3.3. Behavioural Disturbance

32. The estimated number of animals potentially disturbed are based on the maximum adverse piling scenario. Given that species and/or populations have different spatial distribution patterns, these maximum adverse scenarios (i.e. piling locations) vary across the species. For some species the most precautionary estimates were based on the single/concurrent piling location(s) that resulted in the largest areas of effect (i.e. harbour porpoise, white-beaked dolphin, minke whale, harbour seal, grey seal). For bottlenose dolphins, where distributional data showed hotspots in abundance, the more precautionary estimates were derived where predicted noise contours overlapped regions of highest abundance/density (e.g. Firth of Tay).

Harbour porpoise

33. Based on the unweighted SELss criteria and the assumptions of the dose response relationship described in more detail in volume 2, chapter 10, the noise disturbance contours for various piling scenarios and conversion factors modelled for harbour porpoise (and selected for inclusion in this report) are presented in Figure 3.1   Open ▸ to Figure 3.3   Open ▸ with full results given in Table 3.6   Open ▸ to Table 3.8   Open ▸ .
34. Using 10% reducing to 1% conversion factor and seasonal peak densities from site-specific survey data ( Table 2.1   Open ▸ ), up to 3,575 animals were predicted to experience potential disturbance from concurrent piling at wind turbines at a maximum hammer energy of 4,000 kJ ( Figure 3.1   Open ▸ , Table 3.6   Open ▸ ). This reduces to 2,822 using the 1% conversion factor ( Table 3.7   Open ▸ ) and further to 2,090 using the 4% to 0.5% conversion factor ( Table 3.8   Open ▸ ).
35. Similarly, for the largest conversion factor of 10% reducing to 1% the number of animals potentially disturbed based on estimates for concurrent piling at wind turbines at a realistic average maximum hammer energy of 3,000 kJ has been assessed as up to 3,033 animals ( Figure 3.2   Open ▸ and Table 3.6   Open ▸ ) reducing to 2,378 at 1% conversion factor ( Table 3.7   Open ▸ ) and 1,757 at 4% to 0.5% conversion factor ( Table 3.8   Open ▸ ).
36. For the largest conversion factor of 10% reducing to 1% the number of animals potentially disturbed based on estimates for single piling at wind turbine/OSP-Offshore convertor station platform driving at a maximum hammer energy of 4,000 kJ has been assessed as up to 2,298 animals ( Figure 3.3   Open ▸ , Table 3.6   Open ▸ ) reducing to 1,432 at 1% conversion factor ( Table 3.7   Open ▸ ) and 1,224 at 4% to 0.5% conversion factor ( Table 3.8   Open ▸ ).

Figure 3.1: Unweighted SELss Contours due to Concurrent Piling of Piles Wind Turbine Location 40 and Wind Turbine Location 135 with a 4,000 kJ Hammer Energy (dB re µPa2s) Using 10% Reducing to 1%, 4% Reducing to 0.5% and 1% Constant Conversion Factors

Figure 3.2: Unweighted SELss Contours due to Concurrent Piling of Piles Wind Turbine Location 40 and Wind Turbine Location 135 with 3,000 kJ Hammer Energy (dB re µPa2s) Using 10% Reducing to 1%, 4% Reducing to 0.5% and 1% Constant Conversion Factors

Figure 3.3: Unweighted SELss Contours due to Single Piling of Pile Wind Turbine Location 179 with a 4,000 kJ Hammer Energy (dB re µPa2s) Using 10% Reducing to 1%, 4% Reducing to 0.5% and 1% Constant Conversion Factors

Table 3.6: Number of Harbour Porpoises Predicted to be Disturbed in the Vicinity of the Proposed Development as a Result of Different Piling Scenarios. Average Number is Based on the Monthly Average Density whilst Maximum is Based on the Seasonal Peak Density Using 10% Reducing to 1% Conversion Factor

Table 3.7: Number of Harbour Porpoises Predicted to be Disturbed in the Vicinity of the Proposed Development as a Result of Different Piling Scenarios. Average Number is Based on the Monthly Average Density whilst Maximum is Based on the Seasonal Peak Density Using 1% Constant Conversion Factor

Table 3.8: Number of Harbour Porpoises Predicted to be Disturbed in the Vicinity of the Proposed Development as a Result of Different Piling Scenarios. Average Number is Based on the Monthly Average Density whilst Maximum is Based on the Seasonal Peak Density Using 4% Reducing to 0.5% Conversion Factor

Bottlenose dolphin

37. Based on the unweighted SELss criteria and the assumptions of the dose response relationship described in more detail in volume 2, chapter 10, the noise disturbance contours for various piling scenarios and conversion factors modelled for bottlenose dolphin offshore populations are the same as for harbour porpoise and are presented in for harbour porpoise and are presented Figure 3.1   Open ▸ to Figure 3.3   Open ▸ . The piling scenarios for the coastal bottlenose dolphin population are different to those presented for offshore communities, because the maximum adverse scenario has been assessed for piling locations closest to the Firth of Tay, where the density of bottlenose dolphins within 2 to 2 m depth contour is highest. These are presented in Figure 3.4   Open ▸ to Figure 3.6   Open ▸ .
38. Based on 10% reducing to 1% conversion factor and bottlenose dolphin population distributed within 2 m to 20 m depth contour ( Table 2.1   Open ▸ ) (for more details see volume 3, appendix 10.2), up to seven animals were predicted to experience potential disturbance from concurrent piling at wind turbines at a maximum hammer energy of 4,000 kJ ( Figure 3.4   Open ▸ ; Table 3.9   Open ▸ ). This number reduces to five and three animals for the 1% constant conversion factor and the 4% reducing to 0.5% conversion factor respectively ( Table 3.10   Open ▸ and Table 3.11   Open ▸ ).
39. When referring to offshore populations and the same piling scenario, up to 129 animals could be affected if using the 10% reducing to 1% conversion factor ( Figure 3.1   Open ▸ , Table 3.9   Open ▸ ). For the 1% constant conversion factor and the 4% reducing to 0.5% conversion factor 101 and 75 animals could be affected respectively ( Table 3.10   Open ▸ and Table 3.11   Open ▸ ).
40. The number of animals potentially disturbed within 2 m to 20 m depth contour based on estimates for concurrent piling at wind turbines at realistic average maximum hammer energy of 3,000 kJ and using the 10% reducing to 1% conversion factor has been assessed as up to six animals ( Figure 3.5   Open ▸ ; Table 3.9   Open ▸ ). This number reduces to four and two animals for the 1% constant conversion factor and the 4% reducing to 0.5% conversion factor respectively ( Table 3.10   Open ▸ and Table 3.11   Open ▸ ).
41. Based on the same piling scenario and offshore populations, up to 109 animals could be affected if using the 10% reducing to 1% conversion factor ( Figure 3.2   Open ▸ ; Table 3.9   Open ▸ ). For the 1% constant conversion factor and the 4% reducing to 0.5% conversion factor 85 and 63 animals could be affected respectively ( Table 3.10   Open ▸ and Table 3.11   Open ▸ ).
42. For the largest conversion factor of 10% reducing to 1% the number of animals potentially disturbed distributed within 2 m to 20 m depth contour based on estimates for OSP/Offshore convertor station platform single piling at wind turbine/OSP-Offshore convertor station platform at a maximum hammer energy of 4,000 kJ has been assessed as up to five animals ( Figure 3.6   Open ▸ , Table 3.9   Open ▸ ) reducing to three at 1% constant conversion factor ( Table 3.10   Open ▸ ) and two at 4% reducing to 0.5% conversion factor ( Table 3.11   Open ▸ ).
43. Based on the same piling scenario and offshore populations, up to 82 animals could be affected if using the 10% reducing to 1% conversion factor ( Figure 3.3   Open ▸ ; Table 3.9   Open ▸ ). For the 1% constant conversion factor and the 4% reducing to 0.5% conversion factor 63 and 44 animals could be affected respectively ( Table 3.10   Open ▸ and Table 3.11   Open ▸ ).

Figure 3.4: Unweighted SELss Contours due to Concurrent Piling of Piles at Wind Turbine Location 1 and Wind Turbine Location 179 with 4,000 kJ Hammer Energy (dB re µPa2s) Using 10% Reducing to 1%, 4% Reducing to 0.5% and 1% Constant Conversion Factors

Figure 3.5  Unweighted SELss Contours due to Concurrent Piling of Piles at Wind Turbine Location 1 and Wind Turbine Location 179 with 3,000 kJ Hammer Energy (dB re µPa2s) Using 10% Reducing to 1%, 4% Reducing to 0.5% and 1% Constant Conversion Factors

Figure 3.6: Unweighted SELss Contours due to Single Piling of Pile at Wind Turbine Location 1 with 4,000 kJ Hammer Energy (dB re µPa2s) Using 10% Reducing to 1%, 4% Reducing to 0.5% and 1% Constant Conversion Factors

Table 3.9: Number of Bottlenose Dolphins Predicted to be Disturbed in the Vicinity of the Proposed Development as a Result of Different Piling Scenarios Using 10% Reducing to 1% Conversion Factor

1 Number of animals is rounded to nearest whole number.

2 CES MU population was used as a reference population for individuals disturbed in coastal areas.

3 SCANS III bottlenose dolphin estimated abundance was used as a reference population for individuals disturbed offshore.

Table 3.10: Number of Bottlenose Dolphins Predicted to be Disturbed in the Vicinity of the Proposed Development as a Result of Different Piling Scenarios Using 1% Constant Conversion Factor

1 Number of animals is rounded to nearest whole number.

2 CES MU population was used as a reference population for individuals disturbed in coastal areas.

3 SCANS III bottlenose dolphin estimated abundance was used as a reference population for individuals disturbed offshore.

Table 3.11: Number of Bottlenose Dolphins Predicted to be Disturbed in the Vicinity of the Proposed Development as a Result of Different Piling Scenarios Using 4% Reducing to 0.5% Conversion Factor

1 Number of animals is rounded to nearest whole number.

2 CES MU population was used as a reference population for individuals disturbed in coastal areas.

3 SCANS III bottlenose dolphin estimated abundance was used as a reference population for individuals disturbed offshore.

White-beaked dolphin

44. Based on the unweighted SELss criteria and the assumptions of the dose response relationship described in more detail in volume 2, chapter 10, the noise disturbance contours for various piling scenarios and conversion factors modelled for white-beaked dolphin are the same as for harbour porpoise and are presented in Figure 3.1   Open ▸ to Figure 3.3   Open ▸ ; full results are given in Table 3.12   Open ▸ to Table 3.14   Open ▸ .
45. Using 10% reducing to 1% conversion factor and SCANS III densities ( Table 3.12   Open ▸ ), up to 1,051 animals were predicted to experience potential disturbance from concurrent piling at wind turbines at a maximum hammer energy of 4,000 kJ ( Figure 3.1   Open ▸ , Table 3.12   Open ▸ ). This reduces to 830 using the 1% constant conversion factor ( Table 3.13   Open ▸ ) and further to 615 using the 4% reducing to 0.5% conversion factor ( Table 3.14   Open ▸ ).
46. Similarly, for the largest conversion factor of 10% reducing to 1% the number of animals potentially disturbed based on estimates for concurrent piling at wind turbines at a realistic average maximum hammer energy of 3,000 kJ has been assessed as up to 892 animals ( Figure 3.2   Open ▸ ; Table 3.12   Open ▸ ) reducing to 699 for the 1% constant conversion factor ( Table 3.13   Open ▸ ) and 517 for the 4% reducing to 0.5% conversion factor ( Table 3.14   Open ▸ ).
47. For the largest conversion factor of 10% reducing to 1% the number of animals potentially disturbed based on estimates for single piling at wind turbine/OSP-Offshore convertor station platform at a maximum hammer energy of 4,000 kJ has been assessed as up to 676 animals ( Figure 3.3   Open ▸ ; Table 3.12   Open ▸ ) reducing to 516 for the 1% constant conversion factor ( Table 3.13   Open ▸ ) and 360 for the 4% reducing to 0.5% conversion factor ( Table 3.14   Open ▸ ).

Table 3.12: Number of White-Beaked Dolphins Predicted to be Disturbed in the Vicinity of the Proposed Development as a Result of Different Piling Scenarios Using 10% Reducing to 1% Conversion Factor

Table 3.13: Number of White-Beaked Dolphins Predicted to be Disturbed in the Vicinity of the Proposed Development as a Result of Different Piling Scenarios Using 1% Constant Conversion Factor

Table 3.14: Number of White-Beaked Dolphins Predicted to be Disturbed in the Vicinity of the Proposed Development as a Result of Different Piling Scenarios Using 4% Reducing to 0.5% Conversion Factor

Minke whale

48. Based on the unweighted SELss criteria and the assumptions of the dose response relationship described in more detail in volume 2, chapter 10, the noise disturbance contours for various piling scenarios and conversion factors modelled for minke whale are the same as for harbour porpoise and are presented in Figure 3.1   Open ▸ to Figure 3.3   Open ▸ .
49. Using 10% reducing to 1% conversion factor and SCANS III densities ( Table 2.1   Open ▸ ) (for more details see volume 3, appendix 10.2), up to 167 animals were predicted to experience potential disturbance from concurrent piling at wind turbines at a maximum hammer energy of 4,000 kJ ( Figure 3.1   Open ▸ , Table 3.15   Open ▸ ). This reduces to 142 using the 1% constant conversion factor ( Table 3.16   Open ▸ ) and further to 107 using the 4% reducing to 0.5% conversion factor ( Table 3.17   Open ▸ ).
50. Similarly, for the largest conversion factor of 10% reducing to 1% the number of animals potentially disturbed based on estimates for concurrent piling at wind turbines at a realistic average maximum hammer energy of 3,000 kJ has been assessed as up to 142 animals ( Figure 3.2   Open ▸ , Table 3.15   Open ▸ ) reducing to 111 for the 1% constant conversion factor ( Table 3.16   Open ▸ and Table 3.13   Open ▸ ) and 82 for the 4% reducing to 0.5% conversion factor ( Table 3.17   Open ▸ ).
51. For the largest conversion factor of 10% reducing to 1% the number of animals potentially disturbed based on estimates for single piling at wind turbine/OSP-Offshore convertor station platform at a maximum hammer energy of 4,000 kJ has been assessed as up to 107 animals ( Figure 3.3   Open ▸ ; Table 3.15   Open ▸ ) reducing to 82 for the 1% constant conversion factor ( Table 3.16   Open ▸ ) and 57 for the 4% reducing to 0.5% conversion factor ( Table 3.17   Open ▸ ).

Table 3.15: Number of Minke Whales Predicted to be Disturbed in the Vicinity of the Proposed Development as a Result of Different Piling Scenarios Using 10% Reducing to 1% Conversion Factor

Table 3.16: Number of Minke Whales Predicted to be Disturbed in the Vicinity of the Proposed Development as a Result of Different Piling Scenarios Using 1% Constant Conversion Factor

Table 3.17: Number of Minke Whales Predicted to be Disturbed in the Vicinity of the Proposed Development as a Result of Different Piling Scenarios Using 4% Reducing to 0.5% Conversion Factor

Harbour seal

52. Based on the unweighted SELss criteria and the assumptions of the dose response relationship described in more detail in volume 2, chapter 10, the noise disturbance contours for concurrent piling scenarios and conversion factors modelled for harbour seal are the same as for harbour porpoise and are presented in Figure 3.1   Open ▸ to Figure 3.2   Open ▸ . The noise disturbance contours for single piling scenario and conversion factors modelled for harbour and grey seal are presented in Figure 3.7   Open ▸ .
53. Using 10% reducing to 1% conversion factor and maximum densities based on mean at-sea usage values from Carter et al. (2020) ( Table 2.1   Open ▸ ) (for more details see volume 3, appendix 10.2), three animals were predicted to experience potential disturbance from concurrent piling at wind turbines at a maximum hammer energy of 4,000 kJ ( Figure 3.1   Open ▸ ; Table 3.18   Open ▸ ). Two animals could potentially experience disturbance when using the 1% constant conversion factor ( Table 3.19   Open ▸ ) and the 4% reducing to 0.5% conversion factor ( Table 3.20   Open ▸ ).
54. Similarly, for the largest conversion factor of 10% reducing to 1% the number of animals potentially disturbed based on estimates for concurrent piling at wind turbines at a realistic average maximum hammer energy of 3,000 kJ has been assessed as two animals ( Figure 3.2   Open ▸ ; Table 3.18   Open ▸ ). Two and one animal/s could potentially experience disturbance when using the 1% constant conversion factor ( Table 3.19   Open ▸ ) and the 4% reducing to 0.5% conversion factor, respectively ( Table 3.20   Open ▸ ).
55. For the largest conversion factor of 10% reducing to 1% the number of animals potentially disturbed based on estimates for single piling at wind turbine/OSP-Offshore convertor station platform at a maximum hammer energy of 4,000 kJ has been assessed as two animals ( Figure 3.7   Open ▸ ; Table 3.18   Open ▸ ). One could potentially experience disturbance when using the 1% constant conversion factor ( Table 3.19   Open ▸ ) and the 4% to 0.5% conversion factor ( Table 3.20   Open ▸ ).

Table 3.18: Number of Harbour Seals Predicted to be Disturbed in the Vicinity of the Proposed Development as a Result of Different Piling Scenarios Using 10% Reducing to 1% Conversion Factor

1 Number of animals is rounded to nearest whole number.

Table 3.19: Number of Harbour Seals Predicted to be Disturbed in the Vicinity of the Proposed Development as a Result of Different Piling Scenarios Using 1% Constant Conversion Factor

1 Number of animals is rounded to nearest whole number.

Table 3.20: Number of Harbour Seals Predicted to be Disturbed in the Vicinity of the Proposed Development as a Result of Different Piling Scenarios Using 4% Reducing to 0.5% Conversion Factor

1 Number of animals is rounded to nearest whole number.

Grey seal

56. Based on the unweighted SELss criteria and the assumptions of the dose response relationship described in more detail in volume 2, chapter 10, the noise disturbance contours for concurrent piling scenarios and conversion factors modelled for grey seal are the same as for harbour porpoise and are presented in Figure 3.1   Open ▸ and Figure 3.2   Open ▸ . The noise disturbance contours for single piling scenario and conversion factors modelled for harbour and grey seal are presented in Figure 3.7   Open ▸ .
57. Using 10% reducing to 1% conversion factor and maximum densities based on mean at-sea usage values from Carter et al. (2020) ( Table 2.1   Open ▸ ) (for more details see volume 3, appendix 10.2), up to 1867 animals were predicted could experience potential disturbance from concurrent piling at wind turbines at a maximum hammer energy of 4,000 kJ Figure 3.1   Open ▸ ; Table 3.21   Open ▸ ). This reduces to 1,358 animals using the 1% constant conversion factor ( Table 3.22   Open ▸ ) and further to 935 using the 4% reducing to 0.5% conversion factor ( Table 3.23   Open ▸ ).
58. Similarly, for the largest conversion factor of 10% reducing to 1% the number of animals potentially disturbed based on estimates for concurrent piling at wind turbines at a realistic average maximum hammer energy of 3,000 kJ has been assessed as up to 1,488 animals ( Figure 3.2   Open ▸ ; Table 3.21   Open ▸ ) reducing to 1,095 for the 1% constant conversion factor ( Table 3.22   Open ▸ ) and 759 for the 4% reducing to 0.5% conversion factor ( Table 3.23   Open ▸ ).
59. For the largest conversion factor of 10% reducing to 1% the number of animals potentially disturbed based on estimates for single piling at wind turbine/OSP-Offshore convertor station platform at a maximum hammer energy of 4,000 kJ has been assessed as up to 988 animals ( Figure 3.7   Open ▸ ; Table 3.21   Open ▸ ) reducing to 705 for the 1% constant conversion factor ( Table 3.22   Open ▸ ) and 463 for the 4% reducing to 0.5% conversion factor ( Table 3.23   Open ▸ ).

Table 3.21: Number of Grey Seals Predicted to be Disturbed in the Vicinity of the Proposed Development as a Result of Different Piling Scenarios Using 10% Reducing to 1% Conversion Factor

Table 3.22: Number of Grey Seals Predicted to be Disturbed in the Vicinity of the Proposed Development as a Result of Different Piling Scenarios Using 1% Constant Conversion Factor

Table 3.23: Number of Grey Seals Predicted to be Disturbed in the Vicinity of the Proposed Development as a Result of Different Piling Scenarios Using 4% Reducing to 0.5% Conversion Factor

Figure 3.7: Unweighted SELss Contours due to Single Piling of Piles at Wind Turbine Location 135 with 4,000 kJ Hammer Energy (dB re µPa2s) Using 10% Reducing to 1%, 4% Reducing to 0.5% and 1% Constant Conversion Factor

4.             Summary

4. Summary

60. This document provides an overview of the magnitude of injury and disturbance to marine mammals from underwater noise resulting from piling activities. Modelled noise contours from three selected conversion factors were applied: 10% reducing to 1% conversion factor, 4% reducing to 0.5% conversion factor and 1% constant conversion factor (as presented in the subsea noise sensitivity assessment; volume 3, appendix 10.1, annex B). As highlighted in the technical note on conversion factors provided in volume 3, appendix 10.1, annex A, the application of 10% reducing to 1% conversion factor in modelling of injury and noise disturbance contours is considered to result in overestimated impact ranges and subsequently these results have not been taken forward to the impact assessment of marine mammals. Instead, results generated using either a 4% reducing to 0.5% conversion factor (recommended in the technical note on conversion factors; volume 3, appendix 10.1, annex A) or the 1% constant conversion factor (commonly applied to previous offshore wind farm subsea noise assessments) have been taken forward to the assessment of significance in volume 2, chapter 10.
61. Supplementary information on a 4% and 10% constant conversion factor has also been presented for the assessment of instantaneous injury at the request of stakeholders. The ranges of effect (SPLpk) predicted using a constant conversion factor of either 4% or 10% for the SPLpk metric are less than the range predicted for cumulative exposure for minke whale (2,319 m) based on SELcum and using the 4% reducing to 0.5% conversion factor. Therefore, as a precautionary approach, the potential to mitigate for injury was considered with respect to the largest potential injury zone for all species (2,319 m).
62. The reason for considering two different conversion factors was to adopt the more precautionary approach since the larger predicted ranges switched between the 4% reducing to 0.5% and 1% constant conversion factor across the marine mammal hearing groups and depending on the acoustic metric applied. Thus, maximum injury ranges were predicted for different species using either the 4% reducing to 0.5% conversion factor or the 1% constant conversion factor depending on which of the dual acoustic metrics (SPLpk or SELcum) resulted in the largest predicted ranges ( Table 4.1   Open ▸ ). For behavioural effect ranges, where the unweighted SELss metric was applied, the 1% constant conversion factor resulted in the larger impact ranges compared to the 4% reducing to 0.5% and therefore this conversion factor was used for the marine mammal behavioural assessment for all species.

Table 4.1: Summary of Injury Ranges and Corresponding Acoustic Metric (SPLpk or SELcum) and Conversion Factor (1% Constant or 4% Reducing to 0.5%) Taken Forward for the Marine Mammal Impact Assessment

5.             References

5. 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 (EOWDC), March 2021 (unpublished).

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. and 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.

Hammond, P.S., Lacey, C., Gilles, A., Viquerat, S., Börjesson P., Herr H., Macleod K., Ridoux V., Santos M.B., Scheidat, M., Teilmann, J., 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. Available at: Estimates of cetacean abundance in European Atlantic waters in summer 2016 from the SCANS-III aerial and shipboard surveys (st-andrews.ac.uk). Accessed on: 2 March 2022.

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.

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.

Sinclair, R.R. (2021). 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.