Increased SSCs and associated deposition
  1. As stated in volume 2, chapter 9, the prey fish species most likely to be affected by sediment deposition are sandeel and herring because they spawn on the seabed. Sandeel have low intensity spawning and nursery grounds within the fish and shellfish ecology study area however sandeel eggs are likely to be tolerant to some level of sediment deposition due to the nature of the re-suspension and deposition within their natural high energy environment (Ellis et al., 2012). Therefore, effects on sandeel spawning populations are predicted to be limited. Sandeel populations are also sensitive to sediment type within their habitat, preferring coarse to medium sands and showing reduced selection or avoidance of gravel and fine sediments (Holland et al., 2005). This is as identified by the Feature Activity Sensitivity Tool (FeAST) tool as the pressure ‘siltation changes’ (low) which has identified that sandeel have medium sensitivity to this impact (Wright et al., 2000). Therefore, any increase in the fine sediment fraction of their habitat may cause avoidance behaviour until such time that currents remove fine sediments from the seabed, although modelled sediment deposition levels are expected to be highly localised and at very low levels.
  2. Herring occur mostly in pelagic habitats, but utilise benthic environments for spawning, and are known to prefer gravelly and coarse sand environments for this purpose, with low intensity nursery grounds present within the site boundary and low intensity spawning grounds nearby (Coull et al., 1998). With respect to the effects of sediment deposition on herring spawning activity, it has been shown that herring eggs may be tolerant of very high levels of SSC (Messieh et al., 1981; Kiorbe et al., 1981). However, detrimental effects may be seen if smothering occurs and the deposited sediment is not removed by the currents (Birklund and Wijsmam, 2005).
  3. The potential of an increase in SSCs may arise as a result of mooring lines or cables making contact with and moving on the seabed, disturbing seabed materials and causing scouring and increased SSCs within the water column. Any increase in SSCs and associated deposition will include native material only, and although comprises predominantly mobile sand material, the low rates of sediment transport, will ensure it is redeposited close by after a short period of suspension, thus not impacting significantly on seabed morphology. Any significant changes to the seabed morphology will not recover immediately, due to the low rates of sediment transport, however the evidence of mobile sediments implies any impacts will be fully recoverable after some time (volume 2, chapter 7).
                        Effects to fish and shellfish receptors due to EMFs from subsea electrical cabling
  1. As discussed in volume 2, chapter 9, the presence and operation of inter-array and interconnector cables within the fish and shellfish ecology study area may result in emission of localised EMFs which may affect some fish species. It is common practice to block the direct electrical field using conductive sheathing, meaning that the only EMFs that are emitted into the marine environment are the magnetic field and the resultant induced electrical field. Fish (particularly elasmobranchs) and shellfish species are able to detect applied or modified magnetic fields. However, the rapid decay of the EMF with horizontal and vertical distance (Bochert and Zettler, 2006) (i.e. within metres) minimises the extent of potential impacts. A study investigating the effect of EMFs on sandeel larvae spatial distribution found that there was no effect on the larvae (Cresci et al., 2022), and a prior study concluded the same for herring (Cresci et al., 2020).

                        Conclusions

  1. This section summaries the assessments from the topic specific chapters to inform the ecosystem effects assessment of the Array on prey species, to determine whether there will be any increases or decreases in predation and prey distribution and availability as a result of the Array.
  2. The impacts resulting from the lifetime of the Array (construction, operation and maintenance and decommissioning) which are relevant to prey species include temporary habitat loss and disturbance; long-term habitat loss and disturbance; colonisation of hard structures; underwater noise impacting fish and shellfish receptors; underwater noise from the operation of floating wind turbines and anchor mooring lines impacting fish and shellfish receptors; increased SSCs and associated deposition; and effects to fish and shellfish receptors due to EMFs from subsea electrical cables.
  3. The colonisation of hard structures has the potential to lead to increases in fish species through potential reef effect and fish aggregation. It is uncertain to what degree this may occur, however, any beneficial effects are predicted to be highly localised and not significant.

20.9.10. Effects of the Array on Predator Species

  1. Section 20.9.9 examined the impacts as a result of the Array 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 20.9.9 to determine if there are any potentially significant effects on predators as a consequence of changes in prey availability. The likelihood of increased predation of key prey species as a result of the Array is considered highly unlikely due to the mobile nature of both prey and predator species and therefore has not been assessed further.

                        Piscivorous fish

  1. The typical prey species of the key predators (piscivorous fish) are listed in section 20.9.5 which shows these fish species have broad diets comprising not only of 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 of sandeel, herring, mackerel and sprat.
  2. As discussed in section 20.9.9, adverse effects on prey species as a result of the Array were assessed to have adverse effects on marine fish (including prey species), which would not result in a significant change to prey species populations. The colonisation of hard structures has the potential to lead to localised increases in fish species through potential reef effect and fish aggregation. However, the assessments of effects concluded any increases would be localised and did not conclude that the Array would lead to a significant increase in prey species.

                        Marine mammals

  1. As discussed in volume 2, chapter 10, marine mammals are likely to profit from locally increased food availability and/or shelter and therefore have the potential to be attracted to forage within an offshore wind farm. While species such as harbour porpoise, minke whale, white-beaked dolphin, harbour porpoise and grey seal have been frequently recorded around offshore oil and gas structures, little is known about the how their distribution is linked to the reef effect or sheltering effect (Todd et al., 2016; Delefosse et al., 2018; Lindeboom et al., 2011). Acoustic results from a Towed Passive Acoustic Monitoring Device (T- POD) measurement within a Dutch wind farm found that relatively more harbour porpoises were found in the wind farm area compared to the two reference areas (Lindeboom et al., 2011, Scheidat et al., 2011). This study concluded that the presence within the wind farm area was due to increased food availability as well as the exclusion of fisheries and reduced vessel traffic in the wind farm (shelter effect). Further evidence suggesting that wind farms are used for foraging includes a study by Russell et al. (2014) where the movements of tagged harbour seals commonly exhibited grid-like movement patterns within two active wind farms in the North Sea. However, other studies have detected no statistical differences in the presence of harbour porpoises inside and outside a Danish wind farm (Brandt et al., 2009). Brandt et al. (2009) suggested, however, that a small increase in detections during the night at hydrophones deployed in close proximity to single wind turbines may indicate increased foraging behaviour near the monopiles. Whilst there is some mounting evidence of potential benefits of man-made structures in marine environment (Coolen et al., 2017), 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 (Elliott and Birchenough, 2022; Inger et al., 2009; McLean et al., 2022; Rouse et al., 2020).
  2. In terms of the reef effect, the assessment of effects concluded any increases would be localised and would not lead to a significant increase in prey species. For example, sandeel, a popular prey species for harbour porpoise, require specific sediment habitat conditions and are therefore unlikely to be attracted to the hard structures of offshore wind farm infrastructure.
  3. Marine mammals exploit a range of different prey items and can forage widely, sometimes covering extensive distances. As the potential impacts of construction on prey resources will be localised and largely restricted to the site boundary, only a small area will be affected when compared to the available foraging habitat in the North Sea. The fish and shellfish communities found within the fish and shellfish ecology study area (see volume 2, chapter 9) are characteristic of fish and shellfish assemblages in the northern North Sea. It is therefore reasonably to assume that, due to the highly mobile nature of marine mammals, there will be similar prey resources available in the wider area surrounding the site boundary.
  4. Despite this, foraging over greater distances could result in an energetic cost with the associated increased travel with this effect being particularly pertinent for harbour porpoise. Harbour porpoise has a high metabolic rate and only a limited energy storage capacity, which limits their ability to buffer against diminished food. Despite this, if animals do have to travel further to alternative foraging grounds, the impacts are expected to be largely short term in nature and reversible (i.e. elevated underwater noise would occur during site investigation surveys, geophysical surveys, vessel activity, UXO clearance, piling and other noise producing activities) and are likely to return to the area after the noise activity has ceased. Whilst the impact of elevated underwater noise from the operation of floating wind turbines and anchor mooring lines is long-term it is of highly local spatial extent and therefore of minor adverse significance. Injury or disturbance is discussed further in paragraphs 50 to 57.
  5. In volume 2, chapter 10 it was identified that minke whale have the potential to be particularly vulnerable to potential effects on sandeel, particularly if there is potential for reduced abundance. Studies analysing the stomach contents of minke whale found that in the North Sea this species is their key food resource, followed by clupeids Clupeidae and to a lesser extent mackerel (Robinson and Tetley, 2005; Tetley et al., 2008), see volume 3, appendix 10.2 for more details. However, as presented in volume 2, chapter 10, modelling by Langton et al. (2021) shows that the marine mammal study area has extremely low probability of sandeel presence, with areas where predicted density is high closer to the coasts or towards the Firth of Forth.

                        Seabirds

  1. Prey availability is one of the most important controls of species abundance and distribution in the higher trophic levels, including birds (Lynam et al., 2017; Mitchell et al., 2020). Reduced availability or shifts in the distribution of prey species means seabirds are having to travel further distances to forage for food. Fayet et al. (2021) conducted a study comparing the foraging behaviour of puffin populations across the north-east Atlantic and found that puffins from declining populations had to cover greater distances for foraging and had less energy-dense diets. 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.
  2. The extent to which seabirds respond to changes in prey availability is dependent on species. Generalist species, such as gulls, feed on a range of prey types and are therefore more resilient to these changes whereas specialist species, such as kittiwake, predominantly prey on small fish and struggle to adapt to changes in prey availability as easily (Furness and Tasker, 2000).
  3. Changes to prey distribution within the water column resulting from changes to stratification or temperature, will affect surface feeding species (e.g. kittiwake and terns) differently to water column feeding species (e.g. auks). Typically, water column feeding species can adapt better to changes in prey availability as they are not restricted to prey available in the upper 1 m to 2 m of the sea surface, as is the case for surface feeding species. The primary feeding strategies for key seabird species that have the potential to be impacted by the Array are detailed in Table 20.18   Open ▸ .
  4. The presence of sandeel has been linked to the reproductive success and survival of kittiwakes (Frederiksen et al., 2004, 2008; Carroll et al., 2017). During April and May, adult kittiwakes predominantly consume older sandeel (1+ year group), transitioning to juvenile (0 year group) sandeel in June and July while rearing chicks (Lewis et al., 2001). This dietary pattern aligns with the annual cycle of sandeel as 1+ sandeel group are active in the water column during spring and 0 year group, having newly metamorphosed from larvae to juveniles, are available from June. Both year groups then bury themselves over winter, surviving on the lipids they have accumulated during the spring months (Wright and Bailey, 1996). Sandeel stock levels have seen significant reductions as a result of climate change and commercial fisheries (as detailed in section 20.9.8) which may contribute to kittiwake declines (Caroll et al., 2017).
  5. In the Firth of Forth region, a decline in the average length-at-age of both the 0 year group and 1+ year group sandeel brought to puffin chicks on the Isle of May indicated a considerable decline in prey quality between 1973 and 2015. This trend is associated with reductions in kittiwake populations. It is estimated that the energy content of sandeel decreased by around 70% and 40% for 0 and 1+ sandeel groups, respectively, potentially leading to a significant change in the diet or behaviour of seabirds that rely on sandeel species (Wanless et al., 2018). The diet of chick-rearing kittiwakes, puffins, razorbills and shags was predominantly sandeel between 1973 and 2015 in the North Sea. More recently, a shift to sprat and herring has been observed in guillemots, razorbills and kittiwakes (Walness et al., 2018). Sprat feed and spawn repeatedly throughout spring and summer in coastal and offshore waters are therefore more readily available, which could account for this shift. As plunge divers, gannet predominantly feed on pelagic fish such as mackerel and sandeel or fisheries discards (Le Bot et al., 2019).
  6. Overall, the construction and operation of wind turbines may lead to changes in the behaviour, availability or distribution of prey species for seabirds. However, the majority of seabird species have large foraging ranges and a variety of target species (with the exception of little terns) ( Table 20.18   Open ▸ ) meaning they are able to adapt to short temporal changes in prey availability due to construction activities. This impact is further discussed in volume 2, chapter 11.
  7. The majority of marine fish species are expected to avoid habitat loss effects due to their greater mobility and recoverability post-construction. As discussed in section 20.9.9, sandeel are particularly vulnerable to long-term habitat and disturbance. However, the effects are unlikely to result in a measurable impact on fish and shellfish receptors.
  8. During the construction phase, as per volume 2, chapter 9, the impact to all fish and shellfish species is considered to be of negligible. Construction works will be spatially and temporally restricted, covering only a small portion of the site at any given time. Construction impacts are restricted to the duration of the construction phase, and once construction has finished, the adverse impacts will cease and any change on prey species will likely be reversed.
  9. During the operation and maintenance phase, as per volume 2, chapter 9, the impact to all fish and shellfish species is considered to be of negligible to minor adverse significance. Temporary habitat loss will occur as a result of the use of jack-up usage for operation and maintenance activities (10,500 m2 per year over the 35-year lifecycle), and also due to disturbance caused by reburial of inter-array and interconnector cables (1,222,400 m2 and 236,000 m2 per year, respectively). The maximum design scenario is for up to 51,411,500 m2 of temporary habitat loss/disturbance during the operation and maintenance phase. This equates to 5.99% of the total site boundary and therefore this represents a relatively small proportion of the fish and shellfish ecology study area. It should also be noted that only a small proportion of the total habitat loss/disturbance is likely to be occurring at any one time over the 35-year operation phase of the Array. During the operation and maintenance phase, changes to prey availability are expected to be minimal although as requested by NatureScot, this effect has been considered for this phase (volume 2, chapter 11). With the exception of little tern, the sensitivity of the VORs is considered to range between low to medium ( Table 20.19   Open ▸ ).

 

Table 20.19:
Sensitivity of Receptors to Indirect Impacts from Construction/Decommissioning Noise

Table 20.19: Sensitivity of Receptors to Indirect Impacts from Construction/Decommissioning Noise

 

  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, such as the creation of artificial reefs and the resulting potential of an increase in prey availability (Coolen, 2017).
  2. 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).
  3. Climate change is considered to be the likely primary cause of decline in seabird populations in the future. It is believed that the absence of the Array would further delay the transition of the UK from reliance on fossil fuels and therefore further contribute towards climate change impacts and declining seabird populations.

                        Conclusions

  1. This section assessed whether there will be any changes to the key predator species as a result of the Array. This was achieved by assessing the sensitivity of the predator species to changes in prey availability and drawing on the conclusions of section 20.9.9 along with the findings of the relevant Array EIA Report chapters to determine if any changes to predator species are predicted. The following conclusions were made:

–           broad range of prey species making them less sensitive to the availability of the key forage prey species (sandeel, herring, sprat and mackerel);

  • marine mammals

–           harbour porpoise

  • may be more sensitive to disturbance due to the energetic cost associated with increased travelling, however, the impacts are expected to be short-term in nature and reversible;

–           minke whale

  • may be more sensitive to the any potential changes in the abundance or distribution of sandeel; and
  • seabirds

–           kittiwake are identified as being particularly sensitive to changes in prey availability of their favoured prey species, sandeel. Significant changes to prey species as a result of the Array are however not predicted due to the non-favourable habitats for sandeel within the fish and shellfish ecology study area.

20.10. Conclusion

  1. The inter-related effects for all topics have been assessed and are detailed above. It has been concluded that the inter-related effects across the lifetime of the Array will not result in combined effects of greater significance than the assessments presented for each of the individual phases and therefore the effect is not significant in EIA terms. It has also been concluded that multiple effects will not interact in a way that is likely to result in greater significance than those assessments presented for individual receptors. None of the potential impacts arising from the Array alone or in combination with other projects, will result in significant adverse effects on prey species and predator species.
  2. The ecosystem effects assessment concluded that whilst colonisation of hard structures, 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.
  3. Predator species most vulnerable to changes in prey availability arising from the Array impacts include harbour porpoise, minke whale and kittiwake. However, as significant changes to prey species as a result of the Array alone and in combination with other projects are not predicted, significant effects on the key predator species are also not predicted.
  4. 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 Array. 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.

20.11. References

Aires, 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.

Andersson, M. H. (2011). Offshore Wind Farms – Ecological Effects of Noise and Habitat Alteration on Fish. PhD Thesis, Department of Zoology, Stockholm University.

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., Berggren, M., 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, 249-260.

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. (2022). Beatrice offshore wind farm post-construction monitoring Year 2 (2021): Benthic grab survey report. Report on behalf of Beatrice Offshore Wind Farm Ltd. Available at: https://marine.gov.scot/sites/default/files/bowl_2021_post_construction_ornithology_monitoring_report_25_07_2023.pdf. Accessed on: 01 March 2024.

Arrigo, K. R., Van Dijken, G. L., Cameron, M. A., Van Der Grient, J., Wedding, L. M., Hazen, L., Leape, J., Leonard, G., Merkl, A., Micheli, F., Mills, 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. Nature Communications, 11 (1). DOI:10.1038/s41467-020-19899-z.

Baulaz, Y., Mouchet, M., Niquil, N., & Lasram, F. B. R. (2023). An integrated conceptual model to characterize the effects of offshore wind farms on ecosystem services. Ecosystem Services, 60, 101513.

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. Frontiers in Marine Science, 8. DOI:10.3389/fmars.2021.664724.

BioConsult (2006). Hydroacoustic Monitoring of Fish Communities at Offshore Wind Farms, Horns Rev Offshore Wind Farm, Annual Report 2005

Bochert, R., and Zettler, M.L. (2006). Effect of Electromagnetic Fields on Marine Organisms. In: Köller, J., Köppel, J., and Peters, W. (eds) Offshore Wind Energy. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 223-34. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-34677-7_14. Accessed on: 28 March 2024.

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. (2008). Critical timing for reproductive allocation in a capital breeder: evidence from sandeels. Aquatic Biology, 3, 31-40.

Bouma, S. & W. Lengkeek. (2012). Benthic communities on hard substrates of the offshore wind farm Egmond aan Zee (owez). Including results of samples collected in scour holes. – Bureau Waardenburg, Culemborg. [report 11-205, NoordzeeWind report]

BOWind (2008). Barrow Offshore Wind Farm Post Construction Monitoring Report. First annual report. 15 January 2008, 60pp.

Boyle, G. and New, P. (2018). ORJIP Impacts from Piling on Fish at Offshore Wind Sites: Collating Population Information, Gap Analysis and Appraisal of Mitigation Options. Final report – June 2018. The Carbon Trust. United Kingdom. 247 pp.

Brandt, M.J., Diederichs, A. and Nehls, G. (2009). Harbour porpoise responses to pile driving at the Horns Rev II offshore wind farm in the Danish North Sea. Final report to DONG Energy. Husum, Germany, BioConsult SH.

British Sea Fishing (2022). Herring. Available at: https://britishseafishing.co.uk/herring/. Accessed on: 21 March 2024.

Buckstaff, K. C. (2004). Effects of watercraft noise on the acoustic behavior of bottlenose dolphins,Tursiops truncatus, in Sarasota Bay, Florida. Marine Mammal Science, 20 (4), pp.709-725. DOI:10.1111/j.1748-7692.2004.tb01189.x.

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.

Canning, S., Lye, G., Givens, L. and Pendlebury, C. (2013). Analysis of Marine Ecology Monitoring Plan Data from the Robin Rigg Offshore Wind Farm, Scotland (Operational Year 2). Natural Power Consultants, Dalry.

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., Cronin, M. A., Duck, C. D., Grecian, W. J., Hastie, G. D., Jessopp, M., Matthiopoulos, J., McConnell, B. J., Miller, D. L., Morris, C. D., Moss, S. E. W., Thompson, D., Thompson, P. M. and Russell, D. J. F. (2022). Sympatric Seals, Satellite Tracking and Protected Areas: Habitat-Based Distribution Estimates for Conservation and Management. Frontiers in Marine Science, 9. DOI:10.3389/fmars.2022.875869.

Casini. M, Cardinale. M, Arrhenius, F. (2004). Feeding preferences of herring (Clupea harengus) and sprat (Sprattus sprattus) in the southern Baltic Sea, ICES Journal of Marine Science, Volume 61, Issue 8, 2004, Pages 1267–1277, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.icesjms.2003.12.011.

Cefas (2009). Strategic Review of Offshore Wind Farm Monitoring Data Associated with FEPA Licence Conditions. Project ME1117. July 2009.

CES. (2006). Herring, Clupea harengus. Available at: https://www.ices.dk/about-ICES/projects/EURFP/EU%20Repository/ICES%20FIshMap/ICES%20FishMap%20species%20factsheet-herring.pdf. Accessed on: 21 March 2024.

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.

Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) (2023). Ecosystem Approach. Available at: https://www.cbd.int/ecosystem/. Accessed on: 25 January 2024.

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

Coolen, J. W., Van Der Weide, B., Cuperus, J., Blomberg, M., Van Moorsel, G. W., Faasse, M. A. and Lindeboom, H. J. (2020). Benthic biodiversity on old platforms, young wind farms, and rocky reefs. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 77(3), 1250-1265.

Coull, K.A., Johnstone, R., and S.I. Rogers (1998). Fisheries Sensitivity Maps in British Waters.

Cresci, A., Allan, B.J.M., Shema, S.D., Skiftesvik, A.B., and Browman, H.I. (2020). Orientation behaviour and swimming speed of Atlantic herring larvae (Clupea harengus) in situ and in laboratory exposures to rotated artificial magnetic fields. J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol., 526, 151358. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jembe.2020.151358. Accessed on: 28 March 2024.

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, 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. and Hostens, K. (2020). A decade of soft sediment epibenthos and fish monitoring at the Belgian offshore wind farm area. Environmental Impacts of Offshore Wind Farms in the Belgian Part of the North Sea: Empirical Evidence Inspiring Priority Monitoring, Research and Management. Series ‘Memoirs on the Marine Environment’. Royal Belgian Institute of Natural Sciences. Brussels, Belgium pp.79-113.

De Mesel, I., Kerckhof, F., Norro, A., Rumes, B. and Degraer, S. (2015). Succession and seasonal dynamics of the epifauna community on offshore wind farm foundations and their role as stepping stones for non-indigenous species. Hydrobiologia, 756 (1), pp.37-50. DOI:10.1007/s10750-014-2157-1.

DEFRA (2024). Consultation on spatial management measures for industrial sandeel fishing 1. Available at: https://www.gov.scot/publications/sandeel-prohibition-fishing-scotland-order-2024-final-business-regulatory-impact-assessment/. Accessed on: 27 March 2024.

Degraer, S., Carey, D.A., Coolen, J.W., Hutchison, Z.L., Kerckhof, F., Rumes, B. and Vanaverbeke, J., (2020). Offshore wind farm artificial reefs affect ecosystem structure and functioning. Oceanography, 33(4), pp.48-57.

Delefosse, M., Rahbek, M.L., Roesen, L. and Clausen, K.T. (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), 993-1001.

DESNZ (2023a). Overarching National Policy Statement for Energy (NPS EN-1). Available at: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/65bbfbdc709fe1000f637052/overarching-nps-for-energy-en1.pdf. Accessed on: 20 February 2024.

DESNZ (2023b). National Policy Statement for renewable energy infrastructure (NPS EN-3). Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/national-policy-statement-for-renewable-energy-infrastructure-en-3. Accessed on: 20 February 2024.

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.

ECOWind (2024). ECOWind Projects. Available at: https://ecowind.uk/projects/. Accessed on: 07 March 2024.

Edrén, S. M. C., Wisz, M. S., Teilmann, J., Dietz, R. and Söderkvist, J. (2010). Modelling spatial patterns in harbour porpoise satellite telemetry data using maximum entropy. Ecography, 33 (4), pp.698-708. DOI:10.1111/j.1600-0587.2009.05901.x.

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, 18-33.

European Commission (1999). The Guidelines for the Assessment of Indirect and Cumulative Impacts as well as Impact Interactions. Available at: https://tethys.pnnl.gov/sites/default/files/publications/European-Commission-1999.pdf. Accessed on: 07 March 2024.

European Commission (2022). Why do we need to protect biodiversity? Available at: https://environment.ec.europa.eu/topics/nature-and-biodiversity_en. Accessed on: 07 March 2024.

Evans, P.G.H. (1990). European cetaceans and seabirds in an oceanographic context. Lutra, 33, 95–125.

Evans, P.G.H. and Waggitt, J.J. (2020) Impacts of climate change on marine mammals, relevant to the coastal and marine environment around the UK. MCCIP Science Review 2020, 421–455.

Faroese Safood, (2022). Saithe (Coley, Atlantic pollock). Available at: https://www.faroeseseafood.com/species/saithe-coley-atlantic-pollock/. Accessed on: 19 March 2024.

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), 1152-1164.

Fleming, A.H., Clark, C.T., Barlow, J. (2016). Humpback whale diets respond to variance in ocean climate and ecosystem conditions in the California Current. Global Change Biology. 22, 1214-1224. doi: 10.1111/gcb.13171.

Forney, K. A., Southall, B. L., Slooten, E., Dawson, S., Read, A. J., Baird, R. W. and Brownell Jr, R. L. (2017). Nowhere to go: noise impact assessments for marine mammal populations with high site fidelity. Endangered species research, 32, pp.391-413.

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), 1259-1268.

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, 253-264.

Gardiner, R., Main, R., Kynoch, R., Gilbey, J., and Davies, I., (2018). 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.

Geelhoed, S. C. V., Authier, M., Pigeault, R. and Gilles, A. (2022). Abundance and distribution of cetaceans. In: OSPAR (2023): The 2023 Quality Status Report for the Northeast Atlantic [Online]. London: OSPAR Commission. Available at: https://oap.ospar.org/en/ospar-assessments/quality-status-reports/qsr-2023/indicator-assessments/abundance-distribution-cetaceans/. Accessed on: 20 March 2024.

Gerstein, E., Blue, J. and Forysthe, S. (2005). The acoustics of vessel collisions with marine mammals. Proceedings of OCEANS 2005 MTS/IEEE. IEEE.

Gilles, A., Authier, M., Ramirez-Martinez, N. C., Araújo, H., Blanchard, A., Carlström, J., Eira, C., Dorémus, G., Fernández-Maldonado, C., Geelhoed, S. C. V., Kyhn, L., Laran, S., Nachtsheim, D., Panigada, S., Pigeault, R., Sequeira, M., Sveegaard, S., Taylor, N. L., Owen, K., Saavedra, C., Vázquez-Bonales, J. A., Unger, B. and Hammond, P. S. (2023). Estimates of cetacean abundance in European Atlantic waters in summer 2022 from the SCANS-IV aerial and shipboard surveys. Final report published 29 September 2023 pp.64.

Glarou, M., Zrust, M., & Svendsen, J. C. (2020). Using artificial-reef knowledge to enhance the ecological function of offshore wind turbine foundations: Implications for fish abundance and diversity. Journal of Marine Science and Engineering, 8(5), 332.

Gordon, J., Gillespie, D., Potter, J., Frantzis, A., Simmonds, M. P., Swift, R. and Thompson, D. (2003). A Review of the Effects of Seismic Surveys on Marine Mammals. Marine Technology Society Journal, 37 (4), pp.16-34. DOI:10.4031/002533203787536998.

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.

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., Bearzi, G., Bjørge, A., Forney, K., Karczmarski, L., Kasuya, T., Perrin, W.F., Scott, M.D., Wang, J.Y., Wells, R.S. and Wilson, B. (2008). Phocoena. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2008, e. T17027A6734992.

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.

Hazen, E.L., Abrahms, B., Brodie, S., Carroll, G., Jacox, M.G., Savoca, M.S., Scales, K.L., Sydeman, W.J. and Bograd, S.J. (2019). Marine top predators as climate and ecosystem sentinels. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 17(10), 565-574.

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.

Hill, J. M. and Tyler-Walters, H. (2018). Seapens and burrowing megafauna in circalittoral fine mud. In Tyler-Walters H. and Hiscock K. (eds) Marine Life Information Network: Biology and Sensitivity Key Information Reviews. Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom. Plymouth, UK.

Hooper, T., Hattam, C., & Austen, M. (2017). Recreational use of offshore wind farms: Experiences and opinions of sea anglers in the UK. Marine Policy, 78, 55-60.

Horton, H. (2022). UK may ban sandeel fishing in move to save threatened seabirds. The Guardian.. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/dec/16/uk-may-ban-sandeel-fishing-in-move-to-save-threatened-seabirds. Accessed on 27 March 2024.

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.

Hutchinson, Z.L., Bartley, M., Degraer, S. and English, P. (2020). Offshore wind energy and benthic habitat changes: lessons from Block Island Wind Farm. Oceanography, 33(4), 58-69.

IEMA (2016). IEMA Environmental Impact Assessment Guide to Delivering Quality Development. Available at: https://www.iema.net/download-document/7014. Accessed on: 07 March 2024.

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., Attril, M.J., Bearhop, S., Broderick, A.C., Grecian, W.J., 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.

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.

Karlsson, R., Tivefälth, M., Duranović, I., Martinsson, S., Kjølhamar, A. and Murvoll, K. M. (2022). Artificial hard-substrate colonisation in the offshore Hywind Scotland Pilot Park. Wind Energy Science, 7 (2), pp.801-814. DOI:10.5194/wes-7-801-2022.

Kastelein, R. A., Helder-Hoek, L., Booth, C., Jennings, N. and Leopold, M. (2019). High Levels of Food Intake in Harbor Porpoises (Phocoena phocoena): Insight into Recovery from Disturbance. Aquatic Mammals, 45 (4), pp.380-388. DOI:10.1578/am.45.4.2019.380.

Knutsen, J., Knutsen, H., Gjøsæter, J. & Jonsson, B. (2001). Food of anadromous brown trout at sea. Journal of Fish Biology. 59. 533 – 543. 10.1111/j.1095-8649.2001.tb02359.x.

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

Lacey, C., Gilles, A., Börjesson, P., Herr, H., Macleod, K., Ridoux, V., Santos, M. B., Scheidat, M., Teilmann, J., Sveegaard, S., Vingada, J., Viquerat, S., Øien, N. and Hammond, P. S. (2022). Modelled density surfaces of cetaceans in European Atlantic waters in summer 2016 from the SCANS-III aerial and shipboard surveys. SCANS-III project report 2. University of St Andrews. UK pp.31.

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. doi: https://doi.org/10.3354/meps13693.

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.

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, 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: 07 March 2024.

Lindeboom, H. J., Kouwenhoven, H. J., Bergman, M. J. N., Bouma, S., Brasseur, S., Daan, R., Fijn, R. C., de Haan, D., Dirksen, S., van Hal, R., Hille Ris Lambers, R., ter Hofstede, R., Krijgsveld, K. L., Leopold, M. and Scheidat, M. (2011). Short-term ecological effects of an offshore wind farm in the Dutch coastal zone; a compilation. Environmental Research Letters, 6 (3). DOI:10.1088/1748-9326/6/3/035101.

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

Liu, F. (1973). Snap loads in lifting and mooring cable systems induced by surface wave conditions. Naval Civil Engineering Lab Port Hueneme Ca.

Lynam, C.P., Llope, M., Möllman, 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 of the United States of America. 114 (8), 1952-1957. DOI 10.1073/pnas.1621037114.

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.

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.

Marine Directorate Licensing Operations Team (2023). Scoping Opinion for the Ossian Array. Available at: https://marine.gov.scot/sites/default/files/ossian_array_-_scoping_opinion.pdf. Accessed on: 16 February 2024.

Marine Scotland (2024). Temperature. Available at: https://marine.gov.scot/sma/assessment/temperature#results. Accessed on: 27 March 2024.

Martin, E., Banga, R. and Taylor, N.L. (2023). Climate change impacts on marine mammals around the UK and Ireland. MCCIP Science Review. 22.

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, 104868.

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). Marine Estate Research Report Interactions between seals and offshore wind farms. The Crown Estate

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 & Coastal Management, 160, pp.1-17. DOI:10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2018.03.042.

Mitchell, M.D. and Harborne, A.R. (2020). Non-consumptive effects in fish predator–prey interactions on coral reefs. Coral Reefs, 39(4), 867-884.

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., Helker, V., Angliss, R., Allen, B., Boveng, P., Breiwick, J., Cameron, M., Clapham, P., Dahle, S. and Dahlheim, M. (2018). Draft 2018 Alaska marine mammal stock assessments. US Dep. Commer. NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-AFSC-XXX. Published for public review and comment on September, 18, pp.2018.

Nabe-Nielsen, J., Tougaard, J., Teilmann, J. and Sveegaard, S. (2011). Effects of wind farms on harbour porpoise behaviour and population dynamics. Danish Centre for Environment and Energy, Aarhus University. Aarhus, Denmark pp.48 pp.

National Research Council, Division on Earth, Life Studies, Commission on Geosciences, Resources and Committee on Biological Diversity in Marine Systems (1995). Understanding marine biodiversity. National Academies Press.

NatureScot, (2020). Priority Marine Features in Scotland’s seas – Habitats. NatureScot, Edinburgh.

NatureScot, (2022). Sandeel. Available at: https://www.nature.scot/plants-animals-and-fungi/fish/sea-fish/sandeel. Accessed on: 21 March 2024

NatureScot (2024). Minke whale. Available at: https://www.nature.scot/plants-animals-and-fungi/mammals/marine-mammals/minke-whale. Accessed on: 19 March 2024.

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., 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., 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. Available on: 19 March 2024.

NOAA Fisheries (2024) Humpback whale. Available at: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/species/humpback-whale/overview. Accessed on: 20 March 2024.

Nowacek, S. M., Wells, R. S. and Solow, A. R. (2001). Short‐term effects of boat traffic on bottlenose dolphins tursiops truncatus, in Sarasota Bay, Florida. Marine Mammal Science, 17 (4), pp.673-688. DOI:10.1111/j.1748-7692.2001.tb01292.x.

Ocean Infinity (2022). Geophysical and Environmental Survey: E1E. Document number: 103995-SSE-MMT-SUR-REP-INTRE (Rev03).

Orgeret F, Thiebault A, Kovacs KM, Lydersen C, Hindell MA, Thompson SA, Sydeman WJ, Pistorius PA. (2022). Climate change impacts on seabirds and marine mammals: The importance of study duration, thermal tolerance and generation time. Ecology Letters. 25(1), 218-239. doi: 10.1111/ele.13920.

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 Resources. JNCC Report No. 517, JNCC, Peterborough.

Petersen, J.K. and Malm, T. (2006). Offshore windmill farms: threats to or possibilities for the marine environment. AMBIO: A Journal of the Human Environment, 35(2), 75-80.

PINS (2018). Advice Note Nine: Rochdale Envelope. Available at: https://infrastructure.planninginspectorate.gov.uk/legislation-and-advice/advice-notes/advice-note-nine-rochdale-envelope/. Accessed on 20 February 2024.

PrePARED (2022). Annual Report 2022. Available at: https://owecprepared.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/PrePARED-Annual-Report-2022-FINAL.pdf. Accessed on: 28 February 2024.

Raoux, A., Tecchio, S., Pezy, J.-P., Lassalle, G., Degraer, S., Wilhelmsson, D., Cachera, M., Ernande, B., Le Guen, C., Haraldsson, M., Grangeré, K., Le Loc’H, F., Dauvin, J.-C. and Niquil, N. (2017). Benthic and fish aggregation inside an offshore wind farm: Which effects on the trophic web functioning? Ecological Indicators, 72, pp.33-46. DOI:10.1016/j.ecolind.2016.07.037.

Régnier, T., Gibb, F.M. and Wright, P.J. (2017). Importance of trophic mismatch in a winter-hatching species: evidence from lesser sandeel. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 567, 185-197.

Reidy, R.D., Lemay, M.A., Innes, K.G., Clemente-Carvalho, R.B.G., Janusson, C., Dower, J.F., Cowen, L.L.E., Juanes, F. (2022). Fine-scale diversity of prey detected in humpback whale feces. Ecology and Evolution. 12(12): e9680. doi: 10.1002/ece3.9680.

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.

Rikardsen, A.H., Amundsen, P-A., Knudsen, R. Sandring, S. (2006). Seasonal marine feeding and body condition of sea trout (Salmo trutta) at its northern distribution. ICES Journal of Marine Science, Volume 63, Issue 3, 2006, Pages 466–475.

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.

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., Castellote, M., Corkeron, P. J., Nowacek, D. P., Wasser, S. K. and Kraus, S. D. (2012). Evidence that ship noise increases stress in right whales. Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 279 (1737), pp.2363-8. DOI:10.1098/rspb.2011.2429.

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. Accessed on: 19 March 2024.

Russell, D. J. F., Brasseur, S. M. J. M., Thompson, D., Hastie, G. D., Janik, V. M., Aarts, G., McClintock, B. T., Matthiopoulos, J., Moss, S. E. W. and McConnell, B. (2014). Marine mammals trace anthropogenic structures at sea. Current Biology, 24 (14), pp.R638-R639. DOI:10.1016/j.cub.2014.06.033.

Santos, M. B. and Pierce, G. J. (2003). The diet of harbour porpoise (Phocoena phocoena) in the northeast Atlantic: A review. Oceanography and Marine Biology, An Annual Review, Volume 41, pp.363-369.

Scheidat, M., Tougaard, J., Brasseur, S., Carstensen, J., van Polanen Petel, T., 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(2), p.025102.

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 (2024b). The Sandeel (Prohibition Of Fishing) (Scotland) Order 2024: business and regulatory impact assessment - final 2. Available at: https://www.gov.scot/publications/sandeel-prohibition-fishing-scotland-order-2024-island-communities-impact-assessment/. Accessed on: 27 March 2024.

Scottish Government, (2021). UK Dolphin and Porpoise Conservation Strategy: High Level report. Scottish Government, Edinburgh.

SEER (2022). Risk to marine life from marine debris and floating offshore wind cable systems. Report by National Renewable Energy Laboratory and Pacific Northwest National Laboratory for the U.S. Department of Energy, Wind Energy Technologies Office.

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. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 64 (4), pp.872-881. DOI:10.1016/j.marpolbul.2012.01.029.

Sigray, P. and Andersson, M. (2011). Particle Motion Measured at an Operation Wind Turbine in Relation to Hearing Sensitivity in Fish. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America. 130. 200-7.

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 18 March 2024.

Statoil. (2015). Hywind Scotland Pilot Park: Environmental Statement (Full Report). Document Number A-100142-S35-EIAS-001. pp.462pp.

Stevens, A. (2023). Seal haul-out and telemetry data in relation to the Ossian Offshore Wind Farm. Document Number SMRUC-RPS-2023-011.

Teilmann, J., Tougaard, J. and Carstensen, J. (2006). Summary on harbour porpoise monitoring 1999-2006 around Nysted and Horns Rev Offshore Wind Farms. Report to Energi E2 A/S and Vattenfall A/S

Teilmann, J., Tougaard, J. and Carstensen, J. (2008). Effects from offshore wind farms on harbour porpoises in Denmark. Offshore wind farms and marine mammals: impacts & methodologies for assessing impacts, 50.

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.

Todd, G., Jodrey, A. and Stahlschmidt, Z. (2016). Immune activation influences the trade-off between thermoregulation and shelter use. Animal behaviour, 118, 27-32.

Tougaard, J., Carstensen, J., Damsgaard Henriksen, O. and Teilmann, J. (2003). Short-term effects of the construction of wind turbines on harbour porpoises at Horns Reef. Technical Report to Techwise A/S. Hedeselskabet, Roskilde

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. Springer New York.

Walsh, M. and Johnstone, A.D.F. (2006). Spawning behaviour and diel periodicity of egg production in captive Atlantic mackerel, Scomber scombrus L.*. Journal of Fish Biology, 40(6), pp. 939-50. Available at: DOI:10.1111/j.1095- 8649.1992.tb02639.x. Accessed on: 21 March 2024.

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

Weir, C. R., Pollock, C., Cronin, C. and Taylor, S. (2001). Cetaceans of the Atlantic Frontier, north and west of Scotland. Continental Shelf Research, 21 (8), pp.1047-1071. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/S0278-4343(00)00124-2. Accessed on: 27 March 2024.

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., Thompson, R., Tchou, J., Sarantakos, G., McCormick, N., Luitjens, S., Gullström, M., Patterson Edwards, J.K., Amir, O. and Dubi, A. (2010). Greening Blue Energy: Identifying and Managing the Biodiversity Risks and Opportunities of Offshore Renewable Energy. Edited by Gland, Switzerland: IUCN. 102pp.

Winter H.V., Aarts G. and Van Keeken O.A. (2010) Residence time and behaviour of sole and cod in the Offshore Wind Farm Egmond aan Zee (OWEZ) IMARES, Wageningen YR Report number: C038/10, p 50.

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., Orpwood, J. and Scott, B. (2017). Impact of rising temperature on reproductive investment in a capital breeder: the lesser sandeel. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 486, 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] No specific major accidents and disasters receptors were identified and therefore to avoid duplication of receptors listed under other topic chapters, the chapter has not been included in this assessment.

[2] Inter-related effects specific to climatic effect receptors are discussed in a separate In Combination Climate Impacts (ICCI) document (volume 3, appendix 17.3).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[14] 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.