ETI Position Paper

Cefas contract report C5748
Position Paper
(Module Two: Provision of Environmental Studies: Final
report)
Authors: Daniel Wood1, Freya Goodsir1, Rebecca Walker1

Victoria Bendall1, Ines Martin Grandes1, Sarah Watts1,
Cormac Booth2, Chris Thaxter3 and Paul White4
Issue date: 16 December 2013
Commercial in Confidence
CentreforEnvironment,FisheriesandAquacultureScience(Cefas),PakefieldRoad,Lowestoft,SuffolkNR330HT
SMRUMarineLtd,NewTechnologyCentre,NorthHaugh,StAndrews,FifeKY169SR
3
BritishTrustforOrnithology,BTO,TheNunnery,Thetford,NorfolkIP242PU
4
UniversityofSouthampton,Highfield,SouthamptonSO171BJ
2
CefasDocumentControl
Title:PositionPaper
Submittedto:
TheGlostenAssociates
Datesubmitted:
16December2013
ProjectManager:
CharlottePerks
Reportcompiledby: FreyaGoodsir,DanielWood,VictoriaBendall
Qualitycontrolby:
DanielWood
Approvedby&date: AdrianJudd16 December2013
ModuleTwo:ProvisionofEnvironmentalStudies:FinalReport
PositionPaper
Authors:Daniel Wood, Freya Goodsir, Rebecca Walker
Victoria Bendall, Ines Martin Grandes, Sarah Watts,

Cormac Booth, Chris Thaxter and Paul White
Issuedate:16December2013
Head office
Centre for Environment, Fisheries & Aquaculture Science
Pakefield Road, Lowestoft, Suffolk NR33 0HT, UK
Tel +44 (0) 1502 56 2244 Fax +44 (0) 1502 51 3865
www.cefas.defra.gov.uk
Cefas is an executive agency of Defra
Pageiii
Executive Summary
Cefas,incollaborationwiththeSeaMammalResearchUnit(SMRUMarineLtd),theBritishTrustfor
Ornithology (BTO), and University of Southampton Institute of Sound and Vibration Research
(ISVR),hasbeencontractedbyTheGlostenAssociatestoprovideenvironmentalscientificevidence
ontheenvironmentaleffectsassociatedwiththePelaStarfloatingtensionlegplatform(TLP)being
used around the UK coast. This paper specifically focuses on environmental considerations of TLP
moorings (anchoring systems), and the environmental interactions of key UK protected species
includingmarinemammals,baskingsharksandseabirds.
The mooring systems to be utilised in the PelaStar design are different from those used for
traditionalfixedturbinessuchasmonopiles.ThePelaStar5armTLPistetheredtotheseafloorby
highperformancesyntheticropetendonsandhighverticalloadanchors(drivenpileanchorsand/or
drilled and grouted anchors). While anchoring systems are new to the offshore wind sector, they
havebeenusedformanyyearsintheoilandgasindustry.Themethodsusedtoplacetheanchors
(piledrivenanddrilledandgrouted)arewellknownmethodologiesintheoilandgasandthecivil
engineeringsectorsandaresimilartoinstallationmethodsalreadyusedinoffshorewindfarms.
Twomainenvironmentalimpactshavebeenassessed;seabeddisturbanceandnoise,comparingthe
TLPdesign with more traditional fixed foundations.ForbothTLPs and traditional foundations, the
type of impact (e.g. loss of habitat) are the same, however the scale of impact differs between
differentfoundationtypes.Seabedpreparationactivitiesintermsoftemporaryhabitatlosshavea
lowtohighimpactintermsofgravitybases,amoderateimpactbysuctioncaissons,alowimpactby
monopiles,multilegandjackets,andnegligibletolowimpactforotherfloatingwindturbinesand
TLPs. The environmental effects attributable to scour processes are high for monopiles, low to
moderateforfloatingwindturbines(otherthanTLPs)andlowforgravitybases,multileg,jackets,
suction caisson foundations and TLPs. Environmental impacts attributable to blockage effects (of
physical processes) are high for jacket and suction caissons, moderate to high, depending on the
diameter of the design, for gravity bases and multileg foundations, moderate for monopiles, and
negligibleforTLPsandotherfloatingwindturbines.Thetablebelowsummarisestheimpactsonthe
seabedanddifferentfoundationtypes.
Foundationtype
Habitatloss
Scour
Noise
GravityBases
Lowtohigh
Low
Low
Suction
Moderate
Low
Low
Monopile
Low
High
High
Multileg
Low
Low
LowtoHigh
Jacket
Low
Low
Moderate
Floating devices (other Negligibletolow

thanTLPs)
Lowtomoderate
Moderatetolow
TLPs
Low
Moderatetolow
Pageiv
UnderwaterpilingforTLPanchoringislikelytobeofthesamemagnitudeasforthatexperiencedfor
traditional monopile foundations. With pile diameters varying from 2.1 m to 3.7 m, TLP pile noise
shouldfallsomewherebetweenthenoiseexperiencedfortraditionaljacketpinpilesandmonopiles.
Drilling and grouting is significantly quieter than pile driving, but would take longer to complete,
meaningelevatednoiselevelsoveragreaterperiodoftime.
Formarinemammals,thebiggestconcernisunderwaternoise.Thenoisegeneratedbydrillingand
grouting may cause a smallscale disturbance around the installation site, and a wide range of
species could encounter the device where it is likely to be deployed commercially. However, the
noise levels from drilling and grouting are likely to be low and can be approximated to the noise
generatedfromamediumsizedvessel.Itisconcludedthatdrillingnoiseishighlyunlikelytocause
auditoryinjury.Thenoisegeneratedbypiledrivinginstallationwould,however,belikelytohavean
impactonmarinemammalsinthevicinity.Theimpactranges(auditoryinjury,behaviouralresponse,
masking) may be as large as or even greater than those for fixed foundation wind turbines and
would be able to be determined through an EIA. The potential for noise to be generated from
strumming(causedbywatermovingpasttheundertensiontendonsofthePelaStar)alsoneedsto
be considered. During the operational phase, there may be issues of whales interacting with the
tendons,representingacollisionorentrapmentrisk.
Aswithmarinemammals,entanglementandconstructionnoiseareconcernsforbaskingsharks,but
thereisalsothequestionastohowabaskingsharkmightrespondtoelectromagneticfields(EMFs)
from suspended power cables. Basking sharks certainly have the capability to detect and react to
anthropogenic EMFs transmitted through electrical cables associated with renewable energy
developments, but there is currently no literature available on whether they actively respond to
theseartificialEMFs,norwhethertheremightbeanynegativeimpact.
Offshore wind farms have the potential to affect birds through four main mechanisms; collision,
disturbance,habitatlossandbarriereffects.Theassessmentofcollisionriskisimportantnotjustfor
breeding seabirds originating from nearby breeding colonies, but also for those that may pass
through during migration and during the nonbreeding season. There is also a potential risk of
collision during construction and harbour testing of the turbine. The HVLA tendons may also
constituteanadditionalunderwatercollisionriskfordivingspecies.Themainquestionishowbirds
mightrespond/interacttoafloatingturbine(i.e.doseabirdsshowattraction/avoidancebehaviour,
resulting in increased or decreased collision risk? Would a heavily biofouled/colonised floating
structure provide a food source for local diving seabirds, increasing their risk of
collision/entanglement?).
Pagev
Table of contents
Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 1
1.1
Thepurposeofthisdocument................................................................................................3
1.2
Potentialdevelopmentareas..................................................................................................3
1.3
Design......................................................................................................................................6
Anchoring methods .................................................................................................................... 7
2.1
Anchoringmethods.................................................................................................................7
2.2
Examplesofsimilarmoorings.................................................................................................8
2.3
ComparisonbetweenfixedfoundationsandfloatingTLPanchoring.....................................9
2.3.1
Seabeddisturbance.......................................................................................................11
2.3.2
Underwatersound........................................................................................................12
Floating TLP turbines and UK protected species .................................................................. 14
3.1
MarineMammals..................................................................................................................14
3.1.1
Introduction..................................................................................................................14
3.1.2
Constructionnoise........................................................................................................15
3.1.3
Operationalnoise..........................................................................................................16
3.1.4
Entanglement................................................................................................................17
3.1.5
Datagaps.......................................................................................................................17
3.2
BaskingSharks.......................................................................................................................18
3.2.1
Introduction..................................................................................................................18
3.2.2
Electromagneticfields...................................................................................................19
3.2.3
Constructionnoise........................................................................................................20
3.2.4
Entanglement................................................................................................................21
3.3
Seabirds.................................................................................................................................21
3.3.1
Introduction..................................................................................................................21
3.3.2
CollisionRisk..................................................................................................................22
3.3.3
Disturbanceanddisplacement.....................................................................................24
Pagevi
3.3.4
BarrierEffects................................................................................................................26
3.3.5..............................................................................................................................................27
3.4
4
HabitatLossorChange(Includingnoise,sedimentation,electromagneticfields)..............27
Conclusions .............................................................................................................................. 30
4.1
TLPsedimentdisturbanceandnoise....................................................................................30
4.2
TLPsandimpactsonmarinemammals................................................................................31
4.3
TLPsandimpactsonBaskingsharks.....................................................................................31
4.4
TLPsandimpactsonSeabirds...............................................................................................32
References ................................................................................................................................ 33
Annexes .................................................................................................................................... 40
Pagevii
1 Introduction
Inrecentyearstherehasbeenarapidexpansionoftherenewableenergysectortomeetdemands
for green energy. Offshore wind farms are viewed by many, including the Energy Technologies
Institute (ETI), as the major source of energy in this sector for the foreseeable future. To date, all
offshore wind farms around the UK have had fixed foundation turbines, and most use monopile
foundations,althoughjacketstructuresandgravitybasestructureshavealsobeenusedonoccasion.
There is, however, a limited area of the UK continental shelf where fixed foundations are cost
effective. The need for suitable wind speeds and shallow water has meant that Round 3 sites are
many kilometres offshore. This is particularly true for the Dogger Bank, Hornsea and East Anglia
zones, Figure 1. As distance offshore increases, so does the cost, both in terms of accessing and
transportinghardwaretothesitesandintermsofcablingcosts.
The ETI believes that floating offshore wind farms would overcome many of the practical and
financialchallengesofaccessinghighwindspeedsofftheUKcoast,statingWhilefloatingturbines
haveahighercapitalcost,theycanaccessneartoshore,higherwindsitesofftheWestcoastofthe
UK. The studies showed that this access to high winds close to shore means they may be an
attractive investment; especially compared to some Round 3 sites which are located a long way
fromshoreinareasoflowerwind.Thesestudiesalsoindicatedthattheglobalmarketforfloating
turbinesislikelytobeconsiderable.
TheGlostenAssociateshavepartneredwiththeETItodemonstratetheutilityofafloatingoffshore
wind turbine termed PelaStar, with a deployment date of 2016, looks set to be the first fullscale
floatingwindturbinedeployedofftheUK.
Page1of51

Figure1UKRound3offshorewindfarmsites(Crowncopyright).
Page2of51
1.1
Thepurposeofthisdocument
CefashasbeencontractedbyTheGlostenAssociatestoprovideenvironmentalscientificadviceto
aidinthedesignprocess ofthenew floatingwindturbine system.CefashassubcontractedSMRU
Marine Ltd, the British Trust for Ornithology (BTO), and University of Southampton Institute of
SoundandVibrationResearch(ISVR)tocomplementinhouseknowledge,andtogethertheaimof
this phase of the process is to carry out a deskbased study to examine how the PelaStar floating
turbinemightinteractwithandperhapsimpactthemarineenvironmentaroundtheUKcoast.
Thepurposeofthispositionpaperistoformanexternallyfacingscientificevidencebaseandissplit
intotwoparts.ThefirstpartfocusesontheenvironmentalconsiderationsofthePelaStaranchoring
systems.ThePelaStarturbineisbasedonatensionlegplatform(TLP),andwhereasTLPshavebeen
widelyusedwithintheoilandgassector,theyremainlargelyunknownwithinthewindindustry.As
such, regulatory bodies that licence offshore wind activities are unfamiliar with TLP turbines and
theiranchoringmethods.
The secondpartfocuses on key UK protected marine fauna and howtheymight interact with the
PelaStar turbine. Here, key marine animals are defined as marine mammals, basking sharks and
seabirds,althoughtherearemanyothergroupsofprotectedanimalaroundtheUKcoast,including
fishsuchaslampreys,shadsandeels,marineturtlesandevenbats.However,itisthelarger,more
visible animals such as marine mammals, seabirds and basking sharks that attract the most public
interest.Thereisgreaterscientificunderstandingofthelikelyeffectsofoffshoreactivitiesonmarine
mammals,andseabirdsthanbaskingsharksandothergroupsofprotectedanimals.
ThispaperdoesnotconstituteanEnvironmentalImpactAssessment(EIA),nordoesittaketheform
ofaScopingReportorEnvironmentalStatement.Inadditiontherehasbeennoconsiderationyetof
anycumulativeeffectsofsuchdevices,asthesearedeemedtobeoutsidethescopeofthisreport.
1.2 Potentialdevelopmentareas
The flexibility of the PelaStar TLP design means that it can be deployed in a variety of locations
around the UK coast, taking advantage of wind resources that are currently out of the range of
anchored wind turbines. For example, areas on the west coast of the UK, in water depths greater
than50m,wheretherearehigherwindspeedscouldpotentiallybeacheaperalternativetocurrent
UKproposedRoundthreesites(ETI,2013).Deploymentofsuchdevicesasclosetoshoreaspossible
wouldreducecablingandmaintenancecosts,and itisunderstoodthatseveralcriterianeedtobe
met to ensure floating wind devices are competitive with competing offshore wind technologies.
Suchcriteriaincludewindspeed,distancefromgridconnections,andwaterdepth.Ofthese,wind
speed (and the regularity with which appropriate wind speeds are encountered) is probably the
most crucial. Wind needs to be consistent to ensure a regular supply of power. Wind speeds also
need to be great enough to drive the turbine efficiently, but not too high to trigger a safety
shutdownoftheturbine.
Cablingcostscanformalargecomponentoftheexpenditureofanyoffshorewindfarm.Inorderto
remain costeffective, the ETI has advised that wind farms need to be deployed within a 150 km
radius of a grid connection. Water depth is also key for TLPs; if the depth is too shallow, TLP
technology becomes impractical in terms of both engineering and of cost competition from fixed
windturbines;howeverwaterdepthsgreaterthan200marenottypicaloftheUKscoastalwaters.
BVGassociatesandETIhavedefinedasetofparametersforselectingpotentialsitesfordeploying
floatingwinddevicesaroundtheUK(BVGAssociates,2013).Basedontherecommendationsofthe
ETI,wehaveconsideredareasaroundtheUKcoastthatmeetthefollowingconditions:
Page3of51
Meanwindspeedabovebetween9ms1
Within100kmofshore
Waterdepthsgreaterthan50m
TheseareasareshowninFigure2.IthasalsobeenproposedtotesttheturbineattheWaveHub
demonstratorsiteoffthesouthwesterncoastoftheUK.
Page4of51
Figure2PotentialareasaroundtheUKcoastlineforaPelaStardeployment.Theareaindicatedisa)within100kmofthecoastb)experiencesaveragewindspeedsofmorethan9ms
andc)isatwaterdepthsofgreaterthan50m.
Page5of51
1.3
Design
ThePelaStarturbineisastandardhorizontalaxisturbinemountedonatensionlegplatform(TLP).
Figure 3 PelaStar Tension Leg Platform (TLP) with standard tower, nacelle and rotor. Note the fivearmed hull, five
anchorpointsandthesuspendedpowercable.
Abovethewaterline,thetower,nacelleandrotorsareessentiallythesameaswouldbeusedona
fixed turbine (Figure 3). The differences between the PelaStar TLP and the traditionally deployed
fixed turbine, however, are the floating platform, the power export cable and the anchoring
methods.
ThemaincomponentsthatmakeupthePelaStarTLPdesignarethehull,tendonsandanchors.The
hull design has five arms constructed of highstrength steel. Attached to these arms are tendons
madeupofhighperformancesyntheticropefibre.Thelowerpartofthetendonisconnectedtoa
highverticalload anchoring (HVLA) system. The anchors proposed for the majority of future
commercial PelaStar deployments around the UK would be drivenpile anchors, and the
demonstratorPelaStarturbineisexpectedtobedeployedattheWaveHubsiteoffCornwallin2016.
The substratum there is very different from many areas of the UKs continental shelf, consisting
largelyofbedrock.Therefore,drilledandgroutedanchorswillbeusedattheWaveHubsiteandfor
similarrockyareasoncommercialdeploymentsinfuture.
ThepowerexportcableofthePelaStarTLPissuspendedbelowtheplatforminanSshapebeforeit
meetstheseabed.Thereforeexposedinthewatercolumn,theexposedportionofthecableabove
theseabedwillbefairlyshort,arraycablesarethoughttobeburiedorheldtotheseabedtorestrict
movement.Thisdiffersfromfixedfoundationssuchasmonopilesandgravitybasestructureswhere
thecableisconcealedwithinthestructureuntilitenterstheseabed.
ThePelaStarTLPisdesignedtobedeployedinwaterdeeperthan50m.Thefloatinghullremainsat
thesameheightabovetheseabedasaconsequenceofthetensioninthetendons,i.e.itdoesnot
follow tidal changes in water level. The turbine would remain largely stationary, and the tendons
provide a very stable platform in heave, pitch and roll, keeping the tower in a vertical position.
Thereforeforthepurposesofthispaper,weconsiderthePelaStartobeastationaryobject.
Page6of51
2 Anchoring methods
ThemooringsystemstobeutilisedinthePelaStardesignareconsiderablydifferentfromthoseused
for traditional fixed turbines. Here we aim to highlight the main differences between anchoring
proposedforthePelaStarTLPsandthoseusedforthemoretraditionalfixedformofturbine.Two
anchoring methods have been proposed for the PelaStar TLP: drilled and grouted anchors, and
drivenpiles.Bothhavebeenusedtoinstalloffshorewind farmfoundations(monopiles),buthave
rarelybeenusedforanchoringsystemssuchasTLPs.
Thepurposeofthischapteristo:
Describethetwoanchoringmethodsproposed.
Considerthe keyenvironmental pressures these anchoring methods are likely to raise,i.e.
seabeddisturbanceandunderwatersound.
2.1 Anchoringmethods
Ananchoringsystemconsistsoftheanchor,themooringlinethattransmitsforcesfromthemoored
platform to the anchor, and an attachment point or tensioning system on the moored vessel or
platform.Thesesystemsneedtobedesignedgeotechnicallyforinstallationconditionsandholding
capacityaswellasforstructuralstrengthandinstallationandsitespecificconditions(Elaheretal.,
2003). Anchoring systems have been utilised extensively in the oil and gas industry to facilitate
exploitationofresourcesindeeperwaters.Therenewableenergysectorisincreasinglyconsidering
usinganchoringsystemsforfloatingTLPs,toanchortheirstructurestotheseafloor(seereviewsin
(EWEA, 2013; Main(e) International Consulting LLC, 2013). However, to date none have been
deployed withinthe UK.Theuseof TLPmooring systems is novel foroffshore windfarms, so it is
crucial that the environmental effects associated with these new designs (where they may differ
from those in the oil and gas industry) have been reviewed to provide an evidence base for
regulators. Thiswill decreasethe likelihood ofdelay during the licensing process. The useofhigh
verticalloadanchorsisappropriateforTLPsastheyareabletoholdhighverticalloadsandkeepa
floating turbine in position. Anchors, or a combination of anchors, are selected on the basis of
substratum.Drilledandgroutedanchorsaremoreappropriateforbedrock,whereasdrivenpilesare
utilisedforsoftsubstratasuchassilts,claysandsand.
ThePelaStarTLPistobeattachedtotheseabedbyhighverticalloadanchors(HVLA)andtensioned
tendons. Two options for HVLAs have been considered within this review. The proposed PelaStar
drivenpileanchoringsystemtobeusedformostUKwatersisexpectedtobedeployedinsandto
gravellysandseabed,buttheseafloorofthedemonstrationlocationproposedinthesouthwestern
UK, at the Wave Hub experimental site, consists of bedrock formed by slate and sandstone of
DevonianCarboniferousform(BuscomeandScott,2008).Overall,thecharacteristicsoftheanchor
system to be used, e.g. size, shape and installation method, depend on the seabed and such
environmentalconditionsasseafloortype,wind,waterdepth,wavesandtidalcurrents.
Option1:Drilledandgroutedanchors
Drilled and grouted anchors are more suitable for hard substratum seafloor conditions such as
bedrock.Heretherearetwooptionswiththedrillingmethods,thedrillbitcaneitherbeextractedor
canformapartoftheanchorfittedtothetendonconnectionpadeye.Drilledanchorswilltake~40
h per anchor to install, equating to ~8.5 days in all, assuming a fiveanchor design. The grouting
would take ~4060 h per anchor (~813 days), again assuming five anchors. The anchors will be
groutedintoplacewithtypicalgroutofPortlandcementgrout(Glosten,pers.comm.).
Page7of51

Drilling will be carried out either from barges or subsea equipment. It is assumed that the
demonstrator will utilise bargemounted drilling equipment, but commercial installation in future
mayusesubseadrillingequipment.
Option2:Drivenpipepileanchors
Drivenpileanchorsarelikelytobethemostcommonanchorusedwherethehabitatisi.e.;softer
sandandgravel.Thepileanchorsaresteeltubeswithadiameterof2.13.7m(712ft)andare~23
46m(75150ft)long.Thepilesaredrivenintotheseabedbyanunderwaterhydraulic(suchasa
MENCK500or800orsimilarinstrument).Whenthepileisdriven,asectionisleftprotrudingfrom
the substratum, which acts as a connection point to the tendons. For driven pile anchor points
wouldlikelyprotrudeapproximatelyonemetreabovetheseabed,drilledandgroutedanchorsare
likelytositflushwiththeseabed(subjecttoscour/depositionofsediment).Theinstallationtimefor
thepilesisassumedtobe1.75pilesperday,equatingtoabout3daysforafivearmTLP.
An alternative to impact piling is vibropiling. There are however, no data available on the noise
levelsofvibropilinginwatersdeeperthanshallownearshorewaters.Therefore,vibropilinghasnot
beenconsideredwithinthispaper.
2.2
Examplesofsimilarmoorings
Bothdrivenpileanddrilledandgroutedanchoringmethodshavebeenusedwithintheoilandgas
sectorandarecommonlyusedtoanchoroilandgasTLPs,alongwithmostotherfoundationtypes.
TLPsareaproventechnology,havingbeenusedwithintheoilandgasindustryfor>30years,with
the first oil and gas TLP (the Hutton platform) installed in the North Sea in 1984 (Randolph et al.,
2005). TLPs are now used in deep water in the North Sea, the Gulf of Mexico, West Africa and
Indonesia(Randolphetal.,2005;www.floatec.com/images/posters/Offshore2010TLPPoster)and
together with other floating and submerged systems have become the principle platforms for
extractingoilandgasfromdeepwaterregions(JengandBrandes,2011).
TLPsystemsrelyheavilyontheirmooringandanchoringsystems,sotheyhavebeentheobjectof
much research and investment over the past 30 years, to ensure that the systems being used are
bothefficientandeffective(JengandBrandes,2011).DuggalandFontenot(2010)reviewedvarious
types of permanent (anchor leg) mooring systems for the oil and gas sector, evaluating longterm
performanceandmonitoringtechniques,andtheynoteddevelopmentsandimprovementsinboth
thesystemsusedandthemonitoringemployedovertime.Further,theyconcludedthatmostofthe
mooringsystemshadperformedwelloverthe30years.
Drivenpile anchors are commonly used in the oil and gas industry, offering reliable and precisely
located positioning(Musialetal., 2003;OregonWaveEnergyTrust,2009).However,inhardrock,
drilling and grouting is the most effective method of anchor installation (Musial et al., 2003).
Underwaterpiledrivingwasdevelopedinthe1980s(Randolphetal.,2005)anditdiffersfromthe
moretraditionalvesselpiledriving,onlyintheadditionofamechanismtopileunderwater,e.g.the
use of a power pack placed directly on the hammer (www.menck.com). The use of a power pack
eliminatestheneedforlonghydraulichosesthattraditionallylinkthehammerwiththepilingvessel.
However, the principle of underwater piledriving remains essentially the same as for more
traditionalvesselpiledriving,i.e.thesystemusedcurrentlywithintheoffshorewindfarmsector.
Theuseofdrivenpileanddrillandgroutanchoringsystemsisnotlimitedtotheoilandgassector,
but is also used in other permanent mooring systems, e.g. mooring an offshore iron ore shipping
Page8of51
terminal(Gerwick,2007).Similartechnologiesexistwithinthecivilconstructionindustry,insimilar
depthstooffshorewinddevelopmentsites.Drillandgrouttechniquescanbeusedintheinstallation
of bridges, piers, breakwaters and tunnels (www.pelastarwind.com/anchors). There are various
systemsthatcanbeused,e.g.groutedsockanchoranddrillhollowbarsystems,buttheprinciples
remainthesamewhenusedincivil/onshoreconstructionsandintheoilandgassector.
In terms of the offshore wind industry, most of the research on floating wind platforms has been
directedatplatformdesignandstabilityratherthantheanchoringsystemsthemselves(Musialand
Butterfield, 2004; Musial and Ram, 2010; ORECCA, 2011). This may be because anchoring systems
havebeen used for some time intheoil and gas industry sohavea proven trackrecord with few
changes/adaptationsbeingrequiredforimplementation.However,itisalsopossiblethatthefocus
hasbeenplacedontheplatformsbecausemostoftheinnovativedevelopmentsarerequiredthere
toensurethattheturbinesremainafloatinallweatherconditions.Variousfloatingturbinesystems
havebeenproposedandareinstagesofconceptualandexperimentaldesign.Alternativetypesof
floating platform (e.g. HyWind Spar design; www.statoil.com) can use different mooring and
anchoringsystems(withanchortypedependingonwhethertherearemainlyhorizontalorvertical
forcesoracombinationofthetwo).However,theGICONturbineproposestouseaTLP,andtank
experiments have tested a range of anchoring options. Although not detailed, those options are
likelytoincludedpiledrivenanddrillandgroutedanchors(www.gicon.de).
Overall,althoughunderwaterpiledrivinganddrillandgroutanchoringsystemshavenotbeenused
extensivelywithintheoffshorewindfarmindustryyet,vesselbasedpiling(principallythesameas
underwaterpiling)isalreadycommontothesectorandunderwaterpiledrivinganddrillandgrout
anchoringsystemsarewidelyusedwithintheoilandgasandcivilengineeringsectors.Floatingwind
farm research is heavily invested in platform design over anchoring methods, which suggests that
developersarecomfortablewiththetrackrecordoftheseanchoringsystems.
2.3 ComparisonbetweenfixedfoundationsandfloatingTLPanchoring
The aim of this section is to describe the potential impacts attributable to the different offshore
wind turbine foundations and to compare them with those likely to be caused by floating TLP
anchoring systems. In this section, we describe the major impacts of seabed disturbance and
underwaternoise(otherimpactsaredescribedin(Bremneretal.,2013)).
Currently, floating wind turbines are still in the experimental stage (Lambkin et al., 2009; Sanjeev
Malhotra,2011;Reachetal.,2012),althoughdevelopmentandtestinghasbeenongoingsincethe
early 1990s (Henderson et al., 2002). Information on the likely effects of anchoring systems for
floating wind turbines on the seabed and deep water is still scarce, and the same applies to TLP
mooring systems. Therefore, the information reviewed here considers the PelaStar engineering
design details provided by The Glosten Associates (Moon III and Nordstrom, 2010; The Glosten
Associates,v.00andv.01,2012),aswellascurrentguidanceusedtoinformEIAstudiesonpotential
impactsonthephysicalenvironmentattributabletooffshorewindturbinefoundationsforRound1
and Round 2 developments (Lambkin et al., 2009), and relevant published papers and grey
literature.
Ingeneral,theprincipaloffshorewindfarmfoundationtypesmaybegroupedasfollows(Lambkinet
al.,2009;Reachetal.,2012):
Monopilefoundations
Page9of51
A monopile consists of a largediameter cylindrical steel tube (typical pile diameter 47 m) with a
transition piece connecting the pile to the turbine tower. Depending on the soil characteristics,
monopilesarepredominatelydrivenintotheseabedandaresuitableforshallowwaterupto2535
mdeep(relatedtoMeanSeaLevel,MSL).Theycanbeinstalledindeeperwater,butthatincreases
the cost of development. An existing variant of monopile foundations for deep water is guyed
monopile towers, allowing the monopile to be stabilized with tensioned guy wires (Sanjeev
Malhotra,2011).
Gravitybasefoundations(GBF)
Gravitybasefoundationstypicallyconsistofaslendersteelorconcretesubstructuredesignedtobe
heldinplacebygravity.Thedesigndependsontheapplication,hydrodynamicregime,waterdepth
(normally shallow to deep water <70 m MSL) and seabed characteristics. The installation of GBFs
impliesthedredgingoflargevolumesofmaterialforseabedpreparation.Furthermorethefootprint
of the GBFs is large which can cause a significant impact in terms of habitat loss and the
requirement,inmostcases,ofscourprotection.
Suctioncaissons
Suction caisson foundations are similar in design to GBFs, but they differ in installation method
because the caisson consists of an inverted steel or concrete bucket. The caisson penetrates the
seabed to a suitable depth to achieve a hydrostatic seal, and in the process sediment and water
trapped in the caisson is pumped out, likely causing increased seabed disturbance. Ground
preparationmayberequiredandscoureffectscancausemoderate,buttemporaryeffectsinterms
ofhabitatloss.Moreover,thefootprintontheseabedisconsideredtobelargeasisthepotential
impactattributabletoblockageeffects.Suctioncaissonfoundationsaresuitableforshallowtodeep
waterupto50mMSLandforhomogeneoussoils,ideallysandandsoftclays.
Multilegfoundations
Tripodandquadrupedfoundationsareincludedwithinthisgroup.Thesetypesoffoundationconsist
ofcylindricalsteeltubesattachedtotheseabedusingmultipleangularorverticallydrivenlegpiles
orsuctioncaissons.Multilegfoundationsaresuitablefordeploymentinshallowordeepwaterand
havebeenappliedinthelatterformorethanfourdecadesintheoilandgasindustry.Normallythey
requireseabedpreparationandtheirdesignissiteconditiondependant.
Jacketfoundations
Steel jacket structures work in the same way as multileg foundations and are attached to the
seabedgenerallyusingmultiplepiles,oroccasionallysuctioncaissonsareused.Thedesignmayvary
dependingon siteconditions,andinstallationmayrequire seabedpreparation.Jacketfoundations
aresuitableforwaterdepthsupto50mandinsand,silt,clayorweakrockseabedconditions.
Floatingstructures
Unusedcommerciallyintherenewablesectortodate,floatingplatformsarestructuresdesignedto
bepartiallysubmergedandtetheredtotheseabedusinganchors,andaresuitablefordeepwater.
Themooringsystemsconsistofanchoringcables,spreadortensionmooringsystemsandanchors.
Ingeneral,thedesignoftheanchorsdependsontheseabedpropertiesandthesitesenvironmental
conditions. Spread or catenary (hyperbolic u shape free hanging mooring line, which changes
configurationdependingonplatformmotion)mooringscoveralargeareaoftheseabedandwater
column,sowhenwaveortidalforcesarestrong,themooringwillrespondandsectionsofthecable
previouslyontheseabedwillberaisedinthewatercolumn.Correspondingly,othersectionsofcable
Page10of51
inthewatercolumnwillfalltotheseabed.Therefore,aseabedsedimentdisturbancezonewillbe
createdinahaloaroundthedevicebetweenthelocationswherethecablesarerepeatedlyraised
fromtheseabed(Figure4).Thesizeandshapeofthedisturbancehalowilldependonthenumber
/ design of the catenary cables used and the frequency, magnitude and duration of wave or tidal
events.
Figure 4 Schematic presentation of a catenary mooring displaced (from position 1 to 2) by wave or tidal action (red
arrow).Resultantdisturbanceoftheseabedbyraisingorloweringofcables/chainsystemisshownasa"halo"within
theanchoringsystem.
Todate,monopileandgravitybasefoundationsarethemostcommonlyusedstructuresinoffshore
wind developments in the UK; multileg foundations and jacket foundations have been used
extensively over the past 40 years in the oil and gas industry (Reach et al., 2012) and to a lesser
extent in offshore wind developments. Only the impacts of seabed disturbance and noise will be
reviewed in the following sections as these are the most relevant in the comparison of TLPs and
more traditional fixed turbines. For a wider evaluation of possible impacts is contained within
(Bremneretal.,2013).
2.3.1
Seabeddisturbance
Potentialimpactsontheseabedassociatedwithfixedfoundationsorfloatingmooringsystemsdiffer
forthestagesofinstallation,operationanddecommissioning.Likelyeffectsontheseabedneeding
to be assessed during the installation phase are those caused by seabed preparation activities
(temporaryhabitatloss),orthosecausedbythetechniquesusedforinstallation(i.e.drilling,suction,
jetting or hammering). Those activities, also depending on soil condition, are likely to create an
increaseinsuspendedsedimentconcentration(SSC),formationofsedimentplumesandchangesin
seabedlevel.Duringtheoperationalphase,offshorewindturbineswillleadtoscouringcausedby
the foundations in terms of seabed disturbance as well as potential changes tothe hydrodynamic
regimeasaresultofblockageeffects.Consequently,potentialvariationsinwaveandtidalcurrents
may change the sediment transport regime and potentially, (for example) impact the form and
Page11of51
function of any nearby sandbanks. Changes in the sediment transport regime can impact on the
conservation designation associated with Natura 2000 sites and/or Marine Conservation Zones
(MCZs). The potential effects during decommissioning of offshore wind turbines may be similar to
thosecausedduringinstallation,buttheywillberelatedtothetypeoffoundationusedbecauseof
theinherentdifficultyinremovingtheentirestructurefromtheseabed(i.e.thepiles).
The study conducted by Reach et al. (2012), based on a review of marine environmental
considerations associated with concrete gravity base foundations (CGBFs) in offshore wind
developments, provides an overview of the generic effects related to the different foundation
options.Insummary,seabedpreparationactivitiesintermsoftemporaryhabitatlosshavealowto
high impact interms ofGBFs,amoderateimpactbysuction caissons,a low impact by monopiles,
multileg and jacket, and negligible to low impact for floating offshore wind platforms. The
environmentaleffectsattributabletoscourprocessesarehighformonopiles,lowtomoderatefor
floating wind foundations and low for GBFs, multileg, jacket and suction caisson foundations,
because they have the requirement to use scour protection as a mitigation measure. Seabed
footprintassessedintermsofhabitatlosshasGBFs,multileg,jacketandsuctioncaissonshavinga
highenvironmentalimpact,monopileshavingamoderateimpactandfloatingturbinesalowimpact.
Finally, environmental impacts attributable to blockage effects are high for jacket and suction
caissons, moderate to high, depending on the diameter of the design, for GBFs and multileg
foundations,moderateformonopiles,andnegligibletolowforfloatingwindturbines.
With regards to the PelaStar TLP design, the installation methods described (section 2.1) do not
requireseabedpreparation.FurthermoreaTLPstructuresuchasthiswouldnotrequireacatenary
mooring system (eliminating the halo effect described in section 2.3 (Figure 4)), which would
minimise the potential impacts to the seafloor. Temporary seabed disturbance is expected during
theinstallationphaseastheanchorpenetratesthesedimenttotherequireddepth;whichislikelyto
cause temporary habitat loss and sediment disturbance for sand, gravelly sand, silt and clay soil
substratumconditions.A5mdiametermonopilehasa20m2footprintontheseabed,comparedto
18m2forfive2.1mdiameterpiledanchorsand54m2forfive3.7mdiameteranchors.Assuchthe
potential environmental effect attributable to TLP installation are comparable to monopile
foundationsif2.1mdiameterpilesareused,butwillbesignificantlymoreiflargerdiameteranchor
piles are used. During the operational phase, scour effects around the anchoring points of a TLP
wouldbelimitedinhardsubstrata;theseabedfootprintintermsofhabitatlosswouldbelow.To
date, blockage effects have not been identified. In soft sediments scouring is possible. For the
smallerdiameterpiles(2.1m)potentialscouringaroundthefiveanchorswouldbelessthana5m
diameter monopile (but higher levels would be expected for five 3.7 m diameter piles). The
environmentaleffectsduringdecommissioningwilldependontheanchoringsystemutilised,butwill
besimilartothosecausedduringinstallation.
2.3.2
Underwatersound
TheanchoringpilesoftheTLParenotverydifferenttomonopilesusedintheNorthSeawindfarms.
Thesourcelevelassociatedwithdrivingthesepilesislikelytobeintheregionof250dBre1Pa@
1mbutwilldependonthesizeofpileused.WithTLPpilediametersvaryingfrom2.1mto3.7m,
TLPpilenoiseshouldfallsomewherebetweenthenoiseexperiencedfortraditionaljacketpinpiles
(smallerthanthe TLP pilesproposed) and monopiles (biggerthantheTLPpilesproposed). Gravity
base foundation do not require pile driving as part of their installation, therefore have not been
considered but construction noise effects are likely to be significantly lower than TLP, jacket or
monopilefoundations.
Page12of51
Two different methods are proposed for installing the TLP anchoring systems, respectively pile
drivingordrillingandgrouting.Theevidenceisthatdrillingissignificantlyquieterthanpiledriving.
However,whencomparingthetwoprocessescarehastobetakenthatthepilingnoiseisexpressed
indifferentquantitiestothatofthedrillingnoise. There are somemoresubtleeffects,associated
with the drilling process, which should be considered. Specifically, the tonal quality of the drilling
noiseissuchthatitmaybeaudibleoversignificantranges.Thelevelsofsuchsoundswillfallwell
below any thresholds for behavioural response currently in use and so would not be expected to
elicit a strong reaction. However the longer duration of the installation process associated with
drillingwillrequireactivityatthesiteforagreaterperiodoftimeandthesupportvesselscouldwell
produce noise that exceeds the noise of the drilling itself across most of the frequency range. In
addition,thegreaternumberofpilingeventsrequiredforthePelaStardesignmeanthatthenoise
maybeemittedmoreoftenand/orforalongeroveralldurationthanforfixedarrays(fivepilesper
turbine,comparedwithoneforamonopileandupto4forjackets).
The operational noise from a floating wind turbine is expected to be reduced relative to a
conventionalturbineasaconsequenceofitnotbeingrigidlyattachedtotheseabed,soremoving
one coupling mechanism. However, there is a potential for strumming (caused by water moving
past the undertension tendons of the PelaStar design). Strumming noise is likely to be at a low
frequencyifatall,Strummingwillbeminimisedduetolowtidalcurrents. Thedecommissioningphasefor
thetwoanchoringmethodsislikelytoinducesimilarlevelsofunderwaternoise.
Page13of51
3 Floating TLP turbines and UK protected

species
ManyUKmarineanimalsareprotectedbyUKandEuropeanlegislation,e.g.theEuropeanHabitats
Directive (92/43/EEC) and European Birds Directive (2009/147/EC). Animals include marine
mammals(whales,dolphinsandseals),seabirdsandseveralspeciesoffish(suchaslampreys,shads
and salmon), sharks such as the basking shark, turtles and bats. Fish, turtles and bats are not
consideredhere.Theeffectsofoffshorewinddevelopmentsonprotectedfishspeciesarestilllargely
unknown(seeGill,etal.,2012,andMuellerBlenkleetal.,2010forfurtherdetail),andtheeffectson
turtles and bats are emerging issues with very little published material. Additionally, the limited
informationavailableonthepotentialeffectsofoffshorewindturbinesonturtlesandbatsdoesnot
suggest that any effects would be unique to floating turbines (see Ahln et al., 2009; Inger et al.,
2009).
Marinemammals,seabirdsandbaskingsharksareofbothpublicandscientificinterest,andmany
questionsstillremainabouttheirpotentialimpactswithoffshorewindfarms.Formarinemammals
there is a perceived (as opposed to a proven) concern that certain species might be at risk of
becomingentangledwithinthetethersofafloatingplatform.Therefore,theavailableliteraturehas
been reviewed to determine whether this is simply a perceived concern or a risk supported by
evidence.However,formarinemammals,thebiggestconcernisunderwaternoise.
Intermsofseabirdsthequestionishowbirdsmightrespond/interacttoafloatingturbine(i.e. do
sea birds show attraction or avoidance behaviour, therefore resulting in increased or decreased
collisionrisk.Wouldaheavilybiofouled/colonisedfloatingstructureprovideafoodsourceforlocal
seabirds?Thisquestionhasbeenconsidered,alongwiththepossibilitythatattractiontoafloating
turbinemightincreasetheriskofcollisionwiththeturbinerotors.Furthertothis,dothetethersof
theTLPposeanyotherthreattodivingbirds?
BaskingsharksareahighlymigratorycoastalpelagicspeciesthatiswidelydistributedinUKwaters
andoffIrelandandnorthernFrance(Goreetal.,2008).CornishandScottishcoastalregionsarewell
knownhotspotsforbaskingsharks,wheretheycanbeobservedatthesurfaceingroupsfeedingand
displaying courtship, most notably around the Lizard, the Isle of Man, the Hebrides and the Clyde
Sea(Sims,2008;Speedieetal.,2009).Baskingsharkshavebeenincludedherebecausetheproposed
developmentareas,bothatWaveHubandatfuturePelaStarcommercialdeployments,arelikelyto
overlapwithbaskingsharkmigrationroutes(seeFigure2andFigure5).Aswithmarinemammals,
entanglement and construction noise are perceived concerns, but there is also the question as to
howabaskingsharkmightrespondtoelectromagneticfields(EMFs)fromsuspendedpowercables.
In all cases, we have only considered marine animals that are likely to be present in or near the
potentialdeploymentareasofaPelaStarturbine(Figure2).
3.1 MarineMammals
3.1.1
Introduction
Aseriesofmappingprojectsdocumentthebroadspatial(andinsomecasestemporal)patternsof
marinemammaloccurrencearoundtheUK.(Baxter,etal.,2011;Reid,etal.,2003)
Incontributingtotheassessmenthere,thefollowingdatasourceswereexplored:
General(Baxter,etal,2011)
Cetaceans(Reid,etal,2003).
Page14of51
Seals
SCOSReports:ScientificAdvice(www.smru.standrews.ac.uk/sealpopulations)
Greyandharboursealusagemaps
(www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/marine/science/MSInteractive/Themes/sealdensity)
BelowisatableofthekeyandmostcommonspeciesthatoccurconsistentlyaroundtheUK.
Speciesname
Latinname
Greyseal
Halichoerusgrypus
Harbour/commonseal
Phocavitulina
Harbourporpoise
Phocoenaphocoena
Shortbeakedcommondolphin Delphinusdelphis
Bottlenosedolphin
Tursiopstruncates
Whitebeakeddolphin
Lagenorhynchusalbirostris
Atlanticwhitesideddolphin
Lagenorhynchusacutus
Rissosdolphin
Grampusgriseus
Killerwhale
Orcinusorca
Longfinnedpilotwhale
Globicephalusmelas
Minkewhale
Balaenopteraacutorostrata
Humpbackwhale
Megapteranovaengliae
3.1.2
Constructionnoise
Theissueofunderwaternoisefromconstructionhaslongbeenaconcernformarinemammals,so
theriskofunderwaternoiseassociatedwithmarinemammalsisrelativelywellstudied.Themost
widelyadoptedframeworkforassessingtheeffectofnoiseonmarinemammalsisthatproposedby
Southall et al. (2007). This work proposes the use of weighting functions, in the same form as C
weightingcurvesforhumans.Inparticularthegroupsare:highfrequencycetaceans(e.g.porpoises),
midfrequencycetaceans(e.g.dolphins),lowfrequencycetaceans(baleenwhales)andpinnipeds(in
airandinwater).WaveHubsitethemostcommonlyencounteredspecieswillbeincludedinthe
highfrequency(hf)cetaceangroupandmidfrequency(mf)cetaceans,alongwithpinnipeds(p).The
weightingcurvescanbeusedtocomputeweightedsoundlevels.
Southall etal. (2007) also proposed associatedthresholdcriteria forthe weightedlevels forinjury

(hearinglosspermanentthresholdshift(PTS))andforbehaviouralresponse.Thesethresholdsfor
example,forinjuryweightedSELs(soundexposurelevel)of198dBhf,mf,alongwith186dBp,whereas
for behavioural responses the 183 dBhf,mf and 171 dBp. Whilst the methodology of constructing a
metrichasgeneralacceptance(althoughmostwouldprobablyacceptitisnotcomplete)thevalues
forthestatedthresholdsarelesswidelyaccepted.InparticularthresholdsforPTSarenotconsistent
with subsequent observed findings that show the (Lucke et al. 2009) temporary threshold shifts
(TTS)canoccuratlevelswhichareroughly20dBbelowthoseimpliedbySouthalletal.(2007).
An alternative approach is that adopted by the German Government where a threshold for an
unweightedSELof160dBre1Pa2sisappliedat750m.Anotherapproachwhichhasbeenapplied,
especially within a UK setting, is the dBht. This uses the audiogram of a species to compute a
weightedthreshold. However,the method suffers froma lack ofstandardisation and its scientific
foundationisnotwidelyaccepted.
Asdescribedinsection2.1,twopotentialinstallationmethodswillbeusedinanchoringthePelaStar
device, one using a drilling/grouting technique and another utilising a piledriving approach. For
marine mammals, the noise generated by drilling and grouting may cause smallscale disturbance
Page15of51
aroundtheinstallationsite,andawiderangeofspeciescouldencounterthedevicewhereitislikely
to be deployed commercially, ranging from lowfrequency specialists, e.g. minke and humpback
whales, to highfrequency specialists, e.g. harbour porpoises. However, the noise levels from
drilling/grouting are likely to be low (so would propagate less distance in the water) and can be
approximated to the noise generated from a medium sized vessel (Robinson and Lepper, 2013).
Moreover, the noise generated by installation vessel thrusters may be more disturbing than the
drillingitself.Also,itislikelythatanydisturbanceordisplacementwouldbeshortterm(installation
tends to be fairly swift, albeit longer than is estimated for piling) and small scale (because
installation noise is not great). It is therefore questionable whether such noise would be able to
causeauditoryinjurytomarinemammalspeciesthatarelikelytoencountertheconstructionnoise
field.
The noise generated by piledriving installation would, however, be likely to have an impact on
marinemammalsinthevicinity.BasedonthereportednoiselevelsprovidedbyMenck(e.g.>190dB
peakSPL750mfromthepile),theimpactranges(auditoryinjury,behaviouralresponse,masking)
may be as large as or even greater than those for fixed foundation wind turbines. An impact
assessment would probably be able to predict with some accuracy the impact ranges for auditory
injury for each species/species group, but based on current understanding from fixed installation
offshore wind farms, there is potential for them to be significant. For marine mammals, the
installationscenariodescribedforPelaStarislikelytocausedisturbanceoversignificantranges.This
is because marine mammals have excellent underwater hearing and the underwater noise levels
generatedaspartofthepiledrivinginstallationmethodwillbehigh.Behaviouralavoidanceofsites
where piles are being driven has been observed for many species of marine mammal (e.g.
Carstensen et al., 2006; Edren et al., 2010; Brandt et al., 2011). The extent to which animals are
disturbed or perhaps displaced will depend on factors including (but not limited to) noise source
characteristics,watercolumnproperties,bottomsedimenttype,thediameterofthepilesandthe
durationofpiledrivingoperations.
3.1.3
Operationalnoise
Thepotentialfornoisetobegeneratedfromstrumming(causedbywatermovingpasttheunder
tensiontendonsofthePelaStar)requiresconsideration.Asnotedabove,thereisthepotential for
severalspeciesofmarinemammaltobefoundadjacenttoPelaStartypeinstallations,rangingfrom
low frequency to high frequencyspecialists. Strumming noise is likely to be at alow frequency if at all,
Strumming will be minimised due to low tidal currents. The levels and temporal component of such
soundswillneedtobeassessedfurther.
Thepotentialforunderwaternoisetobeintroducedintothewatercolumn from fixedfoundation

wind farms has been assessed before (e.g. Nedwell et al., 2007; Marmo et al., 2013): the main
transmission route for such operational noise is via the foundation into the water column. If the
noisetypesgeneratedbyPelaStararesimilar(i.e.fromthegearboxandotherhomologouselements
of the technology), then it may be predicted that the operational turbine will be audible to most
marinemammalsaboveambientnoise(dependingonthelocationoftheturbineandambientnoise
levels)andinsomecasestherecouldbepotentialforbehaviouralavoidance.Basedonsuchstudies
aroundfixedinstallationsites,itishighlyunlikely,however,thatmarinemammalswouldexperience
auditory injury from the noise levels generated by PelaStar devices. However, the operational
outputsofafloatingPelaStarunitwouldneedtobeassessedandmonitoredbeforeafullevaluation
ofthepotentialimpactscouldbeaddressed.
Page16of51
3.1.4
Entanglement
Many species of baleen whale have been entangled in the subsea ropes of static fishing gear
(Northridge et al., 2010), this cause of mortality accounts for approximately 50% of baleen whale
mortality off Scotland (Northridge et al., 2010). Fishing gear (e.g. lines and traps) tends to be of
lighterconstructionthanthatusedfortetheringTLPs,thoughtheinteractionsofmarinemammals
with aquaculture and static fisheries (e.g. creel fishing) may be analogous to those with subsea
structuresofTLPs.Thecables/tetheringitselfmaybetoolargetoposeanentanglementthreat,but
there could be similar issues of whales interacting with them, representing a collision and/or an
entrapmentrisk.
3.1.5
Datagaps
The following have been identified as data gaps in terms of what is known about how marine
mammalswillinteractwithPelaStardevices:
pollution
increasedturbidity/suspendedsediments
impactsthedevicesmayhaveonmarinemammalpreyspecies
thepotentialforbarriereffects/habitatexclusion
whetherthedevicesmayactasFishAggregatingDevice(FADs)
sealmortalityfromductedpropellersusedonvesselsattheinstallationorservicingphases
There is the risk that construction activity might increase the turbidity of the water column.
Increasedturbiditycanaffectsocialinteractionsandforagingefficiencyofmarinemammalsandmay
also affect the prey species. The potential magnitude of such an impact is, however, currently
unclearandwilldependonthecharacteristicsofthelocalenvironment(i.e.waterflow,seabedtype,
etc)inthedevelopmentarea.However,itisbelievedthattheseimpactswillbeshortlivedandover
asmallspatialscaleonly.
Once the units are installed, it is possible that, while small and benign, the array could present a
barrier (either real or perceived) to animals or result in habitat exclusion. It is not clear to what
extent this phenomenon exists at this scale or whether the TLP technology could cause such an
effect. An assessment of the noise generated by the devices once installed and operational could
informfutureassessments.
Thepotentialforafloatingstructuretoattractpelagicfishiswelldocumented(Castroetal.,2002),
soTLPdevicesmaywellserveasaFAD.Thisprocesshasthepotentialtogenerateanenrichedor
novel foraging habitat for marine mammals, and the enhanced attraction of marine mammals to
the devices may increase their risk by increasing their exposure to collision, entanglement,
contamination,etc.ThepotentialbroadscaleimpactsofFADsdoneedtobefurtherconsidered.
One emerging issue identified is the interaction seals have with vessels with cowled or ducted
propellers (SCNA, 2012). Many seals have been killed by corkscrew injuries (a description of the
wound likely caused by animals being rotated past a propeller; Thompson et al., 2010).
Consequently, if the use of vessels with such propellers is planned for the construction and
operational(intermsofmaintenance)phases,thiswillbeanareaoffurtherconsiderationinfuture
assessments.
Page17of51
3.2
3.2.1
BaskingSharks
Introduction
Thebaskingshark(Cetorhinusmaximus)isthelargestfishspeciesinUKwaters,attaininglengthsup
to 11 m and weights of up to 7 t. During spring and summer, basking sharks tend to aggregate
around the coasts of southwest and northwest UK. Within such temperate waters of continental
shelves, they are often seen basking at the sea surface close to shore, typically with their snout,
dorsalfin,caudalfinandbackpartlyexposed(BerrowandHeardman1994;Simsetal.,1997).
To feed, basking sharks favour transitional waters between stratified and mixed water columns
(thermal tidal fronts), actively selecting areas that contain the greatest densities of large calanoid
zooplankton prey (mainly the copepod Calanus helgolandicus; Sims and Quayle, 1998; Sims et al.,
2006). Swimming with their mouths open, they capture prey in the passive flow across their gill
arches, a strategy known as ram filterfeeding (Sims, 1999; Compagno, 2001). Ram filterfeeding
allowsupto2000tofwatertobefilteredperhour(FAO,2005),socanbehighinpotentialenergy
content; basking sharks therefore need to actively select and remain within areas of the greatest
zooplanktonconcentrationstopreventfeedingatanenergeticloss(Sims,1999).
Basking sharks are highly migratory coastal pelagic species that are distributed all around the UK,
Ireland and northernFrance(Gore etal., 2008). WithinBritish watersthey havea strong westerly
biastotheirdistribution,withsightingdensitieshighestoffCornwallandScotland,bothwellknown
hotspotswherebaskingsharkscanbeseenatthesurfaceingroupsfeedinganddisplayingcourtship
(mostnotablyaroundtheLizardandtheHebridesandintheClydeSea;Simsetal.,2005;Sims,2008;
Speedie et al., 2009). Surface sightings are usually recorded between April and October, peaking
from June to August, periods that appear to be correlated significantly with warmer sea surface
temperatures (SST) and the occurrence of the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO), an atmosphere
oceanclimatephasethoughttocauseanincreasetheabundanceofthepreferredzooplanktonprey
ofbasking sharks(Wittetal.,2012).Literature (Simsetal.,2005;Southall etal.,2005;Bloomfield
andSolandt2008;Wittetal.,2012)andFigure5showthatbaskingsharksfavourtheareaaround
theWaveHubdemonstrationsiteandwillcertainlymigratethroughanyofthepotentialareasfor
PelaStarcommercialdeploymentonthewesternsideoftheUK.
Page18of51
Figure5a)Thedistributionof9,470individualbaskingsharksightingsaroundtheUKandIreland,plottedassinglered
dots,b)samedata,plottedassightingdensityper10km2grid,tohighlightthegreatestdensitiesonthewestcoastof
Scotland,aroundtheIsleofManandoffsouthwesternEngland(fromBloomfieldandSolandt,2008).
3.2.2
Electromagneticfields
Electromagneticfields(EMFs)areproducedbyelectricallychargedobjects.Theyareacombination
of electrical fields (created by voltage or an electrical charge) and a magnetic field (created by an
electrical current). EMFs are present throughout the marine environment and present in all living
organisms(Kalmijn,1982).
Sharkshavethegreatestelectricalsensitivityofanyanimal andaregenerallyassumedalsotouse
theEarthsmagneticfieldfornavigationandtobeabletodetectandrespondtootherbioelectric
fieldsencounteredwithintheirmarineenvironment.Usingsmall,poreshapedcanals(theAmpullae
of Lorenzini, tiny electrosensory pores), that pepper their snouts and heads, sharks can sense the
tiniestEMFsemittedbypotentialpreyspecies(Kalmijn,1982).Forbaskingsharks,itisthoughtthat
the spacing and orientation of these pores within their snout enables them to use passive
electroreception to guide them towards dense zooplankton assemblages (Kempster and Collin,
2011).
Subsurface marine electrical cables for offshore renewable installations produce EMFs into the
marine environment as electrical currents move through the cable. These currents have been
estimatedtoemitEMFsintothesurroundingwaterupto17mperpendicularfromtheaxisofthe
cable(Gilletal.,2005).TheseanthropogenicEMFscanbealteredbyshieldingthecables,whichwill
help to contain the electrical field, but not the magnetic field component of the EMF. Therefore,
Page19of51
when a charged particle, such as a marine organism or a tidal movement, crosses the path of the
resultingmagneticfield,afurthermomentaryelectricfieldcanbegenerated.
For all UK marine species that are sensitive to EMFs, it is evident that current knowledge of their
interaction with anthropogenic EMFs is limited and highly speculative; knowledge of the use or
sensitivity to EMFs of basking sharks remains largely unknown. Basking sharks certainly have the
capability to detect and react to anthropogenic EMFs transmitted through electrical cables
associated with new TLP or other renewable energy developments, but there is currently no
literature available on whether they actively respond to these artificial EMFs, nor whether there
mightbeanynegativeimpact.
3.2.3
Constructionnoise
PilingoperationsforTLPsarelikelytobetheprincipalsourcesofnoiseanddisruptionthatmayhave
animpactonbaskingsharkswithinandadjacenttoconstructionareas.Thisstatementisparticularly
important because the anticipated installation window for TLPs is likely to be between April and
October, when the weather conditions are best and basking sharks are most abundant at the sea
surfaceoffsouthwesternEnglandforaginganddisplayingcourtship.
Few studies have considered the potential impact of piling activities on sharks, and hearing
characteristics of basking and other shark species remain largely unknown. However, sharks are
known to have welldeveloped hearing and there is evidence that they can and do detect and
respond to sound, with sound playing a major role in their lives (Myrberg 1978, 1990, 2001).
Moreover, Casper and Mann (2009) and Casper et al. (2012) recently determined the hearing
bandwidths of four species of shark; Atlantic sharpnose (Rhizoprionodon terraenovae), horn
(Heterodontusfrancisci),lemon(Negaprionbrevirostris)andnurseshark(Ginglymostomacirratum).
Hearing ranges were measured from 20 Hz to 1 kHz, despite sharks not having an internal gas
chambersuchasaswimbladderorothergasbubbleassociatedwiththeirhearing(commonlyfound
in other fish species). Such measurements give an indication of the potential hearing range that
baskingsharksmayexhibit,butcautionneedstobeappliedsincesuchdataarecurrentlytheonly
source for future environmental assessments of TLP construction activities. Note, however, that
given the lack of a swimbladder or gas chamber in basking sharks, and other shark species, the
potentialforsignificantphysiologicaleffectsassociatedwithconstructionnoisesuchasbarotrauma
(physicaldamagetobodytissuescausedbyadifferenceinpressurebetweenagasspaceinternally)
shouldbesubstantiallylessthanforotherfishspecies.
Themostimportantconcernforbaskingsharksishowpilingandanchoringoperationscanaltertheir
natural behavioural response or mask other natural marine noise on which they may rely.
Construction noise can mask natural marine noise involved in zooplankton prey capture, seasonal
courtshipandeffectivesafenavigationaroundTLPandotherdevelopments.Also,withinthevicinity
ofTLPs,suchnoisemaydisruptbaskingsharksfromseekingoutandfeedinghighdensityareasof
zooplanktonwithinthevicinity,forcingthemtofeedinlessproductiveareasatanenergeticlossand
ultimatelyinfluencingpopulationsurvival.
Giventheargumentsabove,carefulconsiderationneedstobegiventotheproposedpositioningof
TLPs,toprecludetheirdeploymentinimportanthotspottidalfrontareaswithhighseasonalsurface
abundanceofbaskingsharkaggregationsaroundtheUKcoasts(notablyaroundtheLizard,thewest
coastoftheIsleofMan,theHebridesandtheClydeSea).
Page20of51
Baskingsharksare,however,highlymobileandadaptiveandhavebeenpreviouslyobservedtoshift
theirhabitatsinresponsetochangesinrelationtootherenvironmentalchangesinzooplanktonprey
abundance(SimsandReid,2002).
3.2.4
Entanglement
Basking sharks are thought to be particularly susceptible to collision with vessels and marine
constructions.Surfacefeedingsharksrarelyshowareactiontoapproachingvessels,oftenappearing
unawareofthepresenceofpotentialsurfaceobstacles(Speedieetal.,2009).Baskingsharkshave
relativelypoorvisionandhavebecomeentangledinfishinggear(Valeirasetal.,2001).Theeffects
canrangefromminorscarringtodeath.Entanglementinsetnets(suchasgillnets)iscommon(Doyle
etal.,2005),andwithintheCelticSeaaloneisthoughttoresultin77120baskingsharksannually
being killed (Berrow and Heardman, 1994). However, other static fishing gear such as lobster pot
headropeshavealsoentangledandkilledbaskingsharks(BloomfieldandSolandt,2008).
Entanglement in TLP anchoring tendons and electrical cables might well increase the levels of
physicalinjuryoraccidentalmortalityinbaskingsharks.ItisimportanttostressherethatTLPswill
present a new obstacle for basking sharks and other marine species unlike anything they might
previously have encountered. Basking sharks are generally slowmoving and because of their size
andseasonalbaskingbehaviouratthesurface,haverelativelylimitedmanoeuvrability,puttingthem
at high risk of collision and entanglement. The potential risk of collision for basking sharks will
dependlargelyonthevisibilityandthelevelofnoiseemittedbyTLPs,thebodysizeoftheindividual
fish, its level of social interaction and foraging activity, and the quantity and quality of tidal front
conditionspresentatorwithincloseproximitytotheproposedsites.
3.3 Seabirds
3.3.1
Introduction
Offshorewindfarmshavethepotentialtoaffectbirdsthroughfourmainmechanisms(Langstonand
Pullan2003;DrewittandLangston2004;Petersonetal.,2006),althoughtheydonotallnecessarily
applyateachofthephasesofconstruction,operationanddecommissioning:
Collision risk (assumed mortality) with abovesurface structures, especially wind turbine
blades(traditionallyonlyduringoperation,butpossiblyalsoiftestingofturbinesiscarried
outduringconstruction);
Disturbance and the displacement of birds from favoured habitats, which could result in
increasedmortalityorreducedproductivityofseabirdpopulations(allphases);
Effectsassociatedwithhabitatlossandchange,e.g.changesintheseabedthatwhichmay
affectbirdsthroughchangestopopulationsoftheirpreyorpreyavailability(allphases).
Barriereffectstomigratorybirdsorthosecommutingbetweenbreedingsitesandoffshore
feedingareas,whichcouldpotentiallyresult inelevatedenergycostsand henceincreased
mortalityorreducedproductivity.
Keyissuesforconsiderationofeffectsassociatedwitheither(a)or(b)areseabirdspeciessensitivity
totheeffectconsidered(Furnessetal.,2013,TableA1inappendix),thespeciesassemblagespresent
atsea,andtheseabirdpopulationsnearbythatarewithinforagingrangeatthetime(s)ofyearthat
the various phases of construction, operation and decommissioning take place (Skov et al., 1995;
JNCC,2012,2013;Thaxteretal.,2012).
Page21of51
3.3.2
CollisionRisk
Collisionriskisthelikelihoodofseabirdscollidingwithabovesurfacestructuressuchaswindturbine
blades,withtheoutcomeassumedtobemortality.Calculationofthecollisionriskusesinformation
onthenumberofbirdsinthesurveyarea,followingthestandardmethodologyof(Camphuysenet
al.2004),minusthoseexpectedtoavoidthewindfarm,togetherwithspeciesbiometricdataand
turbinespecificdataforawindfarm,toestimatetheprobabilityandhencethenumberofbirdsthat
might be killed through colliding with a structure. This calculation is traditionally done using the
acceptedBandmodel,updatedfortheoffshoreenvironment(Band,2012).
Theassessmentofcollisionriskisimportantnotjustforbreedingseabirdsoriginatingfromnearby
breedingcolonies, butalso forthosethat maypassthroughduringmigration and during thenon
breeding season. For migrants, collision risk is best informed through considering likely migration
routes,usingrecentlydevelopedtoolsthatcangeneralisethelikelyareasthroughwhichbirdsofa
particularspeciesmightmigrate(Wrightetal.,2012seeFigure6asanexample)andthenmodel
thenumberslikelytopassthroughthewindfarm.
Figure6MigrationzonesofBewicksswansvisitingBritainandIreland(darkblue)andIrelandonly(lightblue)fromWright
etal.(2012).BluedotsshowSpecialProtectedAreas(SPAs)forBewicksswans.
TheTLPturbineissimilarinabovewaterdesigntothatofatraditionalmonopiledesign.Hence,the
overallriskposedtoindividualspeciesislikelytobesimilartothatreportedelsewhereformonopile
turbines,andthestandardBandmodel(2000),modifiedforuseintheoffshoreenvironment(Band,
2012; Cook et al., 2012), is applicable, assuming that other parameters of the TLP and monopile
designsaresimilar,forinstancerotationspeed(e.g.upto8.8rpm)andapitchof10degrees.
Page22of51
Thedemonstratorturbinewilllikelybetestedintheharbourbeforebeingloweredtoahorizontal
position and loaded onto a transporter vessel to be deployed in place at the Wave Hub site.
However, the rotation speed of the rotor during testing will be minimised to avoid power
generation. Despite the rotation speeds being lower, any test undertaken in a harbour would
constituteanadditionalcollisionriskforseabirds.Duringthetestingphase(althoughitisnotedthat
thisphasewouldbeshortterm),considerationwouldneedtobegiventopopulationsofseabirdsin
thevicinityoftheharbour,includinganyprotectedpopulations(includinglocationoftheircolonies
andforagingranges;Figure7).Collisionriskalsoappliestootherwaterbirds(Cooketal.,2012),of
which the UK holds internationally important numbers, mainly during their nonbreeding season
(Holtetal.,2012).Asaconsequence,informationonimportantwinteringsitesofwaterbirdsnearby
andthepassageofsuchbirdsthroughorovertheharbourwouldneedtobeconsidered.
Figure7Exampleoflesserblackbackedgulldistributionfromprotected(SPA,SSSI,Ramsar)breedingsites(seeTableA1
inappendixfornumberperspecies),duringthebreedingseason,basedonknowledgeoftheirforagingrange(Thaxteret
al., 2012, mean maximum foraging range = 141 km) (note this does not account for wintering/migration range). Also
shownareallrecordsofthespeciesatseafromEuropeanSeabirdsatSeasurveys(conductedusingvariousmethodsin
differentseasons)absenceofadotdoesnotnecessarilymeanthebirdsdidnotusethearea.
Page23of51
Collision risk will also depend on the sensitivity of the species considered at the Wave Hub
demonstratorsite(seeTableA1inAppendix).
ThePelaStardeviceislikelytohavelittlebiofoulingprotection;antifoulingcoatingwillpotentially
beusedatthetendonconnectionpoints,mainlytoaideasyremovaloftendonsinthefuture,and
howeverthismeansthatsomebenthiccolonisationmayoccuronnoncoatedpartsofthetendons.
Seabirdsseekingtoaccessthisadditionalpreysourceclosetotheseasurface,maybeattractedto
such benthic colonisations (see below for more detailed discussion under habitat loss/change),
which may raise their collision risk as a consequence. Hence this potential impact needs to be
factoredintothecalculationofcollisionrisk.
The cable carrying the power to the grid is able to move around underwater, perhaps becoming
anotherhazardfordivingseabirds,butsuchaneffectislikelytobelocalised.
Forthe demonstratorTLP,five individualtendons ofthickness ca. 200mm extenddown from the

PelaStar and are anchored to the seafloor. The fixed tendons that keep the turbine in place may
constituteanadditionalunderwatercollisionriskfordivingspeciessuchasscoters,divers,auksand
cormorants/shags, allof which forage for preyvisuallyunderwater, diving downfromthe surface.
However, plungedivers such as gannets should not be impacted by deployment of the PelaStar
devicebecausetheywouldbeunlikelytodiveinthevicinityoftheturbine.
With the increased number of turbines at a commercial level of deployment, the potential for
underwater collision risk increases. Moreover, the use of a threearm rather than a fivearm
structure increases the number of tendons per arm to two rather than one. Such a change at a
commerciallevelmayposeanincreasedriskofentanglement/collisionofseabirdsbetweendouble
tendons,whichwillnotapplytothedemonstrator.Speciesmostatriskintermsofthiseffectarethe
divingspeciesnotedpreviously.Giventhelittlepublishedinformationavailabletodeterminetherisk
ofunderwatercollisionandthefactthatcompetingpressuresmaybeactingindifferentways(e.g.
the absence of biofouling allowing reef construction and the attraction of foraging seabirds), it is
difficulttosaymorethanthatthethreatposedbyTLPstoseabirdsintermsofcollisionriskishighly
uncertain,butmaywellbegreaterthanfortraditionalmonopileturbines.
3.3.3
Disturbanceanddisplacement
Disturbanceanddisplacementareinterlinkedand,inessence,reflectdifferentlevelsofseverity.The
effect of disturbance refers to an effect that causes a direct behavioural reaction of a bird, e.g.
increasedvigilanceoraflight/diveresponse.However,prolongeddisturbancecouldresultinmore
longtermdisplacementfromapreviouslyfavouredhabitat,whichmaybecomepermanentifbirds
areunabletohabituate.Thesensitivityofseabirdstotheseeffectsvariesbetweenspecies(Maclean
et al., 2009see Table A1). Duringtheoperation of a wind farm,there is potential for longterm
displacement merely because of the longterm presence of moving turbines and the associated
maintenance boat traffic. Such displacement constitutes an effective loss of habitat (Desholm and
Kalhert2005;Langston2010).Behaviouraldisplacementiscommonlyequatedtomacroavoidance,
althoughinthecontextofcollisionriskmodellingitreferstofarfieldevasiveactiontakenbyaflying
bird to avoid the wind farm totally (Band, 2012). Displacement, in contrast, reflects the longterm
lossofallbirdsfromanareaofhabitat.Althoughdifferent,themacroavoidanceratesrecordedin
studies of bird flight paths has been used to inform on potential displacement rates of different
species in recent environmental impact assessments. At present, there is only a relatively limited
evidence base on the effects of displacement from offshore wind farms, and it is also unclear
whether there would be any habituation over time to new structures (Langston and Pullan 2003).
LongtermhabituationhasbeenrecordedforcommonscoteratHornsRevwindfarmbyLindeboom
Page24of51
etal.(2011),butsuchdataarelackingformostspecies.Theevidencecurrentlyavailablesuggests
thatdifferencesexistintheratesofdisplacement,orattraction,betweendifferentspecies(Zuccoet
al. 2006Petersen etal., 2006 and 2011; Petersen andFox,2007; Krijgsveldet al., 2010and 2011;
APEM, 2011; Rexstad and Buckland, 2012). A classification determined by Maclean et al. (2009),
incorporates information on speciesspecific behavioural responses using indications of sensitivity
suggested by Garthe and Hppop (2004), Petersen et al. (2004) and Petersen and Fox (2007).
Furnessetal.(2013)usedascoringsystemsimilartothatofMacleanetal.(2009)toestablishthe
sensitivityofseabirdstodisplacementcausingfactors:1=verylow,2=low,3=medium,4=high,
and5=veryhigh(Table1Speciessensitivitytodisturbancefromboats(derivedfromFurnessetal.,
2013)).
Theworstcaseassumptionofdisplacementoverthelongtermisthatapopulationwilldecreaseasa
consequence of mortality (e.g. direct mortality of the adults because they are unable to find
alternative habitat) or suffer reduced breeding success (e.g. McDonald et al., 2012). Longterm
fitnessconsequencesofdisplacementneedtobemeasured,buttheycannotbecondensedintoa
singlenumber(RexstadandBuckland,2012).Moreover,speciesresponsesarelikelytobevariably
dependentonhabitatlossflexibility(Table2Speciessensitivitytohabitatloss(derivedfromFurness
etal.,2013))anddiet(seeBirdlifeInternational,2012),aswellasonthecarryingcapacityofanarea
andtheabilityofaspeciestohabituatetoanotherarea(LangstonandPullan,2003).
Table1Speciessensitivitytodisturbancefromboats(derivedfromFurnessetal.,2013)
Sensitivity to Species/speciesgroup
disturbance
VeryHigh
Common scoter, velvet scoter, redthroated diver, great northern diver, black
throateddiver
High
Commongoldeneye,greatcormorant,greaterscaup
Medium
Common eider, longtailed duck, greatcrested grebe, Slavonian grebe, shag,

razorbill,blackguillemot,commonguillemot
Low
Northerngannet,herringgull,greatblackbackedgull,littletern,littleauk,black
headed gull, common gull, lesser blackbacked gull, blacklegged kittiwake,
Sandwichtern,commontern,roseatetern,Arctictern,Atlanticpuffin
Great skua, northern fulmar, sooty shearwater, Manx shearwater, European
stormpetrel,Leachsstormpetrel,Arcticskua,littlegull
VeryLow
Table2Speciessensitivitytohabitatloss(derivedfromFurnessetal.,2013)
Sensitivitydueto Species/speciesgroup
habitatloss
VeryHigh
Redneckedgrebe
High
Greater scaup, common eider, longtailed duck, common scoter, common
goldeneye, redthroated diver, blackthroated diver, greatcrested grebe,
Slavoniangrebe,littletern,blackguillemot
Medium
Velvet scoter, great northern diver, great cormorant, shag, Sandwich tern,
Page25of51
Low
VeryLow
common tern, roseate tern, Arctic tern, common guillemot, razorbill, Atlantic
puffin
Arcticskua,greatskua,blackheadedgull,commongull,greatblackbackedgull,
blackleggedkittiwake,littleauk
Northern fulmar, sooty shearwater, Manx shearwater, European stormpetrel,
Leachsstormpetrel,northerngannet,lesserblackbackedgull,herringgull
Vesselswillbeusedtotowtheturbine(onaplatform)intoplace.Forboththedemonstratorand
thecommercialdeployment,constructionwouldtakeplaceovera24hourperiodandtakebetween
3 to 13 days. Such towing and deployment activity may cause disturbance to birds preferring to
avoidboatsandanyotherinfrastructure.Underwateractivitiesassociatedwithdeploymentofthe
PelaStar(e.g.tendonsbeingdropped and anchoredtotheseabed,usingdrillingandgrouting)will
affectspeciessuchasdivers,scoters,auksandotherseaducksthataresensitivetothepresenceof
boats(Furnessetal.,2013,TableA1inappendix)andmayhavecoloniesnearby(JNCC,2012),within
foragingrangeof the site (Thaxter etal., 2012). Underwaterforagerssuchascommon guillemots,
razorbills, and Atlantic puffins are seen at the Wave Hub site (JNCC, 2013) and may show an
underwater disturbance reaction to structures being deployed (see also the section above on
underwatercollision).Therewillbeaneedtocollectfurtherinformationonprotectedpopulations
near the area of deployment. However, disturbance should be no worse than the installation of
traditionalmonopilefoundations.
Thepresenceofasinglewindturbineisunlikelytocauseconsiderableeffectivehabitatloss,andthe
potentialfordisturbance/displacementissimilartothatofatraditionalturbine.Widerscalehabitat
losswouldbeseenatacommercialleveldeploymentoffloatingturbines,however,andtheeffect
onseabirdswillbespeciesspecificanddependonthelocationchosenfordevelopments(Skovetal.,
1995; JNCC 2012, 2013; Thaxter et al., 2012). Again, the impact will be similar to that from a
traditionalmonopileturbinewindfarm.
Theeffectofdisturbance/displacementduringdecommissioningislikelytobesimilartothatduring
constructionforbothdemonstratorandlargerscalecommercialdeployment.Theprocessshouldbe
relativelyquickforfloatingturbinesandlikelymorefavourablethanforthedecommissioningphases
of fixed monopile turbines, requiring less vessel time at sea. Nevertheless, the activity will cause
some disturbance and consequently displacementof birdsthroughtheir negativereactiontoboat
traffic,dependingagainonthespeciessensitivity(Furnessetal.,2013)andtheassemblagespresent
atseaatthetimeofyearthatdecommissioningisundertaken.Thismayincludeaneffectonspecies
thatmightovertimehavehabituatedtotheeffectofthewindfarm.However,habitatwouldthen
be gained from the removal of the turbine. Although it is hard to generalise the effects given the
variabilityinspeciessensitivities,itisanticipatedthatthedurationandextentofdecommissioning
activitiesforfloatingturbineswillbenoworsethanforexistingfixedwindfarms,andagainshort
terminnature.
3.3.4
BarrierEffects
Traditionalwindfarmsmayposeabarriertomigratorybirdsorthosecommutingbetweenbreeding
sitesandoffshorefeedingareas,whichcouldthenresultinelevatedenergyneeds(Speakmanetal.,
2009)andevenpotentiallyincreasedmortalityorimpactsonproductivityatthecolonies.Increases
in the energy costs of daily movements of seabirds or of the movements of migratory birds have
been shown in a number of studies (Tulp et al., 1999; Pettersson and Stalin, 2003; Masden et al.,
2009, 2010), although Masden et al (2009), reported changes in the migratory trajectories of
common eiders at a Danish offshore wind farm postconstruction, they suggested that this had
minimallikelyeffectonthespeciesenergetics.However,itwasnotedthatcumulativeeffectscould
Page26of51
besignificant,forinstance,ifotherwindfarmsorhumandevelopmentsworkedincombinationto
disrupttheroutesofbirds.DesholmandKalhert(2005)alsoreportedthatmigrantwildfowldiverted
aroundtheNystedwindfarm,andTulpetal.(1999)foundthatcommoneidersdidnotflybetween
windturbinesplaced200mapartintheKattegat.Duringconstruction,aprogressiveincreaseinthe
number of turbines at a commercial scale would increasingly pose a greater barrier effect. Upon
decommissioning, removal of the entire wind farm would remove any barrier to movement
previouslyimposed,thenconstitutingapositiveeffect.
Whilenotanissueforthedemonstratorturbine,atacommercialscaleofdeployment,theextentof
this effect will depend on the number of turbines eventually installed, the area covered by the
development,andimportantlytheseabirdspeciescompositionsandnumberspresentseasonallyin
the area being developed. Different species are less sensitive to a greater or lesser degree to this
effect(seeTableA1inappendix).Theassessmentofbarriereffectsistypicallybestassessedthrough
directlymonitoringindividualbirdsmovingthroughthewindfarmzone,forinstanceusingtracking
telemetry or radar (e.g. Krijgsveldt et al., 2011). However, for many species, particularly migrant
species, a lack of information on tracked birds means that it is impossible to determine whether
individualstraverseanarea,norisitpossibletoassessthealtitudeatwhichtheyflyandtherefore
whatroutesmightbebeingaffectedbythepresenceofawindfarm(althoughseeKrijgsveldetal.,
2011).An alternative method is togeneraliseonthe likely areasthroughwhich birdsof particular
species might migrate (Wright et al., 2012 see Figure 6 as an example, in this case for Bewicks
swans)andthentomodelthenumbersthatarelikelytopassthroughthewindfarm.Thereareno
differencesbetweentraditionalturbinesandfloatingTLPturbinesinthiseffect.
3.4
HabitatLossorChange(Includingnoise,sedimentation,electromagneticfields)
Duringallphasesofawindfarmsexistence,therearemanywaysbywhichbirdsmaybeimpacted
eitherdirectly through alteringtheir habitat,orindirectlythroughchangestotheir prey, that may
impact the seabirds themselves. Such effects include habitat loss attributable to the export cable
corridor and wind farm, habitat changes affecting the availability of prey species by, for instance,
duechangingthelevelofsuspendedsediments(whichcanaffectabirdsabilitytodetectandcatch
prey as well as influencing the absolute numbers of prey), underwater noise from drilling, piling,
hammering or other construction activities, electromagnetic frequencies (EMFs), and changes to
fishingactivityasaresultofthepresenceofawindfarm(longterm,throughouttheoperationallife
ofthefarm).Evidencefromotheroffshoreactivitiessuchasaggregatedredging(CookandBurton,
2010)suggeststhoseseabedhabitatsandthebenthicinvertebratesandfishfaunaassociatedwith
themmightbealteredbyallwindturbineinstallationandcablelayingactivities,potentiallyhaving
some impact on bird assemblages, although this is likely to be short term, with recovery
commencingafterconstructionhasbeencompleted
Theattractionoffloraandfaunatomanmadestructures,suchasoilplatforms,piersandwrecksis
welldocumented, and includes positive effects on benthic flora and fauna, zooplankton and fish
(Wolfson et al., 1979; Baird 1990; Wiese et al., 2001; Wilhelmsson et al., 2006b; Langhamer and
Wilhelmsson,2009;Langhameretal.,2009).Suchchangestofloraandfaunamaythenattractthe
prey species of seabirds (Wiese et al., 2001; Wilhelmsson, 2012). For example, species such as
common eider and scoters forage on the mussels and shellfish that establish themselves on man
madestructures,althoughtheseabirdspeciesdotendtoavoidwindturbinesspecifically(Furnesset
al.,2013,TableA1inappendix).ThePelaStarfivearmstructurehasindividualarmradiiof31.18m,
awidthof3m,andapotentialdepthperarmofuptoca.9m.Fromthis,justacrudecalculation
(which cannot be exact because of the complexity of the central structure where the arms meet)
yieldsasurfaceareaperarmof744m2,or3,720m2forfivearms.Hence,evenforasinglePelaStar
Page27of51
turbine, the amount of habitat created will be large, because of the large hull. However, seabirds
mayalsobenegativelyimpactedbychangesinthedistributionsoftheirprey.Attractioncausedby
habitatbecomingmoresuitablemayalsomeananincreaseintheriskofcollisionforsomespecies,
or it may lessen or reverse the impact of displacement caused by disturbance. Impacts may also
eventuateonseabirdsbreedingnearawindfarm.Forexample,Perrowetal.(2011)examinedprey
abundancebeforeandafterassessmentofa30turbinedevelopmentatScrobySands,SEEngland,
toassessthelikelyimpactsonanearbycolonyofbreedinglittleterns.Themostimportantpreyin
the chick diet, youngoftheyear (0group) herring, showed a significant reduction from 2004 on,
unexplained by environmental factors, so turbine installation was suggested to have affected fish
reproductionlocally(Perrowetal.,2011).Availabilityofthesepreyspeciesinthetop45cmofwater
causedchangesinlittleternforagingbehaviour,andinturnmayhavecontributedtoincreasedegg
abandonment and low hatching success in subsequent years (Perrow et al., 2011). The example
demonstrates the importance of adopting sensible precautionary approaches to the timing and
durationofpiledrivingactivity(Perrowetal.,2011).
Indirecthabitatchangeforseabirdsmayalsoarisethroughreducingtheimpactoffisheriesonthe
habitats of prey species underwater. Changes to fishing practice may affect fish and shellfish
populations and hence the seabirds. However, as fishing may cause damage to seabed habitat,
disturb sediments, directly removes plants and other organisms and alter habitat structure, a
reduction infishing could haveapositiveeffectformarinecommunitiesandseabirdprey species.
TheplannedconstructionactivitiesatthedemonstratorWaveHubsitehavethepotentialtocause
directhabitatlossthroughexportcableconstructionandtheareaaroundthatcableontheseafloor.
For seabird prey, the area of seabed potentially affected is likely to be small and unlikely to be
greater than for a traditional fixed wind turbine. For all commercial wind farms, changes to
commercialfishingactivityasaresultoftheirestablishmentarelikelyandmaywellhaveanimpact
onseabirds,generallythroughforaginghabitatandpreyavailabilitybeingaltered.
Wind turbines may also have positive effects, attracting birds (increasing habitat), providing them
with platforms for perching and roosting (Petersen et al., 2006; Krijgsveld et al., 2011). Birds may
alsobeattractedtolightingaroundoffshorestructures,whichmayhelpthemlocatenocturnalprey
(Sage, 1979; HopeJones, 1980; Tasker et al., 1986; Wiese et al., 2001). A gradual increase in the
numberofturbinesinasingleareawillofferincreasedopportunitiesforsomespeciestoperchand
roost.
Underwater noise may affect the prey species of seabirds (see sections on marine mammals and
basking sharks for more detail). The effect may be seen through lethal/injury to prey for instance
from auditory system damage, and behavioural changes in swimming and schooling behaviour
affecting spawning which may in turn affect nursery grounds, migration and feeding patterns.
Sedimentation has the potential to affect diving birds such as divers, scoters, seaducks, auks and
shags/cormorantsthrougheitherdirectdisruptionofnavigationinthewatercolumnandlocationof
prey,orthroughaffectsonthepreythemselves,indirectlyimpactingtheseabirds.Alossofhabitat
may impactlessmobilespeciesmore,butinparticular itmayimpactshellfish,sandeelsandother
fish species that have habitat preferences, as well as their eggs and larvae, for instance through
reducing the likelihood of the eggs hatching, reduced feeding and survival possibilities for larvae,
adult suffocation (e.g. of sandeels buried in the seabed), and the temporary loss of spawning
grounds.Itisalsopossiblethatchangestothehydrographyduringoperationofthewindfarmcan
influencethedistributionsofpreyspeciesofseabirds.DuringtheoperationalphaseofaTLP,noise
maybeproducedfromtheunderwatertendons(e.g.bystrumming)andexportcable,howeverthis
isthoughtobeverylowifatall.Currently,thepotentialextentofthisdisturbanceanditseffecton
seabirds and/or their prey is unclear. The generator would be expected to produce just a regular
nonintermittentlowdecibellevelofnoise,however,andthatwillnothavemucheffectonseabirds.
Page28of51

Prey distributions may also be disrupted as a consequence of the electromagnetic fields (EMFs)
around installations throughout all phases of a wind farms life, resulting in changes in seabird
behaviour (e.g. migration patterns and feeding activity). However, the potential impacts of EMFs
fromcablesonfishandseabirdsareveryuncertain(Gilletal.,2005,2009;GillandBartlett,2010).
OneissuetonoteisthepotentialforalienhabitatsandnewspeciestobeintroducedwhenaTLP,or
lateranextendednumberofTLPs,isdeployed.That,aswithanyothernewdevelopmentinthesea,
isakintocolonisation,whichmighthaveknockonandpossiblypositiveconsequencesforseabirds.
The diets of species such as gulls are diverse (see Birdlife International, 2012), so introducing any
alienspeciesmayactuallyintroduceanewpreysourceforseabirds.
Attheconstructionphase,sedimentmaybemobilisedbythedrillingandgroutingprocessapplied,
and scouring can arise around the anchors. The knockon effects to seabirds and their prey is still
considered to be localised, intermittent, and shortterm. Finally, changes to the local hydrography
during operation of a commercial floating turbine wind farm may conceivably influence both
seabirdsandtheirpreybyalteringthemicrohabitat.HoweverthenatureofsuchchangesfromaTLP
designareunknownatpresent.
Table 3 Summary comparison of TLP floating turbines and monopile turbines for different effects for seabirds at the
commercial level, and which effects are predicted (based on information received) to be better (+), worse (), or no
different(.)fortherespectivedesigns.
Stage
Construction
Abovewatercollisionrisk
Entanglement / underwater
collision
Disturbance
and
displacement
Barriereffects
Habitatlossorchange
Underwaternoise
EMF
Sedimentation
Smothering
Ballast water
pollution
Scour
issues
Operation
Decommissioning
TLP
Monopile
TLP
Monopile
TLP
Monopile
.
+
.
+
.
+
.
.
.
.
.
+
.
.
.
.
Page29of51
4 Conclusions
The PelaStar floating turbine is a TLP design with two possible anchoring options dependant on
sediment characteristics. This report has shown that TLPs and their anchoring options are well
known within other offshore and onshore sectors, having been used successfully for the last 30
years.Floatingwindturbinesareanemergingtechnology,howeverthemajorityoftheresearchto
datehasfocussedontheplatformdesignandstability,possiblybecausedevelopersarecomfortable
withthetrackrecordoftheproposedanchoringsystems.
The major impacts reviewed when comparing TLPs and more traditional foundations are seabed
disturbance and underwater noise. Overall, the type of impacts for all foundation types are the
same,however,theextentoftheimpactchangesdependingonfoundationtype(Error!Reference
sourcenotfound.).
4.1 TLPsedimentdisturbanceandnoise
ThePelaStarinstallationmethodsdonotrequireseabedpreparation,minimisingpotentialimpacts
on the seafloor. Temporary seabed disturbance is expected during the installation/construction
phase owing to the penetration of the anchor into the sediment; this is likely to cause temporary
habitat loss and sediment disturbance where sand, gravelly sand, silt and clay are the dominant
substrata, (compared with rock at the Wave Hub site). Potential impacts from the installation
methods likely for the anchoring systems are comparable with those caused by monopile
foundations;however,becauseTLPinstallationutilisesfive(albeitsmallerdiameter)anchorpilesthe
effects will at best be equivalent to a monopile foundation, but in certain circumstances could be
greater. Scour effects should be limited and the seabed footprint in terms of habitat loss will be
lowest for the smallest (2.1 m diameter) anchor piles. Environmental effects during
decommissioningwilldependontheanchoringsystemutilisedasthepilesaredifficulttoremove.
Two different methods are proposed for installing the TLP anchoring systems, respectively pile
driving or drilling and grouting. The noise generated by piledriving the anchors are not very
different to that generated by monopiles used in most North Sea wind farms. The source level
associated with driving these piles is likely to be in the region of 250 dB re 1 Pa @ 1 m but will
dependonthesizeofpileused.Theevidenceisthatdrillingissignificantlyquieterthanpiledriving.
The operational noise from a floating wind turbine is expected to be reduced relative to a
conventionalturbineasaconsequenceofitnotbeingrigidlyattachedtotheseabed.However,there
is a potential for strumming (caused by water moving past the undertension tendons of the
PelaStar). The decommissioning phase for the two anchoring methods is likely to induce similar
levelsofunderwaternoise.
Table4Comparisonoffoundationtypewithseabeddisturbanceandnoiseimpacts(adaptedfromReachetal.,2012).
Foundationtype
Habitatloss
Scour
Noise
GravityBases
Lowtohigh
Low
Low
Suction
Moderate
Low
Low
Monopile
Low
High
High
Page30of51
Multileg
Low
Low
LowtoHigh
Jacket
Low
Low
Moderate
Floating devices (other Negligibletolow

thanTLPs)
Lowtomoderate
Moderatetolow
TLPs
Low
Moderatetolow
4.2
TLPsandimpactsonmarinemammals
Duringconstruction,underwaternoiseislikelytobethekeymechanismindisturbingtherangeof
marine mammal species likely to encounter the device. The method of installation chosen (pile
drivingvs.drillingandgrouting)willhaveasignificanteffectontheextentofdisturbanceandcould
cause auditory injury out to large distances from the site. Drilling and grouting is likely to have a
morebenigneffectonmarinemammals.Duringtheoperationalphase,themainimpactonmarine
mammalsofthePelaStarTLPwillbeaheightenedriskofcollision,entanglementandentrapment,
especiallyforlargebaleenwhales.Dependingonthenoisecharacteristicsofanystrumming,there
maybepotentialfordisturbingmarinemammals.
There are data gaps in scientific knowledge. Increased turbidity may impact foraging, but the
potential magnitude isunknown. A commercial arraycouldpresenta barrier to marine mammals,
butthereisnoevidencetosuggestwhetherfloatingturbinescouldcausesuchanimpact,andifthey
could,atwhatscalewouldbarriereffectscommence.TheTLPcouldactasaFAD,attractingmarine
mammals and increasing their risk of collision or entanglement, but again, the likelihood and
magnitudeofimpactisunknown.
4.3 TLPsandimpactsonBaskingsharks
Researchhasshownthatbaskingsharksarehighlymigratory,butareprimarilyobservedalongthe
western coast of the UK. During spring and summer hotspots of basking sharks are found in
CornwallandwesternScotland.BaskingsharksthereforeseemtofavourtheareaaroundtheWave
Hub demonstration site and will certainly migrate through any of the potential areas for PelaStar
commercialdeploymentonthewesternsideoftheUK.
As with marine mammals, entanglement and construction noise are concerns for basking sharks.
Few studies have considered the potential impact of piling activities on sharks, and hearing
characteristics of basking and other shark species remain largely unknown. However, sharks are
known to have welldeveloped hearing and there is evidence that they can and do detect and
respondtosound.Animportantconcernforbaskingsharksishowpilingandanchoringoperations
canaltertheirnaturalbehaviouralresponseormaskothernaturalmarinenoiseonwhichtheymay
rely. Basking sharks are thought to be particularly susceptible to collision with vessels and marine
constructions.Baskingsharkshaverelativelypoorvisionandhavebecomeentangledinfishinggear,
suchassetnets.Theeffectscanrangefromminorscarringtodeath.Thereisalsothequestionasto
howabaskingsharkmightrespondtoelectromagneticfields(EMFs)fromsuspendedpowercables.
BaskingsharkscertainlyhavethecapabilitytodetectandreacttoanthropogenicEMFstransmitted
throughelectricalcablesassociatedwithrenewableenergydevelopments,butthereiscurrentlyno
literature available on whether they actively respond to these artificial EMFs, nor whether there
mightbeanynegativeimpact.
Page31of51
4.4
TLPsandimpactsonSeabirds
Offshore wind farms have the potential to affect birds through four main mechanisms; collision,
disturbance,habitatlossandbarriereffects.Theassessmentofcollisionriskisimportantnotjustfor
breedingseabirdsoriginatingfromnearbycolonies,butalsoforthosethatmaypassthroughduring
migration and during the nonbreeding season. There is also a potential risk of collision during
constructionandharbourtestingoftheturbine.TheHighVerticalLoadAnchor(HVLA)tendonsmay
constitute an additional underwater collision risk for diving species. It is unknown if birds would
show an attraction or avoidance behaviour to floating wind turbines, resulting in an increased or
decreased collision risk respectively. In addition, there is the possibility that a colonised floating
structure could provide a food source for local diving seabirds, increasing their risk of
collision/entanglement.
Disturbance and displacement of seabirds during construction, operation and decommissioning is

thought to be of a similar level to that from traditional turbines. However, it is noted that
decommissioning should be quicker for floating turbines than traditional fixed foundations.
Traditionalturbineshavealsobeenseentoconstituteabarriereffectforsomespeciesofbird.While
notanissueforthedemonstratorturbine,atacommercialscaleofdeployment,theextentofthis
effectwilldependonthenumberofturbinesinstalled,theareacoveredbythedevelopment,and
importantly, the seabird species present, and their seasonal abundances in the area being
developed.
Page32of51
5 References
Ahln,I.,Baage,H.J.,andBach,L.2009.BehaviorofScandinavianBatsduringMigrationand
ForagingatSea.JournalofMammalogy,90:13181323.
APEM2011.Redthroateddivers&offshorewindfarmsintheOuterThames:historicdatareview.
APEMScientificReport411134.LondonArrayLtd.,June2011v2Final.
Baird,P.H.1990.Concentrationsofseabirdsatoildrillingrigs.Condor,92:768771.
Baxter,J.M.,Boyd,I.L.,Cox,M.,Donald,A.E.,Malcolm,S.J.,Miles,H.,Miller,B.andMoffat,C.F.
(eds).2011.ScotlandsMarineAtlas:InformationfortheNationalMarinePlan.Chapter4.
Healthy&BiologicallyDiverse.MarineScotland,Edinburgh.Availableat
http://scotland.gov.uk/Topics/marine/science/atlas.
Berrow, S.D. & Heardman, C., (1994). The basking shark Cetorhinus maximus (Gunnerus) in Irish
waterspatternsofdistributionandabundance.ProceedingsoftheRoyalIrishAcademyB
94(2)101107.
BirdLife International 2012. BirdLife Seabird Wikispace
http://seabird.wikispaces.com/[Accessed9January2013].
[Online].
Available
at:
Bloomfield,A.andSolandt,JL.(2008).TheMarineConservationSocietybaskingsharkwatch20year
report(19872006).MarineConservationSociety,RossonWye,UK.
Brandt,M.J.Diedrichs,A.,Betke,K&Nehls,G.2011.Responsesofharbourporpoisestopiledriving
at the Horns Rev II offshore wind farm in the Danish North Sea. Marine EcologyProgress
Series,421:205216.
Bremner, J, Wood, D, Goodsir, F, Bendall, V, Martin Grandes, I, Rees, J, Riley, A, et al 2013,
Environmental Effects and Benefits of the PelaStar Wind Turbine Floating Platform Design
(ModuleOne:DesigningOutEnvironmentalEffects)
BuscombeD.D.andScottT.M.,2008.TheCoastalGeomorphologyofNorthCornwall:St.IvesHead
to Trevose Head. Wave Hub Impact on Seabed and Shoreline Processes (WHISSP) project.
PlymouthUniversity.
BVGassociates(2013)Floatingturbinedemonstrationselectionofreferencesiteparameters.
Camphuysen,C.J.&Garthe,S.2004.Recordingforagingseabirdsatsea.Stadardisedrecordingand
codingofforagingbehaviourandmultispeciesforagingassocations.AtlanticSeabirds6(1):1
32.
Carstensen,J.,Henriksen,O.D.&Teilmann,J.2006.Impactsofoffshorewindfarmconstructionon
harbourporpoises:acousticmonitoringofecholocationactivityusingporpoisedetectors(T
PODs).MarineEcologyProgressSeries,321:295308.
Casper, B.M. and D.A. Mann. 2009. Field hearing measurements of the Atlantic sharpnose shark
(Rhizoprionodonterraenovae).JournalofFishBiology75:27682776.
Casper, B.M., M.B. Halvorsen, and A.N. Popper. 2012. Are sharks even bothered by a noisy
environment? In: Popper, A.N. and A.D. Hawkins, eds. The effects of noise on aquatic life.
NewYork:SpringerScience+BusinessMedia,LLC.Pp.9398.
Castro, J. J., Santiago, J. A. & SantanOrtega, J. A. (2002) A general theory on fish aggregation to
floatingobjects:analternativetothemeetingpointhypothesis.ReviewofFIshBiologyand
Fisheries,11,255277.
Compagno, L. J. V. 2001. Sharks of the World: An Annotated and Illustrated Catalogue of Shark
Species Known to Date, Volume 2; Bullhead, Mackerel and Carpet Sharks
(Heterodontiformes,LamniformesandOrectolobiformes).FAO.Rome,Italy.
Page33of51
Cook, A.S.C.P. & Burton, N.H.K. 2010. A review of the potential impacts of marine aggregate
extractiononseabirds.MarineEnvironmentProtectionFund(MEPF)Project09/P130.
Cook,A.S.C.P.,Wright,L.J.,andBurton,N.H.K.2012.Areviewofflightheightsandavoidanceratesin
relation to offshore wind farms. Strategic Ornithological Support Services Project SOSS02.
BTOResearchReport618.BTO,Thetford.
Desholm,M.&Kahlert,J.2005.Aviancollisionriskatanoffshorewindfarm.BiologyLetters1,296
298.
Doyle, J.I., Solandt, JL, Franshawe, S., Richardson, P. And C.Duncan (2005). Marine Conservation
Society Basking Shark Watch report 1987 2004. Marine Conservation Society, Rosson
Wye,UK.
Drewitt,A.L.,Langston,R.H.W.2004.Assessingtheimpactsofwindfarmsonbirds.Ibis,148,2942.
Duggal,A.S.AndFontenot,W.L.(2010)AnchorLegSystemIntegrityFromDesignthroughService
Life.SOFECIncpaper,13p.
Edren,S.M.C.,Andersen,S.M.,Teilmann,J.,Castensen,J.,Harders,P.B.,Dietz,R.&Miller,L.A.2010.
TheeffectofalargeDanishoffshorewindfarmonharborandgreysealhauloutbehaviour.
MarineMammalScience,26:614634.
Energy Technologies Institute (ETI) LLP (2013). ETI Offshore Wind Programme Glosten Floating
SystemFEEDstudy
EWEA.2013.DeepwaterThenextstepforoffshorewindenergy.
FAOspeciesfactsheethttp://www.fao.org/fishery/species/2005/en
Furness,R.W.,Wade,H.M.&Masden,E.A.2013.Assessingvulnerabilityofmarinebirdpopulations
tooffshorewindfarms.JournalofEnvironmentalManagement119,5666.
Garthe, S. & Hppop, O. 2004. Scaling possible adverse effects of marine wind farms on seabirds:
developingandapplyingavulnerabilityindex.JournalofAppliedEcology41,724734.
Gerwick,B.C.(2007)ConstructionofmarineandoffshoreStructures,3rdeditionCRCPress
Gill, A.B. GloynePhillips, I. Neal, K.J. and Kimber, J.A. (2005). COWRIE 1.5 Electromagnetic Fields
Review.The potentialeffectsofelectromagnetic fieldsgeneratedbysubseapowercables
associatedwithoffshorewindfarmdevelopmentsonelectricallyandmagneticallysensitive
marineorganismsareview.
Gill,A.B.,Huang,Y.,GloynePhilips,I.,Metcalfe,J.,Quayle,V.,Spencer,J.,andWearmouth,V.2009.
COWRIE 2.0 Electromagnetic Fields (EMF) Phase 2: EMFsensitive fish response to EM
emissionsfromsubseaelectricitycablesofthetypeusedbytheoffshorerenewableenergy
industry.ReporttoCOWRIE(projectreferenceCOWRIEEMF106).
Gill,A.B.,andBartlett,M.2010.Literaturereviewonthepotentialeffectsofelectromagneticfields
and subsea noise from marine renewable energy developments on Atlantic salmon, sea
troutandEuropeaneel.ScottishNaturalHeritageCommissionedReportNo.401.
Gill,A.B.,Bartlett,M.,andThomsen,F.2012.Potentialinteractionsbetweendiadromousfishesof
U.K.conservationimportanceandtheelectromagneticfieldsandsubseanoisefrommarine
renewableenergydevelopments.JournalofFishBiology,81:664695.BlackwellPublishing
Ltd.http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.10958649.2012.03374.x.
Gore,M.,Rowet,D.,Hall,J.,Gell,F.R.andOrmond,R.(2008).Transatlanticmigrationanddeepmid
oceandivingbybaskingshark.BiologyLetters,4.394398.
HendersonA.R.,LeutzR.andFujiiT.2002.PotentialforFloatingWindEnergyinJapaneseWaters.
ProceedingsofTheTwelfth(2002)InternationalOffshoreandPolarEngineeringConference.
Page34of51
Holt, C.A., Austin, G.E., Calbrade, N.A., Mellan, H.J., Hearn, R., Stroud, D.A., Wotton, S.R., and
Musgrove, A.J. 2012. Waterbirds in the UK 2010/11: The Wetland Bird Survey.
BTO/RSPB/JNCC,Thetford.
HopeJones,P.1980.TheeffectonbirdsofaNorthSeagasflare.BritishBirds73,547555.
Hppop, O., Dierschke, J., Exo, K.M., Fredrich, E., and Hill, R. 2006. Bird migration studies and
potentialcollisionriskwithoffshorewindturbines.Ibis,148(Suppl.1):90109.
Inger, R., Attrill, M. J., Bearhop, S., Broderick, A. C., Grecian, W. J., Hodgson, D. J., Mills, C., et al.
2009. Marine renewable energy: potential benefits to biodiversity? an urgent call for
research.JournalofAppliedEcology,46:11451153.
Jeng, D.S. and Brandes, H.G. (2011) Developments in offshore geotechnics. Ocean Engineering, 38
(7):pp.815817.
JointNatureConservationCommittee(JNCC).2012.SeabirdColonyData.JNCC,Aberdeen[Online].
Availableat:http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/page4460[Accessed9January2013].
Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC). 2013. Seabirds at sea database. JNCC, Aberdeen
[Online].Availableat:http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/page4469[Accessed13August2013]
Kalmijn AJ (1982). "Electric and magnetic field detection in elasmobranch fishes". Science 218
(4575):9168.
Kempster, R. M. & Collin, S. P. 2011. Electrosensory pore distribution and feeding in the basking
sharkCetorhinusmaximus(Lamniformes:Cetorhinidae).AquaticBiology,12:3336.
King, S., Maclean, I., Norman, T., and Prior, A. 2009. Developing guidance on ornithological
cumulativeimpactassessmentforoffshorewindfarmdevelopers.Reportcommissionedby
COWRIE.Availableathttp://www.offshorewindfarms.co.uk/.
Krijgsveld, K.L., Fijn, R.C., Heunks, C., van Horssen, P.W., de Fouw, J., Collier, M., Poot, M.J.M.,
Beuker,D.&Dirksen,S.2010.EffectstudiesoffshorewindfarmEgmondaanZee;Progress
reportonfluxesandbehaviourofflyingbirdscovering2007&2008.BureauWaardenburg
reportNo.09023,TheNetherlands.
Krijgsveld, K.L., Fijn, R.C., Japink, M., van Horssen, P.W., Heunks, C., Collier, M.P., Poot, M.J.M.,
Beuker,D.,andDirksen,S.2011.EffectStudiesOffshoreWindFarmEgmondaanZee.Final
report on fluxes, flight altitudes and behaviour of flying bird. Bureau Waardenburg report
10219,NZWReportR_231_T1_flu&flight.BureauWaardenburg,Culemborg,Netherlands.
Lambkin et al., 2009. Coastal Processes Modelling for Offshore Wind Farm Environmental Impact
Assessment:BestPracticeGuide.COWRIELtd.
Langhamer,O.,andWilhelmsson,D.2009.Colonisationoffishandcrabsofwaveenergyfoundations
and the effects of manufactured holes a field experiment. Marine Environmental
Research68:151157.
Langhamer,O.,Wilhelmsson,D.,andEngstrm,J.2009.Artificialreefeffectandfoulingimpactson
offshore wave power foundations and buoys a pilot study. Estuarine Coastal and Shelf
Science82:426432.
Langston, R.H.W., and Pullan, J.D. 2003. Wind farms and birds: an analysis of the effects of wind
farmsonbirds,andguidanceonenvironmentalassessmentcriteriaandsiteselectionissues.
Report TPVS/Inf (2003) 12, by BirdLife International to the Council of Europe, Bern
ConventionontheConservationofEuropeanWildlifeandNaturalHabitats.RSPB/BirdLifein
theUK.
Langston, R.H.W. 2010. Offshore wind farms and birds: Round 3 zones, extensions to Round 1 &
Round2sites&ScottishTerritorialWaters.RSPBResearchReportNo.39.
Lindeboom,H.J.,Kouwenhoven,H.J.,Bergman,M.J.N.,Bouma,S.,Brasseur,S.,Daan,R.,Fijn,R.C.,de
Haan,D.,Dirksen,S.,vanHal,Lambers,R.H.R.,terHofstede,R.,Krijgsveld,K.L.,Leopold,M.
Page35of51
andScheidatM.2011.ShorttermecologicaleffectsofanoffshorewindfarmintheDutch
coastalzone;acompilation.EnvironmentalResearchLetters,6:113.
Lucke, K., Siebert, U., Lepper, P.A. and Blanchet, M.A. (2009) Temporary shift in masked hearing
thresholds in a harbor porpoise (Phocoena phocoena) after exposure to seismic airgun
stimuli,JournaloftheacousticalsocietyofAmerica,125(6),40604070.
Maclean, I.M.D, Wright, L.J., Showler, D.A., and Rehfisch, M.M. 2009. A review of assessment
methodologiesforoffshorewindfarms.BTOReporttoCOWRIE.
Marencic, H., and Vlas, J. de (Eds), 2009. Thematic Report No. 5. Quality Status Report 2009.
WaddenSeaEcosystemNo.25.CommonWaddenSeaSecretariat,TrilateralMonitoringand
AssessmentGroup,Wilhelmshaven,Germany
Marmo,B.,Roberts,I.,Buckingham,MP.,Booth,C.G.&King,S.L.2013.ModellingofNoiseEffectsof
Operational Offshore Wind Turbines including noise transmission through various
foundationtypes.ReporttotheScottishGovernment.May2013.
Masden,E.A.,Haydon,D.T.,Fox,A.D.,Furness,R.W.,Bullman,R.,andDesholm,M.2009.Barriersto
movement: impacts of wind farms on migrating birds. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 66:
746753.
Masden, E.A., Haydon, D.T., Fox, A.D., and Furness, R.W. 2010. Barriers to movement: Modelling
energeticcostsofavoidingmarinewindfarmsamongstbreedingseabirds.MarinePollution
Bulletin,60:10851091.
McDonald, C., Searle, K., Wanless, S., and Daunt, F. 2012. Effects of Displacement from Marine
Renewable Development on Seabirds Breeding at SPAs: A Proof of Concept Model of
CommonGuillemotsBreedingontheIsleofMay.FinalReporttoMSS,CEHEdinburgh.Also
available at: http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/0040/00404982.pdf [last accessed
30/07/2012]
Moon III, W. L. and Nordstrom, C. J., 2010. Tension Leg Platform Turbine: A unique integration of
mature technologies. Proceedings of the 16th Offshore Symposium, 9 February 2010,
Houston,Texas.TexasSectionoftheSocietyofNavalArchitectsandMarineEngineers.
Muellerblenkle,C.,Mcgregor,P.K.,Gill,A.B.,Andersson,M.H.,Metcalfe,J.,Bendall,V.,Sigray,P.,
etal.2010.EFFECTSOFPILEDRIVINGNOISEONTHEBEHAVIOUROFMARINEFISH.
Musial, W. Butterfield. S. and A Boone (2003) Feasibility of Floating Platform systems for Wind
Turbines Conference Paper Presented at the 23rd ASME Wind Energy Symposium, Reno,
NevadaJanuary582004.NationalRenewableEnergyLaboratory.
Musial, W. And Butterfield, S. (2004) Future for Offshore Wind Energy in the United States.
PresentedatEnergyOcean2004,PalmBeach,Florida.16p.
Musial,W.andRam,B.(2010)LargescaleoffshorewindpowerintheUnitedStates,assessmentof
opportunitiesandbarriers.NREL/TP50040745.240p.
Myrberg, A.A., Jr. 1978. Ocean noise and the behaviour of marine animals: Relationships and
implications. In: Fletcher, J.L. and R.G. Busnel, eds. Effects of noise on wildlife. New York:
AcademicPress.Pp.169208.
Myrberg, A.A., Jr. 1990. The effects of manmade noise on the behaviour of marine animals.
EnvironmentInternational16:575586.
Myrberg,A.A.,Jr.2001.Theacousticalbiologyofelasmobranches.EnvironmentalBiologyofFishes
60:3145.
Nedwell, J.R., Parvin, S.J., Edwards, B., Workman, R., Brooker, A.G. & Kynoch, J.E. 2007.
Measurementandinterpretationofunderwaternoiseduringconstructionandoperationof
offshorewindfarmsinUKwaters.SubacoustechreportNo:544R0738toCOWRIELtd.
Page36of51
Northridge,S.,Cargill,A.,Coram,A.,Mandleberg,L.,Calderan,S.&Reid,R.J.2010.Entanglementof
minke whales in Scottish waters: an investigation into occurrence, causes and mitigation.
FinalreporttoScottishGovernmentCR/2007/49,pp54.
ORECCA Project, ORECCA WP3 Platform technology report: state of the Art. ORECCA Coordinated
ActionProject,2011.www.orecca.eu/documents
OregonWaveEnergyTrust(2009)AdvancedAnchoringandMooringstudy.
Perrow, M.R.,Gilroy, J.J.,Skeate, E.R., and Tomlinson, M.L. 2011. Effects of the construction of
ScrobySandsoffshorewindfarmonthepreybaseofLittleternSternulaalbifronsatitsmost
importantUKcolony.MarinePollutionBulletin,62:16611670.
Pettersson,J.,andStalin,T.2003.InfluenceofOffshoreWindmillsonMigrationBirdsinSoutheast
CoastofSweden.ReporttoGEWindEnergy.
Petersen,I.K.,Clausager,I.,andChristensen,T.K.2004.BirdNumbersandDistributionintheHorns
RevOffshoreWindFarmArea.NERIreport.
Petersen, I.K., Christensen, T.K., Kahlert, J., Desholm, M., and Fox, A.D. 2006. Final results of bird
studies at the offshore wind farms at Nysted and Horns Rev, Denmark. National
EnvironmentalResearchInstitute,Denmark.
Petersen, I.K., and Fox, A.D. 2007. Changes in bird habitat utilisation around the Horns Rev 1
offshorewindfarm,withparticularemphasisonCommonScoter.NERIreporttoVattenfall
A/S.
Petersen, I.K., MacKenzie, M.L., Rexstad, E., Wisz, M.S., and Fox, A.D. 2011. Comparing pre and
postconstruction distributions of longtailed ducks Clangula hyemalis in and around the
Nystedoffshorewindfarm,Denmark:aquasidesignedexperimentaccountingforimperfect
detection,localsurfacefeaturesandautocorrelation.CREEMTechnicalReport,no.20111,
UniversityofStAndrews.
Randolph,M.,Cassidy,M.,Gourvenec,S.AndErbrich,C.(2005)Challengesofoffshoregeotechnical
engineering. Proceedings of the 16th International Conference of Soil Mechanics and
Geotechnicalengineering,Osaka,Japan.1:Pp.123176.
Reid,J.B.,Evans,P.G.H.andNorthridge,S.P.2003.AtlasofCetaceanDistributioninNorthWest
EuropeanWaters.76pp.,includingcolourphotographsandmaps.ISBN1861075502.
Availableathttp://jncc.defra.gov.uk/page2713
Reach,I.S.,Cooper,W.S.,Firth,A.J.,Langman,R.J,LloydJones,D.,Lowe,S.A.andWarner,I.C.,2012.
A Review of Marine Environmental Considerations associated with Concrete Gravity Base
FoundationsinOffshoreWindDevelopments.AreportforThe ConcreteCentrebyMarine
SpaceLimited,160pp.
Rexstad, E & Buckland, S. 2012. Displacement analysis boat surveys Kentish Flats. Report
commissioned by the Strategic Ornithological Support Services arrangement between The
Crown Estates and the British Trust for Ornithology: SOSS 1A Displacement1CREEM,
University
of
St.
Andrews.
Also
available
here:
http://www.bto.org/sites/default/files/u28/downloads/Projects/Final_Report_SOSS01A.pdf
[lastaccessed20/08/2013]
Robinson, S.P and Lepper, P.A. 2013. Scoping study: Review of current knowledge of underwater
noiseemissionsfromwaveandtidalstreamenergydevices.AreporttoTheCrownEstate,
August,2013.
Sage,B.1979.FlareupoverNorthSeabirds.NewScientist,81:464466.
SanjeevMalhotra(2011).Selection,DesignandConstructionofOffshoreWindTurbineFoundations,
Wind Turbines, Dr. Ibrahim AlBahadly (Ed.), ISBN: 9789533072210, InTech, DOI:
Page37of51
10.5772/15461.
Available
from:
http://www.intechopen.com/books/wind
turbines/selectiondesignandconstructionofoffshorewindturbinefoundations
SCNA,2012.Guidanceforstaffadvisingonthepotentialriskofsealcorkscrewinjuries.Guidance
notetoStatutoryNatureConservationAgencies(SCNA)staff.unpublished.
Sims,D.W.&Merrett,D.A.(1997).Determinationofzooplanktoncharacteristicsinthepresenceof
surface feeding basking sharks (Cetorhinus maximus) Marine Ecology Progress Series, 158,
297302
Sims,D.W.andQuayle,V.A.1998.Selectiveforagingbehaviourofbaskingsharksonzooplanktonina
smallscalefront.Nature393(6684):460464.
Sims, D. W., (1999). Threshold foraging behaviour of basking sharks on zooplankton: life on an
energeticknifeedge?ProceedingsoftheRoyalSocietyofLondonB:BiologicalSciences,266,
14371443.
Sims,D.W.&Reid,P.C.,(2002).Congruenttrendsinlongtermzooplanktondeclineinthenorth
east Atlantic and basking shark (Cetorhinus maximus) fishery catches off west Ireland.
FisheriesOceanography11,5963.
Sims,D.W.,Southall,E.J.,Tarling,G.A.andMetcalfe,J.D.2005.Habitatspecificnormalandreverse
diel vertical migration in the planktonfeeding basking shark. Journal of Animal Ecology
74(4):755761.
Sims,D.W.,Witt,M.J.,Richardson,A.J.,Southall,E.J.,&Metcalfe,J.D.(2006)Encountersuccessof
freerangingmarinepredatormovementsacrossadynamicpreylandscape.Proceedingsof
theRoyalSocietyB273,11951201.
Sims, D.W. 2008. Sieving a living: a review of the biology, ecology and conservation status of the
plankton feeding basking shark Cetorhinus maximus. Advances in Marine Biology 54: 171
219.
Skov,H.,Durinck,J.,Leopold,M.F.,andTasker,M.L.1995.ImportantBirdAreasforseabirdsinthe
NorthSea.RSPB,Sandy,UK.
Southall, E.J.,Sims, D.W., Metcalfe,J.D.,Doyle,J.I.,Fanshawe, S., Lacey, C.,Shrimpton, J.,Solandt,
J.L.andSpeedie,C.D.2005.SpatialdistributionpatternsofbaskingsharksontheEuropean
shelf:preliminarycomparisonofsatellitetaggeolocation,surveyandpublicsightingsdata.J.
Mar.Biol.Ass.U.K.85:10831088.
Southall, B.L., Bowles, A.E., Ellison, W.T., Finneran, J., Gentry, R., Green, C.R., Kastak, C.R., Ketten,
D.R., Miller, J.H., Nachtigall, P.E., Richardson, W.J., Thomas, J.A. and Tyack, P.L., (2007).
Marinemammalnoiseexposurecriteria.AquaticMammals,33,411521.
Speakman,J.,Gray,H.,andFurness,L.2009.Effectsofoffshorewindfarmsontheenergydemands
onseabirds.UniversityofAberdeenreporttoDECC.URN09D/800.
Speedie, C.D., Johnson, L.A. and Witt, M.J. 2009. Basking Shark Hotspots on the West Coast of
Scotland: Key sites, threats and implications for conservation of the species. SNH
CommissionedReportNo.339.
Stephan,E.,Gadenne,H.,andJung,A.(2011).SatellitetrackingofbaskingsharksintheNortheast
Atlanticocean.APECSFinalreport.
Tasker,M.L.,HopeJones,P.,Blake,B.F.,Dixon,T.J.,andWallis,A.W.1986.Seabirdsassociatedwith
oilproductionplatformsintheNorthSea.RingingandMigration,7:714.
Thaxter, C.B., Lascelles, B., Sugar, K., Cook, A.S.C.P., Roos, S., Bolton, M., Langston, R.H.W., and
Burton,N.H.K.2012.Seabirdforagingrangesasapreliminarytoolforidentifyingcandidate
MarineProtectedAreas.BiologicalConservation,156:5361.
Thompson,D.,Bexton,S.,Brownlow,A.,Wood,D.,Patterson,T.,Pye,K.,Lonergan,M.andMilne,R.
2010.ReportonrecentsealmortalitiesinUKwaterscausedbyextensivelacerations.SMRU
Page38of51
Report
which
can
be
andrews.ac.uk/newsItem.aspx?ni=308.
downloaded
from
http://www.smru.st
Tulp,I.,Schekkerman,J.K.,Larsen,J.K.,vanderWinden,J.,vandeHaterd,R.J.W.,vanHorssen,P.,
Dirksen,S.,andSpaans,A.L.1999.Nocturnalflightactivityofseaducksnearthewindfarm
Tuno Knob in the Kattegat. Bureau Waardenburg bv, Report 99.64, Culemborg, the
Netherlands.
Valeiras,J.,Lopez,A.andGarcia,M.2001.Geographicalseasonaloccurrenceandincidentalfishing
capturesofbaskingsharkCetorhinusmaximus(Chondricthyes:Cetorhinidae).Journalofthe
MarineBiologicalAssociationoftheUnitedKingdom81(1):183184.
Wiese,F.,Montevechi,W.A.,Davoren,G.K.,Huettmann,F.,Diamond,A.W.&Linke,J.2001.Seabirds
at risk around offshore oil platforms in the Northwest Atlantic. Marine Pollution Bulletin,
42:12851290.
Wilhelmsson, D., Yahya, S.A.S., and hman, M.C. 2006b. Effects of highrelief structures on cold
temperatefishassemblages:afieldexperiment.MarineBiologicalresearch,2:136147.
Wilhelmsson, D. (2009) Aspects of offshore renewable energy and the alterations of marine
habitats.Doctoralthesis.Stockholm:DepartmentofZoology,StockholmUniversity.
Wilhelmsson,D.2012.Effectsofalteredhabitatsandfishingpracticesinwindandwavefarms.Proc
OregonMarRenewableEnergyEnvironSciConf,Nov2829,2012,Corvallis,OR.
Witt, M. J., Hardy, T., Johnson, L., McClellan., Pikesley, S. K et al., 2012. Basking sharks in the
northeast Atlantic: spatiotemporal trends from sightings in UK waters. Marine Ecology
ProgressSeries,459:121134.
Wolfson, A., Van Blaricom, G., Davis, N., and Lewbel, G.S. 1979. The marine life of an offshore oil
platform.MarineEcologyProgressSeries,1:8189.
Wright,L.J.,RossSmith,V.H.,Austin,G.E.,Massimino,D.,Dadam,D.,Cook,A.S.C.P.,Calbrade,N.A.,
andBurton,N.H.K.2012.Assessingtheriskofoffshorewindfarmdevelopmenttomigratory
birds designated as features of UK Special Protection Areas (and other Annex 1 species).
Strategic Ornithological Support Services Project SOSS05. BTO Research Report No. 592.
BTO,Thetford.
www.floatec.com/images/posters/Offshore2010TLPPoster.pdf
www.gicon.de
www.glosten.com/pdfs/pelastar_anchors_v01p.pdf
www.menck.com
www.statoil.com
Zucco,C.,Wende,W., Merck,T.,Kochling,I., and Koppel, J. 2006. Ecologicalresearch on Offshore
WindFarms:InternationalExchangeofExperiences.PartB:LiteratureReviewofEcological
Impacts.BfNSkripten186,2006.
Page39of51
6 Annexes
16
16
16
16
18
13
13
7
7
16
12
17
17
16
17
11
11
15
5
5
5
5
5
4
4
4
4
0
0
2
2
16
4
4
5
5
5
5
5
5
4
4
4
4
3
3
1
1
3
4
4
3
2
2
3
3
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
3
3
4
4
2
1
1
1
213
213
240
240
240
139
139
84
84
48
0
0
91
85
725
103
103
150
5
5
5
5
5
3
3
3
3
1
1
1
1
2
4
4
3
4
4
4
4
3
4
4
4
4
1
1
1
1
1
3
3
3
Disturbance species concern index

value
Flexibilityinhabitatuse
***
***
***
***
***
**
**
**
?
?
?
***
**?
**
**
***
**
**
**
***
***
***
Disturbance by ship and helicopter

traffic
**
**
*
*
**
*
*
*
?
?
?
***
?
*
*
***
**
**
**
**
*
*
Collision species concern index

value
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
?
?
?
**
**
**
**
*
**
**
**
Nightflight
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
*
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
*
**
**
**
*
*
*
%timeflying
***
***
***
***
***
**
**
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
**
*
*
*
Flightagility
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
**
**
**
*
***
***
***
Flight%atbladeheight
43.3
43.3
44
44
23.3
23.3
19.3
19.3
18.7
18.7
5.8
11.9
8.3
10.1
12.5
6
9
16.5
23.3
23.3
26.3
21.7
16.7
16.7
Conservationimportancescore
European threat and conservation

status
5
5
5
5
4
4
1
1
1
1
1
4
4
3
5
1
3
3
1
1
4
5
2
2
OverallRisk
3
3
3
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
5
5
5
5
5
2
2
5
3
3
4
3
3
3
GB/UKmin%
4
4
5
5
5
5
4
4
5
5
5
4
1
3
5
3
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
Adultsurvivalrate
Biogeographicpopulationsize
4
4
4
4
5
5
4
4
5
5
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
3
3
0
0
0
Habitat/Prey
4
4
4
4
3
3
3
3
3
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
4
4
4
2
2
2
Barrier
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
1
4
4
4
5
4
5
5
2
1
1
1
5
5
5
Displacement
2
3
3
1
1
3
3
1
1
2
3
3
3
3
5
5
3
4
4
3
5
5
5
Furnessetal.(2013)
Collisionscore
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
1
1
1
5
5
5
Langston(2010)
SensitivityScore
5
5
5
5
3
3
4
4
4
4
3
3
2
2
2
1
1
3
4
4
4
5
5
5

traffic
Breeding
Wintering
Breeding
Wintering
Wintering
Breeding
Wintering
Breeding
Wintering
Breeding
Wintering
Breeding
Migratory
Migratory
Migratory
Breeding
Migratory
Breeding
Breeding
Breeding
Breeding
Wintering
Breeding
Wintering
Breeding
Wintering
Nocturnalflightactivity
RedthroatedDiver
BlackthroatedDiver
GreatNorthernDiver
SlavonianGrebe
GreatCrestedGrebe
RedneckedGrebe
NorthernFulmar
Cory'sShearwater
GreatShearwater
SootyShearwater
ManxShearwater
BalearicShearwater
EuropeanStormpetrel
Leach'sStormpetrel
NorthernGannet
GreatCormorant
EuropeanShag
BewicksSwan
WhooperSwan
Flightaltitude
Population
%timeflying
Species
Flightmanoeuvrability
GartheandHppop(2004)/Kingetal.(2009)1
32
32
32
32
27
16
16
8
8
1
2
2
2
3
13
13
14
Number of SPAs (assemblage component

only)2
TableA1.AfulllistofallUKseabirdspeciesthatwarrantconsiderationintermsofdeploymentofthePelaStarTLPdesignatademonstratorandcommerciallevels;showntooarethe
number of Special Protection Areas (SPAs) at which species reach threshold population sizes for qualification; the level of sensitivity to different effects are reproduced from recent
reviews ofGarthandHppop(2004), Kinget al. (2009),Langston(2010),and Furness etal.(2013),highlightinginparticularthe effects of collision (green), disturbance/displacement
(purple),andoverallcombinationsofeffects(blue).
9
2(1)
11
6
2
1(1)
6
12
10
6
9
6(1)
8(3)
11(3)
16
18
Page40of51

only)2

value

value

traffic
Furnessetal.(2013)
Langston(2010)
status

traffic
13.3 ** ** *
Wintering
15
** ** *
*** ***
22
Wintering
Wintering
Wintering
Breeding
Wintering
Wintering
Wintering
Wintering
Wintering
Wintering
Breeding
Wintering
Breeding
Wintering
Breeding
Wintering
Breeding
Wintering
Breeding
Wintering
Wintering
Breeding
Wintering
Wintering
Breeding
Wintering
Wintering
Breeding
Wintering
Breeding
Wintering
Breeding
5
5
4
4
3
3
2
2
4
4
3
3
3
4
4
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
5
5
4
4
4
4
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
5
5
5
5
4
4
5
5
3
3
5
5
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
3
3
3
5
5
5
3
3
3
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
3
5
4
4
2
2
4
4
5
5
5
5
4
2
2
1
2
2
3
2
2
4
4
1
3
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
4
4
3
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
4
4
4
4
5
1
1
1
1
1
3
1
1
1
1
8.3
15
21.7
5.3
5.3
2.7
2.7
3.8
3.8
6.3
6.3
6.7
6.7
15
20.4
20.4
13.1
16.9
16.9
27
15.8
15.8
21
21
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
***
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
***
*
***
***
***
***
***
**
**
***
?
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
**
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
5
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
121
117
117
64
96
96
88
96
96
4
3
3
3
5
5
5
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
3
4
4
18
16
16
10
24
24
16
19
19
13
3(1)
19
1
11
1
20(1)
1
7
2(2)
18(1)
1
20(2)
1
19(3)
0
14
4
17
5(1)
0
3(1)
3(1)
1
6(1)
2(1)
1
12(3)
5
10
PinkfootedGoose
GreenlandWhitefrontedGoose
EuropeanWhitefrontedGoose
GreylagGoose(Iceland)
GreylagGoose(NWScotland)
BarnacleGoose(Nearctic)
BarnacleGoose(Svalbard)
DarkbelliedBrentGoose
LightbelliedBrentGoose(Svalbard)
LightbelliedBrentGoose(Canada)
CommonShelduck
EurasianWigeon
CommonTeal
NorthernPintail
NorthernShoveler
GreaterScaup
CommonEider
LongtailedDuck
CommonScoter
VelvetScoter
CommonGoldeneye
RedbreastedMerganser
Corncrake
**
Nightflight
Flightagility
%timeflying
OverallRisk
GB/UKmin%
Habitat/Prey
Barrier
Displacement
Collisionscore
SensitivityScore
Wintering
Adultsurvivalrate
BeanGoose(Taiga)
%timeflying
Population
Flightaltitude
Species
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
*
*
**
**
**
**
*
*
*
*
*
?
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
***
***
**
***
***
***
***
***
**
**
***
?
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
***
11
13
13
8
12
12
11
12
12
Page41of51
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
5
5
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
5
5
4
4
4
1
1
4
4
2
2
0
0
4
3
3
4
4
3
3
4
5
1
1
2
2
4
4
2
2
4
4
2
2
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
1
1
5
5
3
1
1
2
2
2
5
3
2
3
3
2
2
5
5
5
5
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
5
5
4
1
2
2
4
4
1
4
4
4
4
1
3
1
4
1
1
4
4
2
2
1
1
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
14
16
12
12
13
13
16
16
16
16
10
10
18
18
23
23
30
30
35
35
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
327
320
288
288
598
598
960
960
1306
1306
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
5
5
5
5
3
3
3
3

only)2

value

traffic

value
Nightflight
%timeflying
Flightagility
**?
**
**?
***
*
?
*
*
*
*
***
***
**
**
?
*
?
***
*
?
*
*
*
*
***
***
*
*
Habitat/Prey
**
**
**
**
**
*
*
*
*
*
**
**
**
**
Barrier
5
5
5.3
5.3
4
4
4.7
5.3
5.3
7.3
5.3
3.3
3.3
9.9
9.9
5.7
5.7
5.7
6.7
6.7
7
10.1
10
12.4
12.8
7.5
7.5
12
12
13.8
13.8
11
11
Displacement

status
Adultsurvivalrate
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
2
1
2
3
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
OverallRisk
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
2
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
Furnessetal.(2013)
GB/UKmin%
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
2
5
5
3
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
Collisionscore
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
2
3
3
1
5
5
3
3
4
4
4
4
Langston(2010)
SensitivityScore
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2

traffic
Breeding
Wintering
Breeding
Wintering
Breeding
Wintering
Wintering
Breeding
Wintering
Wintering
Wintering
Breeding
Wintering
Breeding
Wintering
Wintering
Breeding
Wintering
Breeding
Wintering
Migratory
Migratory
Breeding
Migratory
Breeding
Breeding
Wintering
Breeding
Wintering
Breeding
Wintering
Breeding
Wintering
Breeding
Wintering
Oystercatcher
CommonRingedPlover
EuropeanGoldenPlover
GreyPlover
NorthernLapwing
RedKnot
Sanderling
Dunlin
BlacktailedGodwit
BartailedGodwit
EurasianCurlew
CommonRedshank
GreyPhalarope
PomarineSkua
ArcticSkua
LongtailedSkua
GreatSkua
MediterraneanGull
LittleGull
BlackheadedGull
CommonGull(MewGull)
LesserBlackbackedGull
HerringGull
%timeflying
Population
Flightaltitude
Species
4(3)
15(3)
6
14(2)
8
12
23(4)
6(6)
8(2)
18
11(2)
8(2)
20(1)
2
15(1)
16
2(1)
13(2)
8(7)
28
5(4)
9(8)
3
2(1)
3(2)
Page42of51
15
15
14
15
15
14
17
13
16
16
13
9
16
35
35
16
7
5
7
5
7
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
4
4
4
3
3
2
2
3
5
5
5
5
5
1
1
1
1
1
3
3
3
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1225
1225
523
245
175
229
198
212
37
32
30
15
27
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
4
3
3
4
2
3
6
6
6
9
9
8
10
10
14
14
16
4
10

only)2

value
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**?
**

traffic
?
?
**
**
*
**
*
*
*
*
**
*
*
?
*

value
*
*
*
*
*
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Nightflight
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
**
**
**
**
**
%timeflying
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
**
**
**
**
**
Flightagility
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
*
*
*
*
*
*
15
16.7
18.3
18.3
7.5
25
20.6
15
13.3
24.4
17.5
12
15.8
22
7
15

status
1
1
2
2
1
4
3
1
1
4
4
1
2
3
1
5
OverallRisk
5
5
5
5
3
4
3
4
4
4
4
4
5
4
2
5
GB/UKmin%
4
4
4
4
1
4
5
3
3
5
4
1
2
4
1
2
Adultsurvivalrate
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Habitat/Prey
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
2
Barrier
3
3
3
3
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
2
1
1
Displacement
2
2
2
2
3
5
5
5
5
5
4
1
1
1
2
1
Furnessetal.(2013)
Collisionscore
3
3
3
3
2
3
2
2
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
Langston(2010)
SensitivityScore
1
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
4
4
4
3
3

traffic
Wintering
Wintering
Breeding
Wintering
Breeding
Breeding
Breeding
Breeding
Breeding
Breeding
Migratory
Breeding
Breeding
Breeding
Wintering
Breeding
IcelandGull
GlaucousGull
GreatBlackbackedGull
BlackleggedKittiwake
SandwichTern
RoseateTern
CommonTern
ArcticTern
LittleTern
BlackTern
CommonGuillemot
Razorbill
BlackGuillemot
LittleAuk
AtlanticPuffin
%timeflying
Population
Flightaltitude
Species
4(1)
20(2)
17
7
26
16
25
22
17(1)
4(1)
13(2)
Garthe and Hppop (2004) / King et al. (2009) / Furness et al. (2013): Flight manoeuvrability: Species scored subjectively from high manoeuvrability (=1) to low manoeuvrability (=5). Flight altitude: Garth &
Huppop(2004)&Kingetal.(2009):1=medianheight05m;2=medianheight510m;3=medianheight1020mandthe90%percentileat<50m;4=medianheight1020mandthe90%percentileat<100m;5=
medianheight1020mandthe90%percentileat>100m;Furnessetal.(2013):presentedaspercentagesofbirdsflyingatbladeheightandiftherewasalackofconsensusbetweenGartheandHppop(2004)and
Cooketal.(2012),flightaltitudewasestimatedtobeconsistentwiththesetworeviews;%timeflying:1=020%oftimeflyingatseato 5=81100%oftimeflyingatsea.Nocturnalflightactivity: Speciesscored

subjectively from 1(hardly any flight at night)to5 (much flight activityatnight); Furness etal. (2013) updatedin linewith morerecent information,moderated byexternal reviewers. Disturbance byshipand
helicopter traffic: Species scored subjectively between 1 (hardly any avoidance behaviour and/or short fleeing distance) and 5 (strong avoidance and/or large fleeing distance); Furness et al. (2013) updated
informationwheremorerecentdatawereavailable.Flexibilityinhabitatuse:Garthe&Huppop(2004)andKingetal.(2009):Speciesscoredsubjectivelyfrom1(veryflexibleinhabitatuse)to5(reliantonspecific
habitatcharacteristics);0=notdependentonoffshorehabitats;Furnessetal.(2013)subjectivescoringfrom1(foragesoverlargemarineareaswithlittleknownassociationwithparticularmarinefeatures)to5
(tendtofeedonveryspecifichabitatfeatures,suchasshallowbankswithbivalvecommunities,orkelpbeds).Biogeographicalpopulationsize:1>3millionindividuals;2>1millionupto3millionindividuals;3
>500,000upto1millionindividuals;4>100,000upto500,000individuals;5<100,000individuals.Adult(annual)survivalrate:1<0.75,2=0.750.80,3=0.800.85,4=0.850.90,5>0.90.Europeanthreatand
conservationstatus:1=secureandnospeciesofEuropeanconcern(SPEC)statusgiven(followingTucker&Heath1994),2=secureandSPECstatusof4,3=localised,4=declining,5=vulnerable.Sensitivity
ScorecalculatedaccordingtoGartheandHppop(2004;seealsotext);fordetailsoncalculationsofsensitivity,vulnerability,andeffectspecificriskscores,seeGartheandHppop(2004),Kingetal.(2009)and
Furnessetal.(2013).
Langston(2010):Collisionscore,Displacement,BarrierandHabitat/Prey*=Lowrisk, **=Moderaterisk,***=Highrisk.GB/UKmin%=forbreedingseabirds,theminimum%oftherelevantbiogeographical
populationbreedinginBritain,takenfromMitchelletal.(2004);forotherspecieswhichareprimarilyofconcernfortheirnonbreedingpopulations,UKpopulationestimatesaretakenfromBakeretal.(2006)and
expressedas%sofEuropeanpopulationstakenfromBirdLifeInternational(2004):*<25%;**2550%;***>50%.OverallRisk=HighestscoreacrossthevariablesCollisionscore,Displacement,Barrier,Habitat/Prey
andGB/UKmin%.
1
2
ScoresforitalicisedspeciestakenfromKingetal.(2009); TakenfromStroudetal.(2001)andJNCC(2010a,2010b)
Page43of51
About us
Cefas is a multi-disciplinary scientific research and
consultancy centre providing a comprehensive range
of services in fisheries management, environmental
monitoring and assessment, and aquaculture to a large
number of clients worldwide.
We have more than 500 staff based in 2 laboratories,
our own ocean-going research vessel, and over 100 years
of fisheries experience.
We have a long and successful track record in
delivering high-quality services to clients in a confidential
and
impartial
manner.
(www.cefas.defra.gov.uk)
Cefas Technology Limited (CTL) is a wholly owned
subsidiary of Cefas specialising in the application of Cefas
technology to specific customer needs in a cost-effective
and focussed manner.
CTL systems and services are developed by teams that
are experienced in fisheries, environmental management
and aquaculture, and in working closely with clients to
ensure
that
their
needs
are
fully
met.
(www.cefastechnology.co.uk)
Customer focus
With our unique facilities and our breadth of expertise in
environmental and fisheries management, we can rapidly put
together a multi-disciplinary team of experienced specialists,
fully supported by our comprehensive in-house resources.
Our existing customers are drawn from a broad spectrum
with wide ranging interests. Clients include:
international and UK government departments

the European Commission
the World Bank
Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations
(FAO)
oil, water, chemical, pharmaceutical, agro-chemical,
aggregate and marine industries
non-governmental and environmental organisations
regulators and enforcement agencies
local authorities and other public bodies
We also work successfully in partnership with other
organisations, operate in international consortia and have
several joint ventures commercialising our intellectual
property
Head office
Pakefield Road, Lowestoft,
Suffolk NR33 0HT UK

Barrack Road, The Nothe
Weymouth, DT4 8UB
Tel
Fax
Tel +44 (0) 1305 206600

Fax +44 (0) 1305 206601
+44 (0) 1502 56 2244

+44 (0) 1502 51 3865
Web www.cefas.defra.gov.uk
printed on paper made from

a minimum 75% de-inked
post-consumer waste
Crown copyright 2012

ETI Position Paper

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

ETI Position Paper

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Cefas contract report C5748

Authors: Daniel Wood1, Freya Goodsir1, Rebecca Walker1

Approvedby&date: AdrianJudd16 December2013

Authors:Daniel Wood, Freya Goodsir, Rebecca Walker

Victoria Bendall, Ines Martin Grandes, Sarah Watts,

Cefas is an executive agency of Defra

Floating devices (other Negligibletolow

Anchoring methods .................................................................................................................... 7

Floating TLP turbines and UK protected species .................................................................. 14

3 Floating TLP turbines and UK protected

Southall etal. (2007) also proposed associatedthresholdcriteria forthe weightedlevels forinjury

Thepotentialforunderwaternoisetobeintroducedintothewatercolumn from fixedfoundation

Forthe demonstratorTLP,five individualtendons ofthickness ca. 200mm extenddown from the

Common eider, longtailed duck, greatcrested grebe, Slavonian grebe, shag,

Floating devices (other Negligibletolow

Disturbance and displacement of seabirds during construction, operation and decommissioning is

Disturbance species concern index

Disturbance by ship and helicopter

Collision species concern index

European threat and conservation

Disturbance by ship and helicopter

Number of SPAs (assemblage component

Number of SPAs (assemblage component

Disturbance species concern index

Collision species concern index

Disturbance by ship and helicopter

Disturbance by ship and helicopter

Number of SPAs (assemblage component

Disturbance species concern index

Disturbance by ship and helicopter

Collision species concern index

European threat and conservation

Disturbance by ship and helicopter

Number of SPAs (assemblage component

Disturbance species concern index

Disturbance by ship and helicopter

Collision species concern index

European threat and conservation

Disturbance by ship and helicopter

Cooketal.(2012),flightaltitudewasestimatedtobeconsistentwiththesetworeviews;%timeflying:1=020%oftimeflyingatseato 5=81100%oftimeflyingatsea.Nocturnalflightactivity: Speciesscored

international and UK government departments

Centre for Environment, Fisheries & Aquaculture Science

Tel +44 (0) 1305 206600

+44 (0) 1502 56 2244

printed on paper made from

Crown copyright 2012

Вам также может понравиться