Potential impacts on supporting processes

Changes to water flow
  1. 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?”
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. 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.
  7. 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

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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

  1. 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

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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).
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. 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).
  7. 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

  1. 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).
  2. 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).
  3. 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).
  4. 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).
  5. 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).
  6. 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).
  7. 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).
  8. 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).
  9. 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.
  10. 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.
  11. 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.
  12. 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).
  13. 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).
  14. 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

  1. 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.
  2. 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

  1. 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

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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

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.

Aries, C., González-Irusta, J.M. and Watret, R. (2014). Updating Fisheries Sensitivity Maps in British Waters. Scottish Marine and Freshwater Science Vol 5 No 10. Edinburgh: Scottish Government, 88pp. DOI: 10.7489/1555-1

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.