schematics of the SR2000 device with camera placements 17 Figure 3.2 Sample fields of view from cameras 2, 3 and 5 (left to right respectively) 18 Figure 3.3 Camera 3 footage with dead pixels circled in red 19 Figure 3.4 ADCP adjacent to SR200 deployment 20 Figure 3.5 Position of turbine blades in field-of-view (left: port side nacelle; right: middle leg brace) 21 Figure 3.6 Progression of biofouling on underwater camera lenses 23 Figure 4.1 Schematic of Voith HyTide turbine and support structure 32 Figure 4.2 Positions of cameras 33 Figure 4.3 Field-of-view from cameras (top left = camera 1 on monopile, top right = camera 2 on nacelle, bottom left = camera 3 on nacelle, bottom right = no camera). Video still is from May when biofouling coverage was at its minimum 35 Figure 4.4 Video still taken from July when biofouling was at its greatest extent (top left = camera 1 on monopile, top right = camera 2 on nacelle, bottom left = camera 3 on nacelle, bottom right = no camera) 36 List of Tables Page Table 1.1 Summary of MeyGen data reviewed to inform the assessment of effectiveness of techniques, equipment and processes 7 Table 1.2 Summary of the effectiveness of video monitoring techniques, equipment and processes 7 Table 3.1 Summary of Scotrenewables data reviewed to inform the assessment of effectiveness of techniques, equipment and processes 25 Table 3.2 Summary of the effectiveness of video monitoring techniques, equipment and processes 26 Table 4.1 Summary of Voith HyTide data reviewed to inform the assessment of effectiveness of techniques, equipment and processes 39 Table 4.2 Summary of the assessment effectiveness of techniques, equipment and processes used in the Voith HyTide video data 39 ii 1. REVIEW OF EFFECTIVENESS OF UNDERWATER VIDEO MONITORING TECHNIQUES, EQUIPMENT AND PROCESSES - ANDRITZ HYDRO HAMMERFEST TURBINE: DETAILED TECHNICAL REVIEW 1.1 Introduction This section provides the detailed results for Task 3 in relation to underwater video monitoring undertaken around two of the Andritz Hydro Hammerfest (AHH) turbines deployed as part of Phase 1A of the MeyGen Tidal Array. The Phase 1A array is comprised of three Andritz Hydro Hammerfest (AHH) turbines and one Atlantis Resources Ltd (ARL) turbine. The aim of this task was to assess the effectiveness of underwater video monitoring techniques, equipment and processes used during underwater video monitoring activities. Note: The environmental monitoring activities being carried out as part of the Scottish Government Demonstration Strategy (SGDS) and Knowledge Transfer Partnership (KTP) with University of Aberdeen (UoA) are associated with the ARL turbine at the site and are not considered within this Briefing Note. The aim of this assessment is to learn from the experience of past deployments to identify recommendations that can be used by developers and regulators involved in planning future monitoring activities of tidal stream developments. The results also provide information to help guide future technology development and associated strategic funding streams. It should be noted that all comments and recommendations drawn in this report are in relation to the monitoring systems’ effectiveness in monitoring environmental effects. It should be recognised that many monitoring programmes around first deployments and arrays are focussed on technical monitoring and therefore not yet optimised for environmental monitoring purposes. The lessons learned and recommendations presented in this document should not therefore be taken as a critique of previous/current monitoring systems, but as a series of recommendations for optimising future environmental monitoring systems. 1.2 Approach Several aspects of this video dataset have been reviewed to assess the effectiveness of the techniques, equipment and processes used at each stage in the process with the aim of identifying key challenges and lessons learned that can be used make recommendations to inform future environmental monitoring around tidal energy devices and arrays. The following stages of the monitoring programme were considered during the assessment: • Planning and design; • Data collection (equipment, duration, performance, etc.); • Powering of equipment, transmission of data and data storage; and • Video data review and analysis. 1.3 Overview of dataset The available video monitoring data is from two of the AHH turbines, namely Tidal Turbine Generator (TTG) 2 and TTG 3. The time period and format of the data differed depending on which TTG the data came from. For TTG 3, individual camera feed data were available for 22nd February 2017-04 March 2017 while an incorporated feed of all three cameras (as in Figure 1.2, see below) was available from 10:00 on 13th July 2017-11:00 on 14th July 2017. For TTG 2, data incorporating all three cameras was provided from 14:00 on 12th July 2017-11:00 on 14th July 2017. 1 1.4 Assessment The following sections provide the results of the assessment undertaken in relation to the effectiveness of the equipment, techniques and processes implemented during each stage of the monitoring programme. 1.4.1 Planning and design 1.4.1.1 Details In order to comply with the MeyGen Section 36 Consent and to begin to build an evidence base to reduce scientific uncertainty around key potential impacts, a Project Environmental Monitoring Plan (PEMP) (Rollings, Donovan and Eastham, 2016) 1 was designed in consultation with Marine Scotland, NatureScot and other statutory and non-statutory bodies in advance of the deployment of the MeyGen array which commenced in September 2016. The activities set out in this plan covered mitigation and monitoring activities that would attempt to collect empirical data from various types of equipment. The monitoring activities set out in the PEMP attempt to satisfy the requirements of Condition 12 of the Project’s Section 36 consent which was issued in September 2013. Condition 12 sets out the four main elements to be monitored: • Hydro dynamics / benthic surveys, export cable route and turbine locations and modelling to validate EIA predictions; • Collision / encounter interactions with the tidal turbines for diving birds, marine mammals and fish of conservation concern; • Disturbance and displacement of birds, marine mammals and basking sharks during construction and operation; and • Migratory salmonids. A Monitoring Steering Report (see Rollings, Donovan and Eastham, 2016) was produced and agreed on in May 2014 by an Advisory Group which included representation from the following organisations: • MeyGen Ltd.; • Marine Scotland Licensing Operations Team (MS-LOT); • Marine Scotland Science (MSS); • Marine Scotland Planning and Policy (MSPP); • NatureScot; and • The Crown Estate. The Monitoring Steering Report provides details of the prioritisation of both receptor and potential impact and refined the above four elements of Condition 12 to the objectives and concepts for the development of the PEMP. The Steering report took the lessons learned from previous research and identified where current (at the time of writing) and planned research would contribute to meeting the needs of the consent conditions and wider industry questions. Bringing these together, the report recommended more specific objectives and monitoring which were taken forward and developed for the PEMP and were appropriate for addressing the consent conditions.