Tier 3

Construction, operation and maintenance and decommissioning phases

Magnitude of impact

Subtidal Habitat IEFs

  1. The Tier 3 projects which have been identified in the CEA with the potential to result in cumulative increased risk of introduction and spread of INNS with the Proposed Development is the Cambois connection.
  2. The Cambois connection has the potential to create 306,000 m2 of new hard habitat associated with rock/mattress cable protection which represents protection covering 15% the total length the four offshore export cables, therefore it is likely that only a proportion of the cable protection will occupy the benthic subtidal and intertidal ecology CEA study area, or potentially none of it. The cable protection represents a change in seabed type, the effects of which are described in paragraphs 319 to 323, however as the cable protection does not extend in to the water column the opportunity for colonisation by some species is reduced. The presence of the Tier 2 and 3 projects has the potential to lead to cumulative impacts arising from the colonisation of up to 17,819,271 m2 of hard structures (0.21% of the benthic subtidal and intertidal ecology CEA study area).
  3. The cumulative impact is predicted to be of local spatial extent, long term duration, continuous and high reversibility. It is predicted that the impact will affect the receptor directly. The magnitude is therefore, considered to be low.

Firth of Forth Banks Complex MPA

  1. In addition to the cumulative hard structures resulting from Tier 2 projects, namely Seagreen 1 and Seagreen 1A Project, within the FFBC MPA, Cambois connection also overlaps with the FFBC MPA. For Cambois connection it is assumed that cable protection will be 3 m wide and may cover up to 15% of the four 170 km offshore export cables, however only 252 km of cable will be within the FFBC MPA, resulting in a maximum of up to 113,400 m2 of habitat creation associated with cable protection for this project within the FFBC MPA. This represents 0.0053% of the total area of the MPA or 0.02% of the total area of Berwick Bank. Not all cable protection, however, will be installed in the MPA and there is the possibility that no cable protection would be required in the MPA as the locations are not yet known. This results in up to 3,861,531 m2 of cumulative area of hard structure which could be available for colonisation, from Seagreen 1, Seagreen 1A Project, Cambois connection and the Proposed Development, within the FFBC MPA, which equates to 0.18% of the total area of the MPA.
  2. The cumulative impact is predicted to be of local spatial extent, long term duration, continuous and low reversibility during the lifetime of the Proposed Development. It is predicted that the impact will affect the receptor directly. The magnitude is therefore, considered to be low.

Sensitivity of receptor

Subtidal Habitat IEFs

  1. The sensitivity of the IEFs are as detailed in paragraphs 372 to 382, as well as Table 8.27   Open ▸ .
  2. The subtidal sand and muddy sand sediments IEF, and the subtidal coarse and mixed sediments IEF are deemed to be of high vulnerability, low recoverability, and regional value. The sensitivity of all the IEFs is therefore, considered to be high.
  3. The moderate energy subtidal rock IEF is deemed to be of high vulnerability, low recoverability, and national value. The sensitivity of all the IEFs is therefore, considered to be high.
  4. The Sabellaria reef outside of an SAC IEF is deemed to be of low vulnerability, high recoverability, and national value. The sensitivity of the IEF is therefore, considered to be low.
  5. The seapens and burrowing megafauna IEF, the cobble/stony reef outside of an SAC IEF, and the rocky reef outside an SAC IEF do not have enough evidence in MarESA or FeAST to determine their sensitivity to INNS. A precautionary approach therefore assumes that they are deemed to be of high vulnerability, low recoverability, and national value. The sensitivity of the IEFs is therefore, considered to be high.
  6. Although there is an impact on PMF(s) this will not create significant impact on the national status of these features. This can be justified as the potential area if impact based on the designed in measures to reduce the potential introduction of INNS coupled with the very small amount of relevant INNS in the region, as well as the suitability of these habitats to the INNS in the area means the impact is unlikely to change the national status of these PMF(s).

Firth of Forth Banks Complex MPA

  1. The sensitivity of the IEFs within the FFBC MPA are as detailed in paragraphs 383 to 386, as well as Table 8.28   Open ▸ .
  2. The subtidal sands and gravels IEF and the shelf banks and mounds IEF are deemed to be of high vulnerability, low recoverability, and national value. The sensitivity of the IEFs is therefore, considered to be high.
  3. Ocean quahog were not assessed by either MarESA or FeAST so their sensitivity to INNS is unknown. They are however slow to reach sexual maturity, taking between 5 and 11 years depending on growth rate (Thorarinsdóttir, 1999), which could lead to a high sensitivity to INNS which are often characterised by their ability to spread quickly, ocean quahog may struggle to compete as a result. A precautionary approach therefore assumes that they are deemed to be of high vulnerability, low recoverability, and national value. The sensitivity of the IEF is therefore, considered to be high.

Significance of effect

Subtidal Habitat IEFs

  1. Overall, the magnitude of the cumulative impact is deemed to be low, and the sensitivity of the subtidal habitat receptors (subtidal sand and muddy sand sediments IEF, the subtidal coarse and mixed sediments IEF and moderate energy subtidal rock IEF) is considered to be high. The cumulative impact will, therefore, be of minor adverse significance, which is not significant in EIA terms, because of limited ability of most invasive species to colonise the majority of these IEFs, where invasive species may be introduced measures put in place make the overall risk low and there is already high vessel traffic in this area.
  2. Overall, for the Sabellaria reef outside of an SAC IEF, the magnitude is deemed to be low and the sensitivity of the receptor is considered to be low. The effect will, therefore, be of minor adverse significance, which is not significant in EIA terms, because of the ability of this IEF to continue to thrive alongside other encrusting species.

Firth of Forth Banks Complex MPA

  1. Overall, the magnitude of the cumulative impact is deemed to be low, and the sensitivity of all receptors (subtidal sands and gravels, shelf banks and mounds, and ocean quahog) is considered to be high. The cumulative impact will, therefore, be of minor adverse significance, which is not significant in EIA terms, because of limited ability of most invasive species to colonise the majority of these IEFs as soft sediment habitats.

Further mitigation and residual effect

  1. No benthic subtidal and intertidal ecology mitigation is considered necessary for the impact of the increased risk of introduction and spread of INNS during the construction phase because the predicted effects in the absence of further mitigation (beyond the designed in measures outlined in section 8.10), are not significant in EIA terms.

Alteration of seabed habitats arising from effects of physical processes

Tier 2

Construction phase
  1. Assessment of the Proposed Development was carried out with and without the presence of infrastructure. It can be inferred that during the construction phase there will be gradual changes to tidal currents, wave climate, littoral currents and sediment transport as infrastructure is built. With changes occurring from the baseline environment (no presence of infrastructure) to the operation and maintenance phase (maximum design scenario). This would also be the case for the offshore wind farm developments under construction during this period (i.e. Inch Cape and Seagreen 1A Project). Although, as previously noted, construction of subsea elements such as foundations and cable installation will be largely completed prior to commencing the construction phase of the Proposed Development.
Operation and maintenance phase

Magnitude of impact

Subtidal Habitat IEFs

  1. The introduction of wind farm infrastructure into areas of predominantly soft sediments has the potential to alter the seabed through changes in the physical processes. This impact is only relevant to the operation and maintenance phase. The presence of offshore infrastructure associated with the cumulative projects outlined in Table 8.34   Open ▸ may lead to cumulative alteration of seabed habitat arising from effects of physical processes. Table 8.34   Open ▸ shows all projects/plans/activities considered in the Tier 2 assessment which are Inch Cape Offshore Wind Farm, Neart na Gaoithe Offshore Wind Farm, Seagreen 1, Seagreen 1A Project and the Seagreen 1A Export Cable Corridor.
  2. The magnitude of increased infrastructure leading to changes in the hydrodynamic environment and sediment transport during the operation and maintenance phase, has been assessed as low for the Proposed Development alone, in section 8.11.
  3. The Neart na Gaoithe Offshore Wind Farm Environmental Statement (Mainstream Renewable Power Ltd, 2012) included a comprehensive numerical modelling study which incorporated modelling of the cumulative impacts of the offshore wind farms within the CEA study area for the Proposed Development (Intertek METOC, 2011).
  4. The modelling and assessment for Neart na Gaoithe included Neart na Gaoithe, Inch Cape, Seagreen 1, and the Seagreen 1A Project in addition to the Proposed Development which is referred to in the documentation as Seagreen Phase 2 and Phase 3. Within the modelling, the Proposed Development was modelled with 725 wind turbines each with an 8 m tower diameter relating to 6 MW devices. The Proposed Development however incorporates a maximum of 307 wind turbines which is significantly less than the scenario modelled and therefore the impacts would, in reality, be less than those reported. The impact of multiple developments on tidal currents was predicted by the study to be low and localised to the near field of each development.
  5. The Neart na Gaoithe study also showed that with all offshore wind farms in situ, the cumulative impact on the wave climate is low (<3% average significant wave height) but the effect on wave climate has a larger extent than a single offshore wind farm. The cumulative impact from the combined wind farm developments on sediment transport processes is low, resulting in a 1% to 3% exceedance in the typical critical bed shear stress. Changes are within the immediate vicinity of each of the developments and it is not expected that there would be changes to the far field sediment regimes.
  6. The cumulative impact is predicted to be of local spatial extent, long term duration, continuous and high reversibility. It is predicted that the impact will affect receptors indirectly. The magnitude is therefore, considered to be low.

Intertidal Habitat IEFs

  1. The operational activities associated with the cumulative project assessed for this impact are not close to the intertidal zone and instead may only result in minor changes in the offshore environment. As a result, the magnitude of this cumulative impact on the intertidal habitat IEFs is likely to be low.

Firth of Forth Banks Complex MPA

  1. The impact alteration of seabed habitat arising from effects of physical processes is consistent across the Proposed Development including the sections which overlap with the FFBC MPA, therefore for more detail see paragraphs 765 to 767.
  2. The cumulative impact is predicted to be of local spatial extent, long term duration, continuous and high reversibility. It is predicted that the impact will affect receptors indirectly. The magnitude is therefore, considered to be low.

Berwickshire and North Northumberland Coast SAC

  1. The impact alteration of seabed habitat arising from effects of physical processes is consistent across the Proposed Development, therefore for more detail see paragraphs 765 to 767, which also include information on where the effects extend beyond the boundary and may impact the Berwickshire and North Northumberland Coast SAC.
  2. Cumulative impact is predicted to be of local spatial extent, long term duration, continuous and high reversibility. It is predicted that the impact will affect receptors indirectly. The magnitude is therefore, considered to be low.

Sensitivity of the receptor

Subtidal Habitat IEFs

  1. The sensitivity of the IEFs are as detailed in paragraphs 433 to 440, as well as Table 8.29   Open ▸ .
  2. The subtidal sand and muddy sand sediments IEF, and the subtidal coarse and mixed sediments IEF are deemed to be not sensitive, and of regional value. The sensitivity of all the IEFs is therefore, considered to be negligible.
  3. The moderate energy subtidal rock IEF, the cobble/stony reef outside of an SAC IEF, the rocky reef outside an SAC IEF, and the Sabellaria reef outside of an SAC IEF are deemed to be not sensitive, and of national value. The sensitivity of all the IEFs is therefore, considered to be negligible.
  4. The seapens and burrowing megafauna IEF is deemed to be of high vulnerability, low recoverability, and of national value. The sensitivity of all the IEF is therefore, considered to be high.
  5. Although there is an impact on PMF(s) this will not create significant impact on the national status of these features.

Firth of Forth Banks Complex MPA

  1. The sensitivity of the IEFs are as detailed in paragraphs 441 to 444 as well as Table 8.30   Open ▸ .
  2. The subtidal sands and gravels IEF and the shelf banks and mounds IEF found within the FFBC MPA are deemed to be not sensitive and of national value. The sensitivity of all the IEFs is therefore, considered to be negligible.
  3. The ocean quahog IEF found within the FFBC MPA is deemed to be of low vulnerability and high recoverability to the scale of the predicted changes to physical processes, and of national value. The sensitivity of all the IEF is therefore, considered to be low.

Berwickshire and North Northumberland Coast SAC

  1. The sensitivity of the IEFs are as detailed in paragraphs 445 to 452, as well as Table 8.31   Open ▸ .
  2. The submerged or partially submerged sea caves IEF is deemed to be not sensitive and of international value. The sensitivity of the IEF is therefore, considered to be negligible.
  3. The mudflats and sandflats not covered by seawater at low tide IEF and the reefs (subtidal and intertidal rocky reef) IEF are deemed to be medium vulnerability and medium recoverability and international value. The sensitivity of the IEFs is therefore, considered to be medium.
  4. Large shallow inlets and bays (based on similar IEFS) are deemed to be of not sensitive and international value. The sensitivity of the IEF is therefore, considered to be negligible.

Significance of the effect

Subtidal Habitat IEFs

  1. Overall, for the seapens and burrowing megafauna IEF the magnitude of the cumulative impact is deemed to be low and the sensitivity of the receptor is considered to be high. The effect will, therefore, be of minor adverse significance, which is not significant in EIA terms, because of the small scale of the change as a result of the Proposed Development which is within the range of this IEF to adapt.
  2. Overall, for all other subtidal IEFs (subtidal sand and muddy sand sediments, subtidal coarse and mixed sediments) the magnitude of the cumulative impact is deemed to be low and the sensitivity of the receptors is considered to be negligible. The effect will, therefore, be of negligible adverse significance, which is not significant in EIA terms, because of the small scale of the change as a result of the Proposed Development which is within the range of this IEF to adapt.

Firth of Forth Banks Complex MPA

  1. Overall, for the subtidal sands and gravels IEF and the shelf banks and mounds IEF the magnitude of the cumulative impact is deemed to be low and the sensitivity of the receptor is considered to be negligible. The effect will, therefore, be of negligible adverse significance, which is not significant in EIA terms, because of the small scale of the change as a result of the Proposed Development and the dynamic nature of these IEFs.
  2. Overall, for the ocean quahog IEF the magnitude of the cumulative impact is deemed to be low and the sensitivity of the receptor is considered to be low. The effect will, therefore, be of negligible adverse significance, which is not significant in EIA terms, because of the small scale of the change as a result of the Proposed Development and the tolerance of ocean quahog to this range of tidal flows.

Berwickshire and North Northumberland Coast SAC

  1. Overall, for the mudflats and sandflats not covered by seawater at low tide IEF and the reefs (subtidal and intertidal rocky reef) IEF, the magnitude of the cumulative impact is deemed to be negligible, and the sensitivity of the receptor is considered to be medium. The effect will, therefore, be of minor adverse significance, which is not significant in EIA terms because of the small scale of the change as a result of the Proposed Development.
  2. Overall, for all the other IEFs in the Berwickshire and North Northumberland Coast SAC the magnitude of the cumulative impact is deemed to be negligible, and the sensitivity of the receptor is considered to be negligible. The effect will, therefore, be of negligible adverse significance, which is not significant in EIA terms.

Further mitigation and residual effect

  1. No benthic subtidal and intertidal ecology mitigation is considered necessary as a result of the alteration of seabed habitats may arise from the effects of changes to physical processes because the predicted impact in the absence of further mitigation (beyond the designed in measures outlined in section 8.10), is not significant in EIA terms.
Decommissioning phase

Magnitude of impact

Subtidal Habitat IEFs

  1. The offshore wind farm developments considered within the operation and maintenance phase of the Proposed Development have a similar lifespan and would therefore also be in the decommissioning phase with residual infrastructure remaining (such as colonised scour protection). Decommissioning activity from the multiple developments would have a negligible magnitude of impact on tidal currents, wave climate and sediment transport, the effects of which would not overlap with other developments as documented in the Neart na Gaoithe Environmental Statement (Mainstream Renewable Power Ltd, 2012).
  2. The cumulative impact is predicted to be of local spatial extent, long term duration, and highly reversibility. The magnitude of this impact is predicted to be low.

Firth of Forth Banks Complex MPA

  1. It is predicted that the impact will affect the receptor Firth of Forth Banks Complex MPA directly with a low magnitude.

Berwickshire and North Northumberland Coast SAC

  1. It is predicted that the impact will have a negligible impact on the intertidal zone as the structures which may cause any potential change to the hydrodynamic regime are offshore and unlikely to result in change to the hydrodynamic regime.

Sensitivity of the receptor

Subtidal Habitat IEFs

  1. The sensitivity of the IEFs are as detailed in paragraphs 433 to 440, as well as Table 8.29   Open ▸ .
  2. The subtidal sand and muddy sand sediments IEF, and the subtidal coarse and mixed sediments IEF are deemed to be not sensitive, and of regional value. The sensitivity of all the IEFs is therefore, considered to be negligible.
  3. The moderate energy subtidal rock IEF, the cobble/stony reef outside of an SAC IEF, the rocky reef outside an SAC IEF, and the Sabellaria reef outside of an SAC IEF are deemed to be not sensitive, and of national value. The sensitivity of all the IEFs is therefore, considered to be negligible.
  4. The seapens and burrowing megafauna IEF is deemed to be of high vulnerability, low recoverability, and of national value. The sensitivity of all the IEF is therefore, considered to be high.
  5. Although there is an impact on PMF(s) this will not create significant impact on the national status of these features.

Firth of Forth Banks Complex MPA

  1. The sensitivity of the IEFs are as detailed in paragraphs 441 to 444 as well as Table 8.30   Open ▸ .
  2. The subtidal sands and gravels IEF and the shelf banks and mounds IEF found within the FFBC MPA are deemed to be not sensitive and of national value. The sensitivity of all the IEFs is therefore, considered to be negligible.
  3. The ocean quahog IEF found within the FFBC MPA is deemed to be of low vulnerability and high recoverability to the scale of the predicted changes to physical processes, and of national value. The sensitivity of all the IEF is therefore, considered to be low.

Berwickshire and North Northumberland Coast SAC

  1. The sensitivity of the IEFs are as detailed in paragraphs 445 to 452, as well as Table 8.31   Open ▸ .
  2. The submerged or partially submerged sea caves IEF is deemed to be not sensitive and of international value. The sensitivity of the IEF is therefore, considered to be negligible.
  3. The mudflats and sandflats not covered by seawater at low tide IEF and the reefs (subtidal and intertidal rocky reef) IEF are deemed to be medium vulnerability and medium recoverability and international value. The sensitivity of the IEFs is therefore, considered to be medium.
  4. Large shallow inlets and bays (based on similar IEFs) are deemed to be of not sensitive and international value. The sensitivity of the IEF is therefore, considered to be negligible.

Significance of the effect

Subtidal Habitat IEFs

  1. Overall, for the seapens and burrowing megafauna IEF the magnitude of the cumulative impact is deemed to be low and the sensitivity of the receptor is considered to be high. The effect will, therefore, be of minor adverse significance, which is not significant in EIA terms because of the small scale of the change as a result of the Proposed Development which is within the range of this IEF to adapt.
  2. Overall, for all other subtidal IEFs the magnitude of the cumulative impact is deemed to be low and the sensitivity of the receptors is considered to be negligible. The effect will, therefore, be of negligible adverse significance, which is not significant in EIA terms, because of the small scale of the change as a result of the Proposed Development and their adaptable nature.

Firth of Forth Banks Complex MPA

  1. Overall, for the subtidal sands and gravels IEF and the shelf banks and mounds IEF the magnitude of the cumulative impact is deemed to be low and the sensitivity of the receptor is considered to be negligible. The effect will, therefore, be of negligible adverse significance, which is not significant in EIA terms, because of the small scale of the change as a result of the Proposed Development and the dynamic nature of these IEFs.
  2. Overall, for the ocean quahog IEF the magnitude of the cumulative impact is deemed to be low and the sensitivity of the receptor is considered to be low. The effect will, therefore, be of negligible adverse significance, which is not significant in EIA terms, because of the small scale of the change as a result of the Proposed Development and the tolerance of ocean quahog to this range of tidal flows.

Berwickshire and North Northumberland Coast SAC

  1. Overall, for the mudflats and sandflats not covered by seawater at low tide IEF and the reefs (subtidal and intertidal rocky reef) IEF, the magnitude of the cumulative impact is deemed to be negligible, and the sensitivity of the receptor is considered to be medium. The effect will, therefore, be of minor adverse significance, which is not significant in EIA terms, because of the small scale of the change as a result of the Proposed Development.
  2. Overall, for all the other IEFs in the Berwickshire and North Northumberland Coast SAC the magnitude of the cumulative impact is deemed to be negligible, and the sensitivity of the receptor is considered to be negligible. The effect will, therefore, be of negligible adverse significance, which is not significant in EIA terms.

Further mitigation and residual effect

  1. No benthic subtidal and intertidal ecology mitigation is considered necessary as a result of the alteration of seabed habitats may arise from the effects of changes to physical processes because the predicted impact in the absence of further mitigation (beyond the designed in measures outlined in section 8.10), is not significant in EIA terms.

Tier 3

Construction, operation and maintenance, and decommissioning phases

Magnitude of impact

Subtidal Habitat IEFs, Firth of Forth Banks Complex MPA and Berwickshire and North Northumberland Coast SAC

  1. The Eyemouth Pontoon is a floating structure sited within Gunsgreen basin purposed to support the Neart na Gaoithe Offshore Wind Farm and would therefore be decommissioned when no longer in use. Although the development lies within the benthic subtidal and intertidal CEA study area, due to the diminutive scale and location, no impacts were predicted from the installation, operation and decommissioning of the pontoon. The Eyemouth Pontoon would not contribute to impacts on receptors and therefore no further assessment is required.

8.12.4.              Proposed Monitoring

  1. Proposed monitoring measures for cumulative impacts are the same as outlined in Table 8.32   Open ▸ .

8.13. Transboundary Effects

  1. A screening of transboundary impacts (volume 3, appendix 6.6) has been carried out and has identified that there were no likely significant transboundary effects with regard to benthic subtidal and intertidal ecology from the Proposed Development upon the interests of other European Economic Area (EEA) States.

8.14. Inter-Related Effects (And Ecosystem Assessment)

  1. A description of the likely inter-related effects arising from the Proposed Development on benthic subtidal and intertidal ecology is provided in volume 3, appendix 20.1 of the Offshore EIA Report.
  2. For benthic subtidal and intertidal ecology, the following likely significant effects have been considered within the inter-related assessment:
  • temporary and long-term habitat loss/disturbance;
  • increased SSCs and associated sediment deposition;
  • impacts to benthic invertebrates due to EMF;
  • increased risk of introduction and spread of INNS; and
  • alteration of seabed habitats arising from effects of physical processes.
    1. Table 8.40   Open ▸ lists the inter-related effects (project lifetime effects) that are predicted to arise during the construction, operation, and maintenance phase, and decommissioning of the Proposed Development and also the inter-related effects (receptor-led effects) that are predicted to arise for benthic subtidal and intertidal ecology receptors.
    2. As noted above, effects on benthic subtidal and intertidal ecology also have the potential to have secondary effects on other receptors and these effects are fully considered in the topic specific chapters. These receptors and effects are:
  • fish and shellfish ecology

–           Temporary (during construction, operation and maintenance and decommissioning phases), long- term (during operation and maintenance phase only) and permanent habitat alteration (post-decommissioning) habitat loss resulting in indirect effects on fish ecology of negligible to moderate adverse significance (volume 2, chapter 9);

  • marine mammals

–           Changes in fish and shellfish communities affecting prey availability (during construction, operation and maintenance and decommissioning phases); and

  • ornithology

–           Changes in habitat or abundance and distribution of prey across all project phases resulting in indirect effects on ornithological receptors of negligible to minor significance (volume 2, chapter 11).

Table 8.40:
Summary of Likely Significant Inter-Related Effects on the Environment for Benthic Subtidal and Intertidal Ecology from Individual Effects Occurring across the Construction, Operation and Maintenance and Decommissioning Phases of the Proposed Development and from Multiple Effects Interacting Across all Phases (Receptor-led Effects)

Table 8.40: Summary of Likely Significant Inter-Related Effects on the Environment for Benthic Subtidal and Intertidal Ecology from Individual Effects Occurring across the Construction, Operation and Maintenance and Decommissioning Phases of the Proposed Development and from Multiple Effects Interacting Across all Phases (Receptor-led Effects)

 

8.15. Summary of Impacts, Mitigation Measures, Likely Significant Effects and Monitoring

  1. Information on benthic subtidal and intertidal ecology within the benthic subtidal and intertidal ecology study area was collected through a desktop study ( Table 8.6   Open ▸ ) and site-specific surveys ( Table 8.7   Open ▸ ). The sediments within the eastern parts of the Proposed Development array area were dominated by slightly gravelly sands with areas of gravelly sand in the north and south. The sediments within the western parts of the Proposed Development array area were typically slightly coarser and characterised by sandy gravel sediments in addition to slightly gravelly sand and gravelly sand. Within the Proposed Development export cable corridor, the sediments are characterised as slightly gravelly sand/gravelly sand sediments graded into muddy sand with patches of slightly gravelly muddy sand in the inshore and central sections. The benthic communities in the Proposed Development array area and Proposed Development export cable corridor were characterised by echinoderms (sea urchins and brittle stars), bivalves and polychaetes in both the Proposed Development array area and Proposed Development export cable corridor, both exhibiting similar diverse communities. The muddy sediments in the central section of the Proposed Development export cable corridor were characterised by communities of sea pens and burrowing megafauna. Additionally, both the Proposed Development Array area and Proposed Development export cable corridor overlap with the FFBC MPA which is designated for ocean quahog, offshore subtidal sand and gravels, shelf banks and mounds, moraines representative of the Wee Bankie Key Geodiversity Area.
  2. Table 8.41   Open ▸ presents a summary of the likely significant effects, mitigation measures and residual effects in respect to benthic subtidal and intertidal ecology. The impacts assessed include temporary habitat disturbance/loss, increased suspended concentrations and associated deposition, impacts to benthic invertebrates due to EMF, long term subtidal habitat loss, colonisation of hard structures, increased risk of introduction and spread of INNS, alteration of seabed habitat arising from effects of physical processes, and removal of hard substrate resulting in loss of colonising communities. Overall, it is concluded for temporary subtidal habitat loss/disturbance in the construction phase the overall impact would be of moderate adverse significance in the short term, which is significant in EIA terms, with this decreasing to minor adverse significance in the long term as the sediments and communities are predicted to recover. Therefore, minor effects are predicted in the long-term which are not significant in EIA terms. For all other impacts it is concluded there will be negligible to minor adverse significance effects arising from the Proposed Development during the construction, operation and maintenance and decommissioning phases. No direct impacts to benthic intertidal receptors, including features of the Barns Ness SSSI, are predicted as the Applicant is committed to using trenchless techniques (e.g. HDD) are used to cross the intertidal zone.
  3. Table 8.32   Open ▸ presents the monitoring commitments relevant to benthic subtidal and intertidal ecology. Monitoring includes a commitment to engaging with MSS, NatureScot and other relevant key stakeholders to identify and deliver proportionate measures for contributing to strategic monitoring to understand the impact of hard structure colonisation and change in community structure and local species diversity in the immediate vicinity of hard structures. Commitment to engaging in discussions with Marine Scotland Science and the SNCBs post consent to identify opportunities for contributing to proportionate and appropriate strategic monitoring of temporary habitat disturbance to sensitive features of the FFBC MPA features (e.g. ocean quahog).
  4. Table 8.42   Open ▸ presents a summary of the potential cumulative impacts, mitigation measures and the conclusion of likely significant effects on benthic subtidal and intertidal ecology in EIA terms. The cumulative effects assessed include temporary habitat disturbance/loss, increased suspended concentration and associated deposition, impact to benthic invertebrates due to EMFs, long term subtidal habitat loss, colonisation of hard structures, increased risk of introduction and spread of invasive and non-native species, alteration of seabed habitat arising from effects of physical processes, and removal of hard substrate resulting in loss of colonising communities. Overall, it is concluded for temporary subtidal habitat loss/disturbance in the construction phase the overall cumulative impact would be of moderate adverse significance in the short term, which is significant in EIA terms, with this decreasing to minor adverse significance in the long term as the sediments and communities are predicted to recover. Therefore, minor effects are predicted in the long-term which are not significant in EIA terms. For all other cumulative impacts it is concluded there will be negligible to minor adverse significance effects arising from the Proposed Development alongside other plans/projects.
  5. As noted in section 8.9.3, an assessment of the likely significant effects in EIA terms on the relevant features of sites that comprise part of the UK National Site Network or Natura 2000 network (i.e. European Sites) has been made in this chapter (in sections 8.11 and 8.12.3). The assessment of the potential impacts on the site itself are deferred to the RIAA (SSER, 2022c) for the Proposed Development. The RIAA concluded that no adverse effect on integrity was predicted to occur on any of the sites designated for Annex I habitats below MHWS, specifically:
  • Berwickshire and North Northumberland Coast SAC.
    1. A finding of no adverse effects on integrity in the RIAA is considered to equate to a conclusion of an effect which not significant in EIA terms.
    2. An assessment on the individual qualifying interest features of the FFBC MPA has also been undertaken in this chapter. The effect of temporary habitat disturbance will be of moderate adverse significance in the medium term because of the slower rate of recovery for this species in comparison with surrounding habitats (i.e. within approximately ten years of completion of construction activities based on time to sexual maturity 105), with this decreasing to minor adverse significance in the long term as the sediments and ocean quahog populations are predicted to recover. Therefore, minor effects in the long-term, which are not significant in EIA terms, are predicted for temporary habitat loss. The same significance conclusion was reached for the decommissioning phase. The assessment of all the other impacts in the project alone assessment also found that effects on the features of the FFBC MPA are not significant in EIA terms. In the cumulative assessment the ocean quahog, subtidal sands and gravel and shelf banks and mounds features were all expected to experience an impact of moderate adverse significance in the short term for temporary habitat disturbance (i.e. within two years of completion of construction activities), with this decreasing to minor adverse significance in the medium to long term as the sediments and communities are predicted to recover. Therefore, minor effects are predicted in the long-term which are not significant in EIA terms. The assessment of all the other impacts in the cumulative assessment also found that effects on the features of the FFBC MPA are not significant in EIA terms. A full assessment of the effects on the FFBC MPA has been presented in the MPA Assessment Report. The MPA Assessment Report concludes that there is no significant risk of the Proposed Development and the relevant cumulative projects hindering the achievement of the conservation objectives for the FFBC MPA.
    3. No potential likely significant transboundary effects have been identified in regard to effects of the Proposed Development.

 

Table 8.41:
Summary of Likely Significant Environmental Effects, Mitigation and Monitoring

Table 8.41: Summary of Likely Significant Environmental Effects, Mitigation and Monitoring


Table 8.42:
Summary of Likely Significant Cumulative Environment Effects, Mitigation and Monitoring

Table 8.42: Summary of Likely Significant Cumulative Environment Effects, Mitigation and Monitoring

8.16. References

APEM (2021). Seagreen 1 Drop Down Video Benthic Monitoring and Annex I Reef Survey.

Ashley, M. (2020). Nephtys cirrosa - dominated littoral fine sand. 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.

Axelsson, M., Dewey, S. and Allen, C. (2014). Analysis of seabed imagery from the 2011 survey of the Firth of Forth Banks Complex, the 2011 IBTS Q4 survey and additional deep-water sites from Marine Scotland Science surveys. JNCC Report No. 471.

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

Bergström, L., Kautsky, L., Malm, T., Rosenberg, R., Wahlberg, M. and Capetillo, N. (2014). Effects of offshore wind farms on marine wildlife - A generalized impact assessment. Environmental Research Letters, 9(3).

Beveridge, C., Cook, E.J., Brunner, L., MacLeod, A., Black, K. Brown, C. and Manson, F.J. (2011). Initial reponse to the invasive carpet sea squirt, Didemnum vexillum, in Scotland. Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 413.

Bioconsult (2006). Benthic communities at Horns Rev, before, during and after construction of Horns Rev offshore wind farm. Final annual report 2005.

Birchenough and Degraer (2020). Science in support of ecologically sound decommissioning strategies for offshore man-made structures: taking stock of current knowledge and considering future challenges, ICES Journal of Marine Science, 77(3), 1075-1078.

Bochert, R. and Michael L.Z. (2006). Effect of Electromagnetic Fields on Marine Organisms. Offshore Wind Energy, 25(7), 498-502.

Boulcott, P. and Howell, T.R.W., (2011). The impact of scallop dredging on rocky-reef substrata. Fisheries Research (Amsterdam), 110 (3), 415-420.

BOWind (2008). Barrow Offshore Wind Farm Post Construction Monitoring Report. First annual report.

CABI (2019). Invasive Species Compendium.

Cabré, A., Marinov, I. and Leung, S. (2015). Consistent global responses of marine ecosystems to future climate change across the IPCC AR5 earth system models, Clim. Dynam., 45, 1253–1280,

Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science (Cefas) (2016). Suspended Sediment Climatologies around the UK.

Cefas (2020). Offshore man-made structures: To remove or not to remove, Available at: https://www.cefas.co.uk/news/offshore-man-made-structures-to-remove-or-not-to-remove/, Accessed on: 18 August 2020.

CIEEM (2019). Guidelines for Ecological Impact Assessment in the UK and Ireland. Terrestrial, Freshwater, Coastal and Marine, Version 1.1 – Updated September 2019.

Clarke, K.R., Gorley, R.N., Somerfield, P.J. and Warwick, R.M. (2001). Change in Marine Communities: An Approach to Statistical Analysis and Interpretation. Second Edition, PRIMER-E, Plymouth.

Cole B. and Cloern J. (1987). An empirical model for estimating phytoplankton productivity in estuaries. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 36, 299– 305.

Connor, D.W., Allen, J.H., Golding, N., Howell, K.L., Lieberknecht, L.M., Northen, K.O. and Reker, J.B. (2004). The Marine Habitat Classification for Britain and Ireland. Version 04.05. Joint Nature Conservation Committee, Peterborough.

Coolen J.W.P. (2017). North Sea Reefs. Benthic biodiversity of artificial and rocky reefs in the southern North Sea. Unpublished PhD thesis, Wageningen University and Research.

Coolen, J.W.P., B. van der Weide, J. Cuperus, M. Blomberg, G.W.N.M. van Moorsel, M.A. Faasse, O.G. Bos, S. Degraer, and H.J. Lindeboom. (2020). Benthic biodiversity on old platforms, young wind farms and rocky reefs. ICES Journal of Marine Science 77(3), 1,250–1,265.

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.

d'Avack, E.A.S and Tyler-Walters, H. (2015). Fucus serratus and red seaweeds on moderately exposed lower eulittoral rock. 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.

De Backer, A., Buyse, J., Hostens, K. (2020). A decade of soft sediment epibenthos and fish monitoring at the Belgian offshore wind farm area. In: Degraer, S. et al. Environmental Impacts of offshore Wind Farms in the Belgian Part of the North Sea: Empirical Evidence inspiring Priority Monitoring. pp. 79-113

De-Bastos, E.S.R. (2016). Amphiura filiformis and Ennucula tenuis in circalittoral and offshore sandy mud. 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.

De-Bastos, E.S.R. and Hill, J. (2016). Amphiura filiformis, Kurtiella bidentata and Abra nitida in circalittoral sandy mud. 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.

De-Bastos, E.S.R. and Hill, J. (2016). Brittlestars on faunal and algal encrusted exposed to moderately wave-exposed circalittoral rock. Cited in: Tyler-Walters H. Marine Life Information Network: Biology and Sensitivity Key Information Reviews. Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom, Plymouth.

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.

De Mesel, I., F. Kerckhof, A. Norro, B. Rumes, and S. Degraer. (2015). Succession and seasonal dynamics of the epifauna community on offshore wind farm foundations and their role as steppingstones for non-indigenous species. Hydrobiologia 756(37), 37–50.

Department of Energy and Climate Change (2016) UK Offshore Energy Strategic Environmental Assessment. Available at: DECC OESEA3 ER (publishing.service.gov.uk), Accessed: March, 2022.

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

Dupont N. and Aksnes D.L. (2013). Centennial changes in water clarity of the Baltic Sea and the North Sea, Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science, 131, 282-289

EGS (2011). Lynn and Inner Dowsing Offshore Wind Farms Post-Construction Survey Works (2010) Phase 2 – Benthic Ecology Survey Centrica Contract No. CREL/C/400012, Final Report. p.184.

European Commission (2013). Interpretation manual of European Union habitats. EUR 28. Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/legislation/habitatsdirective/docs/Int_Manual_EU28. pdf. Accessed on: 1 August 2021.

Flindt, M.R., Pedersen, C.B., Amos, C.L., Levy, A., Bergamasco, A. and Friend, P., (2007). Transport, sloughing and settling rates of estuarine macrophytes: Mechanisms and ecological implications. Continental Shelf Research, 27 (8), 1096-1103.

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

GBNNSIP (2011). Red King Crab, Paralithodes camtschaticus. Factsheet. [online]. York, GB Nonnative Species Secretariat. Available from: http://www.nonnativespecies.org/factsheet/factsheet.cfm?speciesId=2533, Accessed on: 5 May 2016.

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.

Griffith, K., Mowat, S., Holt, R.H., Ramsay, K., Bishop, J.D., Lambert, G. and Jenkins, S.R. (2009). First records in Great Britain of the invasive colonial ascidian Didemnum vexillum Kott, 2002. Aquatic Invasions, 4 (4), 581-590.

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.

Harlin, M.M., and Lindbergh, J.M. (1977). Selection of substrata by seaweed: optimal surface relief. Marine Biology, 40, 33-40.

Heiser, S., Hall-Spencer, J.M. and Hiscock, K. (2014). Assessing the extent of establishment of Undaria pinnatifida in Plymouth Sound Special Area of Conservation, UK. Marine Biodiversity Records, 7, e93.

Hill, J.M., Tyler-Walters, H. and Garrard, S. L. (2020). Seapens and burrowing megafauna in circalittoral fine mud. 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.

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

Hiscock, K. (1983). Water movement. Cited in: Earll R., and Erwin D.G. (1983). Sublittoral ecology. The ecology of shallow sublittoral benthos. Oxford: Clarendon Press. P. 58-96.

Hiscock, K., Southward, A., Tittley, I., Jory, A. and Hawkins, S. (2001). The impact of climate change on subtidal and intertidal benthic species in Scotland. Scottish Natural Heritage

Holt, T.J., Jones, D.R., Hawkins, S.J. and Hartnoll, R.G., (1995). The sensitivity of marine communities to man induced change - a scoping report. Countryside Council for Wales, Bangor, Contract Science Report, no. 65.

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

Hughes, S.L., Hindson, J., Berx, B., Gallego, A. and Turrell, W.R. (2018). Scottish Ocean Climate Status Report 2016. Scottish Marine and Freshwater Science, 9(4), 167. Available at: https://data.marine.gov.scot/dataset/scottish-ocean-climate-status-report-2016, Accessed: March 2022

 

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

Hutchison, Z., LaFrance Bartley M., Degraer S., English P., Khan A., Livermore J., Rumes B. and John W. King (2021). Offshore Wind Energy and Benthic Habitat Changes: Lessons from Block Island Wind Farm. Oceanography, vol. 33, no. 4, 1 Dec. 2020, pp. 58–69, Accessed 10 January 2021.

Inch Cape Offshore Limited (2018). Offshore Environmental Statement: Chapter 12 Benthic Ecology. Available at: tethys.pnnl.gov/sites/default/files/publications/inch2011.pdf. Accessed on: 23 December 2021.

Irving, R. (2009). Identification of the Main Characteristics of Stony Reef Habitats under the Habitats Directive. Summary of an Inter-Agency Workshop 26-27 March 2008. Joint Nature Conservation Committee, JNCC Report No. 432, 28pp.

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.

Jasper, C. and Hill, J.M. (2015). [Laminaria digitata] on moderately exposed sublittoral fringe bedrock. 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

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). JNCC clarifications on the habitat definitions of two habitat Features of Conservation Importance.

JNCC (2018). 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

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.

Kröncke I. (1995). Long-term changes in North Sea benthos. Senckenberg Marit, 26, 73-80.

Kröncke I. (2011). Changes in Dogger Bank macrofauna communities in the 20th century caused by fishing and climate. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science, 94, 234-245.

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.

Langhamer, O. and Wilhelmsson, D. (2009). Colonisation of fish and crabs of wave energy foundations and the effects of manufactured holes - a field experiment. Mar Environ Res. 4, 151-7.

Laufkötter, C., Vogt, M., Gruber, N., Aita-Noguchi, M., Aumont,O., Bopp, L., Buitenhuis, E., Doney, S. C., Dunne, J., Hashioka,T., Hauck, J., Hirata, T., John, J., Le Quéré, C., Lima, I. D.,Nakano, H., Seferian, R., Totterdell, I., Vichi, M. and Völker,C. (2015). Drivers and uncertainties of future global marine primary production in marine ecosystem models, Biogeosciences, 12, 6955–6984.

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.

Lengkeek, W., Didderen, K., Teunis, M., Driessen, F., Coolen, J., Bos, O., Vergouwen, S., Raaijmakers, T., de Vries, M. and van Koningsveld, M., (2017). Eco-friendly design of scour protection: potential enhancement of ecological functioning in offshore wind farms. Towards an implementation guide and experimental set-up. Commissioned by: Ministry of Economic Affairs.

Lindeboom, H., Kouwenhoven, H., Bergman, M., Bouma, S., Brasseur, S., Daan, R., Fijn, R., de Haan, D., Dirksen, S., van Hal, R., Lambers, R., ter Hofstede, R., Krijgsveld, K., Leopold, M. and Scheidat, M. (2011). Short-Term Ecological Effects of an Offshore Wind Farm in the Dutch Coastal Zone: A Compilation. Environmental Research Letters, 6(3)

Long, D. (2006). BGS detailed explanation of seabed sediment modified Folk classification. Available at: http://www.emodnet-seabedhabitats.eu/PDF/GMHM3_Detailed_explanation_of_seabed_sediment_classification.pdf

Lyngby, J.E. and Mortensen, S.M. (1996). Effects of dredging activities on growth of Laminaria saccharina. Marine Ecology, Publicazioni della Stazione Zoologica di Napoli I, 17, 345-354.

Mainstream Renewable Power (2019). Neart Na Gaoithe Offshore Wind Farm Environmental Statement: Chapter 14 Benthic Ecology. Available at: marine.gov.scot/sites/default/files/chapter_14_-_benthic_ecology.pdf. Accessed on: 23 December 2021

Marine Climate Change Impacts Partnership (MCCIP) (2015) Marine climate change impacts: Implications for the implementation of marine biodiversity legislation. Available at: https://www.mccip.org.uk/sites/default/files/2021-07/mccip_special_topic_report_card_-2015.pdf, Accessed: March, 2015

Marine Scotland Science (2020). Non-Native Species | Scotland’s Marine Assessment. Available at: 2020.marine.gov.scot/sma/assessment/non-native-species. Accessed on: 9 November 2021.

MarLIN Marine Life Information Network (2011). The Marine Life Information Network. Available online from: http://www.marlin.ac.uk/.

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

McLusky, D.S., Anderson F.E. and Wolfe-Murphy S. (1983). Distribution and population recovery of Arenicola marina and other benthic fauna after bait digging. Marine Ecology Press, Vol 11, No2, p173-179

Mistakidis, M.N. (1956). Survey of the pink shrimp fishery in Morecambe Bay, Lancashire and Western Sea Fisheries Joint Committee

MS-LOT (2014). 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 

MS-LOT (2018). Marine Licence - Maintenance Dredging and Sea Disposal - Eyemouth Harbour - 06746. Available at: marine.gov.scot/ml/marine-licence-maintenance-dredging-and-sea-disposal-eyemouth-harbour-06746. Accessed on: 23 December 2021.

National Grid (2021a). Scotland to England Green Link (SEGL) ~ Eastern Link 1 Marine Scheme Scoping Report. March 2021.

National Grid (2021b). Scotland to England Green Link (SEGL) ~ Eastern Link 2 Marine Scheme Scoping Report. July 2021.

National Grid Electricity Transmission and Scottish Hydro Electric Transmission plc (2022) Eastern Green Link 2 - Marine Scheme Environmental Appraisal Report Volume 2: Chapter 8 - Benthic Ecology, Accessed on: 11 August 2022, Available at: Eastern Green Link 2 - Chapter 8: Benthic Ecology (marine.gov.scot)

National Grid Electricity Transmission and Scottish Power Transmission (2022) Scotland England Green Link 1 / Eastern Link 1 - Marine Scheme Environmental Appraisal Report Volume 2: Chapter 8 - Benthic Ecology, Accessed on: 11 August 2022, Available at: Microsoft Word - SEGL1_MS_EAR_Chapter 8 Benthic Ecology v4.0_FINAL2.docx (marine.gov.scot)

NatureScot (2021). Marine Non-Native Species. Available at: www.nature.scot/professional-advice/land-and-sea-management/managing-coasts-and-seas/marine-non-native-species. Accessed on: 08 November 2021

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.

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 (2009a). Background document for Intertidal mudflats. OSPAR Commission, Biodiversity Series, Available at: http://www.ospar.org/documents?v=7186, Accessed on: 07 January 2022.

OSPAR (2009b). Background Document for Modiolus beds. OSPAR Commission, Biodiversity Series, Available at: https://www.ospar.org/documents?v=7193. Accessed on: 31 March 2021.

Pearce, B., Taylor, J. and Seiderer, L.J. (2007). Recoverability of Sabellaria spinulosa Following Aggregate Extraction, Marine Ecological Surveys Limited.

Perry, F. and d'Avack, E. (2015). [Fucus vesiculosus] on full salinity moderately exposed to sheltered mid eulittoral rock. 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.

Perry, F., D'Avack, E.A.S. and Budd, G.C. (2015). [Fucus vesiculosus] on mid eulittoral mixed substrata. 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.

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.

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.

Scottish Government (2015). Scotland’s National Marine Plan.

Scottish Government (2020). Sectoral Marine Plan for Offshore Wind Energy.

Seagreen Wind Energy (2012a). Chapter 11: Benthic Ecology and Intertidal Ecology, Available at: chapter_11_-_benthic_ecology_and_intertidal_ecology.pdf (marine.gov.scot), Accessed on: 22 September 2022

Seagreen Wind Energy (2012b). Appendix G4 – Detailed Worst Case Scenario Tables. Available at: Table 1 ‘Worst-case’ scenario for Project Alpha assessment (includes Turbines, intra-array cables and ancillary structures and any activities to place maintain or remove these) (marine.gov.scot), Accessed on: 22 September 2022

Seagreen Wind Energy (2020). Offshore Transmission Asset Construction Method Statement, Available at: ota_construction_method_statement.pdf (marine.gov.scot), Accessed on: 22 September 2022

Seagreen Wind Energy (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 

Seagreen Wind Energy (2022). Seagreen S36C Application Environmental Appraisal Report, Available at:
A4 Report with Paragraph Numbering (marine.gov.scot), Accessed on: 9 February 2022 

SNH (2020). Berwickshire and North Northumberland Coast European Marine Site: English Nature’s and Scottish Natural Heritage’s advice given in compliance with Regulation 33 (2) and in support of the implementation of The Conservation (Natural Habitats &c.) Regulations 1994.

Spilmont, N., Denis, L., Artigas, L.F., Caloin, F., Courcot, L., Creach, A., Desroy, N., Gevaert, F., Hacquebart, P., Hubas, C., Janquin, M.-A., Lemoine, Y., Luczak, C., Migne, A., Rauch, M. and Davoult, D. (2009). Impact of the Phaeocystis globosa spring bloom on the intertidal benthic compartment in the eastern English Channel: A synthesis. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 58 (1), 55-63.

Staehr, P.A., Pedersen, M.F., Thomsen, M.S., Wernberg, T. and Krause-Jensen, D. (2000). Invasion of Sargassum muticum in Limfjorden (Denmark) and its possible impact on the indigenous macroalgal community. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 207, 79-88.

Stamp, T.E. (2016). [Caryophyllia (Caryophyllia) smithii], sponges and crustose communities on wave-exposed circalittoral rock 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.

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,

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.

Tillin, H.M. (2016). [Echinocyamus pusillus], [Ophelia borealis] and [Abra prismatica] in circalittoral fine sand. 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.

Tillin, H. and Tyler-Walters, H. (2014a). Assessing the sensitivity of subtidal sedimentary habitats to pressures associated with marine activities. Phase 1 Report: Rationale and proposed ecological groupings for Level 5 biotopes against which sensitivity assessments would be best undertaken. JNCC Report No. 512A, 68 pp. [View report] Available from http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/page-6790

Tillin, H. and Tyler-Walters, H. (2014b). Assessing the sensitivity of subtidal sedimentary habitats to pressures associated with marine activities. Phase 2 Report – Literature review and sensitivity assessments for ecological groups for circalittoral and offshore Level 5 biotopes. JNCC Report No. 512B, 260 pp. [View report] Available from: http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/PDF/Report 512-B_phase2_web.pdf

Tillin, H.M. and Budd, G. (2015). Ulva spp. on freshwater-influenced and/or unstable upper eulittoral rock. 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.

Tillin, H.M. and Tyler-Walters, H. (2015a). Corallina officinalis on exposed to moderately exposed lower eulittoral rock. 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.

Tillin, H.M. and Tyler-Walters, H. (2015b). Finalised list of definitions of pressures and benchmarks for sensitivity assessment. May 2015. [Internal report]

Tillin, H.M. and Budd, G. (2016). [Himanthalia elongata] and red seaweeds on exposed to moderately exposed lower eulittoral rock 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.

Tillin H.M. and Perry F. (2016). [Fucus serratus] and under-boulder fauna on exposed to moderately exposed lower eulittoral boulders 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.

Tillin H.M. and Riley K. (2016). [Rhodothamniella floridula] on sand-scoured lower eulittoral rock. 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.

Tillin H.M. and Stamp T. (2016). [Laminaria digitata] and under-boulder fauna on sublittoral fringe boulders. 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.

Tillin, H.M. and Budd, G. (2018). Coralline crusts and Corallina officinalis in shallow eulittoral rockpools. 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.

Tillin, H.M. and Garrard, S.M. (2019). Nephtys cirrosa and Bathyporeia spp. in infralittoral sand. In Tyler-Walters H. and Hiscock K. Marine Life Information Network: Biology and Sensitivity Key Information Reviews, [on-line]. Plymouth: Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom. [cited 16-02-2022]. Available from: https://www.marlin.ac.uk/habitat/detail/154

Tillin H.M., Marshall C., Gibb N. and Garrard, S. L. (2020). [Sabellaria spinulosa] on stable circalittoral mixed sediment. 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.

Thorarinsdottir, G.G. (1999). Lifespan of two long lived bivalves Arctica islandica and Panopea generosa. Phuket Marine Biological Center Special Publication, no. 9, pp. 41 -46.

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.

Tyler-Walters, H. (2001). Saltmarsh (pioneer). In Tyler-Walters H. and Hiscock K. (eds) Marine Life Information Network: Biology and Sensitivity Key Information Reviews, [on-line]. Plymouth: Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom. Available from: https://www.marlin.ac.uk/habitat/detail/25, Accessed: 22 September 2022

Tyler-Walters, H. (2016). Yellow and grey lichens on supralittoral rock. 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.

Tyler-Walters, H., James, B., Carruthers, M. (eds.), Wilding, C., Durkin, O., Lacey, C., Philpott, E., Adams, L., Chaniotis, P.D., Wilkes, P.T.V., Seeley, R., Neilly, M., Dargie, J. and Crawford-Avis, O.T. (2016). Descriptions of Scottish Priority Marine Features (PMFs). Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 406.

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.

Seagreen Wind Energy (2012). Appendix G4: Detailed Worst Case Scenarios for Benthic and Intertidal Ecology.Available at:marine.gov.scot/sites/default/files/appendix_g4.pdf. Accessed on: 23 December 2021

Shelley, R., Widdicombe, S., Woodward, M., Stevens, T., McNeill, C.L. and Kendall, M.A. (2008). An investigation of the impacts on biodiversity and ecosystem functioning of soft sediments by the non-native polychaete Sternaspis scutata (Polychaeta: Sternaspidae). Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 366, 146-150.

SSER (2021a). Berwick Bank Wind Farm Offshore Scoping Report.

SSER (2021b). Berwick Bank Wind Farm Offshore HRA Screening Report.

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

SSER (2022b).Berwick Bank Wind Farm Marine Protected Area Assessment.

SSER (2022c). Berwick Bank Wind Farm Report to Inform Appropriate Assessment.

SSER (2022e). Cambois connection Scoping Report

UK Government (2020). Low Order deflagration for UXO disposal for the commercial sphere. Available at: https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/11064/pdf/, Accessed on: 28 March 2022

Valentine, P.C., Carman, M.R., Blackwood, D.S. and Heffron, E.J. (2007). Ecological observations on the colonial ascidian Didemnum sp. in a New England tide pool habitat. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 342 (1), 109-121.

Van Duren L.A, Gittenberger, A., Smaal, A.C., van Koningsveld, M., Osinga, R., Cado van der Lelij, J.A., and de Vries, M.B. (2017). Rich Reefs in the North Sea: Exploring the possibilities of promoting the establishment of natural reefs and colonisation of artificial hard substrate. Report for the Ministry of Economic Affairs.

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

Widdows, J., Bayne, B.L., Livingstone, D.R., Newell, R.I.E. and Donkin, P. (1979). Physiological and biochemical responses of bivalve molluscs to exposure to air. Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology, 62A, 301-308.

XOCEAN Ltd (2021). 00338 SSE Berwick Bank Lot 1 and 2 Operations and Results Report. Unpublished report for SSER.

 

[1] Meeting on 26 April 2022 between MS-LOT, RPS and the Applicant

[2] SACFOR classification scale, S=Superabundant, A=Abundant, C=Common, F=Frequent, O=Occasional and R=Rare.

[3] The biotope within this IEF which was recorded withing the Benthic Subtidal and Intertidal Ecology Study Area was not present in the MarESA therefore SS.SSa.OSa.MalEdef biotope has been used as a proxy for sensitivity.

[4] The biotope within this IEF which was recorded withing the Benthic Subtidal and Intertidal Ecology Study Area was not present in the MarESA therefore SS.SSa.IMuSa.AreISa biotope has been used as a proxy for sensitivity.

[5] The biotope within this IEF which was recorded withing the Benthic Subtidal and Intertidal Ecology Study Area was not present in the MarESA therefore SS.SSa.CMuSa.AalbNuc biotope has been used as a proxy for sensitivity.

[6] The biotope within this IEF which was recorded withing the Benthic Subtidal and Intertidal Ecology Study Area was not present in the MarESA therefore CR.MCR.EcCr.CarSp biotope has been used as a proxy for sensitivity.

[7] The biotope within this IEF which was recorded withing the Benthic Subtidal and Intertidal Ecology Study Area was not present in the MarESA therefore CR.MCR.EcCr.CarSp and SS.SCS.CCS.SpiB biotopes have been used as a proxy for sensitivity.

 

[9] The biotope within this IEF which was recorded withing the Benthic Subtidal and Intertidal Ecology Study Area was not present in the MarESA therefore LS.LSa.MoSa.AmSco.Eur biotope has been used as a proxy for sensitivity.

[10] The biotope within this IEF which was recorded withing the Benthic Subtidal and Intertidal Ecology Study Area was not present in the MarESA therefore LS.LMu.MEst.HedLim biotope has been used as a proxy for sensitivity.

[11] The biotope within this IEF which was recorded withing the Benthic Subtidal and Intertidal Ecology Study Area was not present in the MarESA therefore LS.LMp.LSgr.Znol biotope has been used as a proxy for sensitivity.

[12] The biotope within this IEF which was recorded withing the Benthic Subtidal and Intertidal Ecology Study Area was not present in the MarESA therefore SS.SBR.SMus.MytSS biotope has been used as a proxy for sensitivity.

[13] The biotope within this IEF which was recorded withing the Benthic Subtidal and Intertidal Ecology Study Area was not present in the MarESA therefore SS.SSa.IMuSa.AreISa biotope has been used as a proxy for sensitivity.

 

[14] The biotope within this IEF which was recorded withing the Benthic Subtidal and Intertidal Ecology Study Area was not present in the MarESA therefore CR.HCR.XFa.SpAnVt biotope has been used as a proxy for sensitivity.

[15] The biotope within this IEF which was recorded withing the Benthic Subtidal and Intertidal Ecology Study Area was not present in the MarESA therefore IR.EIR.SG.SCAs.DenCla biotope has been used as a proxy for sensitivity.

[16] The biotope within this IEF which was recorded withing the Benthic Subtidal and Intertidal Ecology Study Area was not present in the MarESA therefore CR.HCR.XFa.ByErSp biotope has been used as a proxy for sensitivity.

[17] C = Construction, O = Operation and maintenance, D = Decommissioning

[18] C = Construction, O = Operation and maintenance, D = Decommissioning

[19] Council Directive 92/43/EEC on the Conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora) and Directive 2009/147/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 November 2009 on the conservation of wild birds.

[20] C = Construction, O = Operation and maintenance, D = Decommissioning

[21] Table 1 ‘Worst-case’ scenario for Project Alpha assessment (includes Turbines, intra-array cables and ancillary structures and any activities to place maintain or remove these) (marine.gov.scot)

[22] A4 Report with Paragraph Numbering (marine.gov.scot)

[23] ota_construction_method_statement.pdf (marine.gov.scot)