20. Inter-Related Effects
20.1. Introduction
20.1. Introduction
20.1.1. Overview
- This chapter of the Offshore Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Report presents the assessment of the likely significant effects (as per the “EIA Regulations”) on the environment of the Berwick Bank Wind Farm offshore infrastructure which is the subject of this application (hereafter referred to as “the Proposed Development”) in relation to inter-related effects. Specifically, this chapter considers the potential impacts of the Proposed Development seaward of Mean High Water Springs (MHWS) during the construction, operation and maintenance, and decommissioning phases.
- Likely significant effect is a term used in both the “EIA Regulations” and the Habitat Regulations. Reference to likely significant effect in this Offshore EIA Report refers to “likely significant effect” as used by the “EIA Regulations”. This Offshore EIA Report is accompanied by a Report to Inform Appropriate Assessment (RIAA) which uses the term as defined by the Habitats Regulations Appraisal (HRA) Regulations.
- The assessments presented within this chapter have drawn upon individual chapters relevant assessment of effects and conclusions and their associated appendices in this Offshore EIA Report including:
- volume 2, chapter 7: Physical Processes;
- volume 2, chapter 8: Benthic Subtidal and Intertidal Ecology;
- volume 2, chapter 9: Fish and Shellfish Ecology;
- volume 2, chapter 10: Marine Mammals;
- volume 2, chapter 11: Offshore and Intertidal Ornithology;
- volume 2, chapter 12: Commercial Fisheries;
- volume 2, chapter 13: Shipping and Navigation;
- volume 2, chapter 14: Aviation, Military and Communications;
- volume 2, chapter 15: Seascape, Landscape, Visual Resources;
- volume 2, chapter 16: Cultural Heritage;
- volume 2, chapter 17: Infrastructure and Other Users;
- volume 2, chapter 18: Offshore Socio-Economics and Tourism; and
- volume 2, chapter 19: Water Quality.
- This chapter is split into two parts. The first part contains a receptor based inter-related effects assessment (section 20.6), and the second part provides an ecosystem effects assessment (20.7). In addition to volume 2, chapters 7 to 19 listed above, the Ecosystem Effects Assessment draws upon volume 3, appendix 20.1.
20.1.2. Purpose of this Chapter
- The primary purpose of the Offshore EIA Report is outlined in volume 1, chapter 1. It is intended that the Offshore EIA Report will provide the Scottish Ministers, statutory and non-statutory stakeholders with sufficient information to determine the LSEs of the Proposed Development on the receiving environment.
- In particular, this Offshore EIA Report chapter presents:
- the receptor groups considered within the inter-related effects assessment;
- the potential for effects on receptor groups across the three key project phases (construction, operation and maintenance and decommissioning);
- the potential for multiple effects on a receptor group, as presented within the topic specific chapter, to interact to create inter-related effects; and
- the inter-related effects across different trophic levels of the ecosystem, from prey species to predators.
- This chapter follows the ecosystem based approach, which is defined as “a strategy for the integrated management of land, water and living resources that promotes conservation and sustainable use in an equitable way” (SCBD, 2012). The purpose of the ecosystem based approach is to assess how the LSEs associated with the Proposed Development may interact through the ecosystem, affecting the environment.
20.1.3. Study Area
- Due to the differing spatial extent of effects experienced by different offshore receptors, the study area for potential inter-related effects varies according to topic and receptor. The potential inter-related effects considered in this chapter are, therefore, also limited to the study areas defined in each of the topic specific chapters outlined in paragraph 3.
- As the largest study area relates to offshore ornithology, this is the maximum limit of the inter-related effects study area.
- As part of the consultation process, some topic chapters from those included in paragraph 3 have been excluded from further inter-related effects assessment. The rationale for this exclusion is presented in section 20.3 (see Table 20.1 Open ▸ ).
20.2. Policy and Legislative Context
20.2. Policy and Legislative Context
- The policy and legislative context for the Proposed Development is set out in volume 1, chapter 2 of the Offshore EIA Report.
- Of particular relevance, Article 3(1) of the EIA Directive requires that the interaction between the environmental (e.g. human health, biodiversity, land, soil, water, air and climate etc) is identified, described and assessed in an EIA report.
- Under the EIA Regulations, there is a requirement to consider inter-relationships between topics that may lead to environmental effects. Other than this, there is no policy relevant to inter-related effects in Scotland, thus this chapter has been compiled following advice from stakeholders as detailed in section 20.3 ( Table 20.1 Open ▸ ).
20.3. Consultation
20.3. Consultation
- A summary of the key issues raised during consultation activities undertaken to date specific to inter-related effects is presented in Table 20.1 Open ▸ . Topic chapters which are relevant to the ecosystem based approach include physical processes, benthic ecology, fish and shellfish, marine mammals and offshore ornithology.
- For each of these topics a Road Map process has been used as a tool to facilitate early and on-going engagement with stakeholders throughout the pre-application phase of the Proposed Development including on reaching points of agreement on scoping impacts out of the assessment, and/or agreeing the level of assessment which will be presented for impacts, so that the focus of the Offshore EIA Report is on likely significant environmental effects as defined by the EIA Regulations. The Road Map for these topics (up to date at the point of Application) are presented in volume 3 as follows:
- volume 3, appendix 8.2: Benthic Ecology, Fish and Shellfish Ecology and Physical Processes Road Map;
- volume 3, appendix 10.3: Marine Mammal Road Map; and
- volume 3, appendix 11.8: Offshore Ornithology Road Map.
- At the request of Marine Scotland Licensing Operations Team (MS-LOT)[1], an audit document (Audit Document for Post-Scoping Discussions (volume 3, appendix 5.1)) has been produced and submitted alongside the application to document discussions on key issues, post-receipt of the Berwick Bank Wind Farm Scoping Opinion (MS-LOT, 2022).
Table 20.1: Summary of Key Issues Raised During Consultation Activities Undertaken for the Proposed Development Relevant to Inter-Related Effects
20.4. Data Sources
20.4. Data Sources
- The baseline environments for the receptor groups considered in section 20.6 of this chapter are specific to each receptor group and are, therefore, set out in detail in the relevant topic specific chapters. For the purposes of the ecosystem effects assessment in section 20.7, a summary of the baseline informed by volume 2, chapters 7 to 11 and their respective technical reports is described to provide an overview of the ecosystem baseline conditions.
- This chapter draws on the conclusions made within the technical chapters for the assessment of impacts acting in isolation on the receptor groups. The relevant sections drawn upon in this inter‑related effects assessment are presented in the Offshore EIA Report in volume 2 chapters 7 to 19.
20.5. Assessment Methodology
20.5. Assessment Methodology
- The assessment presented in this chapter has been split into two parts, Part One: Receptor Based Inter-Related Effects Assessment and Part Two: Ecosystem Effects Assessment.
20.5.1. Part One: Inter-Related Effects Assessment Method
- The following sections present the approach for the inter-related effects assessment for the Proposed Development. For the purpose of this assessment, the following definition of inter-related effects has been applied throughout this chapter:
- Multiple effects upon the same receptor arising from the Proposed Development occur either where a single effect acts upon a receptor over time to produce a potential additive effect or where a number of separate effects, such as underwater noise and habitat loss, affect a single receptor, for example marine mammals.
- Two types of inter-related effects have therefore been identified:
- project lifetime effects - individual effects on each of the key receptor groups across the three Proposed Development phases (construction, operation and maintenance, and decommissioning); and
- receptor-led effects - multiple effects on the same receptor.
- Table 20.2 Open ▸ presents a full definition of the above terms.
Table 20.2: Definitions of Proposed Development Lifetime Inter-Related Effects and Receptor-led Inter-Related Effects
Guidance
- There is limited guidance available relating to assessment of inter-related effects however the following guidance documents have been followed:
- The Guidelines for the Assessment of Indirect and Cumulative Impacts as well as Impact Interactions (EC, 1999); and
- Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment (IEMA) Environmental Impact Assessment Guide to Shaping Quality Development (IEMA, 2016).
Approach to assessment
- The approach to assessing inter-related effects within Part One of this chapter has followed a four stage process, as summarised in Table 20.3 Open ▸ and outlined below. More details of the approach summarised above and used to develop this chapter are presented in volume 1, chapter 6.
Table 20.3: Staged Approach to Assessing Inter-Related Effects
Stage 1: Topic specific assessments
- The first stage of the assessment of inter-related effects is presented in each of the individual Offshore EIA topic chapters and comprises the individual assessments of effects on receptors across the construction, operation and maintenance and decommissioning of the Proposed Development.
Stage 2: Identification of receptor group
- Stage 2 involved a review of the assessments undertaken in the topic specific chapters to identify ‘receptor groups’ requiring assessment within the inter-related effects assessment. The term ‘receptor group’ is used to highlight that the approach taken for the inter-related effects assessment will not assess every individual receptor assessed at the EIA stage, but rather potentially sensitive groups of receptors. The receptor groups assessed can be broadly categorised as those relating to the physical environment, the biological environment and the human environment, as follows:
- physical environment:
- physical processes; and
- water quality.
- biological environment:
- benthic subtidal and intertidal ecology;
- fish and shellfish ecology;
- marine mammals; and
- offshore and intertidal ornithology.
- human environment:
- commercial fisheries;
- shipping and navigation;
- aviation, military and communication;
- seascape and visual resources;
- cultural heritage;
- infrastructure and other users; and
- offshore socio-economics and tourism.
Stage 3: Identification of potential interactions on receptor groups
- Following the identification of receptor groups, the potential inter-related effects on these receptor groups have been identified via review of the assessment of effects sections for each topic chapter. The judgement as to which impacts may result in inter-related effects upon receptors associated with the Proposed Development was exercised using a precautionary approach and was based on the professional judgement and experience of the technical author.
Linked receptor groups
- It is important to recognise potential linkages between the topic-specific chapters, whereby effects assessed in each chapter have the potential for secondary effects on any number of other receptors. Examples include:
- volume 2, chapter 8 addresses effects on benthic habitats and species arising from changes to the physical environment (as described in volume 2, chapter 7);
- volume 2, chapters 10 and 11 assess the effects on marine mammal and seabird receptors arising from potential changes in the distribution of fish, which form their principal prey (as described in volume 2, chapter 9);
- volume 2, chapter 12 assesses the effects on commercial fisheries receptors arising from potential impacts on commercial species of fish and shellfish as a result of a combination of effects caused by Electromagnetic Fields (EMFs), suspended sediments, habitat alteration/loss and underwater noise impacts; and
- volume 2, chapter 17 assesses the effects on aggregate extraction areas arising from potential impacts on aggregate resource as a result of potential increase in suspended sediment concentrations (SSC) and deposition and effects on sediment transport pathways (as described in volume 2, chapter 7).
- Where such linked relationships arise these have been fully assessed within the individual topic chapters. This chapter on inter-related effects therefore summarises the consideration of these inter-related effects on linked receptors already set out in the topic specific chapters.
- It should be noted that it is not considered that there are likely to be any cumulative receptor led effects from onshore and offshore activities associated with the Project. This is primarily due to offshore export cable installation using trenchless techniques (such as Horizontal Directional Drilling (HDD)) through the intertidal area between Mean Low Water Springs (MLWS) and MHWS. As a result this has not been considered further in this Inter-Related Effects Offshore EIA Report chapter or the inter-related effects chapter of the Onshore EIA Report (volume 4, chapter 15.2) (SSER, 2022a).
Stage 4: Assessment of interactions on each receptor group
- Individual effects on each of the key receptor groups have been identified across the three Proposed Development phases (i.e. Proposed Development lifetime effects) as well as the interaction of multiple effects on a receptor (i.e. receptor-led effects), as defined in Table 20.2 Open ▸ . The assessment of these interactions has been presented in this chapter using a matrix approach, (see Table 20.4 Open ▸ to Table 20.15 Open ▸ ).
- It is important to note that the interactions assessment in Part One considers only those effects produced by the Proposed Development and not those effects arising from other projects, which are considered within the Cumulative Effects Assessment (CEA) sections of each topic chapter. However, cumulative effects between projects have been considered in Part Two: Ecosystem Effects Assessment.
- Within the interactions matrix for each topic, the significance of the individual effects, as concluded within the topic specific chapters, have been presented for each receptor group. A descriptive assessment of the scope for these individual effects to interact to create a different or greater effect has then been undertaken and presented (see Table 20.4 Open ▸ to Table 20.15 Open ▸ ). This assessment incorporates qualitative and, where reasonably possible, quantitative assessments. The assignment of significance of effect to any such interactive effect is not undertaken, rather, any interactive effects that may be of greater significance than the individual effects acting in isolation on a given receptor are identified and discussed within this chapter.
- The interactions assessment presents and utilises the maximum significant adverse effects for the Proposed Development (i.e. the maximum design scenarios including implementation of any further mitigation where appropriate), noting that individual effects may not be significant at the topic-specific level but could become significant when their interactive effect is assessed. Effects of negligible significance or greater (slight, moderate, major or profound) may occur in only one phase of the project lifecycle (e.g. during the construction phase, but not during the operation and maintenance or decommissioning phases). Where this is the case, it has been made clear that, as a result, there will be no interactive effects across the project phases. Effects of imperceptible significance identified in the individual topic assessments have been included, since there is the potential for interactive effects to increase the level (significance) of effect when considered with other sources.
20.5.2. Part Two: Ecosystem Based Effects Assessment Method
- The purpose of the ecosystem-based assessment is to qualitatively assess the potential impacts of the Proposed Development at the ecosystem level, to better understand how predator – prey relationships could be altered and how this could impact the functioning of the ecosystem.
- The method applied to undertake this assessment has been led by the questions NatureScot raised in the ornithology Road Map Meeting 5, January 2022 ( Table 20.1 Open ▸ ). It should be noted, however, that it was agreed during the Ornithology Road Map Meeting 5, that an ecosystem modelling approach or ecosystem services approach were not deemed appropriate for this assessment. Part Two has therefore been broadly structured around these questions: “What are the predators? What are the prey species? How does the whole food chain operate? What other pressures are on these prey species? For example, certain fish prey on other fish species - what are all the impacts on prey species before an Offshore Wind Farm is built? What effect will an Offshore Wind Farm have on these prey species, in relation to these other impacts? What are the knock-on effects on predators? If prey species increase following construction of an Offshore Wind Farm, where are they? Does this new distribution draw more predators in? (volume 3, appendix 11.8, annex A).”
- The structure of Part Two is as follows:
- section 20.7: Part Two: Ecosystem Effects Assessment;
- section 20.7.1: Overview;
- section 20.7.2: Ecosystem baseline;
- section 20.7.3: The Marine Food Web;
- section 20.7.4: The Key Predator Species;
- section 20.7.5: The Key Prey Species;
- section 20.7.6: How the Whole Ecosystem Works;
- section 20.7.7: Future Ecosystem Baseline;
- section 20.7.8: Existing Pressures on Prey Species;
- section 20.7.9: Effects of the Proposed Development on Prey Species; and
- section 20.7.10: Effects of the Proposed Development on Predators.
- Information and conclusions from the relevant chapters of the Offshore EIA Report and their corresponding technical reports, along with volume 3, appendix 20.1 and the Firth of Forth Banks Complex (FFBC) MPA Report, have been used to build up a picture of the marine ecosystem in the locality of the Proposed Development. This information has also been used to inform the assessments within these sections to ultimately conclude whether the Proposed Development, and cumulatively with other plans and projects, has the potential to result in changes to prey species which in turn will result in changes to predator species.
- Currently our understanding of how offshore wind farms impact marine food webs is limited.
- The Ecological Consequences of Offshore Wind research programme (ECOWind) will investigate all possible effects of offshore wind farms on the marine environment. The outcomes of this research will be used to inform policy measures to minimise negative impacts on marine life while tackling climate change and will be key to informing ecosystem assessment approach.
- The Aberdeen and Grampian Chamber of Commerce (2022) commented that “Preliminary studies indicate that windfarms may influence the food production at the base of the marine food chain and our range of real data collection and modelling approaches will take this new understanding from physics to fish, to ecosystems to help ensure we make the most efficient use of our marine spaces.” (Aberdeen & Grampian Chamber of Commerce, 2022)).
20.6. Part One: Receptor based Inter-related effects Assessment
20.7. Part Two: Ecosystem Effects Assessment
20.7.1. Overview
- An ecosystem is a community of living (biotic) organisms existing in conjunction with the non-living (abiotic) components of their environment, interacting as a system. In the marine ecosystem biotic components include plankton, seaweed, benthic communities, fish, seabirds and marine mammals and the abiotic components include air, salt water, seabed sediments and rock. These biotic and abiotic components are linked together through nutrient cycles and energy flows (LibreTexts, 2022).
- Biodiversity, the variety of life on Earth, is the key indicator of the health of an ecosystem. A wide variety of species will cope better with external pressures than a limited number of species in large populations. Even if certain species are affected by climate change or human activities, the ecosystem as a whole may adapt and survive (European Commission, 2022).
- The purpose of this ecosystem-based assessment is to qualitatively assess the potential impacts of the Proposed Development at the ecosystem level, to better understand how predator – prey relationships could be altered and how this could impact the functioning of the ecosystem. Whilst not included in the 2020 Berwick Bank Wind Farm Scoping Opinion (MS-LOT, 2021), the 2020 Berwick Bank Wind Farm Offshore Scoping Report (SSER, 2020) included a description of the need to address effects at an ecosystem level: “Increasingly there is a need to understand potential impacts holistically at a wider ecosystem scale rather than via the standard set of discrete individual receptor assessments. This assessment should focus on potential impacts across key trophic levels particularly in relation to the availability of prey species. This will enable a better understanding of the consequences (positive or negative) of any potential changes in prey distribution and abundance from the development of the wind farm on seabird and marine mammal (and other top predator) interests and what influence this may have on population level impacts.”
20.7.2. Ecosystem Baseline
- This section provides a summary of the abiotic and biotic components of the marine ecosystem within the Proposed Development array area and Proposed Development export cable corridor.
- The Proposed Development will be located in the central North Sea, a shallow continental shelf sea, approximately 47.6 km offshore of the East Lothian coastline and 37.8 km from the Scottish Borders coastline at St. Abbs. The bathymetry of the Proposed Development array area is influenced by the presence of Marr Bank and the northern extent of the Berwick Bank. These two bank features are defined as Shelf Banks and Mounds. A maximum seabed depth is recorded at two locations where deep channels cut into the seabed east and west of the central point of the Proposed Development array area (68.5 m Lowest Astronomical Tide (LAT)). The shallowest area is observed in the west of the Proposed Development array area (33.4 m LAT). The average seabed depth across the array area is 51.7 m below LAT.
- The seafloor morphology within the Proposed Development array area and export cable corridor is very varied. Table 20.16 Open ▸ summaries the types of morphological features present within the Proposed Development.
Table 20.16: Seafloor Morphology Within the Proposed Development Array Area and Export Cable Corridor
- Most of the seabed within the Proposed Development array area is ‘featureless’, with the exception of the southern and north-western extents which are dominated by megaripples, sand waves, ribbons and bars. Boulders are also prevalent across the array area and are either represented as isolated boulders or as clusters.
- Seabed sediments present within the Proposed Development are summarised in Table 20.17 Open ▸ .
Table 20.17: Seabed Sediments within the Proposed Development
- The benthic communities within the Proposed Development array area and Proposed Development export cable corridor are 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 predominantly sand and coarse sediment habitats within the Proposed Development are typical of, and widespread throughout, the UK and in the northern North Sea. The muddy sediments in the central section of the Proposed Development export cable corridor are 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 Firth of Forth Banks Complex marine protected area which is designated for ocean quahog, offshore subtidal sand and gravels, shelf banks and mounds, moraines representative of the Wee Bankie Key Geodiversity Area (volume 2, chapter 8).
- Table 20.18 Open ▸ provides a summary of the seven main broad subtidal habitats present within the Proposed Development area.
Table 20.18: Broad Subtidal Habitat Types
- The other species groups which are part of the biotic components of the ecosystem include fish, seabirds and marine mammals. These groups are considered further in the following sections 20.7.4, 0, 20.7.8, 20.7.9 and 20.7.10.
20.7.3. The Marine Food web
- Trophic levels describe the hierarchal levels which organisms occupy in the food web. Primary producers, such as phytoplankton and seaweed, form the lowest trophic levels in marine food webs. They are consumed by primary consumers (herbivores) such as zooplankton, some crustaceans (e.g. copepods) and molluscs (e.g. clams, snails, mussels). Secondary consumers (carnivores or omnivores) such as fish larvae, Atlantic herring Clupea harengus (hereafter herring) and lesser sandeel Ammodytes marinus (hereafter ‘sandeel’), and some crustaceans (e.g. crabs, shrimp) feed on primary consumers and primary producers. These species support tertiary consumers (carnivores), including some fish species, and cephalopods (e.g. octopus and squid species). Seabirds, along with marine mammals, large marine fish and elasmobranchs (sharks, skates and rays), are the top predators of the natural marine food web. An example of a marine food web which illustrates the interactions between the different trophic levels is presented in Figure 20.1 Open ▸ .
Figure 20.1: Significant Interactions Modelled Between Functional Groups and Drivers (From Lynam et al., 2017)
20.7.4. The Key Predator Species
- Volume 2, chapters 9, 10 and 11, provide details on the fish, marine mammals and seabirds which are most abundant in the associated topic Proposed Development study area and are the receptors most likely to be impacted by activities associated with all phases of the Proposed Development. From information on these receptors groups it is possible to ascertain which fish, seabird and marine mammals species are likely to be the key predators in the marine ecosystem in this part of the central North Sea and within the study areas outlined in section 20.1.3.
Piscivorous fish
- The key marine predatory fish likely to utilise the marine environment within the Proposed Development array area and Proposed Development export cable corridor are plaice, cod, haddock, whiting, saithe, pollark and European hake. The diet of these species includes small forage such as sandeel, juvenile whiting, juvenile haddock and small flounder. Elasmobranchs which are likely to be present and whose diet will also include small forage fish include tope, spurdog, common skate and rays.
- The migration routes of diadromous fish species which also feed on small forage fish, and which are likely to pass through the Proposed Development area during migration (volume 3, appendix 9.1) are sea trout, European eel, sea lamprey, twaite shad, allis shad and Atlantic salmon.
- Table 20.19 Open ▸ lists the key predatory fish species and the prey they feed on. This shows that although sandeel, herring, mackerel and sprat are components of most of the key predators’ diets, other fish as well as other benthic fauna are also important in their diet.
Table 20.19: Key Predatory Fish Species and their Prey
Marine mammals
- The key marine mammal species which are most abundant within and therefore have the potential to be impacted by the Proposed Development are:
- harbour porpoise;
- bottlenose dolphin;
- white-beaked dolphin Lagenorhynchus albirostris;
- minke whale Balaenoptera acutorostrata;
- harbour seal; and
- grey seal.
- These species also correspond to the marine mammal IEFs identified in volume 2, chapter 10. The sensitivity of marine mammals to prey availability within the Proposed Development array area and Proposed Development export cable corridor will be affected by how important this area is to the species and how sensitive they are to prey availability. This is discussed further in section 20.7.10.
- A summary of the dietary preferences of key marine mammal species within the Proposed Development marine mammal study area is presented in Table 20.20 Open ▸ .
Table 20.20: Diet and Abundances of the Key Marine Mammal Species
Seabirds
- The key seabird species which are most abundant (listed in abundance order) and most likely to be impacted by the Proposed Development (volume 2, chapter 11) are:
- common guillemot;
- black-legged kittiwake;
- razorbill;
- northern gannet;
- Atlantic puffin;
- European herring gull; and
- lesser black-backed gull.
- Seabird species diet and foraging behaviour determine the extent to which individual species can respond to changing prey availability. This is discussed further in section 20.7.10. A summary of the typical feeding strategies and prey species of key seabird species that have the potential to be impacted by the Proposed Development has been outlined in Table 20.21 Open ▸ .
Table 20.21: Diet and Feeding Strategies of the Key Seabird Species
20.7.5. The Key Prey Species
- The key fish and shellfish prey species likely to be present within the Proposed Development fish and shellfish study area, within the central North Sea marine ecosystem, are the small shoaling forage fish sandeel, herring, European sprat Sprattus sprattus (hereafter ‘sprat’) and Atlantic mackerel Scomber scombrus (hereafter ‘mackerel’). Volume 2, chapter 9, identified that these four fish species are IEFs, which are species that are considered to be important and could be potentially impacted by the Proposed Development. The abundance of each of these species within the Proposed Development fish and shellfish study area and their relative importance to predators is discussed in the species summaries below.
Sandeel
- Sandeel are small eel like fish which feed primarily on plankton of variable size, ranging from small plankton eggs up to larger energy rich copepods found in great abundance in Scotland’s seas (NatureScot, 2022).
- There are five species of sandeel found in Scottish waters with lesser sandeel Ammodytes tobianus and Raitt's sandeel Ammodytes marinus being the most commonly recorded species, particularly in the vicinity of the Proposed Development fish and shellfish ecology study area.
- As well as being abundant in Scottish waters, sandeel are highly nutritious and are therefore the preferred prey item for many other species of fish, seabirds, seals, whales and dolphins. As they feed on plankton and are eaten by larger marine predators such as cod, harbour porpoise and kittiwake, sandeel represent an important link between the lower and upper levels of the marine food web (NatureScot, 2022).
- Lesser sandeel and Raitt’s sandeel are listed as PMFs in Scottish waters and are listed as protected features within the Turbot Bank Nature Conservation MPA, which overlaps within the Proposed Development northern North Sea fish and shellfish ecology study area.
- Sandeel have a close association with sandy substrates into which they burrow. They are largely stationary after settlement and show a strong preference to specific substrate types (volume 3, appendix 9.1).
- As described in volume 2, chapter 9 and volume 3, appendix 9.1, sandeel have been identified as likely to be present in the Proposed Development array area and Proposed Development export cable corridor, based on historic data and habitat preference. The wider Forth and Tay Scottish Marine Region (SMR) has been known historically to support important sandeel populations. The highest density of this population is focused on the Wee Bankie, however sandeel do range across much of the wider North Sea.
- Modelled predicted density and probability of occurrence of sandeel around the British Isles (Langton et al., 2021) and site specific survey of the Proposed Development indicate that much of the Proposed Development Array area is predominantly sandeel preferred habitat. The Proposed Development export cable corridor has a significant patch of unsuitable sandeel habitat which corresponds to an area of largely muddy sediment (see volume 3, appendix 9.1).
Herring
- Herring is a small shoaling forage fish which is a commercially important pelagic fish, common across much of the North Sea. Herring filter feeds on plankton and minute sea creatures, but will also take very small sprats and fry of other fish (British Sea Fishing, 2022).
- Herring nursery grounds are also widespread along the east Scottish and Northumberland coastlines (Ellis et al., 2012), with post larvae juveniles up to sub adults that are yet to reach sexual maturity feeding in these areas until migrating to feeding grounds further offshore where they remain until reaching sexual maturity (International Council for the Exploration of the Seas (ICES), 2006).
- Herring is an important prey species for larger fish, birds and marine mammals and is listed as a PMF in Scottish waters.
- Herring utilise specific benthic habitats during spawning, which increases their vulnerability to activities impacting the seabed. Further, as a hearing specialist, herring may be vulnerable to impacts arising from underwater noise.
- Herring deposit eggs on a variety of substrates from coarse sand and gravel to shell fragments and macrophytes, although gravel substrates have been suggested as their preferred spawning habitat. Once spawning has taken place (the peak spawning months being August and September for the Buchan stock), the eggs take approximately three weeks to hatch after which the larvae drift in the plankton (Dickey-Colas et al., 2010).
- North Sea herring fall into a number of different ‘races’ or stocks, each with different spawning grounds, migration routes and nursery areas (Coull et al., 1998). North Sea autumn-spawning herring have been divided into three, mainly self-contained stocks — the Buchan, Dogger, and Downs herring groups, which show differences in spawning areas and spawning periods. The Buchan stock which spawn between August and September off the Scottish east coast are most relevant to the Proposed Development.
- Herring spawning grounds are most accurately mapped using a combination of herring larval data and sediment particle size analysis (PSA), as recommended by Boyle and New (2018).
- Habitat suitability classifications for herring spawning, based on site-specific data (grab sampling undertaken as part of benthic subtidal surveys – volume 3, appendix 9.1), shows that the majority of the Proposed Development fish and shellfish ecology study area has unsuitable sediment for herring spawning, with a small patch of suitable habitat in the north-west section of the Proposed Development array area (volume 3, appendix 9.1, Figure 4.8).
- Herring have high intensity nursery areas throughout the Proposed Development fish and shellfish ecology study area, with spawning grounds to the south which overlaps very slightly with the Proposed Development export cable corridor (see volume 3, appendix 9.1, Figure 4.6) and more extensive spawning grounds to the north along the Aberdeenshire coast. The presence of high intensity nursery grounds for herring within the Proposed Development fish and shellfish study area is not supported by outputs from Aries et al. (2014), with predicted aggregations of zero group herring found further inshore (see volume 3, appendix 9.1).
Sprat
- Sprat is a small shoaling forage fish which occurs all around the UK and can be found in water depths from a few metres to approximately 100 metres.
- Sprat feed predominantly on fish eggs, larvae and plankton (volume 2, chapter 9).
- Sprat are a major part of the marine food chain in the North Sea, as they provide a source of food for more or less all predatory fish found in UK waters. They are also an important source of food for marine mammals and seabirds such as gannets and herring gulls.
- As described in volume 3, appendix 9.1, sprat have relatively high abundance within the fish and shellfish study area, where thousands of individuals were frequently recorded per hour trawled (volume 3, appendix 12.1). However, the abundances recorded were found to be quite sporadic, with low numbers being recorded frequently. There are no obvious differences in seasonal or age distribution of individuals recorded.
- Sprat spawning and nursery grounds (unspecified intensity) coincide with the Proposed Development fish and shellfish ecology study area, with only nursery grounds coinciding with the offshore export cable route (see volume 3, appendix 9.1, Figure 4.5). The presence of sprat nursery grounds within the fish and shellfish study area is not supported by outputs from Aries et al. (2014), with aggregations of 0 group fish seemingly limited to areas further inshore from the Proposed Development array area within the inner regions of the Firth of Forth (see volume 3, appendix 9.1).
Mackerel
- Mackerel are small, fast, predatory fish closely related to tuna (Thunnini sp.) which hunt in vast shoals for small fish and sandeel
- Mackerel are important prey species for larger fish, birds and marine mammals and are listed as a PMF in Scottish waters (NatureScot, 2020).
- Mackerel are migratory and are common throughout the UK, arriving in spring and early summer, when they will feed actively before they migrate to warmer seas in the autumn months to spawn, during which time they will feed little.
- Mackerel appear to be arriving in UK waters earlier and leaving later every year, possibly as a result of rising sea temperatures. In some locations around the south of the UK, mackerel are now only absent during the winter months.
- They have no swim bladder which means they can change depth rapidly and must keep moving all of the time (British Sea Fishing, 2022).
- As described in volume 3, appendix 9.1, recorded abundance of mackerel within the fish and shellfish study area was low during 2020 Q1, however higher abundances were recorded during Q3, and also in Q1 of 2021. This suggests that presence of mackerel in the northern North Sea can vary annually and can be sporadic, as shown by a particular haul capturing over 246,000 mackerel per hour trawled, with other hauls recording very few or no mackerel per hour trawled (volume 3, appendix 12.1).
- Mackerel have low intensity nursery grounds which coincide with the majority of the Proposed Development fish and shellfish ecology study area (Ellis et al., 2012), with no spawning grounds identified in the Proposed Development fish and shellfish ecology study area (see volume 3, appendix 9.1, Figure 4.5). Mackerel spawn over summer months from May to August. The presence of mackerel nursery grounds within the fish and shellfish study area is not supported by outputs from Aries et al. (2014), with no modelled observations of 0 group fish on the east coast of Scotland (see volume 3, appendix 9.1).
20.7.6. How the Whole Food Chain Operates
- The flow of energy moves up the trophic levels of a food chain starting at the bottom level where producers such as phytoplankton and algae in the marine environment make their own food by harnessing the energy of the sun through the process of photosynthesis. The next level in the food chain, the primary consumers such as zooplankton, feed on the phytoplankton to gain energy and energy continues to be transferred up the food chain through each trophic level to the top predators.
- Typically, the marine environment follows a ‘wasp-waist’ trophic structure, where mid-trophic level species have lower diversity, compared to high diversity in both high and low trophic levels. These mid-trophic level species play an important role in ecosystem functioning (Rice, 1995). As discussed in section 20.7.5. the main prey species are sandeel, herring, mackerel and sprat. These fish link the lowest trophic levels to the highest (Mackinson and Daskalov, 2007; Fauchald et al., 2011; Lynam et al., 2017).
- Phenology plays an important role in how the food chain operates because many species have evolved elaborate behavioural and life history strategies that exploit favourable periods of the year for growth and reproduction and minimise exposure of sensitive life stages to stressful periods (Rubao et al., 2010). Changes in phenology brought about by climate change, can affect the lowest trophic levels, which comprise plankton, and these effects can cascade up the food web and effect mid-trophic level species such as sandeel which can in turn effect top trophic level species such as seabirds (Burthe et al., 2012; Lynam et al., 2017). This is discussed further in section 20.7.8.
- Section 20.7.4. described the key fish, seabird and marine mammal predator species and their typical prey species. From this it is possible to see that whilst sandeel, herring, mackerel and sprat are components of most these predators’ diets, they vary in their importance. For example, kittiwake are more reliant on sandeel than the other key seabird species potentially present within the Proposed Development study areas, and therefore will be more sensitive to changes in prey availability and the distribution of sandeel. This is discussed further in section 20.7.10.
20.7.7. Future Ecosystem Baseline
- The EIA Regulations (as defined in volume 1, chapters 1 and 2) require that a "a description of the relevant aspects of the current state of the environment (baseline scenario) and an outline of the likely evolution thereof without development as far as natural changes from the baseline scenario can be assessed with reasonable effort, on the basis of the availability of environmental information and scientific knowledge" is included within the Offshore EIA Report.
- In the event that the Proposed Development does not come forward, an assessment of the future baseline conditions has been carried out and has been described within the topic chapters (volume 2, chapters 7 to 11) and are summarised in paragraphs 169 to 173.
Climate change effects
- The baseline environment for the physical and biological components of the ecosystem are not static and will exhibit a degree of natural change over time. Such changes will occur with or without the Proposed Development in place due to natural variability. Future baseline conditions would be altered by climate change resulting in sea level rise and increased storminess. In terms of physical processes, this is unlikely to have the effect of significantly altering tidal patterns and sediment transport regimes offshore at the Proposed Development array area. The return period of the wave climates would be altered (e.g. what is defined as a 1 in 50 year event may become a 1 in 20 year event) as deeper water would allow larger waves to develop. There is, however, a notable degree of uncertainty regarding how future climate change will impact prevailing wave climates within the North Sea and beyond.
- UK waters are facing an increase in sea surface temperature. The rate of increases is varied geographically, but between 1985 and 2009, the average rate of increase in Scottish waters has been greater than 0.2 °C per decade, with the south-east of Scotland having a higher rate of 0.5°C per decade (Marine Scotland, 2011). A study completed over a longer period of time showed Scottish waters (coastal and oceanic) have warmed by between 0.05 °C and 0.07 °C per decade, calculated across the period 1870 – 2016 (Hughes et al., 2018).
- Changes in temperature will affect fish at all biological levels (cellular, individual, population, species, community and ecosystem) both directly and indirectly. As sea temperatures rise, species adapted to cold water (e.g. cod and herring) will begin to disappear while warm water adapted species will become more established. It is also predicted that due to changes in weather patterns, for example increased numbers of spring storms, changes in stratification of water columns and plankton production may occur (Morison et al., 2019). This may cause knock on effect to fish and shellfish species due to changes in food availability for prey species. Climate change presents many uncertainties as to how the marine environment will change in the future; therefore, the future baseline scenario is difficult to predict with accuracy.
- The biological environment baseline (including benthic and intertidal ecology, fish and shellfish, marine mammals and seabirds) is not static and will exhibit some degree of natural change over time, even if the Proposed Development does not come forward, due to naturally occurring cycles and processes and additionally any potential changes resulting from climate change and anthropogenic activity. Therefore, when undertaking assessments of effects, it will be necessary to place any potential impacts within the context of the envelope of change that might occur over the timescale of the Proposed Development.
- The impact of climate change on harbour porpoise remains poorly understood. Macleod et al. (2005) reported that there has been a decline in the relative frequency of white-beaked dolphin strandings and sightings in north-west Scotland and attributed climate change as a major cause of this decline.
20.7.8. Exisitng Pressures on Prey Species
- Before assessing the potential effects of the Proposed Development on prey species at an ecosystem level, it is important to understand the existing pressures on prey species.
- As described in volume 3, appendix 20.1, the North Sea is one of the most anthropogenically impacted marine ecosystems (Halpern et al., 2015; Emeis et al., 2015). Small, shoaling forage fish in mid-trophic levels experience top-down pressure from commercial fisheries (volume 3, appendix 20.1, Figure 4.1), whilst bottom-up processes driven by temperature, have dominated changes to planktonic groups since the 1960s. These pressures propagate up and down the food chain, with mid-trophic fish linking the pressures between the upper and lower trophic levels (Lynam et al., 2017).
- Forage fish landings account for approximately one third of global landings of marine fish, not considering additional loss from bycatch discards (Alder et al., 2008). In the past, sandeel have been commercially important, targeted by industrial fisheries in the North Sea for their oil and use as an animal feed and fertiliser. Despite being highly managed, the majority of sandeel stocks have experienced severe declines, thought to have been brought about by a combination of overfishing and the effects of climate change (Nature Scot, 2022).
- As described in volume 3, appendix 9.1, in the early 1990s there was a substantial industrial sandeel fishery on the Wee Bankie, Marr Bank and Berwick Bank sandbanks. In 2000, this industrial sandeel fishery was closed in response to concerns that the fishery was having a deleterious effect on sandeel stocks within the Forth and Tay (SMR).
- After the Forth and Tay SMR sandeel fishery closed, high levels of recruitment, combined with a lack of any significant fishing activity resulted in an immediate and substantial increase in the biomass of sandeel on the Wee Bankie sandbank. However, since 2001, sandeel biomass has steadily declined to levels that were similar to those observed when the sandeel fishery was active (Greenstreet et al., 2010). More recently sandeel stocks have recovered leading to an increase in sandeel fishing adjacent to the closed area. However, ICES recently stated "The escapement strategy [by which sandeel stocks are managed] is not sustainable for short-lived species unless the strategy is combined with a ceiling (Fcap) on fishing mortality" (ICES, 2022).
- As described in volume 3, appendix 9.1, herring is a commercially important pelagic fish and has a relatively large fishery; the most recently published figures (2020) for herring in the North Sea (ICES Area IVa to IVc) landed by Scottish vessels was 46,742 tonnes with a value of £26,078,000 (Scottish Government, 2020a).
- Herring stocks in the North Sea crashed as a result of overfishing in the latter part of the 20th century. Although there has since been a recovery, active management is required to prevent a recurrence (Dickey-Collas et al., 2010). A herring recovery plan to reduce fishing mortality was implemented in 1996 for the North Sea and was revised in 2004. Although this was considered generally successful, it was not as successful for those herring stocks found in the northern North Sea. A ban on discards for pelagic fisheries such as herring commenced on 1 January 2015.
- The prey species present in the marine ecosystem within which the Proposed Development occurs, are also an important food source for larger fish. For example, plaice, cod, haddock, whiting, saithe, tope and spurdog all include prey forage fish species in their diet such as sandeel, herring, sprat and mackerel. Additionally, diadromous fish species which migrate between the sea and freshwater are also likely to feed on these species. Volume 2, chapter 9, identified the following diadromous species are likely to migrate through the Proposed Development fish and shellfish ecology study area: Atlantic salmon Salmo salar, sea trout salmo trutta, European eel Anguilla anguilla, sea lamprey Petromyzon marinus, twait shad Alosa fallax and allis shad Alosa alosa.
- As described in volume 3, appendix 20.1, climate change is leading to dramatic changes in ecosystem structure, through effects on ocean temperature, water stratification and nutrient availability, leading to changes in the abundance and diversity of communities at all trophic levels, from primary producers to top predators (Walther, 2010). Effects of climate change have been identified over a variety of timescales. Short-term variability in environmental conditions impacts interactions between trophic levels and species (Howells et al., 2017). Limitations in prey availability can adversely affect top predators, with population-level changes likely to occur over longer timescales, propagating up trophic levels with prolonged exposure (Frederiksen et al., 2006; Howells et al., 2017).
- Declines in abundance and quality of mid-trophic level-species, such as forage prey species, have been linked to multiple factors, including rising sea surface temperature (SST), changes in stratification and alterations in the North Atlantic Oscillation (Johnston et al., 2021).
- The ability of fish species to move in response to temperature varies depending on a range of factors, including their physiological capacity to acclimatise and respond to the change as well as their degree of geographical attachment or how their prey respond. Where a species has a strong geographical attachment, the result can be a localised decline in species (Wright et al., 2020).
- As described in volume 3, appendix 20.1, sandeel are one of the most important trophic links between plankton and predators in North Sea ecosystems; however, climate driven changes to phytoplankton and zooplankton have led to declines in the abundance and nutritional quality of these species and other small planktivorous fish since 2000 (Macdonald et al., 2015; Clausen et al., 2017; Wanless et al., 2018; MacDonald et al., 2019). Factors such as rising SST may have altered the phenology, abundance and distribution of many species, with a switch in the dominant zooplankton species in the North Sea and northwards shift in distribution for multiple fish species such as sandeel and sprat (Burthe et al., 2012).
- Climate change impacts on sandeel will be influenced both directly through their metabolic rate and indirectly via their planktonic prey (MCCIP, 2018).
- Changes in temperature can have a large impact on the metabolic rate of sandeel, which can in turn affect the success of their reproduction and increase their mortality rate (NatureScot, 2022). Increased temperatures have been observed to cause inhibited gonad development in sandeel, which means warmer seas can delay the spawning time and lead to reduced reproductive success (Wright, Orpwood and Scott, 2017). Adult sandeel feed on zooplankton in the spring and summer months; building up lipids to survive the winter period buried in sand when plankton production is lower. Increased temperatures lead to increased energy usage whilst overwintering, meaning less energy can be allocated to gonad development. (Boulcott and Wright, 2008; Wright, Orpwood, and Scott, 2017).
- A key factor in sandeel larval success is synchrony between the larval hatching times and the spring zooplankton bloom. Through impacts on gonad development, warming is expected to lead to later larval hatch times and earlier zooplankton blooms, resulting in a decrease in zooplankton available for sandeel to feed upon and a reduction in sandeel growth and survivorship, leading to low recruitment (Réginer, Gibb and Wright, 2017).
- The life cycle of sandeel ties them to sandy sediments of a particular grain size which they burrow into at night and during the winter months. This means that their ability to move and redistribute to new suitable habitats in response to rising sea temperature relies on larval distribution (Macdonald et al., 2015).
- Herring are also constrained as demersal spawners, by their requirement to spawn at specific locations, depositing their sticky eggs on coarse sand, gravel, small stones and rocks (Wright et al., 2020).
- Additionally, there is an increasing body of research into the effect of ocean acidification on fish physiology and early survival (Wright et al., 2020). As described in volume 3, appendix 20.1, climate change is leading to ocean acidification, by chemical processes related to increased temperatures increasing dissolved levels of carbon dioxide in seawater. Decreasing pH is affecting phytoplankton, which can inhibit shell generation of calcifying marine organisms and may impact skeletal development in larval fish, with potential consequences to forage species (Riebesall et al., 2013). However, these impacts are difficult to predict at species and population levels due to the complexity of these food web interactions (Heath et al., 2012).
20.7.9. Effects of the Proposed Development on Prey Species
- This section assesses the impacts of the Proposed Development on prey species and any impacts on physical processes which may impact prey species indirectly by altering their availability to food sources such as plankton and zooplankton.
- Information to support this assessment has been taken from the relevant receptor topic Offshore EIA Report chapters. Each assessment of an impact focuses on the prey species most vulnerable to the impact to explain the maximum adverse scenario without repeating all the detail from the original receptor topic chapter. For example, where sandeel and/or herring are the most sensitive prey species to a given impact, details are provided for these species only.
Potential impacts on prey species
- Volume 2, chapter 9, identified that the following potential impacts as a result of the Proposed Development could result in positive/negative effects on fish and shellfish ecology:
- temporary habitat loss/disturbance;
- increased suspended sediment concentrations (SSC) and associated sediment deposition;
- injury and/or disturbance to fish and shellfish from underwater noise and vibration;
- long-term subtidal habitat loss;
- EMFs from underwater electrical cabling; and
- colonisation of foundations, scour protection and cable protection.
- Of these potential impacts, the first five were assessed as having minor adverse effects on marine fish (including prey species), which would not result in a significant change to prey species populations. A summary of the assessment of these impacts is provided in the following sub-sections.
- The final impact, colonisation of foundations, scour protection and cable protection, has the potential to affect numbers of prey species and predators and so is described in more detail, drawing on the findings of volume 2, chapters 8, 9 and 10.
Temporary habitat loss/disturbance
- As discussed in volume 2, chapter 9, in general, mobile fish species are able to avoid areas subject to temporary habitat disturbance. Of the key prey species, sandeel and herring are most sensitive to temporary habitat loss because they spawn on or near the seabed sediment. However, the assessment concluded that sandeel populations would recover quickly from any adverse effects following construction and due to the limited overlap of seabed disturbance with suitable herring spawning habitat in the Proposed Development fish and shellfish study area, there would be minor effects on herring and sandeel, which are not significant in EIA terms.
Increased SSC and associated sediment deposition
- As stated in volume 2, chapter 9, the prey fish species most likely to be affected by sediment deposition are sandeel and herring because they spawn on the seabed. However, sandeel eggs are likely to be tolerant to some level of sediment deposition, due to the nature of re-suspension and deposition within their natural high energy environment. Therefore, effects on sandeel spawning populations are predicted to be limited. Sandeel populations are also sensitive to sediment type within their habitat, preferring coarse to medium sands and showing reduced selection or avoidance of gravel and fine sediments (Holland et al., 2005). However, modelled sediment deposition levels are expected to be highly localised (within metres) and at very low levels (less than 10 mm).
- It has been shown that herring eggs may be tolerant of very high levels of SSC (Messieh et al., 1981). Any deposited sediment which could result in smothering would be expected to be removed quickly by currents (i.e. within a couple of tidal cycles) with a very small amount of sediment deposition being forecast. Furthermore, there is a relatively limited amount of suitable sediments for herring spawning and the mapping of the core herring spawning habitats are well outside the Proposed Development fish and shellfish ecology study area, which would also limit the potential for effects on herring spawning.
Injury and/or disturbance to fish and shellfish from underwater noise and vibration
- As discussed in volume 2, chapter 9, injury and/or mortality for all prey fish species is to be expected for individuals within very close proximity to piling operations. However, this is unlikely to result in significant mortality due to soft start procedures allowing individuals in close proximity to flee the area prior to maximum hammer energy levels.
- Behavioural effects are expected over larger ranges. Herring are known to be particularly sensitive to underwater noise and have specific habitat requirements for spawning which makes them particularly vulnerable to impacts associated with construction related increases in underwater noise. However, noise modelling indicated minimal overlap of mapped underwater noise contours with core herring spawning grounds, and where there is an overlap, the noise levels are considerably lower than levels expected to result in behavioural effects.
Long-term subtidal habitat loss
- As discussed in volume 2, chapter 9, long-term habitat loss will occur within the direct footprint of wind turbine and OSP/Offshore converter substation platform foundations, associated scour protection and cable protection (including at cable crossings) where this is required. However, the area of habitat loss equates to a small proportion (0.7%) of the Proposed Development fish and shellfish study area. Of the prey fish species, sandeel are particularly sensitive to this impact because they have specific habitat requirements (i.e. sandy sediments) for spawning and for burrowing in at night and through the winter. Whilst sandeel were assessed to have medium sensitivity to this impact, given the relative small area potentially impacted (0.7%), significant effects are not predicted.
- Herring are also sensitive to this impact due to their demersal spawning requirement; however herring were assessed as having low sensitivity due to the limited suitable spawning habitat overlapping with the Proposed Development fish and shellfish ecology study area.
EMFs from electrical underwater cabling
- As discussed in volume 2, chapter 9, and the Berwick Bank Wind Farm Marine Protected Area Assessment (SSER, 2022b), the presence and operation of inter-array, interconnector and offshore export cables within the Proposed Development fish and shellfish ecology study area may result in emission of localised EMFs which may affect some fish species. It is common practice to block the direct electrical field (E) using conductive sheathing, meaning that the EMFs that are emitted into the marine environment are the magnetic field (B) and the resultant induced electrical field (iE). Fish species (particularly elasmobranchs) are able to detect applied or modified magnetic fields. However, the rapid decay of the EMF with horizontal distance (i.e. within metres) minimises the extent of potential impacts. A study investigating the effect of EMF on lesser sandeel larvae spatial distribution found that there was negligible effect on the larvae (Cresci et al., 2022), and a further study concluded the same for herring (Cresci et al.,2020). Overall, the assessment concluded the effect on all fish species (including prey species) would not be significant.
Colonisation of foundations, scour protection and cable protection
- Volume 2, chapters 8 and 9 discussed how the introduction of infrastructure within the Proposed Development array area and Proposed Development export cable corridor may result in the colonisation of foundations, scour protection and cable protection. Since these hard structures are added to areas typically characterised by soft, sedimentary environments, the resulting change of habitat type acts like an artificial reef and the impact is known as the ‘reef effect’.
- The reef effect has the potential to adversely affect existing biological soft sediment communities but also have some potentially beneficial effects on the marine ecosystem.
- A review by Degraer et al (2020) explained the process by which wind turbine foundations are colonised, and the vertical zonation of species that can occur. Installation of an offshore wind farm is typically followed by rapid colonisation of all submerged parts by biofouling organisms. Vertical zonation can be observed on wind turbine foundations with different species colonising the splash, inter-tidal, shallow and deeper subtidal zones. In general, biofouling communities on offshore installations are dominated by mussels, macroalgae, and barnacles near the water surface, essentially creating a new intertidal zone; filter feeding arthropods at intermediate depths; and anemones in deeper locations (De Mesel et al., 2015). Colonisation by these species will likely represent an increase in biodiversity and a change compared to if no hard substrates were present (Lindeboom et al., 2011).
- As stated in volume 2, chapter 8, this may produce some potentially beneficial effects such as:
- an increase in biodiversity and individual abundance of reef species and total number of species over time, as has been observed at the monopile foundations installed at Lysekil research site (a test site for offshore wind-based research, north of Gothenburg, Sweden) (Bender et al., 2020);
- structural complexity of the substrate may provide refuge as well as increasing feeding opportunities for larger and more mobile species; and
- a higher food web complexity associated with zones where high accumulation of organic material is present such as soft substrate or scour protection, suggesting potential reef effect benefits from the presence of the hard structures, as was observed in a study of gravity based foundations in the Belgian part of the North Sea (Mavraki et al. 2020).
- Colonisation of the wind turbine foundations, associated scour protection and cable protection may have indirect adverse effects on baseline communities and habitats due to increased predation on, and competition with, the existing soft sediment species. These effects are difficult to predict, especially as monitoring to date has focused on the colonisation and aggregation of species close to the foundations rather than broad scale studies.
- Some studies (De backer et al. 2020; Hutchison et al 2020; Apem, 2021) have also shown that the installation and operation of offshore wind farms has a negligible impact on the soft sediment environments. For example:
- De Backer et al. (2020) found that eight to nine years after the installation of C-power and Belwind offshore wind farms (offshore Belgium) the soft sediment epibenthos underwent no drastic changes; and the species originally inhabiting the sandy bottom were still present and remained dominant in both wind farms;
- a review of monitoring from Block Island wind farm in the United States showed no strong gradients of change in sediment grain size, enrichment, or benthic macrofauna within 30 m to 90 m distance bands of the wind turbines (Hutchison et al., 2020); and
- the most recent benthic post-construction monitoring data of wind turbine foundations from Beatrice offshore wind farm (APEM, 2021) found foundation colonisation of wind turbines has resulted in zonation on the foundation itself but had little influence on the sedimentary habitat below.
- As described in volume 2, chapter 8, the maximum design scenario of habitat creation due to the installation of jacket foundations, associated scour protection and cable protection associated with inter‑array cables, OSPs/Offshore convertor substation platforms, interconnector cables and offshore export cables equates to 0.70% of the Proposed Development benthic subtidal and intertidal ecology study area. This value is likely an over estimation of habitat creation as it has been calculated assuming the foundations were a solid structure. In reality the jacket foundations will have a lattice design rather than a solid surface, which would result in a smaller surface area. It is expected that the foundations and scour and cable protection will be colonised by epifaunal species already occurring in the benthic subtidal and intertidal ecology study area (e.g. tunicates, bryozoans, mussels and barnacles which are typical of temperate seas).
- The Firth of Forth Banks Complex (FFBC) MPA overlaps with the Proposed Development array area and Proposed Development export cable corridor and therefore some habitat creation and colonisation of hard structures will occur within the FFBC MPA (SSER, 2022b). Based on the maximum design scenario for the Proposed Development, new habitat for colonisation equates to 0.13% of the FFBC MPA.
- As discussed in volume 2, chapter 8, where scour and cable protection are deployed, use of smaller rock sizes, where reasonably practicable at the time of operation and maintenance, may facilitate the colonisation of rock protection by epifaunal species typical of coarse sediment which are found within the Proposed Development export cable corridor. Previous studies have shown that for artificial hard substrate to be colonised by a benthic community similar to that of the baseline, its structure should resemble that of the baseline habitat as far as reasonably practicable (Coolen, 2017). The addition of smaller grained material to scour/cable protection may therefore be of some benefit to the native epifaunal communities (Van Duren et al., 2017; Lengkeek et al., 2017).
- Additionally, the designed in measures regarding the suitable implementation and monitoring of cable protection will ensure that no more than the declared amount of new hard substrate habitat is created and that any buried infrastructure remains so and does not impede upon the surface sedimentary habitat (volume 2, chapter 8, Table 8.16).
- Volume 2, chapter 8, concluded that although the sensitivity of benthic ecology IEFs to this impact was high, the magnitude of the effect would be low and therefore overall, the effect on benthic ecology was not predicted to be significant in EIA terms.
- The Berwick Bank Wind Farm MPA Assessment Report (SSER, 2022b), concluded that whilst the installation of hard structures will result in the loss of some sedimentary habitat directly below it and with a small radius around it, the remaining sedimentary habitat will not be continually degraded and will largely remain unchanged as a result of the introduction and colonisation of hard substrate. There may be some benefits for species which prefer hard substrates as a result of the reef effect, but this is unlikely to affect species which inhabit the offshore subtidal sands and gravels. The Applicant is committed to engaging in discussions with Marine Scotland and the Statutory Nature Conservation Bodies (SNCBs) to identify, and input to, strategic benthic monitoring of the colonisation of hard structures and impacts to surrounding soft sediments across wind farms off the east coast of Scotland, if available and proposed by Marine Scotland.
- As discussed in volume 2, chapter 9, the introduction of hard substrates can have indirect and direct effects on fish as follows:
- indirect effects on fish through the potential of the reef effect to bring about changes to food resources; and
- direct effect on fish through the potential to act as fish aggregation devices.
- The colonisation by epifauna of the foundations, scour, and cable protection, may result in an increased availability of prey species, which in turn may lead to increased numbers of fish and shellfish species utilising the hard substrate habitats.
- As discussed in volume 2, chapter 9, hard substrate habitat created by the introduction of wind turbine foundations and scour/cable protection are likely to be primarily colonised within hours or days after construction by demersal and semi-pelagic fish species (Andersson, 2011). Continued colonisation has been seen for a number of years after the initial construction, until a stratified recolonised population is formed (Krone et al., 2013). Feeding opportunities or the prospect of encountering other individuals may attract fish aggregates from the surrounding areas, which may increase the carrying capacity of the area (Andersson and Öhman, 2010; Bohnsack, 1989). The dominant natural substrate character of the Proposed Development fish and shellfish ecology study area (e.g. soft sediment or hard rocky seabed) will determine the number of new species found on the introduced vertical hard surface and associated scour protection as follows:
- hard structures on an area of seabed already characterised by rocky substrates, results in few new species but may sustain a higher abundance (Andersson and Öhman, 2010); and
- hard structures on a soft seabed, may result in increased diversity of fish normally associated with rocky (or other hard bottom) habitats, (Andersson et al., 2009). A new baseline species assemblage will be formed via recolonisation, and the original soft-bottom population will be displaced (Desprez, 2000).
- However, it was noted volume 2, chapter 9, that the longest monitoring programme conducted to date at the Lillgrund offshore wind farm in the Öresund Strait in southern Sweden, showed no overall increase in fish numbers although redistribution towards the foundations within the offshore wind farm area was noticed for some species (i.e. cod, eel and eelpout; Andersson, 2011). More species were recorded after construction than before, which is consistent with the hypothesis that localised increases in biodiversity may occur following the introduction of hard substrates in a soft sediment environment. However, there is uncertainty as to whether:
- artificial reefs facilitate recruitment in the local population; or
- the effects are simply a result of concentrating biomass from surrounding areas (Inger et al., 2009).
- Linley et al. (2007) concluded that finfish species were likely to have a neutral to beneficial likelihood of benefitting, which is supported by evidence demonstrating that abundance of fish can be greater within the vicinity of wind turbine foundations than in the surrounding areas, although species richness and diversity show little difference (Wilhelmsson et al., 2006; Inger et al., 2009).
- Volume 2, chapter 9 also noted that, in contrast, post construction fisheries surveys conducted in line with the Food and Environmental Protection Act (FEPA) licence requirements for the Barrow and North Hoyle offshore wind farms, found no evidence of fish abundance across these sites being affected, either beneficially or adversely, by the presence of the offshore wind farms (Cefas, 2009; BOWind, 2008) therefore suggesting that any effects, if seen, are likely to be highly localised and while of uncertain duration, the evidence suggests effects are not adverse.
- As described in volume 2, chapter 9, diadromous species that are likely to interact with the Proposed Development fish and shellfish ecology study area are only likely to do so during migration when passing through the area to and from rivers located on the east coast of Scotland. In most cases, it is expected that diadromous fish are unlikely to utilise the increase in hard substrate within the Proposed Development fish and shellfish ecology study area for feeding or shelter opportunities, due to the limited time they are likely to be in the area. Therefore, the reef effect is not anticipated to effect diadromous fish species numbers or behaviour. There is potential for impacts upon diadromous fish species resulting from increased predation by marine mammal species within offshore wind farms. Tagging of harbour seal and grey seal around Dutch and UK wind farms provided significant evidence that the seal species were utilising wind farm sites as foraging habitats (Russel et al., 2014), specifically targeting introduced structures such as wind turbine foundations. However, a further study using similar methods concluded that there was no change in behaviour within the wind farm (McConnell et al., 2012), so it is not certain to what extent seals utilise offshore wind developments and therefore effects may be site-specific.
- Research has shown that Atlantic salmon smolts spend little time in coastal waters, and instead are very active swimmers in coastal waters, making their way to feeding grounds in the north quickly (Gardiner et al., 2018a; Gardiner et al., 2018b; Newton et al., 2017; Newton et al., 2019; Newton et al., 2021). Due to the evidence that Atlantic salmon tend not to forage in the coastal waters of Scotland, it is unlikely that they will spend time foraging around wind turbine foundations and therefore are at low risk of impact from increased predation from seals and other predators (volume 2, chapter 9).
- Sea trout may be at higher risk of increased predation from seals than Atlantic salmon due to their higher usage of coastal environments. Sea trout are generalist, opportunistic feeders, with their diet including crustaceans as well as smaller fish species. Due to the potential for increases in juvenile crustaceans and other shellfish species from colonisation of the hard structures introduced by installation of the Proposed Development, it is possible that foraging sea trout may be attracted to the hard substrates. This attraction could in turn lead to their increased predation by seal species. However, there is little evidence at present documenting an increased abundance of sea trout around wind turbine foundations. Further, the Proposed Development fish and shellfish ecology study area is situated in an area of high sandeel abundance, and it is likely that sandeel will make up a considerable proportion of sea trout diet when in the marine environment (Svenning et al., 2005; Thorstad et al., 2016). Sandeel species are unlikely to be associated with wind turbine structures due to habitat preferences (discussed in volume 3, appendix 9.1) and therefore sea trout may be less likely to be attracted to increased prey availability colonised on hard substrates, when there is an abundance of prey species which is not associated with the installation of hard substrate (volume 2, chapter 9).
- Sea lamprey are parasitic in their marine phase, feeding off larger fish and marine mammals (Hume, 2017). As such it is not expected that they will be particularly attracted to structures associated with offshore wind developments. However, this is not certain, as there is limited information available on the utilisation of the marine environment by sea lamprey (volume 2, chapter 9).
- In volume 2, chapter 9 overall, the impact “colonisation of foundations, scour protection and cable protection from the Proposed Development” on diadromous fish was assessed as negligible to minor adverse significance.
- As discussed in volume 3, appendix 20.1, artificial reefs can also act as stepping-stones, which allow organisms to colonise areas not typical of their species or they may increase the connectivity between natural sub-populations (Coolen et al., 2017). The impacts of this can extend beyond the scale of a single operation (e.g. at the scale of individual wind turbines or Project scale) with multiple adjacent offshore wind farms creating stepping stones over wider areas and creating a large-scale effect (Degraer et al., 2020). For example, the Proposed Development is close to four offshore wind farms in the Forth and Tay area: Seagreen 1 and Seagreen 1A Project to the north, Inch Cape to the north‑west and Neart na Gaoithe to the west.
- As stated in volume 2, chapter 8, colonisation is likely to only occur on new infrastructure and not extend far beyond the infrastructure because the benthic communities colonising the hard structures are unlikely to be suited to the sedimentary habitats which the Proposed Development is largely composed of. Impacts from the colonisation of hard structures are predicted to be localised to the individual projects and therefore neither stepping stone effects or significant cumulative effects are anticipated.
- As discussed in volume 2, chapter 10, higher trophic levels, such as marine mammals, are likely to profit from locally increased food availability and/or shelter and therefore have the potential to be attracted to forage within an offshore wind farm array area. However, still relatively little is known about the distribution and diversity of marine mammals around offshore anthropogenic structures. Species such as harbour porpoise, minke whale, white-beaked dolphin, harbour seal and grey seal have been frequently recorded around offshore oil and gas structures (Todd et al., 2016; Delefosse et al., 2018; Lindeboom et al., 2011). Acoustic results from a T-POD measurement within a Dutch wind farm found that relatively more harbour porpoises are found in the wind farm area compared to the two reference areas (Scheidat et al., 2011; Lindeboom et al., 2011). Authors of this study concluded that this effect is directly linked to the presence of the wind farm due to increased food availability as well as the exclusion of fisheries and reduced vessel traffic in the wind farm (shelter effect). However, as discussed above in volume 2, chapter 10, different studies on marine mammals’ use of offshore wind farm structures return different results. Whilst there is some mounting evidence of potential benefits of man-made structures in the marine environment (Birchenough and Degraer, 2020), the statistical significance of such benefits and details about trophic interactions in the vicinity of artificial structures and their influence on ecological connectivity remain largely unknown (Petersen and Malm, 2007; Inger et al., 2009; Rouse et al., 2020, McLean et al., 2022; Elliott and Birchenough, 2022).
- In summary, the direct and indirect impacts of the Proposed Development on prey species will largely result in temporary and highly localised effects which are reversible, with a return to baseline conditions anticipated to occur shortly after the cessation of construction activities. As discussed in section 20.6.9, Table 20.12 Open ▸ , the individual impacts on fish and shellfish were assigned a significance of negligible to minor as standalone impacts. As described in volume 2, chapter 9, cumulative impacts arising from the Proposed Development together with other projects and plans were predicted to result in effects of negligible to minor adverse significance (not significant in EIA terms) upon fish and shellfish IEFs within a 25 km buffer of the Proposed Development fish and shellfish ecology study area.
- The impact 'colonisation of foundations, scour protection and cable protection' has the potential to lead to localised increases in fish species through potential reef effect. However, the assessment of effects concluded any increases would be localised and did not conclude that the Proposed Development would lead to a significant increase in prey species. Sandeel, for example require specific sediment habitat conditions and are therefore unlikely to be attracted to the hard structures of offshore wind farm infrastructure.
Potential impacts on supporting processes
Changes to water flow
- The RSPB raised the question during the ornithology Road Map Meeting 5, January 2022, “If there are changes in water flow effects, how do these changes affect plankton distribution? How do changes in plankton distribution affect sandeel distribution and hence kittiwake distribution?”
- As discussed in volume 2, chapter 7, the presence of infrastructure may lead to changes to tidal currents, wave climate, littoral currents, and sediment transport, principally during the operation and maintenance phase of the Proposed Development, and following decommissioning associated with residual infrastructure. Additionally, volume 2, chapter 8 assessed whether alteration of seabed habitats may arise from the effects of changes to physical processes, including scour effects and changes in the sediment transport and wave regimes resulting in potential effects on benthic receptors. It was noted that this in turn could have knock on effects up trophic levels.
- Volume 3, appendix 7.1 stated that the construction of the Proposed Development was seen to marginally reduce wave heights in the lee of the structures whilst a marginal increase was noted at the periphery, however, during larger storm events these effects were less marked. Any changes in tidal currents and wave climate would not extend to the coastline and there would be no change in physical processes in this area.
- Residual currents are effectively the driver of sediment transport and therefore any changes to residual currents would have a direct impact on sediment transport which would persist for the lifecycle of the Proposed Development. However, if the presence of the foundation structures does not have a significant influence on either tide or wave conditions as concluded in volume 3, appendix 7.1, they cannot therefore have a significant effect on the sediment transport regime. As discussed in volume 2, chapter 8, the limited nature of changes to tidal flows would not influence the hydrodynamic regime which underpins offshore bank morphology and is the supporting process for aspects of the Firth of Forth Banks Complex MPA, in particular Berwick and Marr Banks geomorphological features. It was concluded that for the subtidal sands and gravels and shelf banks and mounds IEF, the effect will be negligible adverse significance, which is not significant in EIA terms, because of the small scale of change as a result of the Proposed Development and the dynamic nature of these IEFs.
- Volume 2, chapter 7 concluded that the magnitude of increased infrastructure leading to changes in the hydrodynamic environment and sediment transport during the operation and maintenance phase would be negligible to minor for the Proposed Development alone. Modelling and assessment for Neart na Gaoithe (Mainstream Renewable Power, 2018) included Neart na Gaoithe, Inch Cape, and Seagreen in addition to the Proposed Development (which is referred to in documentation as Seagreen Phase 2 and Phase 3). 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.
- The Neart na Gaoithe study also showed that with all offshore wind farms in situ, the cumulative effect 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 effect 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.
- Given that any changes to the hydrodynamic regime as a result of the Proposed development alone or in-combination with other projects, are predicted to be negligible to minor and restricted to the near field, significant changes to the distribution of plankton from this impact are not anticipated.
Conclusions
- This section assessed the impacts of the Proposed Development on prey species, to determine whether there will be any increases or decreases in prey distribution and availability.
- The impacts resulting from the Proposed Development over all phases of the Proposed Development lifecycle (construction, operation and maintenance and decommissioning) which are relevant to prey species include temporary habitat loss/disturbance; increased suspended sediment concentrations (SSC) and associated sediment deposition; injury and/or disturbance to fish and shellfish from underwater noise and vibration; long-term subtidal habitat loss; EMFs from underwater electrical cabling; and colonisation of foundations, scour protection and cable protection.
- For the Proposed Development alone, these individual impacts were assigned a significance of negligible to minor (volume 2, chapter 9). Cumulative impacts arising from the Proposed Development together with other projects and plans were also predicted to result in effects of negligible to minor adverse significance (volume 2, chapter 9). As such negligible or minor changes to prey species are predicted, which are not significant in EIA terms.
- The impact 'colonisation of foundations, scour protection and cable protection' has the potential to lead to increases in fish species through potential reef effect. It is uncertain to what degree this may occur, however; any beneficial effects are predicted to be highly localised and not significant.
- Impacts on the supporting process, ‘changes to waterflow’ which could affect seabed habitats and plankton communities was assessed. Any changes to the hydrodynamic regime as a result of the Proposed Development alone or in-combination with other projects, are predicted to be negligible to minor and restricted to the near field (volume 2, chapter 7). Significant changes to the distribution of plankton from this impact are not anticipated. As such, any further knock-on effects on higher trophic levels such as sandeel distribution and kittiwake distribution are also not anticipated.
20.7.10. Effects of the Proposed Development on Predators
- Section 20.7.9 examined the impacts as a result of the Proposed Development which could have either positive or negative effects on the distribution of key prey species. This section assesses the sensitivity of fish, seabird and marine mammal predator species to prey availability and draws on the conclusions of section 20.7.9 to determine if there are any potentially significant effects on predators as a consequence of changes in prey availability.
Piscivorous fish
- The typical prey species of the key fish predators (piscivorous fish) are listed in section 20.7.4, Table 20.19 Open ▸ , which shows these fish species have broad diets comprising not only small fish but also benthic species including invertebrates, molluscs and crustaceans. This suggests, the fish predator species are likely to be less sensitive to the availability of the key prey species sandeel, herring, sprat and mackerel, which are important to the key marine mammal and seabird species discussed in this chapter.
- As discussed in section 20.7.9, adverse effects on prey species as a result of the Proposed Development were assessed as having minor adverse effects on marine fish (including prey species), which would not result in a significant change to prey species populations. The impact 'colonisation of foundations, scour protection and cable protection' has the potential to lead to localised increases in fish species through potential reef effect. However, the assessments of effects concluded any increases would be localised and did not conclude that the Proposed Development would lead to a significant increase in prey species.
- As such, it is concluded that there would be negligible consequences either negative or beneficial from the effects of the Proposed Development on prey species, on key fish predators.
Marine mammals
- As discussed in volume 2, chapter 10, marine mammals exploit a range of different prey items and can forage widely, sometimes covering extensive distances. Given the potential impacts of construction on prey resources will be highly localised and largely restricted to the boundaries of the Proposed Development, only a small area will be affected when compared to available foraging habitat in the North Sea. The fish and shellfish communities found within the Proposed Development fish and shellfish ecology study area (see volume 2, chapter 9) are characteristic of the fish and shellfish assemblages in the northern North Sea. It is therefore reasonable to assume that, due to the highly mobile nature of marine mammals, there will be similar prey resources available in the wider area.
- However, volume 2, chapter 10 noted there may be an energetic cost associated with increased travelling, and two species, harbour porpoise and harbour seal, may be particularly vulnerable to this effect. Harbour porpoise has a high metabolic rate and only a limited energy storage capacity, which limits their ability to buffer against diminished food while harbour seal typically, forage close to haul out sites (i.e. within nearest 50 km). Despite this, if animals do have to travel further to alternative foraging grounds, the impacts are expected to be short term in nature and reversible. It is expected that all marine mammal receptors would be able to tolerate the effect without any impact on reproduction and survival rates and would be able to return to previous activities once the impact had ceased.
- Minke whale was identified as being sensitive to effects on sandeel abundance in volume 2, chapter 10. Studies analysing the stomach contents of minke whale found that sandeel is their key food source in the North Sea (Robinson and Tetley, 2005; Tetley et al., 2008; see volume 3, appendix 10.2 for more details); the results of Firth of Forth Round 3 boat-based survey results from May 2009 to November 2011 which identified a spatial overlap between positions of minke whale and areas of high probability of sandeel presence (Langton et al., 2021); and various studies reported seasonal movement of minke whales to favoured feeding grounds, optimal for sandeel (from May to August; Robinson et al., 2009; Risch et al., 2019).
- However, as discussed in volume 2, chapter 10, Anderwald et al. (2012) studied flexibility of minke whales in their habitat use and found that although significantly higher sighting rates often occur in habitats associated with sandeel presence, an area of high occupancy by minke whale, coincided with high densities of sprat during spring. Hence, the low energetic cost of swimming in minke whales and their ability to switch between different prey according to their seasonal availability indicates that these species are able to readily respond to temporal changes in pelagic prey concentrations.
- Volume 2, chapter 10, concluded that all marine mammal IEFs, and therefore all key marine mammal predator species, have low sensitivity to the impact ‘changes in fish and shellfish communities affecting prey availability’. The magnitude was assessed as low on the basis that the impact on marine mammals is predicted to be of local spatial extent, medium-term duration, intermittent and highly reversible. Therefore overall, the effect was assessed to be of minor adverse significance.
- In summary, as discussed in section 20.7.9, it is possible that higher trophic levels, such as fish and marine mammals, will profit from locally increased food availability and/or shelter and therefore have the potential to be attracted to forage within offshore wind farm array area. However, still relatively little is known about the distribution and diversity of marine mammals around offshore anthropogenic structures. Whilst there is some mounting evidence of potential benefits of man-made structures in the marine environment (Birchenough and Degrae, 2020), the statistical significance of such benefits and details about trophic interactions in the vicinity of artificial structures and their influence on ecological connectivity remain largely unknown (Petersen and Malm, 2007; Inger et al., 2009; Rouse et al., 2020, McLean et al., 2022; Elliott and Birchenough, 2022).
- Section 20.7.9 concluded that the impact 'colonisation of foundations, scour protection and cable protection' has the potential to lead to localised increases in fish species through the reef effect. However, the assessments of effects concluded any increases would be localised and did not conclude that the Proposed Development would lead to a significant increase in prey species. Therefore, adverse or beneficial effects on marine mammals is not predicted to be significant.
Seabirds
- Prey availability is one of the most important controls of species abundance and distribution in the higher trophic levels, including seabirds (Lynam et al., 2017; Mitchell et al., 2020). Reduced prey availability and changing prey distribution means that seabirds may have to forage further for food. For example, Fayet et al. (2021) compared the foraging costs in puffin populations in the north-east Atlantic. Puffins from declining populations in southern Iceland and north-west Norway had the greatest foraging ranges and least energy-dense diet. Low prey availability close to the colonies, potentially resulting from climate or commercial fisheries effects, is also amplified by increased intra-specific and inter-specific competition which forces birds to forage further from their colonies (volume 3, appendix 20.1).
- Diet and foraging behaviour determine the extent to which seabird species can respond to changing prey availability. Generalist species, such as gulls, which feed on a wide range of prey types will be more resilient to changing prey availability than more specialist species such as kittiwake which predominantly prey on small fish (Furness and Tasker, 2000). Water column feeders, such as auks, forage from the surface to the seabed (depending on water depth) and can feed on both pelagic and demersal fish species, as well as invertebrates such as squid and zooplankton. Surface feeders, including kittiwake and terns, are restricted to prey available within the upper 1 m to 2 m of the sea surface, such as small fish, zooplankton and other invertebrates. Therefore, changes to prey distribution within the water column resulting from changes to stratification or temperature, for example, will affect surface feeding species differently to water column feeding species (volume 3, appendix 20.1).
- This has been demonstrated in the North Sea, where almost 50% of surface feeding seabird species exhibited widespread breeding failures between 2010 and 2015; compared with only two of the eight-water column feeding species assessed (volume 3, appendix 20.1, Figure 4.2; OSPAR, 2017; Mitchell et al., 2018). Typically, seabirds that feed within the water column are better able to cope with changes in prey availability rather than surface feeding species, as explained above (Mitchell et al., 2020). This is likely linked to changes in the availability of small fish species (such as sandeel and sprat species) which are the predominant prey of surface feeding species such as kittiwake. A summary of the typical feeding strategy and prey of key seabird species for the Project have been outlined in Table 20.21 Open ▸ . Plunge divers dive into the sea from a height to catch prey, whereas pursuit divers dive and can then swim underwater in pursuit of prey (volume 3, appendix 20.1).
- The availability of sandeel has been correlated with the breeding success and adult survival of kittiwakes (Frederiksen et al., 2004, 2008; Carroll et al., 2017). Adult kittiwakes eat mostly older (1+ year group) sandeel during April and May; switching to juvenile (0 year group) sandeel in June and July during chick rearing (Lewis et al., 2001). This correlates with the annual cycle of sandeel. The 1+ year group (sandeel hatched prior to the current year) are active in the water column during spring. Once they have accumulated enough lipid they bury themselves in the sand, usually in June-July, and live off their stored lipid during the winter. The 0-year group (young of the year) sandeel are available from June onwards following metamorphosis from larvae into juveniles, and prior to burying themselves to overwinter (Wright and Bailey, 1996). However, density dependence also influences sandeel recruitment, and the biomass of the sandeel stock tends to be driven by occasional especially good years (ICES, 2017). In sandeel stocks with low fishing mortality, years with high stock biomass tend to show low recruitment, whereas high recruitment is more likely when adult stock biomass is lower (ICES, 2017, Lindegren et al. 2018). Both climate change and commercial fisheries are implicated with a reduction in sandeel abundance, which may contribute to kittiwake declines (Carroll et al., 2017) (volume 3, appendix 20.1).
- In the Firth of Forth region, a decrease in mean length-at-age of both for 0-year group and 1+ year group sandeel brought in for puffin chicks on the Isle of May suggested a dramatic deterioration in prey quality from 1973 to 2015. This is correlated with decreases in kittiwake populations. It is estimated that the energy content of sandeel decreased by approximately 70% and 40% for 0 and 1+ year groups respectively, which can result in significant dietary or behavioural shifts in seabirds which feed on them (Wanless et al., 2018).
- In the western North Sea between 1973 and 2015, the diet of chick-rearing kittiwakes, puffins, razorbills and shags was predominantly comprised of sandeel (Wanless, et al., 2018). Clupeids (sprat and herring) were the second-most important prey species, however these rarely exceeded 10% of the food biomass per year. Juvenile gadids were another important prey species (1 - 10% biomass) for these seabird species in some years (Wanless, et al., 2018) (volume 3, appendix 20.1).
- For guillemots, sandeel were the predominant prey until the late 1990s, when a shift to sprat (93%) and herring (7%) was observed (Wanless, et al., 2018). Between 1982 and 2019, sandeel were largely confined to the early part of the chick period as they have declined (Harris et al., 2022). A trend towards more sprat and herring have also been observed since the mid-2000s in razorbills and kittiwakes during chick-rearing, though sandeel are still the dominant prey (Wanless et al., 2018). Sprat feed and spawn repeatedly through spring and summer in coastal and offshore waters, and so are available for a wider period. Gannet predominantly feed on pelagic fish such as mackerel and sandeel or fisheries discards (Le Bot et al., 2019) (volume 3, appendix 20.1).
- Gull species, such as herring gull and lesser black-backed gull are able to feed on a diverse range of prey and food from both natural and anthropogenic sources. In the south-eastern North Sea, faecal samples revealed that both lesser black-backed gulls and herring gull diets were predominantly composed of bivalves and crustaceans (Kubetzki and Garthe, 2003). A decline in herring gull abundance has been observed in Scotland since the 1969-70 National Census, and lesser black-backed gull populations have strongly fluctuated, which has been associated with changes in waste management such as covering refuse tips, and a reduction in fisheries discards (Burthe et al., 2014; Foster, Swann and Furness, 2017; JNCC, 2021a; JNCC, 2021b; Tyson et al., 2015); this may be evidence of the over-reliance of these species on these food sources. Foraging at landfills can also increase the risk of disease and mortality from Clostridium botulinum infection (Coulston 2015) (volume 3, appendix 20.1).
- Overall, construction activities and the presence of wind turbines may change the behaviour or availability of prey species for seabirds, resulting in the availability of such prey species being temporarily reduced. However, as outlined above, the majority of seabird species have a variety of target prey species and have large foraging ranges, meaning that they can forage for alternative prey species or move to other foraging areas if prey becomes temporarily unavailable due to construction activities.
- For long-term subtidal habitat loss due to the presence of the wind turbines and associated infrastructure, the majority of fish species would be able to avoid habitat loss effects due to their greater mobility and would recover into the areas affected following cessation of construction. Sandeels (and other less mobile prey species) would be affected by long term subtidal habitat loss, although recovery of these species is expected to occur quickly as the sediments recover following installation of infrastructure and adults recolonise and also via larval recolonisation of the sandy sediments which dominate the Proposed Development fish and shellfish ecology study area.
- Following a minor adverse impact on fish that are prey species for seabirds, the impact on seabirds is predicted to be of local spatial extent, indirect and of medium-term duration, as prey species distribution is considered likely to recover over time. The magnitude is therefore considered to be negligible, and any effects on seabirds will not be significant. It is considered that any effects on seabirds such as kittiwake from a temporary reduction on prey species as a result of the wind farm will not significantly add to other predicted effects such as collision.
- As discussed in volume 3, appendix 20.1, it is challenging to separate the effects of different pressures, due to the complexity of how they interact and the combined impact they have on seabird populations, their environment and their prey at all scales. Although offshore wind farms can impact local seabird populations directly through displacement and collision, there may also be beneficial indirect impacts from offshore wind farms, for example through the creation of artificial reefs on wind turbine foundations to increased prey availability for some seabird species (Coolen, 2017).
- Overall, gannet, herring gull and lesser black-backed gull are thought to be buffered from the impacts of climate change, mostly relating to their ability to access a wider variety of prey, but they may be sensitive to controls on fisheries discards (Johnston et al., 2021). Guillemot, kittiwake, puffin and razorbill abundances have been more closely linked to the success of their prey, which may make them more vulnerable to bottom-up climate change impacts (Burthe et al., 2014; Johnston et al., 2021). A reduction in prey quality and availability may also reduce the resilience of these species against storm events, which could lead to an increase in large-scale wrecks as climate change leads to an increase in extreme weather (Anker-Nilssen et al., 2017; Camphuysen et al., 1999; Heubeck et al., 2011; Morley et al., 2016). Cliff nesting species, such as kittiwake and razorbill, may also be sensitive to nest failure in high winds and storm surges (Newell et al., 2015). Whilst auks and gannet may be sensitive to fisheries bycatch, high-risk fishing gear such as static net, longline and midwater trawls, are not common in the Forth and Tay region (Bradbury et al., 2017; Larsen et al., 2021). In the Forth and Tay region, and elsewhere, gannet, herring gull, kittiwake and lesser black-backed gull may also be vulnerable to effects from offshore wind farms, including collision and displacement (Burthe et al., 2014; Furness et al., 2013).
- Whilst there is uncertainty around the in-combination effects from a growing number of windfarms, without action to lower carbon emission, climate change related impacts are likely to continue having an adverse effect on seabird populations, which must be considered when weighing up ecological trade-offs (Scott, 2022).
Proposed monitoring
- As described in the Berwick Bank Wind Farm Compensatory Measures EIA Report (SSER, 2022f), sandeel monitoring has been put-forward as part of the proposed fisheries based compensatory measure.
- The effects on sandeel will be monitored, likely through an acoustic survey during April/May in the relevant sandeel locations. This will be complimented by a dredge survey in December when the sandeel are hibernating in the sand/gravel on the seabed. The acoustic survey is non-lethal but the dredge survey will result in some sandeel mortality and limited disturbance of the seabed (Berwick Bank Wind Farm Compensatory Measures EIA Report (SSER, 2022f).
Conclusions
- This section assesses whether there will be any changes to the key predator species as a result of the Proposed Development. This was achieved by assessing the sensitivity of the predator species to changes in prey availability and drawing on the conclusions of section 20.7.9 along with the findings of the relevant Offshore EIA Report chapters to determine if any changes to predator species are predicted. The following conclusions were made:
- piscivorous fish generally have a broad range of prey species they feed on which include small fish, molluscs and crustaceans which makes them less sensitive to the availability of the key forage prey species sandeel, herring, sprat and mackerel;
- of the marine mammal key species, harbour porpoise, harbour seal and minke whale were identified as being potentially sensitive to changes in prey availability;
- harbour porpoise and harbour seal may be sensitive to disturbance from their favoured habitat due to an energetic cost associated with increased travelling, however, the impacts are expected to be short term in nature and reversible. It is expected that all marine mammal receptors would be able to tolerate the effect without any impact on reproduction and survival rates and would be able to return to previous activities once the impact had ceased;
- minke whale was identified as being sensitive to effects to sandeel abundance, however, Anderwald et al. (2012) found they could switch between different prey according to their seasonal availability which indicates that these species are able to readily respond to temporal changes in pelagic prey concentrations; and
- of the seabird key species, kittiwake was identified as being particularly sensitive to changes in prey availability of its favoured prey species, sandeel. However, section 20.7.9 concluded significant changes to prey species as a result of the Proposed Development alone and in-combination with other projects are not predicted. Therefore, significant consequences on the key predator species are also not predicted.
20.7.11. Summary and Conclusions
- The inter-related effects for all topics have been considered and are detailed above. It has been possible to conclude that inter-related effects across phases of the Proposed Development will not result in combined effects of greater significance than the assessments presented for each of the individual phases. It has also been concluded that multiple effects will not interact in a way that are likely to result in greater significance than those assessments presented for individual receptors.
- The assessments within volume 2, chapter 9 of the Offshore EIA Report concluded that none of the potential impacts arising from the Proposed Development alone or in combination with other projects, would result in significant adverse effects on prey species.
- This ecosystem effects assessment concluded that whilst colonisation of foundations, scour protection and cable protection has the potential to lead to localised increases in fish species through potential reef effects, any increases would be localised and are not expected to lead to a significant increase in prey species.
- Predator species most vulnerable to changes in prey availability arising from the Proposed Development impacts include harbour porpoise, harbour seal, minke whale and kittiwake. However, as significant changes to prey species as a result of the Proposed Development alone and in-combination with other projects are not predicted, significant effects on the key predator species are also not predicted.
- It is concluded that there will be no adverse effects on seabirds arising from changes in the behaviour or availability of prey species for seabirds as a result of the Proposed Development. As outlined above, the majority of seabird species have a variety of target prey species and have large foraging ranges, meaning that they can forage for alternative prey species or move to other foraging areas if prey becomes temporarily unavailable due to construction activities.
20.8. References
20.8. References
Aberdeen & Grampian Chamber of Commerce, (2022). Impact of offshore wind on marine food chain to be explored. Available at: https://www.agcc.co.uk/news-article/impact-of-offshore-wind-on-marine-food-chain-to-be-explored. Accessed on: October 2022.
Alder, J., Campbell, B., Karpouzi, V., Kaschner, K. and Pauly, D. (2008). Forage Fish: From Ecosystems to Markets. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 33, pp.153-166.
Andersson, M. H., Berggren, B., Wilhelmsson, D., and Öhman, M. C. (2009) Epibenthic Colonization of Concrete and Steel Pilings in a Cold-Temperate Embayment: A Field Experiment. Helgoland Marine Research, 63, pp. 249–260.
Andersson, M. and Öhman, M. (2010). Fish and sessile assemblages associated with wind-turbine constructions in the Baltic Sea. Marine and Freshwater Research 61, 642-650.
Andersson, M. H. (2011). Offshore Wind Farms - Ecological Effects of Noise and Habitat Alteration on Fish. PhD Thesis, Department of Zoology, Stockholm University.
Anderwald, P., Evans, P.G., Dyer, R., Dale, A.C., Wright, P.J., and Hoelzel, A.R. (2012). Spatial scale and environmental determinants in minke whale habitat use and foraging. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 450, 259-274.
Anker-Nilssen, T., Harris, M.P., Kleven, O. and Langset, M. (2017). Status, origin and population level impacts of Atlantic puffins killed in a mass mortality event in the southwest Norway early 2016. Seabird, 30, 1-14.
APEM (2021). Seagreen 1 Drop Down Video Benthic Monitoring and Annex I Reef Survey.
Arrigo, K.R., van Dijken, G.L., Cameron, M.A., van der Griend, J., Wedding, L. M., Hazen, L., Leape, J., Leonard, G., Merkl, A., Micheli, F., Millis, M. M., Monismith, S., Ouellette, N. T., Zivian, A., Levi, M. and Bailey, R. M. (2020). Synergistic interactions among growing stressors increase risk to an Arctic ecosystem. Nat Commun 11, 6255.
Bailey, H., Hammond, P. and Thompson, P. (2014). Modelling harbour seal habitat by combining data from multiple tracking. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology. 450. 30–39. 10.1016/j.jembe.2013.10.011.
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.
Benhemma-Le-Gall, A., Graham, I. M., Merchant, N. D. and Thompson, P. M. (2021). Broad-Scale Responses of Harbor Porpoises to Pile-Driving and Vessel Activities During Offshore Windfarm Construction. Front. Mar. Sci.
Birchenough, S. N. R. and Degraer, S. (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, Volume 77, Issue 3, Pages 1075–1078, https://doi.org/10.1093/icesjms/fsaa039.
BOWind (2008) Barrow Offshore Wind Farm Post Construction Monitoring Report. First annual report. 15 January 2008, 60pp.
Bohnsack, J. A. (1989) Are High Densities of Fishes at Artificial Reefs the Result of Habitat Limitation or Behavioural Preference? B. Mar. Sci., 44(2), pp. 631-645.
Boulcott, P., and Wright, P.J. (2008). Critical timing for reproductive allocation in a capital breeder: evidence from sandeels. Aquatic Biology, 3(1), pp.31-40.
Bradbury, G., Shackshaft, M., Scott-Hayward, L., Rextad, E., Miller, D. and Edwards, D. (2017). Risk assessment of seabird bycatch in UK waters. Report to Defra. Defra Project: MB0126.
British Sea Fishing, (2022). Herring. Available at: https://britishseafishing.co.uk/herring/. Accessed on: October, 2022.
British Sea Fishing, (2022). Mackerel. Available at: h https://britishseafishing.co.uk/mackerel/. Accessed on: October, 2022.
Buckstaff, K.C. (2004). Effects of watercraft noise on the acoustic behaviour of bottlenose dolphins, Tursiops truncatus, in Sarasota Bay, Florida. Mar. Mamm. Sci., 20 (2004), pp. 709-725
Burthe, S., Daunt, F., Butler, A., Elston, D.A., Frederiksen, M., Johns, D., Newell, M., Thackeray, S.J. and Wanless, S. (2012). Phenological trends and trophic mismatch across multiple levels of a North Sea pelagic food web. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 454, pp.119-133.
Burthe, S. J., Wanless, S., Newell, M. A., Butler, A., and Daunt, F. (2014). Assessing the vulnerability of the marine bird community in the western North Sea to climate change and other anthropogenic impacts. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 507, 277-295.
Camphuysen, C. J., Wright, P. J., Leopold, M., Huppop, O., and Reid, J. B. (1999). A review of the causes, and consequences at the population level, of mass mortalities of seabirds. ICES Cooperative Research Report No. 232.
Canning, S.J., Santos, M.B., Reid, R.J., Evans, P.G.H., Sabin, R.C., Bailey, N. and Pierce, G.J. (2008). Seasonal distribution of white beaked dolphins (Lagenorhynchus albirostris) in UK waters with new information on diet and habitat use. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the UK, 88, pp 11591166.
Carroll, M.J., Bolton, M., Owen, E., Anderson, G.Q.A., Mackley, E.K., Dunn, E.K. and Furness, R.W. (2017). Kittiwake breeding success in the southern North Sea correlates with prior sandeel fishing mortality. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems, 27(6), pp.1164-1175.
Carter, M. I. D., Boehme, L., Duck, C. D., Grecian, W. J., Hastie, G. D., McConnell, B. J., Miller, D. L., Morris, C. D., Moss, S. E. W., Thompson, D., Thompson, P. M. & Russell, D. J. F. (2020). Habitat-based predictions of at-sea distribution for grey and harbour seals in the British Isles. Sea Mammal Research Unit, University of St Andrews, Report to BEIS, OESEA-16-76/OESEA-17-78
Cefas (2009) Strategic Review of Offshore Wind Farm Monitoring Data Associated with FEPA Licence Conditions. Project ME1117. July 2009.
Clausen, L. W., Rindorf, A., van Deurs, M., Dickey-Collas, M. and Hintzen N. T. (2017). Shifts in North Sea forage fish productivity and potential fisheries yield. Journal of Applied Ecology, 55(3), pp.1092-1101.
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.
Coulston, J. C. (2015) Re-Evaluation of the Role of Landfills and Culling in the Historic Changes in the Herring Gull (Larus argentatus) Population in Great Britain. Waterbirds, 38(4), pp.339-354.
Cresci, A., Perrichon, P., Durif, C.M., Sørhus, E., Johnsen, E., Bjelland, R., Larsen, T., Skiftesvik, A.B. and Browman, H.I., (2022). Magnetic fields generated by the DC cables of offshore wind farms have no effect on spatial distribution or swimming behaviour of lesser sandeel larvae (Ammodytes marinus). Marine Environmental Research, 176, p.105609.
Damseaux, F., Siebert, U., Pomeroy, P., Lepoint, G., Das, K. (2021). Habitat and resource segregation of two sympatric seals in the North Sea. Science of The Total Environment, Volume 764, 142842, ISSN 0048-9697, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.142842.
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
Degraer, S., Carey, D. A., Coolen, J. W. P., Hutchison, Z. L., 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.
Delefosse, M., Rahbek, M., Roesen, L., and Clausen, K. (2018). Marine mammal sightings around oil and gas installations in the central North Sea. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom, 98(5).
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.
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, 1428- 1438.
Dickey-Collas, M., Nash, R. D. M., Brunel, T., van Damme, C. J. G., Marshall, C. T., Payne, M. R., Corten, A., Geffen, A. J., Peck, M. A., Hatfield, E. M. C., Hintzen, N. T., Enberg, K., Kell, L. T., and Simmonds, E. J. (2010). Lessons learned from stock collapse and recovery of North Sea herring: a review. – ICES Journal of Marine Science, 67: 1875– 1886.
Edren, S.M.C., Andersen, S.M., Teilmann, J., Carstensen, J., Harders, P.B., Dietz, R. and Miller, L.A. (2010) The effect of a large Danish offshore wind farm on harbor and gray seal haul-out behavior. Marine Mammal Science, 26, 614-634.
Elliott, M. and Birchenough, S. N. R. (2022). Man-made marine structures – Agents of marine environmental change or just other bits of the hard stuff? Marine Pollution Bulletin, Volume 176. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2022.113468.
Ellis, J.R., Milligan, S.P., Readdy, L., Taylor, N. and Brown, M.J. (2012) Spawning and nursery grounds of selected fish species in UK waters. Scientific Series Technical Report. Cefas Lowestoft, 147: 56 pp
Emeis, K-C., van Beusekom, J., Callies, U., Ebinghaus, R., Kannen, A., Kraus, G., Kröncke, I., Lenhart, H., Lorkowski, I., Matthias, V. and Möllmann. (2015). The North Sea—a shelf sea in the Anthropocene. Journal of Marine Systems, 141, pp.18-33.
Evans, P.G.H. (1990). European cetaceans and seabirds in an oceanographic context. Lutra, 33, 95–125.
European Commision (1999). The Guidelines for the Assessment of Indirect and Cumulative Impacts as well as Impact Interactions. Available at: Guidelines for the Assessment of Indirect and Cumulative Impacts as well\ as Impact Interactions (europa.eu). Accessed on 14 October 2022.
European Commission, (2022). Why do we need to protect biodiversity? Available at: https://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/biodiversity/intro/index_en.htm. Accessed on: October 2022.
Faroese Safood, (2022). Saithe (Coley, Atlantic pollock). Available at: https://www.faroeseseafood.com/species/saithe-coley-atlantic-pollock/. Accessed on: October 2022.
Fauchald, P., Skov, H., Skern-Mauritzen, M., Johns, D. and Tveraa, T. (2011). Wasp-waist interactions in the North Sea ecosystem. PLoS ONE, 6(7), e22729.
Fayet, A.L., Clucas, G.V., Anker-Nilssen, T., Syposz, M. and Hansen, E.S. (2021). Local prey shortages drive foraging costs and breeding success in a declining seabird, the Atlantic puffin. Journal of Animal Ecology, 90(5), pp.1152-1164.
Forney, K.A., Southall, B.L., Slooten, E., Dawson, S., Read, A.J., Baird, R.W. and Brownell, R.L. Jr. (2017). Nowhere to go: noise impact assessments for marine mammal populations with high site fidelity. Endang Species Res 32:391-413. https://doi.org/10.3354/esr00820
Foster, S., Swann, R.L. and Furness, R.W. (2017). Can changes in fishery landings explain longterm population trends in gulls? Bird Study, 64, pp.90–97
Fowler, A.M., Jørgensen, A.M., Svendsen, J.C., Macreadie, P.I., Jones, D.O., Boon, A.R., Booth, D.J., Brabant, R., Callahan, E., Claisse, J.T. and Dahlgren, T.G. (2018). Environmental benefits of leaving offshore infrastructure in the ocean. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 16(10), pp.571-578.
Frederiksen, M., Wanless, S., Harris, M.P., Rothery, P. and Wilson, L.J. (2004). The role of industrial fisheries and oceanographic change in the decline of North Sea black-legged kittiwakes. Journal of Applied Ecology, 41, pp.1129- 1139.
Frederiksen, M., Edwards, M., Richardson, A.J., Halliday, N.C. and Wanless, S. (2006). From plankton to top predators: bottom‐up control of a marine food web across four trophic levels. Journal of Animal Ecology, 75(6), pp.1259-1268.
Frederiksen, M., Jensen, H., Daunt, F., Mavor, R.A. and Wanless, S. (2008). Differential effects of a local industrial sand lance fishery on seabird breeding performance. Ecological Applications, 18, pp.701-710.
Furness, R. W. and Tasker, M. L. (2000). Seabird-fishery interactions: quantifying the sensitivity of seabirds to reductions in sandeel abundance, and identification of key areas for sensitive seabirds in the North Sea. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 202, pp.253-264.
Furness, R.W., Wade, H. and Masden, E.A. (2013) Assessing vulnerability of seabird populations to offshore wind farms. Journal of Environmental Management, 119, pp.56-66.
Gardiner, R., Main, R., Kynoch, R., Gilbey, J., and Davies, I., (2018a). A needle in the haystack? Seeking salmon smolt migration routes off the Scottish east coast using surface trawling and genetic assignment. Poster presentation to the MASTS Annual Science Meeting 31 October – 2 November 2018.
Gardiner, R., Main, R., Davies, I., Kynoch, R., Gilbey, J., Adams, C., and Newton M. (2018b). Recent investigations into the marine migration of salmon smolts in the context of marine renewable development. Conference Presentation. Environmental Interactions of Marine Renewables (EIMR) Conference, Kirkwall, 24-26 April 2018.
Gerstein, E. R., Blue, J. E. and Forysthe, S. E. (2005). The acoustics of vessel collisions with marine mammals. In Proceedings of OCEANS 2005 MTS/IEEE (pp. 1190-1197). IEEE.
Gordon, J., Gillespie, D., Potter, J., Frantzis, A., Simmonds, M. P., Swift, R., & Thompson, D. (2003). A review of the effects of seismic surveys on marine mammals. Marine Technology Society Journal, 37(4), 16-34.
Gosch, M. (2017). The diet of the grey seal [Halichoerus grypus (Fabricius, 1791)] in Ireland and potential interactions with commercial fisheries. PhD Thesis, University College Cork.
Graham, I. M., Merchant, N. D., Farcas, A., Barton, T. R., Cheney, B., Bono, S. and Thompson, P. M. (2019). Harbour porpoise responses to pile-driving diminish over time. Royal Society open science, 6(6), 190335
Greenstreet, S., Fraser, H., Armstrong, E. and Gibb, I. (2010). Monitoring the consequences of the northwestern North Sea sandeel fishery closure. Scottish Marine and Freshwater Science, 1(6), pp.1-34.
Halpern, B.S., Frazier, M., Potapenko, J., Casey, K.S., Koenig, K., Longo, C., Lowndes, J.S., Rockwood, R.C., Selig, E.R., Selkoe, K.A. and Walbridge, S. (2015). Spatial and temporal changes in cumulative human impacts on the world’s ocean. Nature Communication, 6, 7615.
Hammond, P.S., Gordon, J.D.D., Grellier, K., Hall, A.J., Northrridge, S.P., Thompson, D., and Harwood, J. (2001). Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA2) – Technical Report 006 – Marine Mammals. Produced by the Scottish Marine Research Unit (SMRU) on behalf of the Department for Trade and Industry (Dti), August 2001.
Harris, M.P., Albon, S.D., Newell, M.A., Gunn, C., Daunt, F., and Wanless, S. (2022). Long-term within-season changes in the diet of Common Guillemot (Uria aalge) chicks at a North Sea colony: implications for dietary monitoring. IBIS International Journal of Avian Science.
Hastie, G.D., Wilson, B., Wilson, L.J., Parsons, K.M., Thompson, P.M. (2004). Functional mechanisms underlying cetacean distribution patterns: hotspots for bottlenose dolphins are linked to foraging. Marine Biology (2004) 144: 397–403
Heath, M.R., Neat, F.C., Pinnegar, J.K., Reid, D.G., Sims, D.W. and Wright, P. (2012). Review of climate change impacts on marine fish and shellfish around the UK and Ireland. Aquatic Conservation Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems, 22(3).
Heubeck, M., Aarvak, T., Isaksen, K, Johnsen, A, Petersen, I. K. and Anker-Nilssen, T. (2011). Mass mortality of adult Razorbills Alca torda in the Skagerrak and North Sea area, autumn 2007. Seabird, 24, pp.11-32.
Holland, G. J., Greenstreet, S. P. R., Gibb, I. M., Fraser, H. M. and Robertson, M. R., (2005) Identifying Sandeel Ammodytes marinus Sediment Habitat Preferences in the Marine Environment. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser., 303, pp. 269-282.
Howells, R.J., Burthe, S.J., Green, J.A., Harris, M.P., Newell, M.A., Butler, A., Wanless, S. and Daunt, F. (2017). From days to decades: short-and long-term variation in environmental conditions affect offspring diet composition of a marine top predator. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 583, pp.227-242.
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 Vol 9 No 4, 167pp. DOI: 10.7489/12086-1
Hume, J. (2017) A review of the geographic distribution, status and conservation of Scotland’s lampreys. The Glasgow Naturalist. Volume 26, Part 4 Available at: https://www.glasgownaturalhistory.org.uk/gn26_4/Hume_lampreys_Scotland.pdf. Accessed on: 09/01/2022
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.
ICES. (2006). Herring, Clupea harengus. Available at: https://www.ices.dk/about-ICES/projects/EU-RFP/EU%20Repository/ICES%20FIshMap/ICES%20FishMap%20species%20factsheet-herring.pdf. Accessed on: 11/11/2021
ICES (2017) Sandeel (Ammodytes spp.) in Division 4.a, Sandeel Area 7r (northern North Sea, Shetland). ICES Advice on Fishing Opportunities, Catch, and Effort Greater North Sea Ecoregion (san.sa.7r).
ICES (2022) ICES Herring Assessment Working Group for The Area South Of 62° N (HAWG). Volume 4, Issue 16
IJsseldijk, L., Brownlow, A., Davison, N., Deaville, R., Haelters, J., Keijl, G., Siebert, U. and Ten Doeschate, M. (2018). Spatiotemporal trends in white-beaked dolphin strandings along the North Sea coast from 1991–2017. 61: 153-163.
Inger, R., Attrill, M.J., Bearhop, S., Broderick, A.C., James Grecian, W., Hodgson, D.J., Mills, C., Sheehan, E., Votier, S.C., Witt, M.J. and Godley, B.J. (2009). Marine renewable energy: potential benefits to biodiversity? An urgent call for research. Journal of Applied Ecology, 46: 1145-1153.
Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment (IEMA) (2016). IEMA Environmental Impact Assessment Guide to Delivering Quality Development. Available at: https://www.bing.com/search?q=IEMA+2016&qs=n&form=QBRE&msbsrank=1_1__0&sp=-1&pq=iema+2016&sc=1-9&sk=&cvid=ECC03FA251704349954C57C9FC533BE2 Accessed on: October 2022.
JNCC. (2021a). Herring gull (Larus argentatus). Available at: https://jncc.gov.uk/our-work/herring-gull-larus-argentatus/. Accessed on: 30 August 2022.
JNCC. (2021b). Lesser black-backed gull (Larus fuscus). Available at: https://jncc.gov.uk/our-work/lesser-black[1]backed-gull-larus-fuscus/v. Accessed on: 30 August 2022. v. Accessed on: 30 August 2022.
Johnston, D.T., Humphreys, E.M., Davies, J.G. and Pearce-Higgins, J.W. (2021). Review of climate change mechanisms affecting seabirds within the INTERREG VA area. Report to Agri-Food and Biosciences Institute and Marine Scotland Science as part of the Marine Protected Area Management and Monitoring (MarPAMM) project.
Kastelein, R. A., Helder-Hoek, L., Booth, C., Jennings, N. and Leopold, M. (2019b). High levels of food intake in harbor porpoises (Phocoena phocoena): Insight into recovery from disturbance. Aquatic Mammals, 45(4), 380-388.
Krone, R. Gutowa, L. Joschko, TJ. Schröder, A. (2013) Epifauna dynamics at an offshore foundation Implications of future wind power farming in the North Sea. Marine Environmental Research, 85, 1-12.
Kubetzki and Garthe. (2003). Distribution, diet and habitat selection by four sympatrically breeding gull species in the south-eastern North Sea. Marine Biology, 143(1), pp.199-207.
Langton, R., Boulcott, P. and Wright, P.J. (2021). A verified distribution model for the lesser sandeel Ammodytes marinus. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 667:145-159. Available at: https://doi.org/10.3354/meps13693. Accessed on: 3 March 2022.
Larsen, F., Kindt-Larsen, L., Sørensen, T. K. and Glemarec, G. (2021). Bycatch of marine mammals and seabirds – occurrence and mitigation. DTU Aqua Report no 389-2021.
Le Bot, T., Lescroel, A., Fort, J., Péron, C., Gimenez, O., Provost, P., and Gremillet, D. (2019). Fishery discards do not compensate natural prey shortage in Northern gannets from the English Channel. Biological conservation, 236, pp.375- 384.
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.
Lewis, S., Wanless, S., Wright, P.J., Harris, M.P., Bull, J. and Elston, D.A. (2001). Diet and breeding performance of black-legged kittiwakes Rissa tridactyla at a North Sea colony. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 221, pp.277-284.
LibreTexts, (2022). Ecosystem Dynamics. Available at: https://bio.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Introductory_and_General_Biology/Book%3A_General_Biology_(Boundless)/46%3A_Ecosystems/46.01%3A__Ecology_of_Ecosystems/46.1A%3A_Ecosystem_Dynamics. Accessed on: October 2022.
Lindeboom, H. J., H. J. Kouwenhoven, M. J. N. Bergman, S. Bouma, S. Brasseur, R. Daan, R. C. Fijn, D. de Haan, S. Dirksen, R. van Hal, R. Hille Ris Lambers, R. ter Hofstede, K. L. Krijgsveld, M. Leopold, and M. Scheidat. (2011). Short-term ecological effects of an offshore wind farm in the Dutch coastal zone; a compilation. Environmental Research Letters 6:1-13.
Lindegren, M., Van Deurs, M., MacKenzie, B.R., Worsoe Clausen, L., Christensen, A. and Rindorf (2018). Productivity and recovery of forage fish under climate change and fishing: North Sea sandeel as a case study. Fisheries Oceanography, 27(3), pp.212-221.
Linley, E.A.S., Wilding, T.A., Black, K., Hawkins, A.J.S. and Mangi S. (2007) Review of the Reef Effects of Offshore Wind Farm Structures and their Potential for Enhancement and Mitigation. Report from PML Applications Ltd and the Scottish Association for Marine Science to the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform (BERR), Contract No: RFCA/005/0029P.
Lynam, C. P., Llope, M., Möllmann, C., Helaouët, P., Bayliss-Brown, G. A., and Stenseth, N. C. (2017). Interaction between top-down and bottom-up control in marine food webs. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 114(8), pp.1952-1957.
MacDonald, A., Heath, M., Edwards, M., Furness, R., Pinnegar, J.K., Wanless, S., Speirs, D. and Greenstreet, S. (2015). Climate driven trophic cascades affecting seabirds around the British Isles. Oceanography and Marine Biology - An Annual Review, 53, pp.55-80.
MacDonald, A., Spiers, D.C., Greenstreet, S.P.R., Boulcott, P. and Heath, M.R. (2019). Trends in Sandeel Growth and Abundance off the East Coast of Scotland. Frontiers in Marine Science, 6, pp.201.
Mackinson, S. and Daskalov, G. (2007). An ecosystem model of the North Sea to support an ecosystem approach to fisheries management: description and parameterisation. Science Services Technical Report no 142, Cefas Lowestoft, 142, pp.196
MacLeod, C.D., S.M. Bannon, G.J. Pierce, C. Schweder, J.A. Learmonth, J.S. Herman and R.J. Reid (2005). Climate change and the cetacean community of north-west Scotland. Biological Conservation 124 (4): 477-483.
Mainstream Renewable Power (2018.) Neart Na Gaoithe Offshore Wind Farm Environmental Impact Assessment Report. Available at: https://marine.gov.scot/sites/default/files/combined_document_-_revised.pdf
Marine Climate Change Impacts Partnership (MCCIP). (2018). Sandeels and their availability as seabird prey. MCCIP. pp.2-5.
Marine Scotland (2011) Scotland's Marine Atlas: Information for The National Marine Plan. Available at: https://www.gov.scot/publications/scotlands-marine-atlas-information-national-marine-plan/pages/9/ Accessed on: 13/12/2021
Marine Scotland. (2022). Berwick Bank Wind Farm Scoping Opinion. Available at: Scoping Opinion – Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm | Marine Scotland Information. Accessed on: 9 October 2022.
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
MCCIP (2018). Climate change and marine conservation: Sandeel and their availability as seabird prey. (Eds. Wright P, Regnier T, EerkesMedrano D and Gibb F) MCCIP, Lowestoft, 8pp. doi: 10.14465.2018.ccmco.006-sel
McConnell, B., Lonergan, M. and Dietz, R. (2012). Interactions between seals and offshore wind farms.’ The Crown Estate, 41 pages. ISBN: 978-1-906410-34-6.
Mclean, D., Cerqueira, F., Luciana, B., Jessica, M., Karen, S., Marie-Lise, S., Matthew, B., Oliver, B., Silvana, B., Todd, B., Fabio, B., Ann, C., Jeremy, C., Scott, C., Pierpaolo, C., Joop, J., Michael, F., Irene, F., Ashley, G., Bronwyn, T. M. (2022). Influence of offshore oil and gas structures on seascape ecological connectivity. Global Change Biology. 32. 10.1111/gcb.16134.
McWhinnie, L. H., Halliday, W. D., Insley, S. J., Hilliard, C. and Canessa, R. R. (2018). Vessel traffic in the Canadian Arctic: management solutions for minimizing impacts on whales in a changing northern region. Ocean Coast Manage 160: 1-17.
Messieh, S. N., D. J. Wildish, and R. H. Peterson. (1981). Possible impact from dredging and soil disposal on the Miramichi Bay herring fishery. Can. Tech. Rep. Fish. Aquat. Sci., 1008: 33 p
Mitchell, I., Aonghais Cook, A., Douse, A., Foster, S., Kershaw, M., Neil McCulloch, N., Murphy, M. and Hawkridge, J. (2018). Marine Bird Breeding Success/failure. UK Marine Online Assessment Tool. Available at: https://moat.cefas.co.uk/biodiversity-food-webs-and-marine-protected-areas/birds/abundance/. Accessed on: 20 August 2022
Mitchell, I., Daunt, F., Frederiksen, M. and Wade, K. (2020). Impacts of climate change on seabirds, relevant to the coastal and marine environment around the UK. MCCIP Science Review 2020, pp.382-399.
Morison F, Harvey E, Franzè G and Menden-Deuer S (2019) Storm-Induced Predator-Prey Decoupling Promotes Springtime Accumulation of North Atlantic Phytoplankton. Front. Mar. Sci. 6:608. doi: 10.3389/fmars.2019.00608
Morley, T.I., Fayet, A.L., Jessop, H., Veron, P., Veron, M., Clark, J. and Wood, M.J. (2016).The seabird wreck in the Bay of Biscay and the Southwest Approaches in 2014: a review of reported mortality. Seabird, 29, 22-38.
Muto, M. M., V. T. Helker, R. P. Angliss, B. A. Allen, P. L. Boveng, J. M. Breiwick, M. F. Cameron, P. J. Clapham, S. P. Dahle, M. E. Dahlheim, B. S. Fadely, M. C. Ferguson, L. W. Fritz, R. C. Hobbs, Y. V. Ivashchenko, A. S. Kennedy, J. M. London, S. A. Mizroch, R. R. Ream, E. L. Richmond, K. E. W. Shelden, R. G. Towell, P. R. Wade, J. M. Waite, and Zerbini, A. N. (2018). Alaska marine mammal stock assessments, 2017. U.S. Dep. Commer., NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-AFSC-378, 382 p.
Nabe-Nielsen, J., Tougaard, J., Teilmann, J. and Sveegaard, S. (2011). Effects of wind farms on harbour porpoise behavior and population dynamics. Report commissioned by the Environmental Group under the Danish Environmental Monitoring Programme. Danish Centre for Environment and Energy, Aarhus University.
NatureScot, (2022). Sandeel. Available at: https://www.nature.scot/plants-animals-and-fungi/fish/sea-fish/sandeel. Accessed on: October 2022.
NatureScot, (2020). Priority Marine Features in Scotland’s seas – Habitats. NatureScot, Edinburgh.
Newell, M., Wanless, S., Harris, M. and Daunt, F. (2015). Effects of an extreme weather event on seabird breeding success at a North Sea colony. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 532, pp.257–268
Newton, M., Main, R. and Adams, C. (2017). Atlantic Salmon Salmo salar smolt movements in the Cromarty and Moray Firths, Scotland. LF000005-REP-1854, March 2017.
Newton, M. Honkanen, H. Lothian, A. and Adams, C (2019) The Moray Firth Tracking Project – Marine Migrations of Atlantic Salmon (Salmo salar) Smolts. Proceedings of the 2019 SAMARCH Project: International Salmonid Coastal and Marine Telemetry Workshop.
Newton, M., Barry, J., Lothian, A., Main, R. A., Honkanen, H., McKelvey, S. A., Thompson, P., Davies, I., Brockie, N., Stephen, A., O'Hara Murray, R., Gardiner, R., Campbell, L., Stainer, P., & Adams, C. (2021). Counterintuitive active directional swimming behaviour by Atlantic salmon during seaward migration in the coastal zone. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 78(5), 1730–1743. https://doi.org/10.1093/icesjms/fsab024
Nowacek, S. M., Wells, R.S. and Solow, A. R. (2001). Short-term effects of boat traffic on bottlenose dolphins, Tursiops truncatuJ, in Sarasota Bay, Florida. Marine Mammal Science 17:673-688
OSPAR. (2017). Intermediate Assessment, 2017: Marine Bird Breeding Success/Failure. Available at: https://oap.ospar.org/en/ospar-assessments/intermediate-assessment-2017/biodiversity-status/marine-birds/marine[1]bird-breeding-success-failure/. Accessed on: 14 August 202
Petersen, J. K and Malm, T. (2006). Offshore Windmill Farms: Threats to or Possibilities for the Marine Environment. Ambio, 35(2), 75–80.
Raoux, A., Tecchio, S., Pezy, J.P., Lassalle, G., Degraer, S., Wilhelmsson, D., Cachera, M., Ernande, B., Le Guen, C., Haraldsson, M. and Grangeré, K. (2017). Benthic and fish aggregation inside an offshore wind farm: which effects on the trophic web functioning?. Ecological Indicators, 72, pp.33-46.
Réginer, T., Gibb, F T., and Wright, P. J. (2017). Importance of trophic mismatch in a winter- hatching species: evidence from lesser sandeel. https://www.int-res.com/abstracts/meps/v567/p185-197/
Rice, J. (1995). Food web theory, marine food webs, and what climate change may do to northern marine fish populations. Pages 561–568 in R. J. Beamish, ed. Climate change and northern fish populations. Can. Spec. Publ. Fish. Aquat. Sci., 121.
Riebesall, U., Gattuso, J., Thinsgstad, T.F. and Middelburg, J.J. (2013). Preface arctic ocean acidification: Pelagic ecosystem and biogeochemical responses during a mesocosm study. Biogeosciences, 10(8), pp.5619-5626.
Risch, D., Wilson, S.C. and Hoogerwerf, M. (2019). Seasonal and diel acoustic presence of North Atlantic minke whales in the North Sea. Sci Rep 9, 3571
Robinson, K.P. and Tetley, M.J., (2005). Environmental factors affecting the fine-scale distribution of minke whales (Balaenoptera acutorostrata) in a dynamic coastal ecosystem. ICES Annual Science Conference, Aberdeen, Scotland, 20–24 September 2005, CM 2005 R:20.
Robinson, K.P., Stevick, P.T. and MacLeod, C.D. (2007). An Integrated Approach to Non-lethal Research on Minke Whales in European Waters. European Cetacean Society Spec. Public. Series 47: 8-13.
Robinson, K. P., Tetley, M. and Mitchelson-Jacob, E. (2009). The distribution and habitat preference of coastally occurring Minke whales (Balaenoptera acutorostrata) in the outer southern Moray firth, Northeast Scotland. Journal of Coastal Conservation. 13. 39-48. 10.1007/s11852-009-0050-2.
Rojano-Doñate, L., Mcdonald, B., Wisniewska, D., Johnson, M., Teilmann, J.,Wahlberg, M., Kristensen, J. and Madsen, P. (2018). High field metabolic rates of wild harbour porpoises. The Journal of Experimental Biology. 221.
Rolland, R.M., Parks, S.E., Hunt, K.E. and Castellote, M. (2012). Evidence that ship noise increases stress in right whales. Proc Biol Sci 279: 2363−2368.
Rouse, S., Porter, J.S., Wilding, T.A. (2020). Artificial reef design affects benthic secondary productivity and provision of functional habitat. Ecol Evol. 10: 2122– 2130. https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.6047
Rubao, J., Edwards, M., Mackas, D.L., Rung, J.A., Thomas, A.C. (2010). Marine plankton phenology and life history in a changing climate: current research and future directions. Journal of Plankton Research 32:10, 1355–1368, https://doi.org/10.1093/plankt/fbq062
Russell, D. J., Brasseur, S. M., Thompson, D., Hastie, G. D., Janik, V. M., Aarts, G., McClintock, B. T., Matthiopoulos, J., Moss, S. E. and McConnell, B. (2014). Marine mammals trace anthropogenic structures at sea. Current Biology 24:R638-R639
SCBD (2012). Marine Spatial Planning in the Context of the Convention on Biological Diversity: A study carried out in response to CBD COP 10 decision X,29. Available at: cbd-ts-68-en.pdf. Accessed on: 03 October 2022.
Scheidat, M., Tougaard, J., Brasseur, S., Carstensen, J., T. van Polanen Petel, Teilmann, J. and Reijnders, P. (2011). Harbour porpoises (Phocoena phocoena) and wind farms: a case study in the Dutch North Sea. Environmental Research Letters 6:1-10.
Scott, B. (2022). Ecologically Sustainable Futures for Large-scale Renewables and How to Get There. International Marine Energy Journal, 5(1), pp.37-43.
Scottish Government, (2021). UK Dolphin and Porpoise Conservation Strategy: High Level report. Scottish Government, Edinburgh.
Skeate, E.R. and Perrow, M.R. (2008). Scroby Sands offshore wind farm: Seal monitoring. Analysis of the 2006 post-construction aerial surveys and summary of the monitoring programme results from 2002–2006. Final report to E.ON UK Renewables Offshore Wind Limited prepared by ECON Ecological Consultancy, Norwich, UK.
Skeate, E.R., Perrow, M.R. and Gilroy, J.J. (2012). Likely effects of construction of Scroby sands offshore wind farm on a mixed population of harbour Phoca vitulina and grey Halichoerus grypus seals. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 64:872–881.
Sparling, C.E. (2012). Seagreen Firth of Forth Round 3 Zone Marine Mammal Surveys. Report number SMRUL-ROY- 2012-006 to Royal Haskoning and Seagreen Wind Energy Ltd.
Special Committee on Seals (SCOS) (2018). Scientific Advice on Matters Related to the Management of Seal Populations: 2018. Available at SCOS-2018.pdf (st-andrews.ac.uk). Accessed 05 May 2022.
SSER (2020). 2020 Berwick Bank Wind Farm Offshore Scoping Report.
SSER (2022a). Berwick Bank Wind Farm Onshore EIA Report.
SSER (2022b). Berwick Bank Wind Farm MPA Assessment Report.
SSER (2022f). Berwick Bank Wind Farm Compensatory Measures EIA Report
Svenning, M., Borgstrøm, R., Dehli, T.O,. Moen, G. Barett, R., Pedersen, T., Vader, W. (2005). The impact of marine fish predation on Atlantic salmon smolts (Salmo salar) in the Tana Estuary, North Norway, in the presence of an alternative prey, lesser sandeel (Ammodytes marinus). Fisheries Research. 00-00. 10.1016/j.fishres.2005.06.015.
Teilmann, J., Tougaard, J. and Carsensen, J. (2008). Effects from offshore wind farms on harbour porpoises in Denmark. In: Evans, P. G. (Ed). Offshore wind farms and marine mammals: impacts & methodologies for assessing impacts. In Proceedings of the ASCOBANS/ECS Workshop. ECS Special Publication Series (Vol. 49).
Tetley, M. J., Mitchelson-Jacob, E. G. and Robinson, K. P. (2008). The summer distribution of coastal minke whales (Balaenoptera acutorostrata) in the southern outer Moray Firth, NE Scotland, in relation to co-occurring mesoscale oceanographic features. Remote Sensing of Environment, 112(8), 3449–3454. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.RSE.2007.10.015
Thorstad, E. Todd, C. Uglem, I. Bjørn, P. Gargan, P. Vollset, K. Halttunen, E. Kålås, S. Berg,M. Finstad, B. (2016). Marine life of the sea trout. Marine Biology. 163.
Todd, V.L.G., Warley, J.C. and Todd, I.B. (2016). Meals on wheels? A decade of megafaunal visual and acoustic observations from offshore oil & gas rigs and platforms in the North and Irish seas. PLoS ONE 11, e0153320.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tougaard, J., Wright, A. J. and Madsen, P. T. (2015). Cetacean noise criteria revisited in the light of proposed exposure limits for harbour porpoises. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 90, 196–208.
Tyson, C., Shamoun-Baranes, J., Van Loon, E. E., Camphuysen, K. C. J. and Hintzen, N. T. (2015). Individual specialization on fishery discards by lesser black-backed gulls (Larus fuscus). ICES Journal of Marine Science, 72, pp.1882–1891
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.
Verfuss, U.K., Sparling, C.E., Arnot, C., Judd, A. and Coyle, M. (2016). Review of Offshore Wind Farm Impact Monitoring and Mitigation with Regard to Marine Mammals. In: Popper, A., Hawkins, A. (eds) The Effects of Noise on Aquatic Life II. Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology, vol 875. Springer, New York, NY.
Walls, R., Canning, S., Lye, G., Givens, L., Garrett, C. and Lancaster, J. (2013). Analysis of marine environmental monitoring plan data from the Robin Rigg offshore wind farm, Scotland (Operational Year 1). Technical report to E.ON Climate & Renewables UK prepared by Natural Power Consultants Ltd., Dumfries and Galloway
Walther, G-R. (2010). Community and ecosystem responses to recent climate change. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society Biology, 365(1549), pp.2019-2024.
Wanless, S., Harris, M. P., Newell, M. A., Speakman, J. R. and Daunt, F. (2018). Community-wide decline in the occurrence of lesser sandeels Ammodytes marinus in seabird chick diets at a North Sea colony. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 600. 193-206.
Weilgart, L. (2011). Underwater Noise: Death Knell of our Oceans? Available at: http://www.raincoast.org/library/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/weilgart_underwater-noise-death-knell.pdf. Accessed on 08 April 2022.
Weir, C., Stockin, K. and Pierce, G. (2007). Spatial and temporal trends in the distribution of harbour porpoises, white-beaked dolphins and minke whales off Aberdeenshire (UK), north-western North Sea. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom. 87. 327 - 338. 10.1017/S0025315407052721.
Wilhelmsson, D., Malm, T. and Ohman, M.C. (2006) The Influence of Offshore Wind Power on Demersal Fish. ICES Journal of Marine Science 63, 775-784.
Wright, P.J. and Bailey, M.C. (1996). Timing of hatching in Ammodytes marinus from Shetland waters and its significance to early growth and survivorship. Marine Biology, 126, 143-152.
Wright, P.J., Orpwood, J.E. and Scott, B.E. (2017). Impact of rising temperature on reproductive investment in a capital breeder: the lesser sandeel. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 486, pp.52-58.
Wright, P.J., Pinnegar, J.K. and Fox, C. (2020) Impacts of climate change on fish, relevant to the coastal and marine environment around the UK. MCCIP Science Review 2020, 354–381.
[1] Meeting on 26 April 2022 between MS-LOT, RPS and the Applicant
[2] Plunge divers dive into the sea from a height to catch prey, whereas pursuit divers dive and can then swim underwater in pursuit of prey.