Tier 2

Operation and maintenance

523. The operation of Seagreen 1 and Seagreen 1A Project will result in additional electrical cables in the Firth of Forth Banks Complex MPA alongside those which will be installed for the Proposed Development. As in previous sections the values for cable length cannot be separated as they are presented together as one project in the relevant MPA assessment (Marine Scotland, 2014b).

Table 1.57: Cumulative Length of Cable Within the Firth of Forth Banks Complex MPA for the Proposed Development and Other Tier 2 Projects Included in the Cumulative Assessment

524. Table 1.57   Open ▸ shows the cumulative length of cable within the Firth of Forth Banks Complex MPA which is directly linked to the potential area impacted by EMF. Seagreen 1 and Seagreen 1A Project are expected to install 346 km of cables within the Firth of Forth Banks Complex MPA, including a combination of inter-array and offshore export cables. It has been assumed that all of the cable associated with Seagreen 1 and Seagreen 1A Project will occur with Scalp and Wee Bankie (Seagreen 1 also overlaps with Montrose Bank but the MPA assessment (Marine Scotland, 2014b) does not provide a breakdown of the impact on each section of the MPA). This will result in the length of cable within this section of the MPA to increase to 473 km for the cumulative assessment in comparison with the 127 km associated with this section of the MPA in the Proposed Development alone assessment. No specific values are provided regarding the length of cable associated with the Seagreen 1A Export Cable Corridor which will be installed within the MPA.

Offshore subtidal sands and gravels

525. The cumulative length of cable within the Firth of Forth Banks Complex MPA is at least 66% higher than in the Proposed Development alone assessment, all of which will occur within the Scalp and Wee Bankie section of the MPA. As discussed in paragraphs 422 and 425 this is unlikely to change the effect of EMF on benthic invertebrates as current research shows they are unaffected by EMF, although this field is still developing. Therefore paragraphs 426, 427 and 428 provide the details of the assessment and the sensitivity of the offshore subtidal sands and gravels to this impact.
526. Based on the information presented here, it can be concluded that the cumulative impacts to benthic invertebrates from EMF during the Proposed Development operation and maintenance phase will not lead to a significant risk of hindering the achievement of the conservation objectives for the shelf banks and mounds feature of the Firth of Forth Banks Complex MPA (i.e. “maintain in favourable condition”) for the following reasons:

• The cumulative impact to benthic invertebrates is predicted to not affect the offshore subtidal sands and gravels feature during the operation and maintenance phase, such that the extent and distribution of the protected feature will remain stable; and
• The structures and functions, quality, and the composition of characteristic communities will remain in (or recover to) a condition which is healthy and not deteriorating. The key and influential species are not predicted to be affected by the EMF emitted by electrical cables based on current research. These communities will be supported by an undisturbed hydrodynamic regime which will continue to form the fine scale features of the MPA.

Ocean quahog aggregations

527. The cumulative length of cable within the Firth of Forth Banks Complex MPA is at least 66% higher than in the Proposed Development alone assessment based on the inclusion of Seagreen 1, Seagreen 1A Project and Seagreen 1A Export Cable Corridor. It has been assumed that all of the additional cable will occur within the Scalp and Wee Bankie section of the MPA. As discussed in paragraphs 422 and 425 this is unlikely to change the effect of EMF on benthic invertebrates as current research shows they are unaffected by EMF, although this field is still developing and has yet to evaluate in detail the impact of EMF on Molluscs such as ocean quahog. Therefore refer to paragraphs 433, 434 and 435 for details of the assessment and the sensitivity of ocean quahog aggregations to this impact.
528. Based on the information presented here, it can be concluded that the cumulative impact on benthic invertebrates from EMF during the Proposed Development operation and maintenance phase will not lead to a significant risk of hindering the achievement of the conservation objectives for the ocean quahog aggregations feature of the Firth of Forth Banks Complex MPA (i.e. “recover to favourable condition”) for the following reasons:

• Cumulative impacts on benthic invertebrates from EMF is predicted to not affect ocean quahog during the operation and maintenance phase, thus ensuring that the quality and quantity of ocean quahog habitat is maintained. No ocean quahog individuals will experience changes to physical processes as a result of this impact, and this impact will not affect the composition of its population in terms of number, age and sex ratio or its ability to thrive in the future.

Tier 3

Operation and maintenance

529. The operation of Cambois connection will result in additional electrical cables in the Firth of Forth Banks Complex MPA alongside those which will be installed for the Proposed Development.

Table 1.58: Cumulative Length of Cable Within the Firth of Forth Banks Complex MPA for the Proposed Development and Other Tier 3 Projects Included in the Cumulative Assessment

530. Table 1.59   Open ▸ shows the cumulative length of cable within the Firth of Forth Banks Complex MPA which is directly linked to the potential area impacted by EMF. Cambois connection is expected to install 252 km of cables within the Firth of Forth Banks Complex MPA. It has been assumed that all of the cable associated with Cambois connection will occur with the Berwick Bank section of the MPA.

Offshore subtidal sands and gravels and ocean quahog aggregations

531. The effects of EMF on benthic invertebrates are very similar to the project alone assessment and the cumulative assessment for the Tier 2 projects due to small additional area of the cable being added. The assessment and the sensitivity of the offshore subtidal sands and gravels feature to this impact is therefore as presented in paragraph 525. The assessment and the sensitivity of the ocean quahog aggregations feature to this impact therefore is presented in paragraph 527.
532. It is concluded that the increase in cable and therefore EMF associated with the Tier 3 projects will not lead to a significant risk of hindering the achievement of the conservation objectives (i.e. “recover to favourable condition”) for the offshore subtidal sands and gravels feature or the ocean quahog aggregations feature of the Firth of Forth Banks Complex MPA for the same reasons presented in paragraphs 526 and 528 respectively.

1.7.3.    Proposed Monitoring

533. No generic benthic subtidal and intertidal ecology monitoring is considered necessary. This has been concluded because of sufficient confidence in the assessment, with no significant long term effects identified. The Applicant is however committed to engaging with the SNCBs to identify suitable strategic benthic monitoring or research studies that the Project could contribute to, to improve the knowledge base for long term impacts associated with offshore wind farms. Proposed monitoring measures are outlined in Table 1.59   Open ▸ .

Table 1.59: Monitoring Commitments for Benthic Subtidal and Intertidal Ecology

1.8. Conclusion

1.8.1.    Stage One Assessment Conclusion

534. Based on the information presented in the preceding sections, it can be concluded that there is no significant risk of the Proposed Development hindering the achievement of the conservation objectives for the Firth of Forth banks Complex MPA, as set out in section 1.7.1 (in accordance with section 83 of the Marine (Scotland) Act 2010 and section 126 of the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009).
535. Furthermore, it can be concluded that there is no significant risk of the Proposed Development and the relevant cumulative projects hindering the achievement of the conservation objectives for the Firth of Forth Banks Complex MPA, as set out in section 1.7.2 (in accordance with section 83 of the Marine (Scotland) Act 2010 and section 126 of the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009).

1.9. Summary

536. This MPA Assessment has been produced to meet the need for the consideration of MPAs required for consent applications in UK waters. The public authority is required to consider whether the activities which are the subject of the application (e.g. marine licensable activities subject to a marine licence application) are capable of affecting (other than insignificantly) a protected feature in an MPA or any ecological or geomorphological process on which the conservation of any protected feature in a MPA is dependant. This MPA Assessment has been produced to provide MS-LOT with evidence on whether the potential impacts of the Proposed Development will give rise to a significant risk of hindering the conservation objectives of any MPA which may be screened in.

537. The screening phase of the MPA Assessment identified three potential MPAs for consideration: the Firth of Forth Banks Complex MPA, Turbot Bank MPA, and Southern Trench MPA. Following consultation with NatureScot and MS-LOT, the Turbot Bank MPA and Southern Trench MPA were subsequently screened out. The Firth of Forth Banks Complex MPA was the only MPA taken forward into the main assessment. Impacts that were concluded to have an effect of negligible significance on benthic ecology receptors (including protected features of the MPA) were also screened out and not taken through to the main assessment.
538. The Firth of Forth Banks Complex MPA is located off the east coast of Scotland and covers a total area of 2,130 km2. The MPA is composed of three distinct sections: Berwick Bank, Scalp and Wee Bankie and Montrose Bank, however the Proposed Development does not overlap with the Montrose Bank part of the MPA, and it was therefore not considered within the assessment. The Firth of Forth Banks Complex MPA is designated for four features, two of which are in favourable condition (shelf banks and mounds and moraines representative of the Wee Bankie key geodiversity area) and two which are in unfavourable condition (offshore subtidal sands and gravels and ocean quahog aggregations).
539. A number of potentially relevant impacts on the protected features of the Firth of Forth Banks Complex Banks MPA associated with the construction, operation and maintenance, and decommissioning phases of the Proposed Development, were identified and assessed in the main assessment against the conservation objectives for each feature. These included increased suspended sediment concentrations and associated deposition, temporary habitat disturbance, long term habitat loss, introduction and spread of invasive non-native species, colonisation of new habitat, and alteration of seabed habitat arising from the effects of physical processes. The values for temporary habitat disturbance, long term habitat and habitat creation for the Proposed development alone are summarised in Table 1.60   Open ▸ . Due to the limited extent of the effects on these large scale protected features and the localised, short term and reversible nature of the effects, together with the proposed designed in measures in place, none of the assessed impacts were predicted to lead to a significant risk of hindering the achievement of the conservation objectives (i.e. “maintain or recover to favourable condition”) for any protected features of the Firth of Forth Banks Complex MPA.
540. Within the cumulative effects assessment, none of the impacts were considered capable of resulting in a significant risk of hindering the achievement of the conservation objectives (i.e. “maintain or recover to favourable condition”) for any features of the Firth of Forth Banks Complex MPA.

541. The results of this assessment demonstrate that the Proposed Development will have minimal impact on the protected features of the Firth of Forth Banks Complex MPA. Additionally, the large scale of the protected features of the Firth of Forth Banks Complex MPA means that, the current planned efforts to minimise the impact on affected areas would be sufficient to uphold the conservation objectives of these protected features. As a result, Measures of Equivalent Environmental Benefit (MEEB) are not necessary.

Table 1.60:  Summary Table of Benthic Impacts from the Proposed Development on the Firth of Forth Banks Complex MPA.

1.10. References

ABPmer (2008). Atlas of UK Marine Renewable Energy Resources. Available at: http://www.renewables-atlas.info/. Accessed September 2021

APEM (2021) Beatrice Offshore Windfarm Post-construction Monitoring: Turbine Foundation Marine Ecology Survey Report

BBWL (2021a). Berwick Bank Wind Farm Habitat Regulation Appraisal; Stage 1 Screening Report

BBWL (2021b). Berwick Bank Wind Farm Offshore Scoping Report

Beatrice Offshore Windfarm Ltd (2021). Post-construction Sand eel Survey – Technical Report, Available at: Description of Services (marine.gov.scot), Accessed on: 10 February 2022

Bender, A., Langhamer, O., and Sundberg, J. (2020). Colonisation of wave power foundations by mobile mega- and macrofauna – a 12 year study. Marine Environmental Research,161.

BOWL (2021) Beatrice Offshore Wind Farm Post-Construction Sand eel Survey–Technical Report

Cook, E.J., Payne, R.D. and Macleod, A. (2014). Marine biosecurity planning – Identification of best practice: A review. Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 748. Available at: https://www.nature.scot/sites/default/files/2017-07/Publication%202014%20- %20SNH%20Commissioned%20Report%20748%20-%20Marine%20biosecurity%20planning%20- %20Identification%20of%20best%20practice%20-%20A%20review.pdf.

CSA Ocean Sciences Inc. and Exponent. (2019). Evaluation of Potential EMF Effects on Fish Species of Commercial or Recreational Fishing Importance in Southern New England. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management,49, 59

De Backer, A., Wyns, L., and Hostens, K. (2021). Continued Expansion of the Artificial Reef Effect in Soft-Sediment Epibenthos and Demersal Fish Assemblages in Two Established (10 YEARS) Belgian Offshore Wind Farms, Available at: winmon_report_2021_final.pdf (naturalsciences.be), Accessed on: 28 January 2022

Degraer, S., Carey, D., Coolen, J., Hutchison, Z., Kerckhof, F., Rumes, B., and Vanaverbeke, J. (2020). “Offshore Wind Farm Artificial Reefs Affect Ecosystem Structure and Functioning: A Synthesis.” Oceanography, 33(4), 48–57.

Desprez, M. (2000). Physical and biological impact of marine aggregate extraction along the French coast of the Eastern English Channel: Short-and long-term post-dredging restoration. ICES Journal of Marine Science 57(5):1428-1438.

FeAST (2013a). Continental shelf coarse sediments, Continental shelf mixed sediments, Continental shelf sands, Available at: Scottish Government - FEAST (scotland.gov.uk), Accessed on: 1 February 2022

FeAST (2013b). Sandbank, Available at: Scottish Government - FEAST (scotland.gov.uk), Accessed on: 1 February 2022

FeAST (2013c). Ocean quahog (aggregations), Available at: Scottish Government - FEAST (scotland.gov.uk), Accessed on: 1 February 2022

FeAST (2013d). Moraines, Available at: Scottish Government - FEAST (scotland.gov.uk), Accessed on: 1 February 2022

Foden, J., Rogers, S.I. and Jones, A.P. (2009). Recovery rates of UK seabed habitats after cessation of aggregate extraction. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 390:15–26

Folk, R.L. (1954). The distinction between grain size and mineral composition in sedimentary rock nomenclature. Journal of Geology 62 (4), 344-359.

Furness, R.W. (2015). Non-breeding season populations of seabirds in UK waters: Population sizes for Biologically Defined Minimum Population Scales (BDMPS). Natural England Commissioned Reports, Number 164

Gill, A. B., Gloyne-Phillips, I., Neal, K. J. and Kimber, J. A. (2005). The Potential Effects of Electromagnetic Fields Generated by Sub-Sea Power Cables Associated with Offshore Wind Farm Developments on Electrically and Magnetically Sensitive Marine Organisms – A Review. COWRIE 1.5 Electromagnetic Fields Review.

Gill, A.B., Huang, Y., Gloyne-Philips, I., Metcalfe, J., Quayle, V., Spencer, J. and Wearmouth, V. (2009). COWRIE 2.0 Electromagnetic Fields (EMF) Phase 2: EMF-Sensitive Fish Response to EM Emissions from Sub-Sea Electricity Cables of the Type used by the Offshore Renewable Energy Industry. COWRIE-EMF-1-06.

Gill, A. B. and Desender, M. (2020). State of the Science Report - Chapter 5: Risk to Animals from Electromagnetic Fields Emitted by Electric Cables and Marine Renewable Energy Devices.

Gubbay, S. (2007). Defining and managing Sabellaria spinulosa reefs: Report of an inter-agency 1-2 May, 2007. In JNCC Report No.405. Available online at: https://doi.org/10.1038/onc.2012.495.

Hervé,L. (2021). An evaluation of current practice and recommendations for environmental impact assessment of electromagnetic fields from offshore renewables on marine invertebrates and fish, A dissertation submitted the Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering, University of Strathclyde

Highways Agency (2020). Design Manual for Roads and Bridges. London, DFT

HR Wallingford (2012). Appendix E3 – Geomorphological Assessment. Seagreen Wind Energy. Available at: http://marine.gov.scot/datafiles/lot/SG_FoF_alpha-bravo/SG_Phase1_Offshore_Project_Consent_Application_Document%20(September%202012)/006%2 0ES/Volume%20III_Technical%20Appendices/Part%201_Technical%20Appendices/Appendix%20E3.pdf . Accessed June 2022.

Huang Y. (2005). Electromagnetic Simulations of 135-kV Three phase Submarine Power Cables. Centre for Marine and Coastal Studies, Ltd.

Hutchison Z., Bartley M., Degraer S., English P., Khan A., Livermore J., Rumes, B., and King J. (2020a). Offshore Wind Energy and Benthic Habitat Changes: Lessons from Block Island Wind Farm. Oceanography. Vol.33, pp. 58-69.

Hutchison, Z. L., Secor, D. H. and Gill, A. B. (2020b). The interaction between resource species and electromagnetic fields associated with electricity production by offshore wind farms. Oceanography, Special Issue.

IMO (2004). Implementing the Ballast Water Management Convention, Available at: Implementing the Ballast Water Management Convention (imo.org), Accessed on: 10 February 2022

Jakubowska, M., Urban-Malinga, B., Otremba, Z. and Andrulewicz, E. (2019). Effect of low frequency electromagnetic field on the behavior and bioenergetics of the polychaete Hediste diversicolor. Marine Environmental Research. 150. 104766.

Jenkins, C., Eggleton, J. Albrecht, J., Barry, J., Duncan, G., Golding, N. and O’Connor, J. (2015). North Norfolk Sandbanks and Saturn Reef cSAC/SCI management investigation report. JNCC/Cefas Partnership Report, No. 7.

JNCC (2014) Scottish MPA Project Assessment against the MPA Selection Guidelines. Firth of Forth Banks Complex Nature Conservation MPA. July 2014.

JNCC (2018a). Conservation Objectives for the Firth of Forth Banks Complex Nature Conservation MPA, Available at: FFBC-2-ConservationObjectives-v1.0.pdf, Accessed on: 26 January 2022

JNCC (2018b). Supplementary Advice on Conservation Objectives for Firth of Forth Banks Complex Nature Conservation MPA, Available at: FFBC-3-SACO-v1.0.pdf, Accessed on: 26 January 2022

JNCC (2018c). Advice on Operations, Available at: Firth of Forth Banks Complex MPA – Conservation Advice | JNCC Resource Hub, Accessed on: 26 January 2022

JNCC (2020). Statements on Conservation Benefits, Condition & Conservation Measures for Firth of Forth Banks Complex Nature Conservation MPA, Available at: FFBC-4-ConservationStatements-v1.0.pdfx, Accessed on: 26 January 2022

Klein, R. and Witbaard, R., (1993). The appearance of scars on the shell of Arctica islandica L. (Mollusca, Bivalvia) and their relation to bottom trawl fishery, Unpublished, Nederlands Instituut voor Onderzoek der Zee.

Krone, R., Gutow, L., Joschko, T.J. and Schroder, A. (2013). Epifauna dynamics at an offshore foundation – Implications of future wind power farming in the North Sea. Marine Environmental Research, 85, 1-12

Laffoley, D.A., Connor, D.W., Tasker, M.L. and Bines, T. (2000). Nationally important seascapes, habitats and species. A recommended approach to their identification, conservation and protection, pp. 17. Peterborough: English Nature.

Langhamer, O., and Wilhelmsson, D. (2009). Colonisation of fish and crabs of wave energy foundations and the effects of manufactured holes – A field experiment. Marine Environmental Research. 68. Pp. 151-157.

Lefaible, N., Braeckman, U., and Moens, T. (2019) Monitoring Impacts of Offshore Wind Farms on Hyperbenthos: A Feasibility Study., Available at: odnature.naturalsciences.be/downloads/mumm/windfarms/winmon_report_2019_final.pdf. Accessed on: 16 November 2021.

Long (2006). BGS detailed explanation of seabed sediment modified Folk classification. Available from: https://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20101014090013/http://www.searchmesh.net/PDF/GMHM3_Detailed_explanation_of_seabed_sediment_classification.pdf.

Marine Scotland (2022) Scoping Opinion. Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm. 4 February 2022.

Marine Scotland (2021) Marine Licence Decision Notice - Cover Letter – Marine Licence to Construct, Alter, or Improve Works in the Scottish Marine Area and the UK Marine Licensing Area for the Seagreen 1A Offshore Transmission Infrastructure Associated with the Seagreen Alpha and Bravo Offshore Wind Farms. Available at: MS-00009291+-+Seagreen+1A+-+Decision+Notice.pdf (squarespace.com), Accessed on: 10 March 2021

Marine Scotland (2013). Feature Activity Sensitivity Tool, Available at: Home Page (scotland.gov.uk), Accessed on 26 January 2022

Marine Scotland (2014a). Nature Conservation Marine Protected Areas: Draft Management Handbook, Available at: https://www.gov.scot/resource/0042/00428637.pdf (webarchive.org.uk), Accessed on: 28 January 2022

Marine Scotland (2014b). Marine Scotland’s Consideration of a Proposal Affecting a Nature Conservation Marine Protected Area (“NC MPA”) Feature, Available at: mpa_assessment.pdf (marine.gov.scot), Accessed on: 7 February 2022

MarLIN (2020). Icelandic cyprine (Arctica islandica). Available online at https://www.marlin.ac.uk/species/detail/1519.

Mavraki, N., Degraer, S., Moens, T., and Vanaverbeke, J. (2020). Functional differences in trophic structure of offshore wind farm communities: A stable isotope study, Marine Environmental Research, 157

Normandeau Associates (2011). Effects of EMFs from Undersea Power Cables on Elasmobranchs and Other Marine Species. Available at: 5115.pdf (boem.gov), Accessed on: 07 January 2022.

OSPAR (2008). OSPAR List of Threatened and/or Declining Species and Habitats. OSPAR Convention For The Protection Of The Marine Environment Of The North-East Atlantic, Available at: http://www.jncc.gov.uk/pdf/08-06e_OSPAR%20List%20species%20and%20habitats.pdf

Newell, R.C., Seiderer, L.J. and Hitchcock, D.R. (1998). The impact of dredging works in coastal waters: a review of the sensitivity to disturbance and subsequent recovery of biological resources in the sea bed. Oceanography and Marine Biology: Annual Review, 36, 127-178.

Newell, R.C., Seiderer, L.J., Simpson, N.M. and Robinson, J.E. (2004). Impacts of marine aggregate dredging on benthic macrofauna off the South Coast of the United Kingdom. Journal of Coastal Research, 20, 115-125.

Norling, P. and Kautsky, N. (2007). Structural and functional effects of Mytilus edulis on diversity of associated species and ecosystem functioning. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 351, 163-175.

Powilleit, M., Kleine, J. and Leuchs, H. (2006). Impacts of experimental dredged material disposal on a shallow, sublittoral macrofauna community in Mecklenburg Bay (western Baltic Sea). Marine Pollution Bulletin, 52 (4), 386-396.

Powilleit, M., Graf, G., Kleine, J., Riethmuller, R., Stockmann, K., Wetzel, M.A. and Koop, J.H.E. (2009). Experiments on the survival of six brackish macro-invertebrates from the Baltic Sea after dredged spoil coverage and its implications for the field. Journal of Marine Systems, 75 (3-4), 441-451.

Ragnarsson, S., Thorarinsdóttir, G., and Gunnarsson, K. (2015). Short and long-term effects of hydraulic dredging on benthic communities and ocean quahog (Arctica islandica) populations. Marine Environmental Research. 109.

RPS (2019). Review of Cable installation, protection, migration and habitat recoverability, The Crown Estate.

Schöne, B.R. (2013). Arctica islandica (Bivalvia): A unique paleoenvironmental archive of the northern North Atlantic Ocean. Global and Planetary Change, 111: 199-225.

Seagreen Wind Energy Ltd. (2021). Seagreen 1A Export Cable Corridor Environmental Impact Assessment Report, Available at: EIA_Report-Volume_1-Main_Text.pdf (marine.gov.scot), Accessed on: 9 February 2022

SSER (2021a). Berwick Bank Wind Farm Offshore Scoping Report. Available at: BERWICK BANK WIND FARM Offshore Scoping Report - Introduction (berwickbank-eia.com), Accessed on: 28 July 2022

SSER (2021b). Berwick Bank Habitats Regulations Appraisal (HRA) Offshore Screening Report. Accessed on: 28 October 2021.

SSER (2022a). Berwick Bank Wind Farm Onshore EIA Report.

SSER (2022e). Cambois connection Scoping Report.

Stenberg, C., Deurs, M. V., Støttrup, J., Mosegaard, H., Grome, T., Dinesen, G. E., Christensen, A., Jensen, H., Kaspersen, M., Berg, C. W., Leonhard, S. B., Skov, H., Pedersen, J., Hvidt, C. B., Klaustrup, M., Leonhard, S. B. (Ed.), Stenberg, C. (Ed.), and Støttrup, J. (Ed.) (2011). Effect of the Horns Rev 1 Offshore Wind Farm on Fish Communities, Follow-up Seven Years after Construction. DTU Aqua, DTU Aqua Report No. 246.

Steullet, P., D. H. Edwards, and Derby, C.D. (2007). An electric sense in crayfish? Biological Bulletin, Vol.213, pp.16-20.

Strahl, J., Brey, T., Philipp, E.E.R., Thorarinsdottir, G., Fischer, N., Wessels, W. and Abele, D., (2011). Physiological responses to self-induced burrowing and metabolic rate depression in the ocean quahog Arctica islandica. Journal of Experimental Biology, 214 (24), 4223-4233.

Tasker M. L., Mats A., Michel A., Hawkins T., Lang W., Merck T., Scholik-Schlomer A., Teilmann, J., Thomsen F., Werner S. and Manell Z. (2010). Marine Strategy Framework Directive - Task Group 11 Report - Underwater noise and other forms of energy

Thorarinsdottir, G.G. and Jacobson, L.D. (2005). Fishery biology and biological reference points for management of ocean quahogs (Arctica islandica) off Iceland. Fisheries Research (Amsterdam), 75 (1-3), 97-106.

Thorarindsottir G.G., Gunnarsson K. and Bogason E. (2009). Mass mortality of ocean quahog, Arctica islandica, on hard substratum in Lonafjordur, north-eastern Iceland after a storm. Marine Biodiversity Records, 2

Thorarinsdottir, G.G., Jacobson, L., Ragnarsson, S.A., Garcia, E.G. and Gunnarsson, K. (2010). Capture efficiency and size selectivity of hydraulic clam dredges used in fishing for ocean quahogs (Arctica islandica): simultaneous estimation in the SELECT model. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 67 (2), 345-354.

Tillin, H.M., Hiddink, J.G., Jennings, S. and Kaiser, M.J., (2006). Chronic bottom trawling alters the functional composition of benthic invertebrate communities on a sea-basin scale. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 318, 31-45.

Tillin, H.M. (2016a). Abra prismatica, Bathyporeia elegans and polychaetes in circalittoral fine sand. In Tyler-Walters H. Marine Life Information Network: Biology and Sensitivity Key Information Reviews. Plymouth: Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom. [cited 14-02-2022]. Available from: https://www.marlin.ac.uk/habitat/detail/1133, Accessed on: 1 February 2022

Tillin, H.M. (2016b). Echinocyamus pusillus, Ophelia borealis and Abra prismatica in circalittoral fine sand. In Tyler Walters H. and Hiscock K. Marine Life Information Network: Biology and Sensitivity Key Information Reviews, Plymouth: Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom. [cited 14-02-2022]. Available from: https://www.marlin.ac.uk/habitat/detail/1131, Accessed on: 1 February 2022

Tyler-Walters H. and Sabatini M. (2017). Arctica islandica Icelandic cyprine. Cited In: Tyler-Walters H. and Hiscock K. (2006). Marine Life Information Network: Biology and Sensitivity Key Information Reviews. Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom, Plymouth.

van Deurs, M. Grome, T. M. Kaspersen, M. Jensen, H. Stenberg, C. Sørensen, T. K. Støttrup, J. Warnar, T., and Mosegaar, H. (2012). Short and Long Term Effects of an Offshore Wind Farm on Three Species of Sand eel and their Sand Habitat. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 458: 169-180.

Vattenfall Wind Power Ltd. (2018) Thanet O&M Marine Licence: Supporting Environmental Information

Woodward, I, Thaxter, C.B., Owen, E. and Cook, A.S.C.P. (2019). Desk-based revision of seabird foraging ranges used for HRA screening. BTO Research Report No. 724. The British Trust for Ornithology, The Nunnery, Thetford, Norfolk IP24 2PU.

Annex A – Determining the Maximum Design Scenario for wIND Turbine and OSP/Offshore Convertor Station Platform Foundation Long Term Habitat Loss

542. Table 2.0.1   Open ▸ to Table 2.0.4   Open ▸ show the different wind turbine and OSP/Offshore convertor station platform foundations which were considered for the Proposed Development for each foundation type. The amber coloured cells indicate the worst-case scenario for a specific foundation type and red coloured cells indicate the worst-case scenario overall (this is the scenario which has been used in this assessment).

Table 2.0.1: Maximum Design Scenario for Wind Turbine Piled Jacket Foundations

Table 2.0.2: Maximum Design Scenario for Wind Turbine Suction Caisson Jacket Foundations

1This value does not exactly match the result for the calculation ((1,257+10,984)*179) due to rounding which has occurred when the footprints were calculated.

Table 2.0.3: Maximum Design Scenario for OSP/Offshore Convertor Station Platform Piled Jacket Foundations

Table 2.0.4: Maximum Design Scenario for OSP/Offshore Convertor Station Platform Suction Caisson Jacket Foundations

Annex B – Full MPA Impact Calculations

Table 3.0.1: Full Calculations for Temporary Habitat Disturbance, Long Term Habitat Loss, Habitat Creation and Permanent Habitat Alteration in all Relevant Phases

1For the purposes of replicating the calculations in this table, 31.33% is calculated as 316.5 km2/1010.2 km2 (i.e. overlap between Proposed Development array area / total Proposed Development array area).

2 For the purposes of replicating the calculations in this table, 13.08% is calculated as 114.08 km/872 km (i.e. proportion of total length of offshore export cables that could occur within the part of the Proposed Development export cable corridor that overlaps with the MPA).

[1] These national sites have different names in the devolved nations of the UK. In Scotland they are MPAs and in England, Wales and Northern Ireland similar protected areas in the marine environment are referred to as Marine Conservation Zones (MCZs).

[3] Consent is not sought in this Application for SPEN Grid Substation and overhead connections.

[4] The maximum design envelope defines the maximum range of design parameters. For the EIA, the Applicant has discerned the maximum impacts that could occur within the range of the design parameters for given receptor groups - referred to as the “maximum design scenario”

[5] based upon 179 x 4 legged jacket foundations required for the largest proposed wind turbines 

[6] based upon 179 x 4 legged jacket foundations required for the largest proposed wind turbines 

[7] Maximum anchor footprint for the wind farm is calculated using the anchor footprint times the number of anchor drops likely to be required across the while wind farm.

[8] Note: up to two pins may be required for the larger wind turbine specifications (e.g. 24 MW). In the event these wind turbines are selected, fewer would be required. Accordingly, this calculation accounts for up to 179 larger specification wind turbines (requiring a maximum of two pins per leg).

[9] Calculated as 30.81% of the 24.70 km2 total (see paragraph 188.

[10] Calculated as 69.19% of the 24.70 km2 total (see paragraph 188).