1.10. References
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., 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.
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
Annex A – Determining the Maximum Design Scenario for wIND Turbine and OSP/Offshore Convertor Station Platform Foundation Long Term Habitat Loss
- 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 2.0.4: Maximum Design Scenario for OSP/Offshore Convertor Station Platform Suction Caisson Jacket Foundations
Annex B – Full MPA Impact Calculations
Annex B – Full MPA Impact Calculations
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).