Potential use of offshore marine structures in rebuilding an overfished rockfish species, bocaccio (Sebastes paucispinis)

Although bocaccio (Sebastes paucispinis) was an economically important rockfish species along the west coast of North America, overfishing has reduced the stock to about 7.4% of its former unfished population. In 2003, using a manned research submersible, we conducted fish surveys around eight oil and gas platforms off southern California as part of an assessment of the potential value of these structures as fish habitat. From these surveys, we estimated that there was a minimum of 430,000 juvenile bocaccio at these eight structures. We determined this number to be about 20% of the average number of juvenile bocaccio that survive annually for the geographic range of the species. When these juveniles become adults, they will contribute about one percent (0.8%) of the additional amount of fish needed to rebuild the Pacific Coast population. By comparison, juvenile bocaccio recruitment to nearshore natural nursery grounds, as determined through regional scuba surveys, was low in the same year. This research demonstrates that a relatively small amount of artificial nursery habitat may be quite valuable in rebuilding an overfished species

Identical Response of Caged Rock Crabs (Genera Metacarcinus and Cancer) to Energized and Unenergized Undersea Power Cables in Southern California, USA

Energy generation facilities (i.e., wave and wind) are being sited in offshore marine waters. The electricity generated from these facilities is transmitted to shore through cables carrying alternating or direct current. This current produces an electromagnetic field (EMF) that is emitted from the cable. Concerns have been voiced regarding how marine organisms, in this instance crabs, respond to the EMF emitted by submarine power cables. Two submarine cables, one energized and the other unenergized, and separated by about 7 m, were used in the experiment. Crabs (Metacarcinus anthonyi (Rathbun, 1897) and Cancer productus (Randall, 1839)) were placed in plastic perforated boxes secured to the sea floor with one end in contact with one of the two cables. After one hour and 24 hours, scuba divers ascertained the position of the crabs within the boxes, these positions designated as either “near-half” or “far-half.” EMF readings were taken on the floor of each box at the edge closest to the cable and on the floor of that box furthest from the cable at one and 24 hours. Within the boxes, EMF levels were between 46.2–80.0 microteslas next to the cable an

The Organisms Living Around Energized Submarine Power Cables, Pipe, and Natural Sea Floor in the Inshore waters of Southern California

Between 1 February 2012 and 26 February 2014 using scuba, we surveyed the fishes, invertebrates, and macrophytes living on two energized submarine power cables, an adjacent pipe, and nearby natural habitat in southern California at bottom depths of 10–11 m and 13–14 m. Over the course of the study, average electromagnetic field (EMF) levels at the two cables (A and B) were statistically similar (Cable A = 73.0µT, Cable B = 91.4µT) and were much higher at these two cables than at either the pipe (average = 0.5µT) or sand (0µT). Overall, our study demonstrated that 1) the fish and invertebrate communities on cables, pipe, and natural habitat strongly overlapped and 2) there were differences between the shallower and deeper fish and invertebrate communities. We saw no evidence that fishes or invertebrates are either preferentially attracted to, or repelled by, the EMF emitted by the cables. Any differences in the fish or invertebrate densities between cables, pipe, and natural habitat taxa were most likely due to the differences in the physical characteristics of these habitats. As with the fishes and invertebrates, macrophytes did not appear to be responding to the EMF emitted by the cables. Rather, it is likely that differences in the plant communities were driven by site depth and habitat type

To what extent can decommissioning options for marine artificial structures move us toward environmental targets?

Switching from fossil fuels to renewable energy is key to international energy transition efforts and the move toward net zero. For many nations, this requires decommissioning of hundreds of oil and gas infrastructure in the marine environment. Current international, regional and national legislation largely dictates that structures must be completely removed at end-of-life although, increasingly, alternative decommissioning options are being promoted and implemented. Yet, a paucity of real-world case studies describing the impacts of decommissioning on the environment make decision-making with respect to which option(s) might be optimal for meeting international and regional strategic environmental targets challenging. To address this gap, we draw together international expertise and judgment from marine environmental scientists on marine artificial structures as an alternative source of evidence that explores how different decommissioning options might ameliorate pressures that drive environmental status toward (or away) from environmental objectives. Synthesis reveals that for 37 United Nations and Oslo-Paris Commissions (OSPAR) global and regional environmental targets, experts consider repurposing or abandoning individual structures, or abandoning multiple structures across a region, as the options that would most strongly contribute toward targets. This collective view suggests complete removal may not be best for the environment or society. However, different decommissioning options act in different ways and make variable contributions toward environmental targets, such that policy makers and managers would likely need to prioritise some targets over others considering political, social, economic, and ecological contexts. Current policy may not result in optimal outcomes for the environment or society

Developing expert scientific consensus on the environmental and societal effects of marine artificial structures prior to decommissioning

This work was supported by the UK Natural Environment Research Council and the INSITE programme [INSITE SYNTHESIS project, grant number NE/W009889/1].Thousands of artificial (‘human-made’) structures are present in the marine environment, many at or approaching end-of-life and requiring urgent decisions regarding their decommissioning. No consensus has been reached on which decommissioning option(s) result in optimal environmental and societal outcomes, in part, owing to a paucity of evidence from real-world decommissioning case studies. To address this significant challenge, we asked a worldwide panel of scientists to provide their expert opinion. They were asked to identify and characterise the ecosystem effects of artificial structures in the sea, their causes and consequences, and to identify which, if any, should be retained following decommissioning. Experts considered that most of the pressures driving ecological and societal effects from marine artificial structures (MAS) were of medium severity, occur frequently, and are dependent on spatial scale with local-scale effects of greater magnitude than regional effects. The duration of many effects following decommissioning were considered to be relatively short, in the order of days. Overall, environmental effects of structures were considered marginally undesirable, while societal effects marginally desirable. Experts therefore indicated that any decision to leave MAS in place at end-of-life to be more beneficial to society than the natural environment. However, some individual environmental effects were considered desirable and worthy of retention, especially in certain geographic locations, where structures can support improved trophic linkages, increases in tourism, habitat provision, and population size, and provide stability in population dynamics. The expert analysis consensus that the effects of MAS are both negative and positive for the environment and society, gives no strong support for policy change whether removal or retention is favoured until further empirical evidence is available to justify change to the status quo. The combination of desirable and undesirable effects associated with MAS present a significant challenge for policy- and decision-makers in their justification to implement decommissioning options. Decisions may need to be decided on a case-by-case basis accounting for the trade-off in costs and benefits at a local level.Publisher PDFPeer reviewe

Developing expert scientific consensus on the environmental and societal effects of marine artificial structures prior to decommissioning

Thousands of artificial (‘human-made’) structures are present in the marine environment, many at or approaching end-of-life and requiring urgent decisions regarding their decommissioning. No consensus has been reached on which decommissioning option(s) result in optimal environmental and societal outcomes, in part, owing to a paucity of evidence from real-world decommissioning case studies. To address this significant challenge, we asked a worldwide panel of scientists to provide their expert opinion. They were asked to identify and characterise the ecosystem effects of artificial structures in the sea, their causes and consequences, and to identify which, if any, should be retained following decommissioning. Experts considered that most of the pressures driving ecological and societal effects from marine artificial structures (MAS) were of medium severity, occur frequently, and are dependent on spatial scale with local-scale effects of greater magnitude than regional effects. The duration of many effects following decommissioning were considered to be relatively short, in the order of days. Overall, environmental effects of structures were considered marginally undesirable, while societal effects marginally desirable. Experts therefore indicated that any decision to leave MAS in place at end-of-life to be more beneficial to society than the natural environment. However, some individual environmental effects were considered desirable and worthy of retention, especially in certain geographic locations, where structures can support improved trophic linkages, increases in tourism, habitat provision, and population size, and provide stability in population dynamics. The expert analysis consensus that the effects of MAS are both negative and positive for the environment and society, gives no strong support for policy change whether removal or retention is favoured until further empirical evidence is available to justify change to the status quo. The combination of desirable and undesirable effects associated with MAS present a significant challenge for policy- and decision-makers in their justification to implement decommissioning options. Decisions may need to be decided on a case-by-case basis accounting for the trade-off in costs and benefits at a local level

A Comparison of Fishes and Invertebrates Living in the Vicinity of Energized and Unenergized Submarine Power Cables and Natural Sea Floor off Southern California, USA

Increasing reliance on deep-water renewable energy has increased concerns about the effects of the electromagnetic fields (EMFs) generated by submarine power cables on aquatic organisms. Off southern California, we conducted surveys of marine organisms living around energized and unenergized submarine power cables and nearby sea floor during 2012–2014 at depths between 76 and 213 m. In general, EMFs declined to background levels about one meter from the cable. We found no statistical difference in species composition between the fish assemblages along the energized and unenergized cables. The natural habitat community statistically differed from both energized and unenergized cable communities. Within species (or species groups), we found no differences in densities between energized and unenergized cables. Total fish densities were significantly higher around the cables than over the natural habitat. We found that invertebrate communities were structured by habitat type and depth and, similar to the fishes, there was no statistical difference between the energized and unenergized cables. Individually, the densities of four invertebrate species or species groups (Metridium farcimen, Luidia spp., unidentified black Crinoidea, and Urticina spp.) differed between energized and unenergized cables, but this difference was not significant across all depth strata. The invertebrate community inhabiting the natural habitat strongly differed from the energized and unenergized cable community exhibiting the fewest species and individuals

Developing expert scientific consensus on the environmental and societal effects of marine artificial structures prior to decommissioning

Thousands of artificial (‘human-made’) structures are present in the marine environment, many at or approaching end-of-life and requiring urgent decisions regarding their decommissioning. No consensus has been reached on which decommissioning option(s) result in optimal environmental and societal outcomes, in part, owing to a paucity of evidence from real-world decommissioning case studies. To address this significant challenge, we asked a worldwide panel of scientists to provide their expert opinion. They were asked to identify and characterise the ecosystem effects of artificial structures in the sea, their causes and consequences, and to identify which, if any, should be retained following decommissioning. Experts considered that most of the pressures driving ecological and societal effects from marine artificial structures (MAS) were of medium severity, occur frequently, and are dependent on spatial scale with local-scale effects of greater magnitude than regional effects. The duration of many effects following decommissioning were considered to be relatively short, in the order of days. Overall, environmental effects of structures were considered marginally undesirable, while societal effects marginally desirable. Experts therefore indicated that any decision to leave MAS in place at end-of-life to be more beneficial to society than the natural environment. However, some individual environmental effects were considered desirable and worthy of retention, especially in certain geographic locations, where structures can support improved trophic linkages, increases in tourism, habitat provision, and population size, and provide stability in population dynamics. The expert analysis consensus that the effects of MAS are both negative and positive for the environment and society, gives no strong support for policy change whether removal or retention is favoured until further empirical evidence is available to justify change to the status quo. The combination of desirable and undesirable effects associated with MAS present a significant challenge for policy- and decision-makers in their justification to implement decommissioning options. Decisions may need to be decided on a case-by-case basis accounting for the trade-off in costs and benefits at a local level