4.3 Approach to EIA and HRA

This section aims to document and agree key topics associated with the maximum realistic design scenarios assessed in relation to the marine mammal assessments for Proposed Development EIA and HRA. These include the following:

• project design envelope and maximum design scenarios;
• underwater noise modelling methodology;
• approach to underwater noise impact assessment;
• population modelling;
• approach to cumulative effects assessment;
• sensitivity of the relevant receptors and evidence available on potential effects;
• approach to offshore EIA, including the determination of significance of impacts;
• potential measures which could be applied to remove significant effects and agreement on specific mitigation to reduce risk of effect (to be included in a MMMP); and
• initial outputs of the offshore EIA and HRA assessment.

Table 4.3   Open ▸ summarises the points of discussion, areas of agreement and areas of outstanding agreements in relation to the approach to the offshore EIA for the Proposed Development.

Table 4.3: Summary of Discussion and Agreed Position on Marine Mammal Approach to Offshore EIA and HRA

4.3.1           Additional Details on Key Discussions

4.3.1.1      Underwater noise modelling method steps:

1. The bathymetry information around the source point will be extracted from the General Bathymetric chart of the Oceans (GEBCO) database in different transects;
2. A geoacoustic model of the different sea-floor layers in the survey region will be calculated;
3. A calibrated Weston Energy model will be employed to estimate the TL matrices for different frequencies of interest (e.g. 25 Hz to 80 kHz) along the transects;
4. The source level values calculated will be combined with the TL results to achieve a frequency and range dependant received level (RL) of acoustic energy around the chosen source position;
5. The recommended marine mammal weightings will be employed and the TTS and PTS impact ranges for different marine mammal groups will be calculated using relevant metrics (from Southall et al., 2019) and by employing a moving animal model;
6. For the moving animal model that employs a SELcum metric, the marine mammal is assumed to start swimming away from the piling location at a constant speed at the start of the piling and to continue moving away at the same speed throughout the piling activity;
7. Instantaneous (unweighted) peak sound pressure levels will also be calculated; and
8. Both SELcum and SPLpk are presented in the Subsea Noise Technical Report (volume 3, appendix 10.1)

4.3.1.2      Assumed swim speeds for exposure modelling:

• harbour porpoise: 1.5 m/s (Otani et al., 2000);
• bottlenose dolphin: 1.52 m/s (Bailey and Thompson, 2010);
• white-beaked dolphin: 1.52 m/s (Bailey and Thompson, 2010);
• minke whale: 2.3 m/s (Boisseau et al., 2021); and
• seals: 1.8 m/s (Thompson, 2015).

Marine mammal swim speeds for dolphin and seal species are the same as used for Seagreen 1A Project; porpoise and minke whale updated based on more recent literature. Cumulative SEL exposure depends on swim speed, hammer strike rate/distance swam between each pulse and per pulse hearing weighted SEL at receiver location. Scenarios include consideration of slow start, soft start, ramp up and ADD – if required. That minke whale came from a study on ADD in Iceland. Otherwise, all of the speeds are literature/research based and presented and agreed during Road Map meeting based on published report by NatureScot.

4.3.1.3      Noise Threshold Levels

• low frequency cetaceans:

–           SPLpk unweighted: 219 (impulsive); and

–           SELcum weighted: 183 (impulsive) and 199 (non-impulsive).

• high frequency cetaceans:

–           SPLpk unweighted: 230 (impulsive); and

–           SELcum weighted: 185 (impulsive) and 198 (non-impulsive).

• Very high frequency cetaceans:

–           SPLpk unweighted: 202 (impulsive); and

–           SELcum weighted: 155 (impulsive) and 173 (non-impulsive).

• Phocid carnivores in water:

–           SPLpk unweighted: 218 (impulsive); and

–           SELcum weighted: 185 (impulsive) and 201 (non-impulsive).

• Other marine carnivores in water:

–           SPLpk unweighted: 232 (impulsive); and

–           SELcum weighted: 203 (impulsive) and 219 (non-impulsive).

4.3.1.4      Conversion factors:

The Applicant had concerns that on ‘layering of precaution’ which could cause an overly conservative and unrealistic assessment. The Applicant stated that the conversion factor is based on evidence, therefore use of submersible hammer for 10% conversion factor is not applicable for the Proposed Development. In addition, the size of the pile will have an effect on the radiation efficiencies. Ideally, measurements on larger piles should be used but these are not available as this technology is not yet being used in the field (hence the need to extrapolate using a conversion factor). The Applicant has undertaken a range of underwater noise modelling and suggested that 0.5% would be a realistic conversion factor.

The use of energy conversion factor can be thought of as the way that lower energy hammer measurement data can be scaled up for larger hammer energies. For another offshore wind farm, the maximum hammer energy was assessed as 2,300 kJ however was built out with an average maximum of 1,100 kJ and an overall average of 900 kJ.

Source SEL is a theoretical construct which is useful in underwater noise modelling but it is only a theoretical construct which cannot be measured and must be calculated. Higher conversion factors from surveys are caused by higher propagation coefficients as a result of extrapolating measurement data well beyond the measurement range. Use of these higher numbers could lead to significant overprediction of the far-field sound levels. Greater emphasis should be placed on peer reviewed studies, and studies which utilise full acoustic modelling to determine the source SEL. A hammer energy conversion factor of β ≈ 1% is a precautionary value for piling based theoretical considerations. This is consistent with peer reviewed studies based on empirical measurements:

• β = 0.3% (Robinson et al., 2007),
• β = 0.8% (De Jong and Ainslie, 2008) and
• β ≈ 1% (Dahl and Reinhall, 2013).

β ≈ 1% is likely to be an over-precautionary assumption that cover uncertainties and the current scientific consensus is that a more representative conversion factor is β ≈ 0.5%.

Conservatism was built into the assessment as the modelling assumed the maximum hammer energy would be reached at all locations, whereas this is unlikely to be the case. The 1% conversion factor used in the model is twice that considered the scientific consensus (0.5%). Larger piles will produce less radiated sound energy for a given hammer energy since the same force has to excite more mass elements. The soft start procedure simulated does not allow for short pauses in piling (e.g. for realignment). The modelling assessment assumed that animals swim away from the noise source at constant and conservative average speeds based on published values. This is likely to lead to overestimates of the potential range of effect where animals exceed these speeds. The use of the SEL metric assumes the same noise-induced threshold shift regardless of how the energy is distributed over time. It does not account for recovery of hearing between pulses. The model overestimates the noise exposure an animal receives since it does not account for any time that marine mammals spend at the surface and the reduced sound levels near the surface. Impulsive sounds are likely to transition into non-impulsive sounds at distance from the sound source with empirical evidence suggesting such shifts in impulsivity could occur markedly within 10 km from the source. There are other conservatisms built in throughout the assessment. The emphasis is on a precautionary approach at all stages both in the model and the assessment of effects. With other layers of precaution added in the marine mammal assessment, the overall assessment remains precautionary.

4.3.1.5      Injury ranges and animals with the potential to experience PTS due to UXO clearance

It is suggested in the EIA assessment that for UXO sizes of up to 300 kg, pre-detonation search and use of ADD will be sufficient to reduce the potential of experiencing PTS by bottlenose dolphin, white-beaked dolphin, minke whale, harbour seal and grey seal to negligible magnitude and effectively reduce the risk of injury. It has been estimated that harbour porpoises could potentially experience an auditory injury at distances that cannot be fully mitigated by application of ADD and soft start charges. It is therefore expected that small numbers of animals could be exposed to potential PTS. Given that details about UXO clearance technique to be used and charge sizes will not be available until after the consent is granted (pre-construction period, following UXO survey), it is not possible to quantify the effects of UXO detonations and therefore the residual number of animals is not presented within the assessment. At a later stage, when details about UXO sizes and specific clearance techniques to be used become available, it will be possible to provide a more detailed assessment and tailor the mitigation to specific UXO sizes and species to reduce the risk of injury. Therefore, prior to the commencement of UXO clearance works, a more detailed assessment will be produced as a part of the EPS license supporting information for the UXO clearance works. Appropriate mitigation measures will be agreed with stakeholders as a part of a UXO specific MMMP. It is therefore anticipated that following the application of mitigation measures following receipt of more detail regarding size and number of UXO, the risk of injury will be reduced to low.

4.3.1.6      Maximum design scenario

Wind turbine foundations:

• maximum hammer energy: 4,000 kJ;
• realistic maximum hammer energy: 3,000 kJ;
• number of pin piles: 1,432;
• maximum pile diameter: 5.5 m; and
• total piling phase: 14,320 hours.

OSP/Offshore convertor station platform foundations:

• maximum hammer energy: 4,000 kJ;
• realistic maximum hammer energy: 3,000 kJ;
• number of pin piles: 256;
• maximum pile diameter: 4 m;
• total piling phase: 2,048 hours

Total number of days when pilling occurs within piling phase for wind turbines and OSPs/Offshore convertor station platforms: 372 days.

4.3.1.7      Maximum injury ranges

At hammer initiation, the injury ranges are smaller. It would not be expected that an animal would experience full effects at initiation during soft start piling. The more conservative ranges are therefore based on the maximum SELs over the piling sequence. Whilst SPLpk do typically provide the greatest injury range for harbour porpoise, in this case, the greater range results from the 1% conversion factor and minke whale is the greatest of all. The ranges for SPLpk were based on the maximum over the entire piling sequence (i.e. from initiation to full hammer energy) and are therefore conservative in this respect. If SPLpk was used at just hammer initiation, the ranges would be smaller. The assessment undertaken is precautionary as it looks at both SPLpk and SELcum and takes whichever is the largest of these two. This is the dual metric approach as recommended by Southall et al. (2019).

4.3.1.8      IPCoD parameters:

• harbour porpoise:

–           North Sea MU;

–           relevant population: 346,601 (100% vulnerable);

–           residual disturbance: 1 day of pilling plus 0.1;

–           proportional days disturbance: 50%, 100%;

–           years: 25 years;

–           age calf/pup becomes independent: 1;

–           age at first reproduction: 5;

–           calf/pup survival: 0.8455 (0.6);

–           juvenile survival: 0.85;

–           adult survival: 0.925 (0.85-0.925);

–           fertility: 0.34 (0.958 -0.479); and

–           growth rate: 1.

• grey seal:

–           East Coast Scotland and North East England MU;

–           relevant population: 42,600 (100% vulnerable);

–           residual disturbance: 1 day of pilling plus 0.1;

–           proportional days disturbance: 50%, 100%;

–           years: 25 years;

–           age calf/pup becomes independent: 1;

–           age at first reproduction: 5;

–           calf/pup survival: 0.222;

–           juvenile survival: 0.94;

–           adult survival: 0.94

–           fertility: 0.84 and

–           growth rate: 1.01.

• bottlenose dolphin:

–           Coastal East Scotland MU;

–           relevant population: 189 (100% vulnerable);

–           residual disturbance: 1 day of pilling plus 0.1;

–           proportional days disturbance: 53.8%, 100%;

–           years: 25 years;

–           age calf/pup becomes independent: 3 (2);

–           age at first reproduction: 9;

–           calf/pup survival: 0.925 (0.9);

–           juvenile survival: 0.962 (0.94);

–           adult survival: 0.98 (0.9497);

–           fertility: 0.24 (0.3); and

–           growth rate: 1.018.

4.3.2           Summary Statement of Final Position

The approach to the assessment of effects, the CEA, noise and population modelling, as well as the parameters in the maximum design scenario and mitigation zone as presented by the Applicant in Table 4.3   Open ▸ were agreed by the stakeholders and maintained with regards to the following agreed points:

• five different conversion factors were explored (1% constant, 4% reducing to 0.5%, 10% reducing to 1%, 4% constant and 10% constant) with results presented in a sensitivity assessment volume 3, appendix 10.1;
• determination of the most representative and precautionary conversion factor with evidence and justification presented in a fully referenced and peer-reviewed report (volume 3, appendix 10.1);
• accumulated PTS (SELcum) over the entire piling sequence has been assessed using the decreasing conversion factor as the piling progresses;
• the assessment of injury (PTS) as a result of underwater noise during piling is based on the conversion factor resulting in the largest injury ranges for the different marine mammal hearing groups and the highest hammer energy of 4,000 kJ;
• both SPLpk and SELcum have been modelled for PTS, and both are presented in the assessment that has been undertaken for each of the marine mammal hearing groups. These were modelled and presented for 1% conversion factor, 4% reducing to 0.5% and 10% reducing to 1%. Instantaneous PTS impact ranges using the highest hammer energy and following constant conversion factors 1%, 4% and 10% constant are provided for information in volume 3, appendix 10.5. However, the instantaneous injury ranges for all species are smaller than injury range for minke whale based on SELcum and 4% reducing to 0.5% conversion factor (2,319 m); and
• prior to the commencement of UXO clearance works, a more detailed assessment will be produced as a part of the EPS licence supporting information along with the choice of appropriate mitigation measures to be informed by available studies and agreed as a part of a UXO specific MMMP.

5 Areas of Agreement and Outstanding Non-Alignment

Table 5.1   Open ▸ summarises the position following completion of the Marine Mammal Road Map process at the point of Application submission. This forms the basis of the EIA and HRA assessments presented within the Offshore EIA Report and RIAA for the Proposed Development.

Table 5.1: Areas of Agreement and Outstanding Non-Alignment Following Completion of the Road Map Process Marine Mammals

6 Conclusion

The aim of the Marine Mammal Road Map was to ensure that the final consent Application submitted provides MS-LOT and its statutory advisors with sufficient information with which to make a determination. This document has set-out the meetings, agreements and areas of outstanding discussion that have been achieved in relation to the marine mammal topic for the offshore EIA and HRA.

7 References

Arso Civil, M., Quick, N. J., Cheney, B., Pirotta, E., Thompson, P. M. and Hammond, P. S. (2019). Changing distribution of the east coast of Scotland bottlenose dolphin population and the challenges of area-based management. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems, 29(S1), 178–196. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1002/aqc.3102. Accessed on: 2 March 2022.

Arso Civil, M., Quick, N., Mews, S., Hague, E. Cheney, B.J., Thompson, P.M. and Hammond, P.S. (2021). Improving understanding of bottlenose dolphin movements along the east coast of Scotland. Final report. Report number SMRUC-VAT-2020-10 provided to European Offshore Wind Deployment Centre; March 2021 (unpublished).

Bailey, H. and Thompson, P. (2010). Effect of oceanographic features on fine-scale foraging movements of bottlenose dolphins. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 418, pp.223-233.

Bailey, H., Senior, B., Simmons, D., Rusin, J., Picken, G. and Thompson, P.M. (2010). Assessing Underwater Noise Levels during Pile-Driving at an Offshore Windfarm and Its Potential Effects on Marine Mammals. Marine Pollution Bulletin 60 (6): 888–97.

Boisseau, O., McGarry, T., Stephenson, S., Compton, R., Cucknell, A. C., Ryan, C., McLanaghan, R. and Moscrop, A. (2021). Minke whales Balaenoptera acutorostrata avoid a 15 kHz acoustic deterrent device (ADD). Marine Ecology Progress Series, 667, 191-206.

Brookes, K. (2017). The East Coast Marine Mammal Acoustic Study data. Monitoring. Accessible at: doi: 10.7489/1969-1.

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. P., Thompson, 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.

Cheney, B., Thompson, P. M., Ingram, S. N., Hammond, P. S., Stevick, P. T., Durban, J. W., Culloch, R. M., Elwen, S. H., Mandleberg, L., Janik, V. M., Quick, N. J., Islas-Villanueva, V., Robinson, K. P., Costa, M., Eisfeld, S. M., Walters, A., Phillips, C., Weir, C. R., Evans, P. G., Anderwald, P., Reid, R. J., Reid, J. B. and Wilson, B. (2013). Integrating multiple data sources to assess the distribution and abundance of bottlenose dolphins Tursiops truncatus in Scottish waters. Mammal Review 43:71-88.

Cheney, B., Graham, I. M., Barton, T., Hammond, P. S. and Thompson, P. M. (2018). Site Condition Monitoring of bottlenose dolphins within the Moray Firth Special Area 288 of Conservation: 2014-2016. Scottish National Heritage Research Report No 1021.

Dahl, P.H. and Reinhall, P.G. (2013). Beam Forming of the Underwater Sound Field from Impact Pile Driving. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 134 (1): EL1–6.

Dahl, P.H., de Jong, C.A.F. and Popper, A.N. (2015). The Underwater Sound Field from Impact Pile Driving and Its Potential Effects on Marine Life. Acoustics Today, 2, 11, 18-25.

De Jong, C.A.F. and Ainslie, M.A. (2008). Underwater Radiated Noise Due to the Piling for the Q7 Offshore Wind Park. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 123 (5): 2987.

GoBe. (2018a). Hornsea Project Three Offshore Wind Farm Environmental Statement: Volume 2, Chapter 4 – Marine Mammals. PINS Document Reference: A6.2.4 APFP Regulation 5(2)(a).

Grellier, K. and Lacey, C. (2011). Analysis of The Crown Estate aerial survey data for marine mammals for the FTOWDG. SMRU Report dated 12/12/2011.

Hague, E. L., Sinclair, R.R. and Sparling, E. (2020). Regional baselines for marine mammal knowledge across the North Sea and Atlantic areas of Scottish waters. Scottish Marine and Freshwater Science Vol 11 No 12. Published by Marine Scotland Science. Available from: MSS Reports Template (marine.gov.scot). Accessed: August 2021.

Hammond, P., K. McLeod, and M. Scheidat. (2006). Small Cetaceans in the European Atlantic and North Sea (SCANS-II). Final Report. Saint Andrews.

Hammond, P. S., C. Lacey, A. Gilles, S. Viquerat, P. Börjesson, H. Herr, K. Macleod, V. Ridoux, M. Santos, M. Scheidat, J. Teilmann, J. Vingada, and N. Øien. (2017). Estimates of cetacean abundance in European Atlantic waters in summer 2016 from the SCANS-III aerial and shipboard surveys. Wageningen University. 40p.

Hammond, P. S., Lacey, C., Gilles, A., Viquerat, S., Börjesson P., H. Herr, K., Macleod, V. Ridoux, M.B. Santos, M. Scheidat, J. Teilmann, Vingada, J. and Øien, N. (2021) Estimates of cetacean abundance in European Atlantic waters in summer 2016 from the SCANS-III aerial and shipboard surveys.

Heinänen, S., and H. Skov. (2015). The identification of discrete and persistent areas of relatively high harbour porpoise density in the wider UK marine area. JNCC Report No. 544, JNCC, Peterborough.

IAMMWG. (2015). Management Units for cetaceans in UK waters. JNCC Report 547, ISSN 0963-8091.

IAMMWG. (2021). Updated abundance estimates for cetacean Management Units in UK waters. JNCC Report No. 680, JNCC Peterborough, ISSN 0963-8091.

King, S. and Sparling, C. (2012). FTOWDG Cetacean Density Modelling – Non Technical summary. Report number SMRUL-SGW-029.

Lepper, P.A., Robinson, S.P., Ablitt, J. and Dible, S.A. (2009). Temporal and Spectral Characteristics of a Marine Piling Operation in Shallow Water.

Lepper, P.A., Robinson, S.P., Ainslie, M.A., Theobald, P.D and de Jong, C.A.F. (2012). Assessment of Cumulative Sound Exposure Levels for Marine Piling Events. In The Effects of Noise on Aquatic Life, 453–57. Springer.

Lippert, T., Galindo-Romero, M., Gavrilov, A.N. and von Estorff, O. (2015). Empirical Estimation of Peak Pressure Level from Sound Exposure Level. Part II: Offshore Impact Pile Driving Noise. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 138 (3).

Mackenzie, M., D. Kidney, and C. Donovan. (2012). Forth and Tay Offshore Wind Developers Group: Cetacean Survey Data Analysis Report. DMP Stats. Prepared for SMRU Limited.

McGarry, T., Boisseau, O., Stephenson, S. and Compton, R. (2017). Understanding the Effectiveness of Acoustic Deterrent Devices (ADDs) on Minke Whale (Balaenoptera acutorostrata), a Low Frequency Cetacean. ORJIP Project 4, Phase 2. RPS Report EOR0692. Prepared on behalf of The Carbon Trust. November 2017.

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) (2005). Scoping Report for NMFS EIS for the National Acoustic Guidelines on Marine Mammals. National Marine Fisheries Service.

NPL (2020). Protocol for in-situ underwater measurement of explosive ordnance disposal for UXO. V2. BEIS SEA programme. 

Otani, S., Naito, Y., Kato, A. and Kawamura, A. (2000). Diving behaviour and swimming speed of a freeranging harbour porpoise Phocoena phocoena. Marine Mammal Science 16, 811-814.

Palmer, K.J., Brookes, K.L., Davies, I.M., Edwards, E., Rendell, L. (2019). Habitat use of a coastal delphinid population investigated using passive acoustic monitoring. Aquatic Conservation 29, 254-270.

Paxton, C.G.M., Scott-Hayward, L., Mackenzie, M., Rexstad, E. and Thomas L. (2016). Revised Phase III Data Analysis of Joint Cetacean Protocol Data Resource. JNCC Report No.517

Quick, N. J., M. Arso Civil, B. Cheney, V. Islas, V. Janik, P. M. Thompson, and Hammond, P. S. (2014). The east coast of Scotland bottlenose dolphin population: Improving understanding of ecology outside the Moray Firth SAC. This document was produced as part of the UK Department of Energy and Climate Change's offshore energy Strategic Environmental Assessment programme.

Quick, N. and Cheney, B. (2011). Cetacean Baseline Characterisation for the Firth of Tay based on existing data: Bottlenose dolphins. SMRU Limited.

Rasmussen, M. H., Akamatsu, T., Teilmann, J., Vikingsson, G., & Miller, L. A. (2013). Biosonar, diving and movements of two tagged white-beaked dolphin in Icelandic waters. Deep Sea Research Part II: Topical Studies in Oceanography, 88, 97-105.

Robinson, S.P., Lepper, P.A and Ablitt J. (2007). The Measurement of the Underwater Radiated Noise from Marine Piling Including Characterisation of a" Soft Start" Period. In Oceans 2007-Europe, 1–6. IEEE.

Robinson, S.P., Lepper, P.A., Ablitt J, Hayman, G., Beamiss, G. A., Theobald, P. D. and Dible, S. (2009). A Methodology for the Measurement of Radiated Noise from Marine Piling. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference & Exhibition on" Underwater Acoustic Measurements: Technologies & Results.

Robinson, S.P., Theobald, P.D., and Lepper, P.A. (2013). Underwater Noise Generated from Marine Piling. In Proceedings of Meetings on Acoustics, 17:070080. Russell, D. J. R., Jones, E. L. and Morris, C. D. (2017). Updated Seal Usage Maps: The Estimated at-sea Distribution of Grey and Harbour Seals. Scottish Marine and Freshwater Science Report Vol 8 No 25. Published by Marine Scotland Science ISSN: 2043-7722 DOI: 10.7489/2027-1

Robinson, S.P., Wang L., Cheong S-H., Lepper P.A.,Marubini, F., Hartley,J.P. (2022a). Underwater acoustic characterisation of unexploded ordnance disposal using deflagration. Marine Pollution Bulletin 160 (2020) 111646.

Robinson S.P., Wang L, Cheong S-H., Lepper P.A., Hartley J.P., Thompson P.A., Edwards E., Bellmann M. (2022b). Acoustic characterisation of unexploded ordnance disposal in the North Sea using high order detonations. Marine Scotland submitted to Marine Pollution Bulletin [manuscript has been accepted, but not published]

Russell, D. J. F., Carter, M. I. D. (2020). Regional baselines for marine mammal knowledge across the North Sea and Atlantic areas of Scottish waters: Appendix 4 – Seal abundance and distribution. Scottish Marine and Freshwater Science Vol 11 No 12.

Russell, D. J. F., Jones, E. L., Morris, C. D. (2017). Updated seal usage maps: The estimated at-sea distribution of grey and harbour seals. Scottish Marine and Freshwater Science Report Vol 8 No 25.

SCOS (2020). Scientific Advice on Matters Related to the Management of Seal Populations: 2020. Sea Mammal Research Unit. Available at: SCOS Reports | SMRU (st-andrews.ac.uk). Accessed on: 25 November 2021.

Seagreen Wind Energy Ltd (2021). Seagreen Alpha and Bravo Site UXO clearance – European Protected Species Risk Assessment and Marine Mammal Mitigation Plan. Available at: https://marine.gov.scot/sites/default/files/eps_risk_assessment_3.pdf. Accessed on: 10 October 2022.

Sinclair, R. R., Sparling, C. E. and Harwood, J. (2020). Review Of Demographic Parameters And Sensitivity Analysis To Inform Inputs And Outputs Of Population Consequences Of Disturbance Assessments For Marine Mammals. Scottish Marine and Freshwater Science Vol 11 No 14, 74pp. DOI: 10.7489/12331-1

Sinclair, R. R. (2022). Seal haul-out and telemetry data in relation to the Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm. SMRU consulting report number SMRUC - RPS-2021-005, provided to RPS, January 2022.

Soloway, A. G., and Dahl, P. H. (2014). Peak Sound Pressure and Sound Exposure Level from Underwater Explosions in Shallow Water. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 136 (3): EL218–23.

Southall, B. L., Finneran, J. J., Reichmuth, C., Nachtigall, P. E., Ketten, D. R., Bowles, A. E., Ellison, W.T., Nowacek, D.P and Tyack, P. L. (2019). Marine mammal noise exposure criteria: updated scientific recommendations for residual hearing effects. Aquatic Mammals, 45(2).

Southall, B.L., Nowacek, D.P., Bowles, A.E., Senigaglia, V., Bejder, L. and Tyack, P.L., (2021). Marine Mammal Noise Exposure Criteria: Assessing the Severity of Marine Mammal Behavioral Responses to Human Noise. Aquatic Mammals, 47(5), pp.421-464.

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.

Teilmann, J., Christiansen, C. T., Kjellerup, S., Dietz, R., and Nachman, G. (2013). Geographic, Seasonal, and Diurnal Surface Behaviour of Harbour Porpoises. Marine mammal science, 29(2), E60-E76.

Thompson, D. (2015). Parameters for collision risk models. Report by Sea Mammal Research Unit, University of St Andrews, for Scottish Natural Heritage.

Thompson, P.M., Graham, I.M., Cheney, B., Barton, T.R., Farcas, A and Merchant, N.D. (2020). Balancing Risks of Injury and Disturbance to Marine Mammals When Pile Driving at Offshore Windfarms. Ecological Solutions and Evidence 1 (2): e12034.

Thompson, D., Hammond, P. S., Nicholas, K. S., & Fedak, M. A. (1991). Movements, Diving and Foraging Behaviour of Grey Seals (Halichoerus Grypus). Journal of Zoology, 224(2), 223-232.

Van Beest, F.M., Teilmann, J., Hermannsen, L., Galatius, A., Mikkelsen, L., Sveegaard, S., Balle, J.D., Dietz, R. and Nabe-Nielsen, J. (2018). Fine-scale movement responses of free-ranging harbour porpoises to capture, tagging and short-term noise pulses from a single airgun. R. Soc. open sci.5: 170110.

Waggitt, J. J., P. G. H. Evans, J. Andrade, A. N. Banks, O. Boisseau, M. Bolton, G. Bradbury, T. Brereton, C. J. Camphuysen, J. Durinck, T. Felce, R. C. Fijn, I. Garcia-Baron, S. Garthe, S. C. V. Geelhoed, A. Gilles, M. Goodall, J. Haelters, S. Hamilton, L. Hartny-Mills, N. Hodgins, K. James, M. Jessopp, A. S. Kavanagh, M. Leopold, K. Lohrengel, M. Louzao, N. Markones, J. Martinez-Cediera, O. O’Cadhla, S. L. Perry, G. J. Pierce, V. Ridoux, K. P. Robinson, M. B. Santos, C. Saavedra, H. Skov, E. W. M. Stienen, S. Sveegaard, P. Thompson, N. Vanermen, D. Wall, A. Webb, J. Wilson, S. Wanless, and J. G. Hiddink. (2020). Distribution maps of cetacean and seabird populations in the North-East Atlantic. Journal of Applied Ecology 57:253-269.

Zampolli, M, Nijhof, M.J.J., de Jong, C.A.F., Ainslie, M.A., Jansen, E.H.W. and Quesson, B.A.J. (2013). Validation of Finite Element Computations for the Quantitative Prediction of Underwater Noise from Impact Pile Driving. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 133 (1): 72–81.

[1] By the Conservation of Habitats and Species Amendment (EU Exit) Regulations 2019

[2] As of October 2022.