Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 216

A

Review of Marine Environmental


Considerations Associated with Concrete Gravity
Base Foundations in Offshore Wind
Developments

MarineSpaceLtdinconjunctionwith
ABPmerandFjordr
07/09/2012
Version1.0

AReviewofMarineEnvironmentalConsiderationsassociatedwithConcreteGravityBase
FoundationsinOffshoreWindDevelopments.

DocumentReference:201261.0
Date

Originator

Version

Action

Signature

28May2012

IanReach

0.1

Forclientreview

04July2012

IanReach

0.2

AmendedfollowingGFIG
workshopandTCCcomments

30July2012

IanReach

0.3

AmendedwithGFIGandTCC
consultationcomments

07September2012

IanReach

1.0

Amendedwithfurthercomments
receivedfromGFIG

Coverimage:DONGEnergyandTheConcreteCentre

DocumentProducedFor:
TheConcreteCentre

ProjectManager:

AndrewMinson

PostalAddress:

MPATheConcreteCentre,RiversideHouse,4MeadowsBusiness
Park,Blackwater,Camberley,GU179AB

Telephone:

01276606828

Email:

enquiries@concretecentre.com

DocumentProducedBy:
MarineSpaceLtd

ProjectManager:

IanReach

PostalAddress:

OceanVillageInnovationCentre,OceanVillage,Southampton.
SO143JZ

Telephone:

02380381945

Email:

info@marinespace.co.uk

Web:

www.marinespace.co.uk

AReviewofMarineEnvironmentalConsiderationsAssociatedwithConcreteGravityBase
FoundationsinOffshoreWindDevelopments.

DocumentProducedInConjunctionWith:
ABPmer

ProjectManager:

BillCooper

PostalAddress:

ABPMarineEnvironmentalResearchLtd,SuiteB,WatersideHouse,
TownQuay,SouthamptonSO142AQ

Telephone:

02380711840

Email:

enquiries@abpmer.co.uk

Web:

www.abpmer.co.uk

Fjordr

ProjectManager:

AntonyFirth

PostalAddress:

PostOfficeHouse,HighStreet,Tisbury,SP36LD

Telephone:

01747873806

Email:

info@fjordr.com

Web:

www.fjordr.com

Thisreportshouldbecitedas:
Reach,I.S.,Cooper,W.S.,Firth,A.J.,Langman,R.J,LloydJones,D.,Lowe,S.A.andWarner,I.C.,2012.
AReviewofMarineEnvironmentalConsiderationsassociatedwithConcreteGravityBase
FoundationsinOffshoreWindDevelopments.AreportforTheConcreteCentrebyMarineSpace
Limited.160pp.

AReviewofMarineEnvironmentalConsiderationsassociatedwithConcreteGravityBase
FoundationsinOffshoreWindDevelopments.

Pageleftblank

AReviewofMarineEnvironmentalConsiderationsAssociatedwithConcreteGravityBase
FoundationsinOffshoreWindDevelopments.

Table of Contents
EXECUTIVESUMMARY.............................................................................................................................i
1

Introduction....................................................................................................................................1

1.1

AimsandObjectives................................................................................................................1

1.2

BasisfortheAssessment........................................................................................................1

1.3

Assumptions............................................................................................................................4

PermittingofOffshoreWindfarmsintheUK..................................................................................6

2.1

Round1and2ComparedtoRound3.....................................................................................6

2.2

GovernmentalRequirements..................................................................................................6

ConstructionOptions......................................................................................................................7

3.1

ConcreteGravityBaseFoundations......................................................................................10

3.2

Monopiles.............................................................................................................................11

3.3

Tripod....................................................................................................................................12

3.4

SteelJacket............................................................................................................................13

3.5

SuctionCaissons....................................................................................................................14

3.6

FloatingPlatforms.................................................................................................................15

3.7

ComparisonbetweenStructures..........................................................................................16

HistoryofGravityBases................................................................................................................17

4.1

ThorntonBank1....................................................................................................................20

4.2

Rdsand1and2....................................................................................................................23

ForeseeableEffects.......................................................................................................................26

5.1

Stagesofconstructionandplacement.................................................................................26

5.2

Effects....................................................................................................................................27

5.3

5.2.1

EffectsrelatingtothepreparationofthegroundwheretheCGBFistobeplaced
(ifrequired)...................................................................................................................27

5.2.2

EffectsrelatingtotheemplacementworksassociatedwiththeCGBF........................29

5.2.3

EffectsassociatedwiththeremedialactivitiesrequiredbytheCGBF(ifrequired).....30

5.2.4

EffectsrelatingtothesettlementoftheCGBFfollowingemplacement......................31

5.2.5

EffectsofoperationoftheCGBF..................................................................................32

5.2.6

EffectsassociatedwithdecommissioningoftheCGBF(ifrequired)............................33

ConceptualisationofEffects.................................................................................................35
5.3.1

CoastalProcessesStudy................................................................................................35

5.3.2

ProjectDesignStatement.............................................................................................36

AReviewofMarineEnvironmentalConsiderationsassociatedwithConcreteGravityBase
FoundationsinOffshoreWindDevelopments.

6 PhysicalReceptors........................................................................................................................37
6.1

Introduction:AimsandScope...............................................................................................37

6.2

PhysicalReceptors................................................................................................................37

6.2.1

WaterColumn...............................................................................................................38

6.2.2

SubseabedGeology.....................................................................................................42

6.2.3

SedimentRegime..........................................................................................................43

6.2.4

Summary.......................................................................................................................49

BiologicalReceptors......................................................................................................................51

7.1

IntroductionAimsandScope................................................................................................51

7.2

BenthicResources.................................................................................................................52
7.2.1

NotableBenthicReceptorGroups................................................................................54

7.2.2

SomeKeyAspectsofBenthicHabitatandCommunityResponsestoCGBFs...............56

7.3

FishFaunaandAssemblages.................................................................................................65
7.3.1

ImportantFishResources.............................................................................................66

7.3.2

ImportantInteractionsbetweenFishSpeciesandAssemblageswithCGBFs..............67

7.4

MegafaunaResourcesMarineMammals,TurtlesandBaskingSharks..............................71
7.4.1

ImportantMegafaunalResources................................................................................71

7.4.2

ImportantInteractionsbetweenMarineMammalsandBaskingSharkswithCGBFs..72

7.5

AvifaunaBirds.....................................................................................................................76
7.5.1

ImportantBirdResources.............................................................................................76

7.5.2

ImportantInteractionsbetweenBirdsAndCGBFs.......................................................77

7.6

Noise.....................................................................................................................................79
7.6.1

SensitiveNoiseReceptors.............................................................................................80

7.6.2

ImportantInteractionsbetweenNoiseSensitiveReceptorsandCGBFs......................82

7.6.3

Summary.......................................................................................................................86

7.7

DesignatedSitesandotherNatureConservationInterests.................................................88
7.7.1

NatureConservationFeatures......................................................................................88

7.7.2

ImportantInteractionsbetweenNatureConservationFeaturesandCGBFs...............90

7.9
8
8.1

SummaryofBiologicalReceptors.....................................................................................94

HumanReceptors.......................................................................................................................105
VesselPresenceduringEmplacement,GroundPreparation,RemediationandRemovalof
theCGBF..............................................................................................................................105
8.1.1

8.2

SecondaryEffects........................................................................................................105

CGBFPresenceduringSettlementandOperation..............................................................106

AReviewofMarineEnvironmentalConsiderationsAssociatedwithConcreteGravityBase
FoundationsinOffshoreWindDevelopments.

8.2.1

SecondaryEffects........................................................................................................106

8.3

EffectsasaResultofBiologicalImpacts.............................................................................106

8.4

Fisheries..............................................................................................................................106

8.5

Navigation...........................................................................................................................107

8.6

ArchaeologyandotherHistoricalUsesoftheSeabed........................................................107

8.7

Summary.............................................................................................................................113

CumulativeandIncombinationEffects......................................................................................115

10

Decommissioning....................................................................................................................121

11

Discussion................................................................................................................................122

12

Conclusions.............................................................................................................................127

13

ObservationsandRecommendations.....................................................................................131

14

References..............................................................................................................................133

Appendices..........................................................................................................................................143

AReviewofMarineEnvironmentalConsiderationsassociatedwithConcreteGravityBase
FoundationsinOffshoreWindDevelopments.

List of Figures
Figure1.1:ImagesoftheConcreteGravityBaseFoundationsolutionsfrommembersofThe
ConcreteCentresGravityFoundationInterestGroupvariousGFIGmembers...............3
Figure1.2:FigurehighlightingtheelementsofCGBFsandwindfarmsthatareincludedwithinthis
documentandthosethatarenot.........................................................................................5
Figure3.1:Illustrationofvariousfoundationtypesforusewithoffshorewindturbines.....................7
Figure3.2:Seabedareainteractionwithselectedfoundationtypesfor5MWturbine........................9
Figure3.3:Depthprofilesandapplicablefoundationtypes..................................................................9
Figure4.1.1:BathymetryaroundTurbineD1atThorntonBank,Belgianwaters................................21
Figure4.1.2:GeneralarrangementoftheCGBFsatThorntonBank,Belgianwaters..........................22
Figure4.2.1:PreparationoftheseabedrequiredatRdsand2..........................................................23
Figure4.2.2:DesignoftheCGBFsutilisedatRdsand2......................................................................24
Figure5.1:Effectsarisingasaresultofgroundpreparation................................................................27
Figure5.2:Effectsarisingasaresultofemplacement.........................................................................29
Figure5.3:Effectsarisingasaresultofremedialactivities..................................................................30
Figure5.4:Effectsarisingasaresultofsettlement..............................................................................31
Figure5.5:Effectsarisingasaresultofoperation................................................................................32
Figure5.6:Effectsarisingasaresultofdecommissioning...................................................................33
Figure7.1:BenthichabitatsandRound3offshorewindfarmzones...................................................53
Figure7.2:DiagrammaticcrosssectionofCGBFbase,foundationlayersandscourprotectionfrom
ThorntonBankOWF,Belgianwaters..................................................................................58
Figure7.3:MultipurposebargeThornton1depictedinbackfillandinfillmode................................64
Figure9.1:Flowdiagramforassessingcumulativeimpacts...............................................................116

List of Tables
Table1.1:DetailsofthetechnicalspecificationsoftheCGBFsconsideredwithinthisdocument........2
Table3.1:Comparisonbetweenfoundationtypes................................................................................8
Table3.1.1:OverviewofgenericeffectsassociatedwithuseofCGBFstructure................................10
Table3.2.1.:Overviewofgenericeffectsassociatedwithuseofmonopilestructure.........................12
Table3.3.1:Overviewofgenericeffectsassociatedwithuseoftripodstructure...............................13
Table3.4.1:Overviewofgenericeffectsassociatedwithuseofsteeljacketstructure.......................14
Table3.5.1:Overviewofgenericeffectsassociatedwithuseofsuctioncaissonstructure................15
Table3.6.1:Overviewofgenericeffectsassociatedwithuseoffloatingplatformstructure.............15
Table3.7.1:Comparisonofbroadeffectsbetweenfoundationtypes.................................................16
Table4.1:ExistingOffshoreConcreteStructuresforOilandGasProduction.....................................18

AReviewofMarineEnvironmentalConsiderationsAssociatedwithConcreteGravityBase
FoundationsinOffshoreWindDevelopments.

Table4.2:OffshorewindfarmsutilisingGBFstodate..........................................................................20
Table6.1:Indicativescourprotectionparametersforindividualturbinelocations(excluding
foundationareatake).........................................................................................................44
Table6.2:Totalseabedareadirectlylosttoacombinationoffoundationandscourprotection
requiredfora5MWturbine...............................................................................................44

AReviewofMarineEnvironmentalConsiderationsassociatedwithConcreteGravityBase
FoundationsinOffshoreWindDevelopments.

Pageleftblank

AReviewofMarineEnvironmentalConsiderationsAssociatedwithConcreteGravityBase
FoundationsinOffshoreWindDevelopments.

Glossary and Abbreviations

Abbreviation

Description

BCD

BelowChartDatum

Benthic

Biotope

CCW

CountrysideCouncilforWales

CFD

ComputationalFluidDynamics

CGBFs

ConcreteGravityBaseFoundations

EIA

EnvironmentalImpactAssessment

EIADirective

EnvironmentalImpactAssessment
Directive1997

Epifauna

Epiphytes

FarField

DirectEffects

Definition
Beneaththelevelofwaterthatcharted
depthsdisplayedonanauticalchart
aremeasuredfrom.
Relatingtotheseabedororganisms
thatlivethere.
Anareaofuniformenvironmental
conditionsprovidingalivingplacefora
specificassemblageofplantsand
animals.Biotopeisalmostsynonymous
withthetermhabitat,butwhilethe
subjectofahabitatisaspeciesora
population,thesubjectofabiotopeisa
biologicalcommunity.
TheGovernmentsstatutoryadvisoron
theWelshnaturalenvironment.
Computationalfluiddynamics(CFD)
analysesfluidflowsusingnumerical
methodsandalgorithms
Concretestructuresonwhichwind
turbinescanbeplacedandthatstayin
placeasaresultoftheirweight
Processbywhichtheeffectsofaplan
orprojectontheenvironment,andits
constituentparts,isdetermined.
TheDirectivefromtheEuropean
CommissionthatrequiresanEIAtobe
undertakenforcertainprojects
Alsocalledepibenthos,aremarine
animalsthatliveonthebottom
substratumasopposedtowithinit,
thatis,thebenthicfaunathatliveon
topofthesedimentsurfaceatthe
seafloor.
Marinealgaeandplantsthatlive
attachedtoothermarinealgaeor
plants(oroccasionallyanimals).
Beyondthefootprintoftheprimary
andsecondaryimpactzones
Effectsresultingfromtheplacementof
theCGBFsontheseabed

AReviewofMarineEnvironmentalConsiderationsassociatedwithConcreteGravityBase
FoundationsinOffshoreWindDevelopments.

Anecologicalorenvironmentalarea
thatisinhabitedbyaparticularspecies
ofanimal,plant,orothertypeof
organism.Itisthenaturalenvironment

Habitat
inwhichanorganismlives,orthe
physicalenvironmentthatsurrounds
(influencesandisutilizedby)aspecies
population.
Effectsextendingbeyondthe
boundariesofthedirecteffects,where
theplacementoftheCGBFhas

IndirectEffects
changedthenaturalenvironment
and/orphysicalprocessesthatexisted
priortoitsplacement.
Benthicorganismsthatlivewithinthe
bottomsubstratumofabodyofwater,
especiallywithinthebottommost

Infauna
oceanicsediments,ratherthanonits
surface.
TheGovernment'sstatutoryadvisory
MCA
MaritimeandCoastguardAgency
bodyformaritimesafetypolicyinthe
UK.
Theexecutivenondepartmentalpublic
bodyresponsibleformostactivities
MMO
MarineManagementOrganisation
licensedwithinthemarine
environment
Anyareaoftheintertidalorsubtidal
terrain,togetherwithitsoverlying
waterandassociatedflora,fauna,
historicalandculturalfeatures,which
MPA
MarineProtectedArea
hasbeenreservedbylaworother
effectivemeanstoprotectpartorallof
theenclosedenvironment.
MW
Megawatt
OnemillionWattsofenergy
TheGovernmentsstatutoryadvisoron
NE
NaturalEngland
theEnglishnaturalenvironment.
Withinthefootprintoftheprimaryand

NearField
secondaryimpactzones
Theoutlineengineeringdescriptionfor
thefullrangeofoptionstobe
consideredforconsentandwhich
PDS
ProjectDesignStatement
achievesthetargetgeneratingcapacity
fortheproject.
PIZ
PrimaryImpactZone
Thedirectfootprintoftheproposed

AReviewofMarineEnvironmentalConsiderationsAssociatedwithConcreteGravityBase
FoundationsinOffshoreWindDevelopments.

TCC

REA

REC

SEA

SIZ
SNH

development
TheConcreteCentreisthecentral
TheConcreteCentre
developmentorganisationfortheUK
concreteindustry
Assessmentofmarineaggregate
extractionenvironmentaleffectsata
RegionalEnvironmentalAssessment
regionalseascaleconsidering
cumulativeeffects.Itisanonstatutory
instrument.
Broadscaledescriptionataregionalsea
scaleoftheenvironmentassociated
RegionalEnvironmentalCharacterisation
withmarineaggregateextraction
licenses.
ThisapproachallowsforanEIAtobe
completedonadevelopmentproposal
forwhichadegreeofflexibilityis
requiredinthefinaldesignofthat
projectatthepointofconsent

determination.Theapproachallows

themaximumenvironmentaleffectsof

aprojecttobedescribedbydefining
RochdaleEnvelope

theworstcasescenario.Thisis
(alsoknownasthe
premisedonthefactthatanylesser
EngineeringEnvelope)
developmentscenariowouldresultin
nogreater(andinmostcaseslesser)
environmentaleffectsthanthose
describedbytheworstcasescenario
detailedintheEIA.
Isastatutoryassessmentprocedure
requiredbyEUDirective2001/42/EC
(knownastheSEADirective).TheSEA
Directiveaimsatintroducing
StrategicEnvironmentalAssessment
systematicassessmentofthe
environmentaleffectsofstrategic
relatedplansandprograms.
Thefootprintofeffectsarisingasa
SecondaryImpactZone
resultoftheproposeddevelopment
TheGovernmentsstatutoryadvisoron
ScottishNaturalHeritage
theScottishnaturalenvironment.

AReviewofMarineEnvironmentalConsiderationsassociatedwithConcreteGravityBase
FoundationsinOffshoreWindDevelopments.

Acknowledgements
ThefollowingmembersofTheConcreteCentreInterestGroupforGravityFoundationshave
providedfinancialsupportandexperttechnicaladviceforthispublication:
BallastNedhamOffshoreB.V.

ViciVentusConstruction

SkanskaConstruction

LaingORourke

WindAtBase

VinciConstructionUKLtd

BAMNuttallLtd

SeatowerAS

StrabagOffshoreWindGmbH

SirRobertMcAlpine

HochtiefCostainArupConsortium

AfulllistofTheConcreteCentreInterestGroupmemberscanbefoundat:
http://www.concretecentre.com/technical_information/infrastructure/wind_energy/special_interest_group

TheMineralProductsAssociationisthetradeassociationfortheaggregates,asphalt,cement,
concrete,dimensionstone,lime,mortarandsilicasandindustries.
TheMineralProductsAssociation(MPA)isthetradeassociationfortheaggregates,asphalt,cement,
concrete,dimensionstone,lime,mortarandsilicasandindustries.WiththerecentadditionofThe
BritishPrecastConcreteFederation(BPCF)andtheBritishAssociationofReinforcement(BAR),ithas
agrowingmembershipof450companiesandisthesectoralvoiceformineralproducts.MPA
membershipismadeupofthevastmajorityofindependentSMEcompaniesthroughouttheUK,as
wellasthe9majorinternationalandglobalcompanies.Itcovers100%ofGBcementproduction,
90%ofaggregatesproductionand95%ofasphaltandreadymixedconcreteproductionand70%of
precastconcreteproduction.Eachyeartheindustrysupplies9billionofmaterialsandservicesto
the120billionconstructionandothersectors.Industryproductionrepresentsthelargestmaterials
flowintheUKeconomyandisalsooneofthelargestmanufacturingsectors.

AlladviceorinformationfromMPATheConcreteCentreisintendedonlyforuseintheUKbythose
whowillevaluatethesignificanceandlimitationsofitscontentsandtakeresponsibilityforitsuse
andapplication.Noliability(includingthatfornegligence)foranylossresultingfromsuchadviceor
informationisacceptedbyMineralProductsAssociationoritssubcontractors,suppliersoradvisors.
ReadersshouldnotethatthepublicationsfromMPATheConcreteCentrearesubjecttorevision
fromtimetotimeandshouldthereforeensurethattheyareinpossessionofthelatestversion.

AReviewofMarineEnvironmentalConsiderationsAssociatedwithConcreteGravityBase
FoundationsinOffshoreWindDevelopments.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TheConcreteCentre(TCC)andtheGravityFoundationInterestGroup(GFIG)commissionedA
ReviewofMarineEnvironmentalConsiderationsAssociatedwithConcreteGravityBaseFoundations
inOffshoreWindDevelopments.Thereportinvestigatesthecurrentevidencebaseforoffshore
windfarmfoundationstructuresinaEuropeancontextandalsoreviewstheuseofconcrete
structuresfromotherrelevantmarinesectorssuchasoilandgas.Thereviewfocusesontheuseof
ConcreteGravityBaseFoundations(CGBFs)andrelatesthepotentialenvironmentalfootprintof
thesestructurestootherexistingtypesoffoundationsolutionforoffshorewindfarms.
SpecificCGBFdesignsintendedtocompeteintheUKmarkethavenotbeencomparedsidebyside
withinthereport.Rather,theoverarchingenvironmentaleffectsareconsideredwithamindto
realisticworstcasescenarios.
Thereviewfocusesonthepossibleenvironmentaleffectsandpathwaysassociatedwiththevarious
phasesofthelifecycleofconcretegravitybasefoundations(CGBFs)inthemarineenvironment
including:groundpreparation(ifrequired);emplacementontheseabed;scourprotection(if
required);operation;anddecommissioning.Offshoreandunderwatereffectsareconsideredin
relationtothefoundationstructureitself:powercables,towers,turbinesandrotorsarenot
reviewedorassessed.
Thelikelyreceptorgroupsandtheirprominentcomponentsaredetailed,withanindepthreviewof
theexistingevidencebase,including:thephysicalenvironmentandprocesses(watercolumn,
seabedgeologyandsedimentregime);biologicalenvironment(benthos,fishfauna,marine
mammalsandothermobilemegafauna,birdsandnatureconservationfeatures);andthehuman
environment(fisheries,navigationandarchaeology,includingheritagefeatures).Whilstmanyof
theseeffectsarenotCGBFspecific,effectsmaydifferinmagnitudefromthoseofotherfoundation
typesthatmaybedeployedwithinthesameenvironments.Thedocumentreviewsallknown
potentialenvironmentaleffects,recognisingthelinksbetweenvariousreceptorgroupsand
considerspossible/likelyimpacts,particularlyinrelationtothemarineenvironmentassociatedwith
Round3oftheUKsoffshorerenewablesprogramme.
Thereportdrawsuponthedetailedevidencebaseassociatedwithshallowwateruseofsteel
monopilestosetabaselinecontextthatmostdevelopers,engineers,regulatorsandtheirstatutory/
technicaladvisorsandotherpractitionersarefamiliarwithintheUKi.e.Round1and2offshore
windfarmsandthoseinstalledinDanishandBelgianwaters.Evidenceassociatedwithconcrete
gravitybases,steeljacketsandtripodsisdrawnfromexistingexamplesdeployedinUK,Danish,
BelgianandGermanwaters.
However,itiswidelyacknowledgedthattherewillbearequirementforasignificantnumberof
Round3projectstoconsideralternativeengineeringsolutionstomonopilefoundations,suchas
concretegravitybases,steeljackets,tripods,andsuctioncaissons.Thespatialscaleofeffectsand
resultantimpactsareanticipatedtobedifferenttothoseassociatedwithRound1and2arrays.
ThesearedetailedandcomparisonsaredrawnbetweenCGBFsandotherdeeperwaterfoundation
solutions.Possiblecumulativeeffectsarealsodescribedwherepossible.

AReviewofMarineEnvironmentalConsiderationsassociatedwithConcreteGravityBase
FoundationsinOffshoreWindDevelopments.

Many,thoughnotall,oftheRound3zonesaresufficientlydistantfromcoastlines(50200km)that
coastalimpactstudiesmayrequirelessfocusthanwasrequiredforRound1and2arrays.Deeper
waterattheseoffshoresitesmeansthatanalterationtothelocalwaveclimateandsubsequent
waveinducedeffectsarenotlikelytoimpingeupontheseabedorreachthecoast.Anylocal
changestotidalcurrentsorsurfacesedimenttransportpathwaysaresimilarlylesslikelytointerface
withcoastalsystems.ModellingwillberequiredataprojectspecificleveltoinformanEIA,but
overallblockageeffectsareexpectedtobenegligibleorsignificantlylowerriskthanforRound1and
2projects;especiallyforthosesolutionswithcomparableblockageeffectstothelargemonopiles.
CGBFscanhavealongtermsurfaceareafootprint(habitatlossandalteration)attheseabedsimilar
tootherdeeperwaterfoundationsolutionsonceshadowingofthesedimenthabitatthroughhalo
orfringeeffectsassociatedwiththealternativesolutionsaretakenintoaccount.Theremaybea
shorttermhabitatlossassociatedwithseabedpreparationandsubsurfacescourprotection(if
required).Itisanticipatedthattheseimpactsmaybelimitedto624monthsformobilesand
habitatsbutupto8yearsorgreaterforconsolidatedgravelhabitats.
Inaddition,reefeffectswilloccurasaresultoftheadditionalhardsubstrataintroducedtothe
environmentduringemplacementforallfoundationsolutions.Thismayhaveeffectsonthewider
biologicalcompositionoftheregionandinteractionsatanecosystemscale.
ByfarthegreatestadvantageofCGBFs,overtheproven,viablealternatives,isthelackofdamaging
underwaternoiseemissionsgeneratedduringtheirinstallationandemplacement.Withincreased
requirementsforconsiderationofnoiseinlegislativecontrols,underwaternoisewillbeaprimary
considerationfordeepwatersolutionsforRound3developments.

ii

AReviewofMarineEnvironmentalConsiderationsAssociatedwithConcreteGravityBase
FoundationsinOffshoreWindDevelopments.

1 Introduction
ThisdocumenthasbeenproducedonbehalfofTheConcreteCentre(TCC)andtheGravity
FoundationInterestGroup(GFIG)byMarineSpaceLtd,withspecialistinputfromABPmerandFjordr.
MarineSpaceareanenvironmentalconsultancywithkeyskillsinmarineEnvironmentalImpact
Assessment,physicalprocessstudies,biologicalcharacterisationandconservationreview.
Recognisingtheimportanceofphysicalprocessmodellinginunderstandingtheimpactsarisingfrom
ConcreteGravityBaseFoundations(CGBFs)forwindfarms,ABPmerhaveproducedthisportionof
thedocumentalongwithinputatotherrelevantsections.Specialistarchaeologicaladvicewasalso
sought,withFjordrproducingrelatedsectionsofthedocument.

1.1

Aims and Objectives

ThisdocumentisintendedtoallowtheCGBFengineering/constructionindustrytodemonstratethe
effectsassociatedwithaCGBFandsettheseinrelationtoalternativefoundationsolutions;whilst
highlightinganyidentifiedbenefitsassociatedwiththeuseofCGBFs.Specificconsiderationofthe
causeandeffectpathwaysandfootprintsdescribedwithinthisdocumentwillenableanevidence
based,knowledgeableandindependentviewofCGBFstobepresentedbyindustryanddevelopers.
ThespecificaimsandobjectivesofthisguidancenotearetoprovideTheConcreteCentreandthe
GravityFoundationInterestGroupwithareportthat:

HighlightsthelikelyenvironmentalconcernssurroundingthepermittingofCGBFsinthe
marineenvironment;
IdentifiesotherrelevantguidanceavailableforothersectorsthatmaybeutilisedforCGBFs;
IdentifieseffectsandtheirpathwaysthatmayneedtobeaddressedforCGBFsspecifically,
andalsoidentifyeffectsthatcanbescreenedoutasnotrelevantorsignificant;
DescribespossibleCGBFspecificpositiveandnegativeeffectsandapplications;
SetsthecontextfortheuseofCGBFstructuresaspartoftheUKRound3initiative;and
ActsasaresourcethatidentifiesaCGBFspecificenvironmentalfootprintandprovides
contextforindustry,regulators,statutoryadvisorsandwiderstakeholdersincluding
membersofthegeneralpublic.

1.2

Basis for the Assessment

ThemainsuppliersofCGBFshaveprovideddetailsonthestructuresrepresentativeoftheCGBFs
consideredinthisdocument.ThesedetailswerecollatedbyTCCandarepresentedinTable1.1
below.Theseparametershavebeenusedforthebasisofthisdocument,althoughitisimportantto
notethatasaresultofdesigndifferencesandplacementwithinvariousenvironmentalconditions,
theimpactsarelikelytobebespoketoeachsite.Aselectionofdesignoptionsarepresentedin
Figure1.1.

AReviewofMarineEnvironmentalConsiderationsassociatedwithConcreteGravityBase
FoundationsinOffshoreWindDevelopments.

Table1.1:DetailsofthetechnicalspecificationsoftheCGBFsconsideredwithinthisdocument(Extractedfromtechnical
submissionsoftheGravityFoundationSolutionProvidersforthepurposeofestablishingRochdaleEnvelope
parameters).(ValuesquotedareAverageandWorstCaserespectively).

Parameter

AverageValues
Maximum(WorstCase)Values
A.1Externalsurfaceareaofconcrete
(extrahabitat)(m2)
A.2Elevationalareafromsurfaceof
seabedtowatersurface(coastal
processes)(m2)
A.3Areaofconcretefootprintat
surfacelevelofseabed(lossof
habitat)(m2)
A.3.bInferreddiameteratseabed
(calculatedfromA.3)(m)
A.4Diameteratwatersurface(or
shapeandmaximumprojectedwidth
ifnotcircular)(impactonwave
climate)(m)
A.5Areaofscourprotectionifused
(changeinhabitat)(m2)
A.6Gradingsspecificationoftoplayer
ofscourprotectionifapplicable
(natureofnewhabitat)
A.7Densityofwindtowers(no/km2)
B.1Areaofseabedpreparation(if
required)(m2)
B.2Depthofseabedpreparation
(B.1xB.2=volumeofremovals)(m3)
B.3Areaofseabedimpactfrom
installationvessels(numbersand
footprintofjackupbargespuds,
anchors,andduration)
(Foundationonly,notincludingtower
andturbineattachment)
B.4Aggregatesforballast:
Tonnagerequiredandpreferred
material/specificationifknown(t)
B.5Natureofvesselfordeliveryof
scourprotection:sidedumpingbarge,
steerablevessel,other(accuracyof
placement,knownimpactarea)

35mDepth5MWTurbine
Bedrock

Sands

PERMANENTINSTALLATION
2,825
2,739
4,675
4,675

50mDepth5MWTurbine
Bedrock

Sands

3,421
5,800

3,338
5,800

901
1,690

863
1,690

1,201
2,067

1,145
2,067

865
1,150

900
1,150

1,000
1,386

1,029
1,386

33.2
38.3

33.9
38.3

35.7
42.0

36.2
42.0

6.5
8

6.65
8

6.36
7

6.5
7

AssumedN/A

2,095
3,500

AssumedN/A

2,324
4,005

AssumedN/A

Nodata
supplied

AssumedN/A

Nodata
supplied

1
1.23

1
1.23

1
1
1.23
1.23
INSTALLATION
Variableand
AssumedN/A
projectspecific
Variableand
AssumedN/A
projectspecific
~416m2 per
~416m2 per
jackupand
jackupand
assumingone
assumingone
visitfor
visitfor
foundation
foundation
emplacement. emplacement.

~416m2per
jackupand
assumingone
visitfor
foundation
emplacement.

Variableand
projectspecific
Variableand
projectspecific
~416m2 per
jackupand
assumingone
visitfor
foundation
emplacement.

AssumedN/A
AssumedN/A

7,250
12,000

8,460
15,000

6,700
12,000

7,400
12,000

AssumedN/A

Variableand
projectspecific

AssumedN/A

Variableand
projectspecific

REMOVAL
C.1Areaofseabedimpactfrom
RemovalVessels(e.g.bargespuds)
(m2)
C.2Durationofremovalprocess
(foundationonly)andanyother
detailsthatmayhaveimpacts(days)

TypicallyNone

TypicallyNone

TypicallyNone

TypicallyNone

3.6
7

4.2
7

3.6
7

4.2
7

AReviewofMarineEnvironmentalConsiderationsAssociatedwithConcreteGravityBase
FoundationsinOffshoreWindDevelopments.

Figure1.1:ImagesoftheConcreteGravityBaseFoundationsolutionsfrommembersofTheConcreteCentresGravity
FoundationInterestGroupvariousGFIGmembers

AnadditionalsolutionisavailablefromLaingORourke
3

AReviewofMarineEnvironmentalConsiderationsassociatedwithConcreteGravityBase
FoundationsinOffshoreWindDevelopments.

1.3

Assumptions

Thisdocumenthasalsomadeseveralassumptionswhichareoutlinedbelow:
1

Theeffectsarisingasaresultoftheturbineontheseasurfaceorthestructureinthewider
environmentandseascapehavenotbeenincludedwithinthisdocument.Thereisalreadya
significantamountofdocumentationpertainingtotherequirementsforthisaspectof
windfarmdevelopmentwhichisconsideredinappropriatetoreproducehere.Themost
relevantdocumentistheGuidanceNoteforEnvironmentalImpactAssessmentinRespectof
FEPAandCPARequirementsproducedbyCefasin2004.Thisdocumentprovidesa
comprehensivereviewofthedata,informationandscientificevidencethatwillberequired
bytheregulatortoconsentoffshorewindfarmdevelopments.
ThematerialsutilisedintheconstructionoftheCGBFs(aggregateandcement)havenot
beenincluded.Itisassumedthatastheproductionofaggregateandcementrequires
consenttooperate,theseactivitieshavebeen,orwillbe,assessedunderseparate
legislation.Itisalsoassumedthatanysedimentutilisedtoinfillthestructureswillalsohave
beenconsentedunderadifferentregime.Therefore,theimpactsarisingfromthe
production,transport,useandconstructionoftheCGBFsisnotincludedwithinthis
document.
Shorebasedinfrastructureandcablelandingarenotincludedwithinthisdocument.Aswith
theturbinestructureabovetheseasurface,thereisasignificantamountofguidanceand
informationrelatingtotheeffectsofthelandingofthepowercableandtheinfrastructure
requiredtoattachtothenationalgrid.
Cablestransferringpowerthroughthearrayarealsonotincludedwithinthisdocument.The
methodsforlayingthecablesbetweentheturbinesandtotheshorearealsonotincluded
withinthisassessment.Theseeffectswillbedependentuponthemethodologiesinvolved
andtheenvironmentthroughwhichthecablepasses.Inaddition,significantguidance
alreadyexistsfortheassessmentoftheeffectsofcablesandpipelineswithinthemarine
environment.
Surveysandtheirassociatedimpactsarealsoexcludedforconsiderationunderthis
document.TheserequirespecificlicensestobeobtainedfromtheMMOand/orthroughThe
CrownEstate.TheMMOprovideinformationongeophysicalsurveysat
www.marinemanagement.org.uk/protecting/wildlife/geophysical.Geotechnicaland
ecologicalsamplingsurveysrequireaMarineLicenceobtainedthroughtheMMOwho
provideaseriesofguidancenotesforapplicantstofollow.Theguidanceandapplication
detailscanbefoundatwww.marinemanagement.org.uk/licensing/marine.htm.Inaddition
samplingwillrequireconsentfromTheCrownEstateandshouldbecontacteddirectlyfor
detailsoftheprocessandapplicationformsrequired.

TheseassumptionsarehighlightedinFigure1.2whichshowstheelementsincludedwithin,and
thoseexcludedfrom,thisdocument.

AReviewofMarineEnvironmentalConsiderationsAssociatedwithConcreteGravityBase
FoundationsinOffshoreWindDevelopments.

Figure1.2:FigurehighlightingtheelementsofCGBFsandwindfarmsthatareincludedwithinthisdocumentandthose
thatarenot.

AReviewofMarineEnvironmentalConsiderationsassociatedwithConcreteGravityBase
FoundationsinOffshoreWindDevelopments.

2 Permitting of Offshore Windfarms in the UK


PermittingofwindfarmsintheUKrequirestwoseparatepermits:
1. Thecommercialagreementbetweentheoperatorandthelandowner(typicallyTheCrown
Estate)
2. Thegovernmentalpermitthatconsiderstheenvironmentalimplicationsforthe
developmentandsettingmitigationandmonitoringrequirementsforthedevelopment.

2.1

Round 1 and 2 Compared to Round 3

TheCrownEstatehasofferedfiveroundsoftenderingforoffshorewindfarmstodate.Theseinclude
Round1,Round2,ScottishTerritorialWaters,Round1and2extensionsandRound3.Themajority
ofRound1,Round2andScottishwindfarmsitesarelocatedwithin12nauticalmiles(approximately
22km)ofthecoastlineandaretypifiedbyshallowwater,sedimentseabedhabitatsandrelatively
benignwaveconditions.
AsaresultofthemarineenvironmentalconditionsexperiencedattheRound1andRound2
windfarmsites,steelmonopileshavebeenthefoundationconstructionchoiceforthewindfarms
constructedintheUKtodate.However,asRound3windfarmzonesgenerallyoccupydeeperwater
andmoreexposedconditions,withamixtureofseabedtypeswhicharetypicallyfurtheroffshore
thanthepreviousRound1,Round2andScottishTerritorialWatersarraysandataconsiderably
largerscale.Itislikelythatdifferentconstructionoptionswillneedtobeconsideredduetothe
differentphysicalenvironment.
AsaresultthisdocumentiswrittentoaddresstherequirementsoftheRound3sitesthatareyetto
beconstructedandthereforeconsidersdeeperwaterandmoreexposedconditionsexperiencedat
theproposedRound3windfarmsites.WhilstprimarilyconsideringRound3thefindingsand
determinationsmadeinthisreportmayalsobeapplicabletothosedeeperwaterprojectsoffshore
inScottishTerritorialWaters.

2.2

Governmental Requirements

Therearevariousdomesticandinternationallegislationrequiringtheassessmentofenvironmental
impactsassociatedwithprojectsincludingRound3developments.Moredetailsonthelegislative
requirementcanbefoundinAppendixA.
GenerallytherearetworoutesfortheobtainingofanenvironmentalpermitinUKwaters:
1. Permitsfromsmallprojects(lessthan100MW)canbeobtainedthroughtheMMOorthe
devolvedadministrations.TheapplicationsaremadethroughtheCoastalandMarine
AccessAct2009.
2. Projectsofmorethan100MWmustbemadethroughthePlanningAct2008,whichis
administeredbythePlanningInspectorateforallseaareasunderUKjurisdiction.
Moredetailsontherequirementsfortheenvironmentalpermittingroutescanbefoundin
AppendixA.

AReviewofMarineEnvironmentalConsiderationsAssociatedwithConcreteGravityBase
FoundationsinOffshoreWindDevelopments.

3 Construction Options
Thissectionofthedocumenthasbeenwrittentocompareandcontrastthevariousoptionsfor
foundationsusedinoffshorewindfarmsintheUK.FoundationoptionscurrentlydeployedinUK
watersoravailableforuseinRound3constructionare:

ConcreteGravityBase;
Monopile;
Tripod;
SteelJacket;
SuctionCaisson;and
FloatingPlatform.

Figure3.1providesanillustrationofthedifferentfoundationsolutionsreviewedinthissection.
Figure3.1:Illustrationofvariousfoundationtypesforusewithoffshorewindturbines(adaptedfromSTRABAG
illustration).

ResearchpresentedinTable3.1wasreportedbytheDepartmentforEnergyandClimateChange
(DECC,2011a)andprovidesacomparisonbetweenvariousfoundationtypesdetailingbasic
parameterssuchasdeploymentdepthrange,seabedtypes,andstructuremetricssuchaswidth,
footprintareaandweight.WhereappropriatetheinformationfromTable3.1hasbeenusedin
conjunctionwithCGBFspecificparameterspresentedbysolutionprovidersinTable1.1tosetthe
basisforthesubsectionsthatfollow.

AReviewofMarineEnvironmentalConsiderationsassociatedwithConcreteGravityBase
FoundationsinOffshoreWindDevelopments.

Table3.1:Comparisonbetweenfoundationtypes(fromDECC,2011a)

Weight
(tonnes)
400
750

6+
20 50

20+
3003,500

15 50

6500

15 30

1752,000

10 80

51,2006

1,000
3,000

All,subjectto
foundation
type5

35 60

51,2006

1,000
3,000

Allbutverysoft

50 250

Seabed
conditions

S,G

Upto25
35
35+
0>70

3 5

Clay/sand/
weakrock

5+
Upto10

<20>70

Upto10

<about
50

Upto10

>50

Upto10

>60

Upto10

<20

Upto10

Primary

Turbine
Size(MW)

12300

MSLWater
Depth(m)

4 7

Other

Seabed
footprint1(m2)

Applicableranges

Structure
Width(m)

Materials

Variation

StructuralForm
Main
Type

Monopile

Gravity
Base

Conical
Caisson

C2
C,S3

S,G
S,
Sa/Gr/
R

Jacket

4leg
Tripod

S,G

Suction
Caisson

S,C

Floating

Catenary

S,C4

Tension
Leg

S,C

Artificial
Island

Sa/Gr

S,
Sa/Gr/
R,
FRP
S,
Sa/Gr/
R,
FRP
R/C/S

Firmclay,med
dense
sand/gravel,
rock
Sand/silt/
clay/weak
rock
Clay/sand/
opengravelno
obstructions,
nothardor
verydense
All,subjectto
foundation
type5

3,000
12,000

600
2,000

*S=Steel,C=Concrete,G=Grout,Sa=Sand,Gr=Gravel,R=Rock,FRP=FibreReinforcedPolymer.
includes
pilesandtransitionpiece. Excludesmooringlinesandseabedanchorage.
Notes:
1.Therangeofareasforseabedfootprintincludesanallowanceforpossiblescourprotection
2.Thereisinsufficientinformationavailableforconcretemonopilestoestimatetheupperendofrangesbuttheyare
expectedtobehigherthanforasteelmonopile
3.Gravitystructuresarenormallyconcretebutcouldbesteel
4.Floatingstructurescouldbesteelorconcrete
5.Mooringlinescanbefixedtotheseabedbyarangeoffoundations(anchors,piles,gravityandsuctioncaisson)
dependingonconditions
6.Forfloatingstructures,thefootprintistheareadisturbedbymooringlinefoundations,ratherthanthetotalareaofsea
bedbeneaththestructure.

DuringthedevelopmentofUKRound1and2offshorewindfarmprojectstherehasbeenageneral
presumptionthatCGBFspresenttheworstcasescenarioregardingtotaldirectareaofseabed
contact/lossunderthefootprintofthefoundationstructure(seeTable3.1).Thisrelatestoadirect
lossofseabedhabitatsandassociatedcommunities,bothindividuallyperfoundationand
cumulatively;eitherwithinanarrayorbetweenwindfarms.However,alterationoftheseabedand
lossofsedimenthabitatisnotonlyareflectionofthestructuresdirectfootprintbutalsodueto
areacovered/overshadowedbythefoundationstructureitselfe.g.seabedlocatedbeneaththe
latticeofasteeljacketbutnotunderoneofthefeet.Whenconsideringtheshadowingeffect,steel
8

AReviewofMarineEnvironmentalConsiderationsAssociatedwithConcreteGravityBase
FoundationsinOffshoreWindDevelopments.

jacketsandtripodscanpresentacomparablesurfaceareaofseabedinteractionthanCGBFs
(Figure3.2).
Figure3.2:Seabedareainteractionwithselectedfoundationtypesfor5MWturbine(adaptedfromSTRABAG,2012).

ConcreteGravityBase

SteelJacket

Tripod

SuctionCaisson

Footprint
seabed
habitatloss

1,200m2

800m2

1,000m2

2,000m2

Waterdepthandseabedgeologyhasaninfluenceontheengineeringparametersrequiredto
provideastablefoundationforturbinesparticularlyregardingturbinesof5MWcapacityand
above.Differentfoundationsolutionshaveoptimaldepthrangesforprovisionofstabilityfor
turbinesalongwithengineeringconstraintsandcostbenefitanalyses.Increasedwaterdepthwill
requiregreaterpenetrationdepthsformonopilesolutionsandthepossibilityoflargerstormwave
loadingsmeansmoreresilientgroutingatthefoundation/transitionpiececonnection.Thisincrease
inwaterdepthwhenfactoredwithlikelyincreasedwaveenergeticswillresultinapotentialshift
fromrelianceuponmonopilefoundationstoalternativefoundationsolutions(seeSection3.2and
Section5.3.1forfurtherdiscussion).Figure3.3illustratesthewaterdepthcorrelationtothe
feasibilityofvariousfoundationstructuresandtheirdeploymentparameters.
Figure3.3:Depthprofilesandapplicablefoundationtypes(adaptedfromDECC,2011a).

AReviewofMarineEnvironmentalConsiderationsassociatedwithConcreteGravityBase
FoundationsinOffshoreWindDevelopments.

Attheendofeachofthefollowingsubsections,thebasestructureiscomparedtoCGBFsin
environmentalterms,andsuitabilityforusewithincertainmarineenvironments.

3.1

Concrete Gravity Base Foundations

ConcreteGravityBaseFoundations(CGBFs)arestructuresmadeinconcrete,andinmostcases
ballastedwithsand/gravel,thataredesignedtobeheldinplacebygravity.Thetowersupporting
thewindturbineisattachedtothetopoftheCGBFwhichisdesignedtostandproudofthesea
surface.Thestructuresaretypicallyconstructedonshore,transportedtositeandfinallypositioned
accuratelyontotheseabed.Thereisnopilingrequiredsonoattendantunderwaternoiseimpactsof
themagnitudeassociatedwithmonopiles,tripodsandsteeljackets.Transportationand
emplacementtimeisintheorderof37daysexcludingweatherdowntime.
ThedesignoftheCGBFstructureswillvarydependinguponthedesigner,manufacturerandcritically
theconditionsexperiencedattheintendeddeploymentlocationwhichmaydifferentforany
locationwithinthearray.However,whilsttheirdesignmayvary,thebroadparametersoftheir
designwillremainsimilaracrossthesiteasshowninTable1.1.
Asaresultofthevariedcharacteristicsofthedesignsproposedandtheenvironmentatthe
deploymentlocationforCGBFs,thepreparationrequiredatafoundationlocationislikelytovary
fromsitetosite.Somedesignsarebasedonthepremiseofminimisingtheextentofseabed
preparationwhereasothersrequireseabedpreparationaspartoftheconstructionprocess.There
aresomesiteswhereseabedpreparationormitigationwillbeinevitablesuchasareaswithlarge
(2mplusinheight)sandwavesandareaswithexposedrockatthesurface.Examplesofthepotential
preparationand/ormitigationrequiredareshowninSection4.
Thereforeitispossibletogeneratethetableofeffectsbelow:
Table3.1:OverviewofgenericeffectsassociatedwithuseofCGBFstructure.

Parameter
Experience
WaterDepth
Price
Availability
Maintenancerequired
Groundpreparation(temphabitatloss)
Emplacementweather/conditionwindow
Soundemittedduringemplacement
Seabedfootprint(habitatloss)
Scour
Blockageeffects
Reefeffects
Decommissioning

10

CGBFs
40+yearsofuse
Shallowtodeepwater
Favourable
Favourable
Low
Nonetohigh
Moderateconditionsacceptable
Low
High
NonetoModerate
ModeratetoHigh
ModeratetoHigh
Favourabletoremoveentirestructure

AReviewofMarineEnvironmentalConsiderationsAssociatedwithConcreteGravityBase
FoundationsinOffshoreWindDevelopments.

3.2

Monopiles

Monopileshavebeenthemostcommonlyusedfoundationmethodusedduringtheconstructionof
UKRound1andRound2offshorewindfarms.Monopilesaretubularsectionsofsteelthatare
typicallydrivenintotheseabedtoasuitabledepth,ensuringthatthetransitionpiece,towerand
turbineplacedatopofthestructurearestable.Steelmonopilesaretypicallypiledrivenintosandy
seabedsbyusingalargehammeroracombinationofhammeringanddrillingwheresubseabed
geologyisharder.StrikeratesvarydependinguponthelocalseabedconditionsbutZuccoetal.
(2006)andRPSEnergyandRWENPowerRenewables(2011)recordedarangeof2040strikesper
minutefordurationsbetween1.54hrspermonopile(insandyseabeds).Themonopilesmaytake
between10007000strikestoinstallthemtooperationaldepth(Zuccoetal.,2006).Thisrange
accountsforvariationsinsubsurfacegeologyandalsodifferencesinmonopilediameters(46m
diameter).CentricaEnergy(2010)reportsthatinstallationofaturbinefoundationtypicallytakes12
hourswithfavourableweatherconditionsandanadditionaloneortwodaysarerequiredto
repositionthepilingvessel/jackupbargetothenextturbinelocation.Pilinghammerscanweigh
225tanddeliverblowforcesof200500kJperstrike(Baileyetal.,2010),withNorroetal.(2010)
reportingpilingblowenergiesofupto990kJ.
Oncethemonopilehasreachedasuitabledepth,thetransitionpieceandtoweraregroutedinplace
andtheturbineisthensecuredatop.Monopilestendtocreateagreaterscourareathantheother
structuresandtakelongertoinstallonsiteinmanycases.Inaddition,monopilestructuresareless
suitedtodeepwaterdepthsastheycanbecomeunstableduetohydrodynamicstressesincluding
susceptibilitytowaveaction(Seidel,2010)andthepossibilityoflargerstormwaveloadingsmeans
moreresilientgroutingatthefoundation/transition/towerconnection.Tallermonopilesarealso
lessstablewhenconsideringtheeffectsofrotorsweepandtransmissionofrotationalforces/cyclic
loadingthroughthetowerandfoundationmakingitdifficulttomeettherequirementsforturbine
operation.Increasedwaterdepthwillrequiredeeperpenetrationdepthsformonopilesolutionsand
resilienceresultsinincreaseddiameterofmonopilesandthickerpilewalls.Thesefactorsmeanthat
longerpilingperiodsarerequiredwithgreatersustainedhammeringusingheavierhammersin
comparisontoshallowwaterinstallation.Thereforenoiseeffectsarelikelytoincrease,andwill
propagatefurtherinthedeepwaterlocationswheretheRound3sitesaretypicallylocated.
Therearealsothetechnicalconsiderationsofactuallybuildingtall,thickwalled6m+diameter
monopilesandtransportingthemfromfabricationcentrestoports(EWEA,2009).Thecostofthe
steelrequiredtobuildthesedeepwatersizemonopilewillalsobeexpensivetothepointthatthey
maynotbeacosteffectivesolution.
Thetablebelowhighlightsthecomparativekeyfacts:

11

AReviewofMarineEnvironmentalConsiderationsassociatedwithConcreteGravityBase
FoundationsinOffshoreWindDevelopments.

Table3.2.1:Overviewofgenericeffectsassociatedwithuseofmonopilestructure.

Parameter
Experience
WaterDepth
Price
Availability
Maintenancerequired
Groundpreparation(temphabitatloss)
Emplacementweather/conditionwindow
Soundemittedduringemplacement
Seabedfootprint(habitatloss)
Maintenancerequired
Scour
Reefeffects
Decommissioning

3.3

Monopiles
Usedextensivelyincurrentoffshorewindfarms
Shallowtomidwater
Favourableinshore,highforoffshore
Favourableinshore,restrictedoffshore
High
Lowifdrilledduetospoilfromdrillfines
Windandwavesensitive
High
Low
High
High
Lowtomoderate
Difficulttoremoveentirestructure

Tripod

Tripodsarethreeleggedstructuresthataregenerallysecuredinplaceusingapiletosecureeach
footthroughapilesleevetotheseabed.Thereistheabilitytousesmallsuctioncaissonstosecure
thefeettosandysediments,thoughthisisnotnormallythefavouredsecurementoption.Tripod
foundationsaretypicallymadeofsteel.Thedesignofthestructureallowstheweightandloads
generatedbytheturbinetobetransferredasaxialloadstotheground,whichmaybeadvantageous
inweakersoils(SchaumannandBker,2005).
Onceinplaceandsecuredthetowerandwindturbineareaddedtothefoundationandgroutedor
swagedinplace.Tripodscansufferfromfatigueasaresultofthecomplicatedjointsandhavehigh
constructioncostsduetocomplexityofdesign.However,asaresultoftheirdesignandnature,the
tripodisconsiderednottorequireasignificantamountofgroundpreparationpriortoinstallation
andtheyaresuitableforavarietyofgroundtypes.
Asformonopiles,pilingoperationsarerequiredforinstallationincludingtheattendantengineering
technicalitiesandassociatednoiseimpacts.Itshouldbenotedthatthreeseparatepilingoperations
perfoundationwillberequiredtoinstallthestructure.Thecompleteinstallationtimetypically
requiresbetween47daysperfoundation,excludinganyweatherdowntime.Theunderwaternoise
impactsassociatedwithtripodinstallationhavebeenscrutinisedaspartoftheGermanBARD
Offshore1project.TheGermanauthoritieshaveimposedrestrictionsupontheconstructionofthis
project,includingperiodswherecessationofpilingoperationshasbeenrequired,tomitigatethe
noiserelatedimpactsonharbourporpoise.
Asaresultthefollowingparameterscanbeestablished:

12

AReviewofMarineEnvironmentalConsiderationsAssociatedwithConcreteGravityBase
FoundationsinOffshoreWindDevelopments.

Table3.3.1:Overviewofgenericeffectsassociatedwithuseoftripodstructure.

Parameter
Experience
WaterDepth
Price
Availability
Maintenancerequired
Groundpreparation(temphabitatloss)
Emplacementweather/conditionwindow
Soundemittedduringemplacement
Seabedfootprint(habitatloss)
Scour
Blockageeffects
Reefeffects
Decommissioning

3.4

Tripods
Experimental/Testonly
Shallowtodeepwater
Highcost
Favourable
High
None
Windandwavesensitive
High
High
Moderate
ModeratetoHigh
ModeratetoHigh
Difficulttoremovepiles

Steel Jacket

Steeljacketsworkinasimilarwaytotripods,althoughtheirdesignwillvarydependingonthesite
conditionsandmanufacturer.Typicallythedesignincorporates34legs.Thestructuresupportsa
centralcolumntowhichthetowerandturbineisattachedandfromwhichthestructuredissipates
andtransferstheweightandstressestotheground.Thestructureistypicallysecuredtotheseabed
usingmultiplepiles(oneateachofthejacketsfeet),althoughsuctioncaissonscanalsobeused.
Steeljacketstendtobecorrodible,inspiteofcorrosionprotectionpaints/coatings,asaresultofthe
largeamountofsteelcomponentsusedintheirconstruction.Inaddition,theyalsosufferfrom
fatigueasaresultofthecomplexityofthestructuresusedandarealsocomplextomanufactureand
oftenmostexpensivepertonneofsteelused(SchaumannandBker,2005).Howevertheycanbe
designedtomeettherequiredoperationallifespecificationsforoffshorewindfarmprojects.
Furthermoregroundpreparationisoftenrequiredforthesestructuresandpilesmaynotbe
completelyremovedattheendofthestructureslifespan(SchaumannandBker,2005).Itisnot
knownifthisincompleteremovalofinfrastructureatdecommissioningofthestructureswillresultin
persistenteffects.Inrecentyearsthesefoundationshavebeenusedatseveraloffshorewindfarms
includingOrmondeandBeatrice.
Asformonopiles,pilingoperationsarerequiredforinstallationincludingtheattendantengineering
technicalitiesandassociatednoiseimpacts.Itshouldbenotedthat34separatepilingoperations
perfoundationwillberequiredtoinstallthestructure.Thecompleteinstallationtimetypically
requiresbetween47daysperfoundation,excludinganyweatherdowntime.
Thefollowingcanthereforebeascertained:

13

AReviewofMarineEnvironmentalConsiderationsassociatedwithConcreteGravityBase
FoundationsinOffshoreWindDevelopments.

Table3.4.1:Overviewofgenericeffectsassociatedwithuseofsteeljacketstructure.

Parameter
Experience
WaterDepth
Price
Availability
Maintenancerequired
Groundpreparation(temphabitatloss)
Emplacementweather/conditionwindow
Soundemittedduringemplacement
Seabedfootprint(habitatloss)
Scour
Blockageeffects
Reefeffects
Decommissioning

3.5

SteelJackets
>40yearsexperiencefromoilandgas
platforms
Shallowtodeepwater
Highcost
Favourable
High
None
Windandwavesensitive
High
ModerateHigh
Moderate
ModeratetoHigh
High
Difficulttoremovepiles

Suction Caissons

Suctioncaissonsarecomparabletoanupturnedbucketandworkbycreatingasealaroundthebase
ofthestructure.Thesedimentandwatertrappedwithinthecaissonisthenpumpedoutforcingthe
caissonintothesedimentandcreatinganegativepressureinsideonceasuitablegeologicalunitis
reachedbeneaththecaisson.Seabedpenetrationdepthsof1020maretypicallyrequiredfora
stableplatform.Thehydrostaticpressurecreatedduringpumpingisusuallysufficienttoachieve
penetrationdepth.Duetotheneedtopenetratetheseabedtoachieveahydrostaticsealthis
foundationsolutionisunsuitableforrockorconsolidatedseabedtypes.
Aswiththeothersolutions,thetowerandturbineareattachedtothetopofthestructurewhich
standsproudoftheseaatallstatesofthetide.
Alimitedamountofgroundpreparationmayberequiredtoachievealevelseabedsurfacehowever
scourandsedimentliquefactionarecriticalbecauseoftheimportanceofmaintainingthenegative
pressurewithinthecaisson.Thereisnopilingrequiredsonoattendantunderwaternoiseimpactsof
themagnitudeformonopiles,tripodsandsteeljackets.Installationtimeistypicallyabout2days
excludingweatherdowntime.
Itshouldbenotedthatsuctioncaissonshavenotbeenusedextensivelybytheoffshorerenewables
sectorwithinthemarineenvironment,butresearchbyHoulsbyetal.(2005)notesthatthesuction
withinthecaissonwithintheexamplesmonitored,haveprovedtobesuccessful.
Asaresult,thefollowingcanbeconcluded:

14

AReviewofMarineEnvironmentalConsiderationsAssociatedwithConcreteGravityBase
FoundationsinOffshoreWindDevelopments.

Table3.5.1:Overviewofgenericeffectsassociatedwithuseofsuctioncaissonstructure.

Parameter
Experience
WaterDepth
Price
Availability
Maintenancerequired
Groundpreparation(temphabitatloss)
Emplacementweather/conditionwindow
Soundemittedduringemplacement
Seabedfootprint(habitatloss)
Scour
Blockageeffects
Reefeffects
Decommissioning

3.6

SuctionCaissons
Experimental/Testonly
Shallowtodeepwater
Favourable
Low
High
Moderate
Windandwavesensitive
Low
High
Moderate
ModeratetoHigh
ModeratetoHigh
Favourabletoremoveentirestructure

Floating Platforms

Floatingplatformsaredesignedtobebuoyantwithinthewatercolumn,allowingthewindfarm
structuretobeattachedabovethewaterlineandhavebeenusedtoalimitedextentintheoffshore
oilandgasindustry.Thefloatingplatformistetheredtotheseabedusinganchorswhichmaybe
piles,gravityorsuctionbased.Theloadingforcesplacedonthefloatingstructurearetransferredto
theseabedviatheanchoringcables.
Anexperimentalfloatingplatformat1:6scalewasdeployedofftheNorwegiancoastin2011
(Weinhold,2012).Sometechnicalissueshavebeenencounteredinstormconditionsbutitis
believedthattheserelatetoscale,ratherthantechnicalfeasibility.
Thefollowingtabledetailsthepaucityofinformationforthissolutiontypeatthistime:
Table3.6.1:Overviewofgenericeffectsassociatedwithuseoffloatingplatformstructure.

Parameter
Experience
WaterDepth
Price
Availability
Maintenancerequired
Groundpreparation(temphabitatloss)
Emplacementweather/conditionwindow
Soundemittedduringemplacement
Seabedfootprint(habitatloss)
Scour
Blockageeffects
Reefeffects
Decommissioning

FloatingPlatforms
Twotestbedsonly
Deepwater
Unknown
NoneforUKRound3
Unknown
None
Unknown
LowModerate
Low
Limited
None
Nonetolow
Favourableifanchorsonlyareused,less
favourableifpiledasdifficulttoremovepiles

15

AReviewofMarineEnvironmentalConsiderationsassociatedwithConcreteGravityBase
FoundationsinOffshoreWindDevelopments.

3.7

Comparison between Structures

Combiningtheresultsfromthetablesattheendofeachsectionitispossibletocreatethefollowing
comparativetableofeffectsandusesforeachofthefoundationtypes:
Table3.7.1:Comparisonofbroadeffectsbetweenturbinefoundationtypes(adaptedfromSchaumannandBker,2005;
STRABAG,2012;Houlsbyetal.,2005;Frederiksen,2008).

Parameter

CGBFs

Monopiles

Tripods

SteelJackets

Suction
Caissons

Floating
platforms

Experience
(No.offoundations
currentlyinstalled)

Good
(332)

Good
(1810)

Moderate
(86)

Moderate
(88)

Low
(1)

Trialonly
(2)

All

Shallow

All

All

All

Deep

Good

Restricted

Restricted

Restricted

Moderate

Unknown

Unknown

Unknown

Unknown

Fav

Unfav

Fav

Fav

Low

None

WaterDepth
Emplacement
weatherwindow
Maintenance
required
Price
AvailabilityUKR3

EnvironmentalEffects/Impacts
Ground
preparation
(temphabitatloss)

Neg

Soundemitted
during
emplacement

Seabedfootprint
(habitatloss)

Scour

Blockageeffects

Reefeffects

Decommissioning

Neg=Negligible,L=Low;M=Moderate,H=High,Fav=Favourable,Unfav=Unfavourable
EnvironmentalEffects/Impactsarerelativetobaselineofundisturbedi.e.nofoundationspresent.
Asdeepwatersolution
Somesolutionswhichdonotexceed9mdiametercouldbeconsideredasModerate(M).
16

L
L

M
Neg

Neg

L
H

AReviewofMarineEnvironmentalConsiderationsAssociatedwithConcreteGravityBase
FoundationsinOffshoreWindDevelopments.

4 History of Gravity Bases


Theemphasisofthisreportistoconsidertheuseofconcretegravitybasesasoffshorewindturbine
foundations.Thissectionreviewsthepreviousapplicationsofconcretegravitybasesinthemarine
environment(inaUKcontext).Whilstotherconstructionmaterials,mostnotablysteelandin
particularsteeljackets,havebeenusedextensivelyasfoundationandsupportstructuresinthe
marineenvironment,thehistoricaldetailoftheirapplicationisnotpresentedduetotheaimsand
objectivesofthisreport(seeSection1.1).
ConcreteGravityBaseshavebeenusedforoffshoreformanydecades.Concretestructureshavea
significantadvantageovertheirtraditionalsteelbuiltrivalswhenplacedinthemarineenvironment,
asconcreteisnotassusceptibletocorrosionandrequirelessmaintenance.Therefore,marine
concretestructureshavebeenseenasanattractivealternativefortheoffshoreoilandgasindustry
forthepast40years,wheretanks,bargesandplatformshavebeenconstructedusingconcrete.
SomeearlyexamplesofconcretestructuresexistoffshorearoundtheUKcoast,suchastheNab
Tower(installedin1920),andalsovariousNavalFortsintheOuterThames,howevertheseareoften
singlestructuresratherthanagroupofseveralstructures.
ThecurrentCGBFsolutionshavebeenresearchedanddevelopedusingexperiencederivedprimarily
fromtheoilandgasindustry.Thefirstconcretestructureutilisedbytheoffshoreoilandgasindustry
wasatankforstorageofoilintheNorwegiansectoroftheNorthSea.Shortlyafterthisinthemid
1970s,thefirstgravitybasestructureswereutilisedinbyplatformsintheNorthSea.BerylAand
BrentBwerebothlargeplatformsinitiatedin1975inwaterdepthsinexcessof100m.
Over50majoroffshoreconcretestructureshavebeenbuiltworldwide(seeTable4.1).Designsfor
upto300mwaterdepthhavebeeninstalled,suchasTroll,butthemajorityofrecentplatformshave
beeninwaterdepthsmorecomparablewiththeRound3windfarms.Thetrendforshallowerwater
platforminstallationcommencedwiththeRavenspurnNorthplatform,installedin1989inthe
Hornseazone,andtheconstructionfeaturesofthesesmallerplatformsareevidentintheCGBFs
nowbeingproposed.

17

AReviewofMarineEnvironmentalConsiderationsassociatedwithConcreteGravityBase
FoundationsinOffshoreWindDevelopments.

Table4.1:ExistingOffshoreConcreteStructuresforOilandGasProduction(adaptedfromInternationalFederationfor
StructuralConcrete(fibfdrationinternationaledubton),2009)

Water
Concrete
depth
Volume(m3)
(m)

No

Installation
year

Original
Operator

Field/Unit

PlatformType

1973

Phillips

Ekofisk

Caisson.JarlanWall

71

80,000

NorthSea
(N)

1974

Atlantic
Richfield

ArdjunaField

LPGBarge

43

9,200

Indonesia

1975

Mobil

BerylA

GBS3shafts

118

52,000

1975

Shell

BrentB

GBS3shafts

140

64,000

1975

Elf

FriggCDPI

GBS1shaft.JarlanWall

104

60,000

1976

Shell

BrentD

GBS3shafts

140

68,000

1976

Elf

FriggTPI

GBS2shafts

104

49,000

1976

Elf

94

60,000

1977

Shell

DunlinA

GBS4shafts

153

90,000

10

1977

Elf

FriggTCP2

GBS3shafts

104

50,000

11

1977

Mobil

StatfjordA

GBS3shafts

145

87,000

12

1977

Petrobras

GBScaisson

15

15,000

Brazil

13

1978

Petrobras

GBScaisson

15

15,000

Brazil

14

1978

Pctrobras

GBScaisson

15

15,000

Brazil

15

1978

Shell

CormorantA

GBS4shafts

149

120,000

16

1978

Chevron

Ninian
Ccntrnl

GBS1shaft.JarlanWall

136

140,000

17

1978

Shell

BrentC

GBS4shafts

141

105,000

18

1981

Mobil

StatfjordB

GBS4shafts

145

140,000

19

1981

Dome
Petroleum

Tarsuit

ConcreteIsland.LWA

16

8,800

20

1982

Phillips

MaureenALC Concretebaseartic.LC

92

3,500

21

1983

Texaco

GBSMonotower

25

3,620

22

1983

Texaco

GBSMonotower

16

3,060

18

FriggMCP01 GBS1shaft.JarlanWall

UbaranaPub
3
UbaranaPub
2
UburanaPag
2

Schwedeneck
A*
Schwcdcneck
B*

Location

NorthSea
(UK)
NorthSea
(UK)
NorthSea
(UK)
NorthSea
(UK)
NorthSea
(UK)
NorthSea
(N)
NorthSea
(UK)
NorthSea
(N)
NorthSea
(N)

NorthSea
(UK)
NorthSea
(UK)
NorthSea
(UK)
NorthSea
(N)
Beaufort
Sea
NorthSea
(UK)
NorthSea
(D)
NorthSea
(D)

AReviewofMarineEnvironmentalConsiderationsAssociatedwithConcreteGravityBase
FoundationsinOffshoreWindDevelopments.

145

Concrete
Volume
(m3)
130,000

NorthSea(N)

GBScaisson,Arctic

16

14,300

Sakhalin(R)

GBS4shafts
GBS3shafts

135
141

125,000
101,000

NorthSea(N)
NorthSea(N)

OsebergA

GBS4shafts

109

116,000

NorthSea(N)

Statoil

GullfaksC

GBS4shafts.Skirt
Piles

216

244,000

NorthSea(N)

N.
Ravenspurn
EkofiskP.B
N'Kossa

GBS3shafts

42

98,000

1989
1996

Hamilton
Bros
Phillips
ElfCongo

ProtectionRing
ConcreteBarge

75
170

105,000
26,500

32

1993

NAM

F3FB

GBS3shafts

43

23,300

33

1992

Saga

SnorreCFT

310

7,800

NorthSea(N)

34
35

1993
1993

Statoil
Shell

82
251

77,000
85,000

NorthSea(N)
NorthSea(N)

36

1994

Conoco

SleipnerA
Draugen
Heidrun
Found

350

28,000

NorthSea(N)

37

1996

BP

Harding

109

37,000

NorthSea
(UK)

38

1995

Shell

TrollA

303

245,000

NorthSea(N)

39

1995

HeidrunTLP

350

63,000

NorthSea(N)

40

1995

TrollB

Semisub

325

43,000

NorthSea(N)

41
42
43

1996
1996
1996

Conoco
Norsk
Hydro
Esso
Esso
Ampolex

Suctionanchors,3
cells
GBS4shafts
GBSMonotower
Suctionanchor.19
cells
GBS
Foundation/Storage
GBS4shafts,Skirt
Piles
ConcreteTLP,LWA

WestTuna
BreamB
Wandoo

61
61
54

29,000
14,000
28,000

Australia
Australia
Australia

44

1997

Mobil

Hibernia

GBS3shafts
GBS1shaft
GBS4shafts
GBS4shafts.Ice
Wall

80

165,000

Canada

45

1999

GBS

60

35,000

46

2000

Amerada
Hess
Shell

43

34,000

NorthSea
(DK)
Philippines

47

2005

SEIC

48

35,500

Sakhalin(R)

48

2005

SEIC

30

28,000

49

2001

29

95,000

Sakhalin(R)
AdriaticSea
(I)

No

Installation
year

Original
Operator

23

1984

24

1984

25
26

1986
1987

27

1988

28

1989

29

1989

30
31

Notes:
*
**

Field/Unit

PlatformType

Water
depth(m)

Mobil
Global
Marin
Statoil
Statoil
Norsk
Hydro

StatfjordC
BeaufortSea
**
GullfaksA
GullfaksB

GBS4shafts

SouthArne

Malampaya
GBS4shafts
Sakhalin
GBS4shafts.Arctic
LUNA
SakhalinPAB GBS4shafts.Arctic

ExxonMobil AdriaticLNG

Theunithasbeenremovedanddemolished
bytheendofitslife
RelocatedfromBenufortSeatoSakhalin

LNGterminal
D
DK
I
N

Germany
Denmark
Italy

Norway

NL
R
UK

Location

NorthSea
(UK)
NorthSea(N)
Congo
NorthSea
(NL)

Netherlands
Russia
UnitedKingdom

19

AReviewofMarineEnvironmentalConsiderationsassociatedwithConcreteGravityBase
FoundationsinOffshoreWindDevelopments.

TheworldsfirstoffshorewindfarmwasconstructedinDenmarkin1991andwasplacedonconcrete
gravitybases.AccordingtoLORC(LindoeOffshoreRenewablesCenter2012),16offshorewindfarms
currentlyutilise332gravitybasefoundations.ThesearelistedinTable4.2.
Table4.2:OffshorewindfarmsutilisingGBFstodate(LindoeOffshoreRenewablesCenter,2012)

DONGEnergy

Installed
Capacity
10.8MW

Numberof
Turbines
3

Germany

WINDprojekt

2.5MW

China
Germany
Finland
Sweden
Denmark
Denmark
Finland
Denmark

ShanghaiDonghaiWindPower
ENOVA
Innopower
Vattenfall
DONGEnergy
DONGEnergy
SuomenHytytuuli
E.ON
Vindenergi/HarboreMllelaug+
ThybornHarboreVindmllelaug
Sund&Blt
CPower
DONGEnergy
DONGEnergy
VindparkVnern

102MW
4.5MW
30MW
110.4MW
40MW
165.6MW
2.3MW
207MW

34
1
10
48
20
72
1
90

17.2MW

21MW
30MW
5MW
4.95MW
30MW

7
6
10
11
10

Name

Country

Operator

AvedoreHolme
Breitling
Demonstration
DonghaiBridge1
EmsEmden
KemiAjos
Lillgrund
Middelgrunden
Nysted1
PoriOffshore1
Rodsand2

Denmark

Ronland

Denmark

Sprogo
ThorntonBank1
TunoKnob
Vindeby
VindparkVanern

Denmark
Belgium
Denmark
Denmark
Sweden

SomeofthesesitesaredemonstrationprojectsutilisingGBFsatasmallscaleandothersarelocated
inoffshoreenvironmentssignificantlydifferenttoRound3conditions,butseveraloftheseexamples
arecomparabletoUKoffshoreenvironments,andarethereforedescribedindetailbelow.

4.1

Thornton Bank 1

TheThorntonBankwindfarmwasthefirsttobedevelopedinBelgianwaters.Althoughonly6ofthe
60turbinesplannedutiliseCGBFs,theirlocationinthesouthernNorthSeaprovidesareasonable
analogywiththewindfarmsplannedforUKwaters.
Thoroughgeophysicalandgeotechnicalinvestigationswereundertakenatthesite,including
Sidescansonar,multibeambathymetry,samplingwithvibrocore,boreholesforpressuremeter
testingandconepenetrationtestswiththemeasurementofporewaterpressures.Afterthedata
wasanalysed,foundationpitsweredredgedtoadepthofaround1mcomparedtothesurrounding
sediments.Thepitswereneededtocaterforthelargemobilesandwavesintheareawhich
precludeddirectplacementofthefoundationsontheseabed.
Thedredgedmaterialwasthendepositedatthreelocationswithinthearraytoallowthemtobe
reutilisedforballastinfillduringtheplacementofthestructures.Onaverage,90,000m3ofsediment

20

AReviewofMarineEnvironmentalConsiderationsAssociatedwithConcreteGravityBase
FoundationsinOffshoreWindDevelopments.

wasremovedfromeachofthefoundationsofthestructures(Peireetal.,2009).Following
preparationofthefoundationpit,abedlayerofgravelwasplacedacrossthesitetoensurestability.
Figure4.1.1:BathymetryaroundTurbineD1atThorntonBank,Belgianwaters.Notethefoundationlevelis1.3mbelow
surroundinglevelsandthattheverticalscaleisexaggeratedby4(Peireetal.,2009).

TheCGBFswerebuiltinOostendeandconstructedtobearound40minheightandweighedaround
3,000t.TheCGBFswereliftedoffthequaysidebyaHeavyLiftVessel(HLV)thattransportedthe
CGBFstotheirintendedlocation.Onceonsite,theCGBFswereloweredintopositionbeforescour
protectionandinfilloftheCGBFoccurred.Thesandsutilisedforbackfillandinfillwerereusedfrom
thegroundpreparationworksdescribedabove.Inadditiontothesandsdescribedabove,graveland
crushedrockwasalsoutilisedforscourprotectionandarmouring.Thesewereplacedupto15m
fromthescourprotectionlayer,whichitselfextendedaround10mfromCGBF(Peireetal.,2009).

21

AReviewofMarineEnvironmentalConsiderationsassociatedwithConcreteGravityBase
FoundationsinOffshoreWindDevelopments.

Figure4.1.2:GeneralarrangementoftheCGBFsatThorntonBank,Belgianwaters(Peireetal.,2009).

TheThorntonBankwindfarmwasconstructedin2008.Sincethen,anumberofmonitoringsurveys
havebeenundertakenandreported.Degraeretal.(2010)reporttheresultsofthemonitoring
undertakentodatecanbesummarisedasfollows:

22

NosecondaryerosionwasnotedattheCGBFs;
Sandborrowareaswereobservedinareaswherethefillmaterialwassourcedasaresultof
the280,000m3ofsedimentthatwaslostduringbackfillandinfill;
75taxawererecordedin2008/9,ofwhich42hadnotbeenpreviouslyrecordedatthesite.
Whilstthemajorityoftheseweresubtidal,13intertidalspecieswerealsoobserved;
Poutingwasthemostcommonfishspeciesobserved,inhabitingthescourprotectionlayer.
EachCGBFwasestimatedtosupportaround29,000individuals;and
Nooverallchangestotheepibenthos,demersalfishorpelagicfishwerenoted,however,
Soledensitywasnotedtobereducedwithintheimpactareaandhorsemackerelincreased.

AReviewofMarineEnvironmentalConsiderationsAssociatedwithConcreteGravityBase
FoundationsinOffshoreWindDevelopments.

4.2

Rdsand 1 and 2

Rdsand1and2arelocatedintheDanishsectoroftheBalticSea.Rdsand1isalsoreferredtoas
Nysted1andascanbeseenfromTable4.2,thesetwooffshorewindfarmsrepresentthetwolargest
arraysthathavebeendeployedutilisingCGBFs.
TheCGBFsweredesignedwithaniceconeatthetopoftheshafttoreducethepotentialimpacts
fromseaicethatformsintheBalticSea.Whilstthisspecificdesignisunlikelytobeutilisedinthe
regionsunderconsiderationinthisdocument,thearraydesign,preparationandarrayimpactsmay
betransferrabletotheareasunderconsiderationinthisdocument.
TheCGBFsutilisedfortheNystedandRdsandwindfarmsrequiredafootprintofapproximately
17mby17mandrequiredconsiderablegroundpreparationandscourprotectionasoutlinedin
Figure4.2.1andFigure4.2.2respectively.
Figure4.2.1:PreparationoftheseabedrequiredatRdsand2(AarsleffBilfingerBergerJointVenture,2011).

Foundationsforthestructureswereduguntilahorizonwithsufficientbearingcapacitywasreached.
Typicallyaround32,000m3ofsedimentwasremoved;witharound44,000m3utilisedwithinthe
structureforstabilisationandforscourprotection,asshowninFigure4.2.2below.Intotal,the
gravitybasefoundationseachoccupyaround45,000m2oftheseabed,whichrepresentsaround
0.2%ofthetotalareaofthewindfarmsite(DONGEnergy,2006).

23

AReviewofMarineEnvironmentalConsiderationsassociatedwithConcreteGravityBase
FoundationsinOffshoreWindDevelopments.

Figure4.2.2:DesignoftheCGBFsutilisedatRdsand2(AarsleffBilfingerBergerJointVenture,2011)

ThefirstturbineswithintheNystedarraywereinstalledin2001andsincethenanumberof
monitoringstudieshavebeenundertakentomonitortheeffectsofthewindfarminthewider
region.Thephysicaleffectsofthestructureswaspredictedtobesmallandlocalisedasaresultof
thesmalltidalrange,lowtidalcurrents,shallowwaterandsmallwaveexposure.Asaresultofthe
limitedpredictedeffectsonthephysicalenvironment,noresultsofthephysicalmonitoringhave
beenanalysedtodate(DONGEnergy,2006).Ecologicalmonitoringhasshownthatthearrayhas
promotedcommonmussels,barnaclesandmacroalgaeontheconcretestructuresandscour
protectionmeasureswhichhasinturnattractedassociatedcrustaceansandfish(Boesenand
Andersen,2005).Anydetrimentaleffectstoeelgrassbedsduringconstructionwerenotedtohave
recovered2yearsafterthedredgingevents.Harbourporpoiseswerenotobservedtohavechanged
inpopulationorbehavioursincepriortoconstructionofthewindfarm,buttheconstructiontraffic
wasseentoreduceporpoisesightingsduringthisphase(BoesenandAndersen,2005).Rdsandisan
importantareaforbothharboursealsandgreyseals.Duringoperationofthewindfarm,seal
behaviourandpopulationswereseentobeunaffectedbythewindfarm,indeedpopulationshad
grownbyupto42%2yearsafterconstruction(BoesenandAndersen,2005).Birdactivitywasalso
24

AReviewofMarineEnvironmentalConsiderationsAssociatedwithConcreteGravityBase
FoundationsinOffshoreWindDevelopments.

recordedandavoidanceofthewindfarmwasobservedasitisinotherwindfarmwheredifferent
constructionmethodshavebeenemployed.

25

AReviewofMarineEnvironmentalConsiderationsassociatedwithConcreteGravityBase
FoundationsinOffshoreWindDevelopments.

5 Foreseeable Effects
5.1

Stages of construction and placement

Theinstallationandemplacementofconcretegravitybasefoundationsrequirearangeofprocesses
eachofwhichhasthepotentialtoimpactthemarineenvironmentandotherusersofthesea.These
impactswillvaryintheirseverity,spatialextentandlongevity.Thereare6mainphasesassociated
withGravitybasefoundations:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

PreparationofthegroundwheretheCGBFistobeplaced(ifrequired);
EmplacementworksassociatedwiththeCGBF;
RemedialactivitiesassociatedwiththeCGBF(ifrequired);
SettlementoftheCGBFinthenaturalenvironmentfollowingemplacement(ifappropriate);
OperationoftheCGBF;and
DecommissioningoftheCGBF(ifrequired).

Thepotentialactivitiesandeffectsassociatedwitheachofthesestagesofdevelopmentofthe
CGBFsinthemarineenvironmentaredescribedwithinthesectionsbelow.Thereceptorswhichmay
beaffectedbytheeffectsidentifiedarepresentedwithinthefollowingSections6,7and8.

26

AReviewofMarineEnvironmentalConsiderationsAssociatedwithConcreteGravityBase
FoundationsinOffshoreWindDevelopments.

5.2

Effects

Thefollowingsectiondetailsthepotentialeffectsassociatedwitheachphaseoftheplacementof
CGBFsidentifiedwithinSection0.ThevariouspotentialCGBFengineeringsolutions(see
Figure1.2.1)willrequireadifferentcombinationofthefollowingphasesofworksandassociated
activitiese.g.oneCGBFsolutionmayrequireseabedpreparationandanothermaynot.
5.2.1

Effects relating to the preparation of the ground where the CGBF is to be placed
(if required)

Figure5.1:Effectsarisingasaresultofgroundpreparation

Key:

Activity

Effectonthe
physical
environment

Effectonthe
biological
environment

Effectonthe
Human
Environment

DuringpreparationoftheseabedforemplacementofaCGBFstructureseveralprocesseswillbe
requiredthatmayresultineffects.Effectsidentifiedduringpreparationmayinclude:
a. Dredging.Removalofseabedsedimentorrockmayberequiredtolevelthesite.If
undertaken,effectsofsuchworkswillinclude;
i.
Changestothebathymetryeffectsoftidesandwaves.

27

AReviewofMarineEnvironmentalConsiderationsassociatedwithConcreteGravityBase
FoundationsinOffshoreWindDevelopments.

ii.
Removalofseabedsediment/rockeffectsonbenthichabitatandcommunities,fish
spawninghabitat,fishfeedinghabitat,birdandmammalfeedinghabitat,
archaeologicalsites/artefacts.
iii.
Turbidityeffectsonbenthichabitatsandcommunities,fishspawninghabitatand
activities,feedingsuccessofbirdsandmammals.
iv.
Finesedimentdepositioneffectsonbenthichabitatandcommunities,fish
spawninghabitat,fishfeedinghabitat,birdandmammalfeedinghabitat.
v.
Noisedisturbance/displacementoffish,birdsandmammals.
vi.
Vesselpresence(displacement)accessissuesforotherusersofthesea.
vii.
Damagetoinfrastructuredamagetocables,pipelinesandOilandGas
infrastructure.

b. Depositionofsubstructurefoundation.Thestructuremayrequireamoresolidfoundation
thanthatprovidedbynaturalseabedconditions.Thereforealayerofrockand/orsandmay
berequiredtobeplacedunderneaththestructuretoactasafoundationforit.Thepotential
effectsarisingfromthiselementoftheworkarelikelytobe:
Changestothebathymetryeffectsoftidesandwaves.
i.
ii.
Smotheringofseabedsediment/rockeffectsonbenthichabitatandcommunities,
fishspawninghabitat,fishfeedinghabitat,birdandmammalfeedinghabitat,
archaeologicalsites/artefacts.
iii.
Turbidityeffectsonbenthichabitatsandcommunities,fishspawninghabitatand
activities,feedingsuccessofbirdsandmammals.
iv.
Finesedimentdepositioneffectsonbenthichabitatandcommunities,fish
spawninghabitat,fishfeedinghabitat,birdandmammalfeedinghabitat.
v.
Noisedisturbance/displacementoffish,birdsandmammals.
vi.
Vesselpresence(displacement)accessissuesforotherusersofthesea.
vii.
Damagetoinfrastructuredamagetocables,pipelinesandOilandGas
infrastructure.

28

AReviewofMarineEnvironmentalConsiderationsAssociatedwithConcreteGravityBase
FoundationsinOffshoreWindDevelopments.

5.2.2

Effects relating to the emplacement works associated with the CGBF

Figure5.2:Effectsarisingasaresultofemplacement

Key:

Activity

Effectonthe
physical
environment

Effectonthe
biological
environment

Effectonthe
Human
Environment

a. Emplacement.PlacementoftheCGBFontheselectedandpreparedsite,eitherfloatedout
tositeorplacedonsitefromabargeandbackfilloftheCGBF(ifneeded);
i.
Changestothebathymetryeffectsoftidesandwaves.
ii.
Removalofseabedsediment/rockeffectsonbenthichabitatandcommunities,fish
spawninghabitat,fishfeedinghabitat,birdandmammalfeedinghabitat,
archaeologicalsites/artefacts.
iii.
Turbidityeffectsonbenthichabitatsandcommunities,fishspawninghabitatand
activities,feedingsuccessofbirdsandmammals.
iv.
Finesedimentdepositioneffectsonbenthichabitatandcommunities,fish
spawninghabitat,fishfeedinghabitat,birdandmammalfeedinghabitat.
v.
Additionalhabitateffectsonbenthichabitatandcommunities,fish,birdand
mammalfeedinghabitat.
vi.
Noisedisturbance/displacementoffish,birdsandmammals.
vii.
Vesselpresence(displacement)accessissuesforotherusersofthesea.
viii.
Navigationobstructiontoestablishedshippingroutesandhazardtonavigation.
29

AReviewofMarineEnvironmentalConsiderationsassociatedwithConcreteGravityBase
FoundationsinOffshoreWindDevelopments.

5.2.3 Effects associated with the remedial activities required by the CGBF (if required)

Figure5.3:Effectsarisingasaresultofremedialactivities

Key:

Activity

Effectonthe
physical
environment

Effectonthe
biological
environment

Effectonthe
Human
Environment

a. Scourprotection.PlacementofthescourprotectionaroundtheCGBFontheseabedinthe
appropriatelocationsifdeemedappropriateforthesite;
i.
Changestothebathymetryeffectsoftidesandwaves.
ii.
Removalofseabedsedimenteffectsonbenthichabitatandcommunities,fish
spawninghabitat,fishfeedinghabitat,birdandmammalfeedinghabitat,
archaeologicalsites/artefacts.
iii.
Turbidityeffectsonbenthichabitatsandcommunities,fishspawninghabitatand
activities,feedingsuccessofbirdsandmammals.
iv.
Finesedimentdepositioneffectsonbenthichabitatandcommunities,fish
spawninghabitat,fishfeedinghabitat,birdandmammalfeedinghabitat.
v.
Additionalhabitateffectsonbenthichabitatandcommunities,fish,birdand
mammalfeedinghabitat.
vi.
Noisedisturbance/displacementoffish,birdsandmammals.
vii.
Vesselpresence(displacement)accessissuesforotherusersofthesea.
viii.
Navigationobstructiontoestablishedshippingroutesandhazardtonavigation.
30

AReviewofMarineEnvironmentalConsiderationsAssociatedwithConcreteGravityBase
FoundationsinOffshoreWindDevelopments.

5.2.4

Effects relating to the settlement of the CGBF following emplacement


(if appropriate)

Figure5.4:Effectsarisingasaresultofsettlement

Key:

Effectonthe
physical
environment

Activity

Effectonthe
biological
environment

Effectonthe
Human
Environment

a. Settlement.Settlementinthiscontextistheverticalmovementoftheseabed,dueto
consolidation,postconstruction.ChangingseabedlevelfollowingplacementoftheCGBF
hasthepotentialtocausethefollowingeffects;
i.
Changestothebathymetryeffectsoftidesandwaves.
ii.
Changestotheseabedsedimenteffectsonbenthichabitatandcommunities,fish
spawninghabitat,fishfeedinghabitat,birdandmammalfeedinghabitat,
archaeologicalsites/artefacts.
iii.
Turbidityeffectsonbenthichabitatsandcommunities,fishspawninghabitatand
activities,feedingsuccessofbirdsandmammals.
iv.
Finesedimentdepositioneffectsonbenthichabitatandcommunities,fish
spawninghabitat,fishfeedinghabitat,birdandmammalfeedinghabitat.

31

AReviewofMarineEnvironmentalConsiderationsassociatedwithConcreteGravityBase
FoundationsinOffshoreWindDevelopments.

5.2.5 Effects of operation of the CGBF

Figure5.5:Effectsarisingasaresultofoperation

Key:

Effectonthe
physical
environment

Activity

Effectonthe
biological
environment

Effectonthe
Human
Environment

a. Presence.ThepresenceoftheCGBFpermanentlyonsitehasthepotentialforthefollowing
effects;
i.
Changestothelocalhydrodynamicseffectsoftidesandwaves.
ii.
Increasesinwavenoisedisturbance/displacementoffish,birdsandmammals.
iii.
CGBFpresence(displacement)accessissuesforotherusersofthesea.
iv.
Changestostratification.
v.
Fishaggregationthearraymayperformasafishaggregationdevice(FAD)actingas
arefugeforfishspecies.Theremayalsobeapositiveeffectonforagingsuccess
whichwillalsoattractcertainfishspeciesbothresultinanincreaseofdensityof
fish.
vi.
EcosystemservicecascadefromFADeffectresultinginattractionofapexpredators
(e.g.sealsandHarbourPorpoise)mayresultinchangesatasubpopulationscale.

32

AReviewofMarineEnvironmentalConsiderationsAssociatedwithConcreteGravityBase
FoundationsinOffshoreWindDevelopments.

5.2.6

Effects associated with decommissioning of the CGBF (if required)

Figure5.6:Effectsarisingasaresultofdecommissioning

Key:

Activity

Effectonthe
physical
environment

Effectonthe
biological
environment

Effectonthe
Human
Environment

a. Remediation.ReplacementofseabedsedimentsfollowingremovalofCGBFmayberequired
insomecasestoallowfullrecoverytooccur;
i.
Changestothebathymetryeffectsoftidesandwaves.
ii.
Changestoseabedsediment/rockeffectsonbenthichabitatandcommunities,fish
spawninghabitat,fishfeedinghabitat,birdandmammalfeedinghabitat,
archaeologicalsites/artefacts.
iii.
Turbidityeffectsonbenthichabitatsandcommunities,fishspawninghabitatand
activities,feedingsuccessofbirdsandmammals.
iv.
Finesedimentdepositioneffectsonbenthichabitatandcommunities,fish
spawninghabitat,fishfeedinghabitat,birdandmammalfeedinghabitat.
v.
Noisedisturbance/displacementoffish,birdsandmammals.
vi.
Vesselpresence(displacement)accessissuesforotherusersofthesea.

b. RemovalofCGBFfill/ballast.Removalofseabedsedimentfillmayberequiredtorefloat
orremovetheCGBF.Ifundertaken,effectsofsuchworkswillinclude;
33

AReviewofMarineEnvironmentalConsiderationsassociatedwithConcreteGravityBase
FoundationsinOffshoreWindDevelopments.

i.
Changestothebathymetryeffectsoftidesandwaves.
ii.
Depositionoffillsedimenteffectsonbenthichabitatandcommunities,fish
spawninghabitat,fishfeedinghabitat,birdandmammalfeedinghabitat,
archaeologicalsites/artefacts.
iii.
Turbidityeffectsonbenthichabitatsandcommunities,fishspawninghabitatand
activities,feedingsuccessofbirdsandmammals.
iv.
Finesedimentdepositioneffectsonbenthichabitatandcommunities,fish
spawninghabitat,fishfeedinghabitat,birdandmammalfeedinghabitat.
v.
Noisedisturbance/displacementoffish,birdsandmammals.
vi.
Vesselpresence(displacement)accessissuesforotherusersofthesea.

c. RemovalofCGBF.Thestructurewillneedtoberemovedoncedecommissioned.Thiswill
involveremoving/refloatingtheCGBFfromitsoperationallocation:
i.
Changestothelocalhydrodynamicseffectsoftidesandwaves.
ii.
Changestostratification.
iii.
Smotheringofseabedsediment/rockeffectsonbenthichabitatandcommunities,
fishspawninghabitat,fishfeedinghabitat,birdandmammalfeedinghabitat,
archaeologicalsites/artefacts.
iv.
Turbidityeffectsonbenthichabitatsandcommunities,fishspawninghabitatand
activities,feedingsuccessofbirdsandmammals.
v.
Finesedimentdepositioneffectsonbenthichabitatandcommunities,fish
spawninghabitat,fishfeedinghabitat,birdandmammalfeedinghabitat.
vi.
Fishaggregationthearraymayperformasafishaggregationdevice(FAD)actingas
arefugeforfishspecies.Theremayalsobeapositiveeffectonforagingsuccess
whichwillalsoattractcertainfishspeciesbothresultinanincreaseofdensityof
fish.
vii.
EcosystemservicecascadefromFADeffectresultinginattractionofapexpredators
(e.g.sealsandHarbourPorpoise)mayresultinchangesatasubpopulationscale.
viii.
Noisedisturbance/displacementoffish,birdsandmammals.
ix.
Vesselpresence(displacement)accessissuesforotherusersofthesea.

d. Removaloffoundationmaterialand/orscourprotection.Thefoundationmaterialandany
scourprotectionemplacedmayneedtoberemovedoncedecommissioned.Thiswillinvolve
dredgingfoundationsedimentorscourprotection(ifused)anddisposingofit:
i.
Changestothelocalhydrodynamicseffectsoftidesandwaves.
ii.
Smotheringofseabedsediment/rockeffectsonbenthichabitatandcommunities,
fishspawninghabitat,fishfeedinghabitat,birdandmammalfeedinghabitat,
archaeologicalsites/artefacts.
iii.
Turbidityeffectsonbenthichabitatsandcommunities,fishspawninghabitatand
activities,feedingsuccessofbirdsandmammals.
iv.
Finesedimentdepositioneffectsonbenthichabitatandcommunities,fish
spawninghabitat,fishfeedinghabitat,birdandmammalfeedinghabitat.
v.
Noisedisturbance/displacementoffish,birdsandmammals.
vi.
Vesselpresence(displacement)accessissuesforotherusersofthesea.
34

AReviewofMarineEnvironmentalConsiderationsAssociatedwithConcreteGravityBase
FoundationsinOffshoreWindDevelopments.

vii.

5.3

Damagetoinfrastructuredamagetocables,pipelinesandOilandGas
infrastructure

Conceptualisation of Effects

AsthemajorityofeffectsarisingfromtheuseofCGBFsarerelatedtochangestothephysical
environment,itisimportanttomodeltheseeffectstoensurethatthescaleandmagnitudeof
effectsarefullyunderstood.Themodellingmethodsemployedwillchangedependinguponthelocal
physicalconditionsandarraydesign.Thesectionbelowhasbeenwrittentoprovideguidanceonthe
scoperequired,dependinguponthesefactors.
5.3.1 Coastal Processes Study
Coastalprocessstudiesformanimportantpartoftheenvironmentalimpactassessment(EIA)for
anytypeofproposedoffshoredevelopment.Thesestudiesprovidethemeanstodescribethe
physicalchangesthatmightbeexpectedtooccurinthemarineenvironmentasaconsequenceofa
development,includingthecaseofoffshorewindfarms.
Thedetailedrequirementsforacoastalprocessstudyrelatedtoanoffshorewindfarmarebothsite
specificandprojectspecific,however,therearenowseveralpublicationsthatofferguidelinesfor
themainissuesofinterestanddescribeappropriatemeansforinvestigation,includingtheuseof
numericalmodelling.
Chapter4.7ofGuidelinesfordataacquisitiontosupportmarineenvironmentalassessmentsfor
offshorerenewableenergyprojects(Cefas,2011),providesgenericrequirementsforphysicaland
sedimentaryprocessstudies.Thisguidancealsorefersdirectlytoapproachesforphysicalprocess
modellingdevelopedforCOWRIE(Lambkinetal,2009).Thesedocumentsprovideasauseful
referenceframeworkforestablishingtherequirementforEIAforoffshorewindfarms.
Ingeneralterms,thetwomainthemesofinterestrelatedtoeffectsofoffshorewinddevelopment
oncoastalprocessescanbesummarisedinto:
(i)
(ii)

Sedimentdisturbanceissuesduringconstruction(anddecommissioning)phase;and
Blockageeffectsduringoperationalphase.

Thescalesofeffectsrelatedtotheseissuesinherentlyvarybetweenprojectsandduetodifferences
infoundationtypes,arraylayoutsandlocalenvironmentalconditions.Thelocalenvironmental
conditionsalsodeterminethedesignrequirementsfortheseinstallationsinrelationtomaximising
energyyield,indicatingpreferredfoundationtypeaswellasbeingusedtoderiveloadingsaspartof
foundationdesign.
Atthepreconsentstageitremainsimportantforadevelopertoretainsufficientflexibilityinproject
designandnottosubmitanapplicationwithoverlyspecificdescriptionsofturbineandfoundation
typeorlayoutthatsubsequentlyconstrainthe(postconsent)finaldesignandbuildcontracting.
Insteaditispreferredtodescribearangeoffeasibleoptionsfortheprojectanddocumentan
outlinedesigninaProjectDesignStatement(PDS)(seeSection5.3.2below).Theenvironmental
assessmentisthenundertakenbyconsideringtherealisticworstcasescenario(foraspecifictypeof
impactandreceptorsensitivity)fromacrosstherangeofoptionswhichthedeveloperwishestheir
projecttobeconsidered.Thepremisehereisthatifconsentcanbegainedfortherealisticworst
35

AReviewofMarineEnvironmentalConsiderationsassociatedwithConcreteGravityBase
FoundationsinOffshoreWindDevelopments.

casethenbydefaultalllesseroptionsmustalsobesuitableforconsent.Thisapproachhasnow
becometheexpectednormforoffshorewindprojectsandisgenerallyreferredtoastheRochdale
Envelope(DECC,2011b).
ForRound2andRound3ofoffshorewinddevelopmentintheUKtherehasbeenagreater
tendencytoincludegravitybasefoundationsasoneofthefoundationoptions,whereasinRound1
(smallerarraysinshallowerwater)themainoptionconsideredwascommonlythemonopilecase.
TherearemanyreasonswhygravitybaseshavebeenproposedforRound3;butthemainfactoris
thatthenewsitesarefurtheroffshoreandindeeperwater,makingitpotentiallymorecosteffective
tousegravitybases,comparedwithlargermonopileswiththickerwallsrequiredfordeepwateruse.
5.3.2 Project Design Statement
AProjectDesignStatement(PDS)provides,amongstotherdetails,theoutlineengineering
descriptionforthefullrangeofoptionstobeconsideredforconsentandwhichachievesthetarget
generatingcapacityfortheproject.AprimaryparameterforthePDSisthechoiceofturbineunit.
Here,itistypicalthatarangeofturbineratingcapacitiesisofferedwithhighercapacityunits
requiringlargerrotordiameterswhichtheninfluencethenecessaryspacingbetweenunits,the
numberofunitsandhencetheoveralllayout.Itisalsothecasethatthenewgenerationoflarger
turbineswillrequirelargerfoundationstowithstandalargeroverturningmoment.Thechoiceof
foundationtypemayalsovaryfrommonopile,steeljacket(e.g.tripodormultiple)orgravitybase
dependingonsitelocationandseabedconditions.
ThenumberofpossiblepermutationsoflayoutsandfoundationtypesmakeitimpracticalfortheEIA
toconsidereveryone.Instead,theRochdaleEnvelopeapproachisapplied.ThePDSisreviewedto
determinethosecombinationsofdesignchoiceswhicharelikelytorepresenttherealisticworstcase
intermsofaspecificenvironmentalimpact.Thepremiseisthatifthescaleofthisimpactisnot
consideredsignificantandbesuitableforconsentthenallothercombinations(whichareregarded
tobelessthantherealisticworstcaseoption)shouldbepermittedforconsent.
Whenconsiderationsareofferedonsedimentdisturbanceandblockagerelatedissuesthegravity
baseoptionisoftenselectedastherealisticworstfoundationcase.Themainreasonsthatthis
occursisthat,relativetootherfoundationtypes,thegravitybaseoptionislikelytobelargerinscale
throughthewatercolumn(implyinggreaterblockage)andrequiresawiderfootprintontheseabed,
inpartduetothepresumptionthatseabedpreparationisalwaysrequirede.g.levellingand
foundationpitexcavation(implyingthepotentialforgreatervolumesofsedimentdisturbance).This
premiseisconsistentwithHammeretal.(2010),howeverisshouldbenotedthatsomeprovenCGBF
designsdofallbelowthethresholdsandenvelopespresentedinHammeretal.(2010).Therefore,
asdetailedinthisreport,CGBFsdonotrealisticallyrepresenttheworstcasescenariosinall
instancesandcertainlywhenconsideringunderwaternoiseeffectstheyarethemostfavourable
provenfoundationdesigntomitigatetheseimpacts.

36

AReviewofMarineEnvironmentalConsiderationsAssociatedwithConcreteGravityBase
FoundationsinOffshoreWindDevelopments.

6 Physical Receptors
6.1

Introduction: Aims and Scope

ThefutureuseofCGBFsislikelytoberelatedtotheRound3offshorewindfarmdevelopments.
ThesearetypicallyfurtheroffshorethanthoseexistingandproposedRound1and2developments.
Thissectionwillbringtogetheravailableinformationinordertodescribethephysicalreceptorsand
likelyimpactsassociatedwitheachstageofCGBFdeployment,lifespananddecommissioning.Focus
willbegiventothescaleofeffectslikelyfromasingleCGBFandparticularconsiderationgivento
theseeffectsinrelationtomonopilesolutions.Otherfoundationsolutionswillalsobediscussed,
wheredataareavailable.

6.2

Physical Receptors

TheplacementofCGBFsintheoffshoreenvironmenthasthepotentialtocausebothdirecteffects
tophysicalreceptors(e.g.bygroundpreparation(ifrequired)andplacement)andindirecteffects
(throughmodificationstothehydrodynamicsandassociatedchangestosedimenttransporte.g.
scour).
AlongwiththerelevantEIAguidelines,regulatorybodiesareseekingdeveloperstodemonstratean
evidencebasedapproachtounderpintheirapplicationsforconsent.Anumberofrelevantreviews
arenowavailablethatpresentexistingevidencerelatedtomonitoringtheeffectsofoffshore
windfarmsduringconstructionandearlystagesofoperation,bothfortheUKsites(Cooperetal.,
2008;Carrolletal.,2009;andCefas,2010),andalsofromelsewhereinEurope(VandeEyndeetal.,
2010).
AtthepresenttimethemajorityofevidencerelatestoearlyUKRound1and2projects.Sofarthe
majorityofprojectshaveoptedformonopilefoundationsanditisthepreconstruction,construction
andpostconstructionenvironmentalmonitoringfromtheseprojectsthatformsthecoreofthe
evidencebase.NotableexceptionswhichhaveusedsteeljacketfoundationsaretheOrmonde
OffshoreWindfarmandBeatriceDemonstrationSiteintheUK;AlphaVentusandBARDOffshore1in
Germany;andThorntonBankinBelgium,utilisingorpartutilisingthesesolutions.
TherearenooperatingUKoffshorewindfarmsyetwheregravitybaseshavebeenusedandthe
evidencebaseforthisfoundationtypeispresentlylimitedtootherexamplesaroundEurope.The
bestexampletodateisThorntonBank,Belgium,whereconsentwasgrantedfora300MWoffshore
scheme.Phase1ofthisprojecthasinstalledasinglerowofsixconcretegravitybasestructures,
whereasPhase2and3oftheprojectarenowusingsteeljacketfoundations.Atpresent,the
monitoringevidencefromthisprojectappearstomainlyrelatetoecologicalparametersratherthan
anymeasuresofphysicalprocesses.
Currently,theevidencebaseforlargearraysofgravitybase,steeljacket,tripod,orcaisson
structuresremainspoorbycomparisontoprojectsusingmonopiles.Notingalsothatmonopile
projectsremainrelativelysmall,arelocatedclosertothecoastandaregenerallyinshallowerwater.
Intheabsenceofdirectmonitoringevidenceofphysicalchangethesubstituteevidenceremains
largelybasedontheory.Heretoo,theunderstandingoffluiddynamicsisstrongestforsmall
cylinders(e.g.monopiles)ratherthancomplexorlargershapes(e.g.multipilesorgravitybases).Itis
37

AReviewofMarineEnvironmentalConsiderationsassociatedwithConcreteGravityBase
FoundationsinOffshoreWindDevelopments.

evidentthateachCGBFsolutiondesignwillhavetoconsidermodellingforasinglefoundation
structuretoenableabetterunderstandingofthespecificinteractionsassociatedwithitsdesign.
Thisresearchanddevelopmenthasalreadybeenconductedbysomeofthesolutionproviders,for
theirdesignsconsideredwithinthisreport.
Theexistingevidencecan,however,beusedtoidentifythreeoverarchingphysicalreceptorgroups
thatcanpotentiallybeaffectedbytheforeseeableeffectsofCGBFs(seeSection5.2andtheflow
diagramspresentedtherein):

Watercolumn;
Subseabedgeology;and
Sedimentsregime.

6.2.1 Water Column


Anystructureplacedinthemarineenvironmentcancauseblockageeffect.Inthecontextof
offshorewinddevelopments,blockageeffectsrelatetotheactionofthestructurescrosssectional
areaplacedinthewatercolumnblockingthenormalpassageofflows,wavesandsediment
pathwaysandoccurfollowingcompletionoftheconstructionphaseandduringtheoperational
phase.Thedurationofthisphaseisgenerallybetween25to50yearsandaccountsforthemajor
partoftheleaseperiod.Assuch,blockageissuesneedtoconsiderthelongtermpersistenceof
theseeffects,notingthattheseeffectsstemfrommultiplelocationswithinthearrayatthescaleof
eachstructure.Thisscaleistermedthenearfield.
Blockageeffectsforawindfarmvaryasafunctionofthenumberofunits,thescaleandshapeof
eachunit,theirspacing(crosswindanddownwind)acrossthearrayandwithrespecttothe
orientationorpathofeachprocessbeingblocked(e.g.wavedirection).Alargecrosssectionalarea
singleunitwillgenerallyleadtomoreinterferencethanasmallercrosssectionalareaunit,buta
projectthatisconsideringoptionswithasmallnumberoflargeunitsoralargenumberofsmall
unitsmayhavedifferentlevelsofblockagewhenaddedtogether,anditisnotalwaysimmediately
obviouswhichoptionhasthegreatercrosssectionalareablockagecumulativelyforthearray.
Ifblockagecanbeparameterisedatthesimplestlevelastheproportionalvolumethatagroupof
structureswilloccupyrelativetothevolumeofwateracrossanarraythenitispossibletocontrast,
atahighlevel,betweenfoundationtypesandlayouts.Forallcurrentlyknowncasesthisrelative
blockagevalueisextremelysmall(<<0.1%,i.e.theproportionofwatervolumeinthesitetakenup
byallstructuresismuchsmallerthan0.1%).Ofthecurrentcommerciallyviablefoundationtypes
someofthegravitybaseandsuctioncaissonoptionsarelargestandthemonopileoptionsmallest;
floatingplatformswillhavetheleastblockageeffectbutthistechnologyisunlikelytobe
economicallyprovenoravailableatthescalerequired,orintime,forRound3projects.Between
typicallyconsideredgravitybaseoptionsaflatbasefoundationalmostlevelwiththeseabedhasa
smallerblockageeffectrelativetoaconicalfoundationforthesameturbine.
Changes in Wave Conditions
Waveinducedseabedstressisanimportantdriverofseabedsedimenttransportaroundmuchof
thecoastlineoftheUnitedKingdom.Lambkinetal.(2009)indicatethatifturbinefoundations
significantlyaffectthemagnitudeordirectionofwaveenergyexitingtheoffshorewindfarmsite,
thenthereisthepotentialforanindirectimpactonsensitivereceptorse.g.thestabilityofsandbank
38

AReviewofMarineEnvironmentalConsiderationsAssociatedwithConcreteGravityBase
FoundationsinOffshoreWindDevelopments.

systems(Section6.2.3);scourattheseabedimmediatelysurroundingtheturbinelocation(Section
6.2.3);littoralsedimenttransportratesatthecoastline(Section6.2.3);oronorganismsadaptedtoa
particularsedimenthabitattypeorwavedominatedenvironment(Section7.2.2).Itshouldbe
noted,however,thatwaveeffectsontheseabedindeeperoffshorewatersarerelativelysmall
comparedwiththeshallowerUKRound1andRound2sites.
TheimpactofmonopilesonthewaveclimatehasbeeninvestigatedbyCefas(2005)whousedradar
tomonitorwaveconditionsinshoreoftheScrobySandswindfarm.Thisstudyfoundthatno
constructiveordestructivewavesweremeasurableintheleeofthewindfarm,howeveritshouldbe
notedthatthewaveconditionsduringthesurveyweresmallwhencomparedwithlongerterm
regionaldata(i.e.nostormwaveactivityoccurredduringthesurvey).Associatedmodellingcarried
outaspartofthestudyshowedreductionsinsignificantwaveheightof3%,witharelativelysmall
impactzone(typicallytobackgroundlevelswithinof23turbinespacings),andthemajorityofwave
changesoccurringwithinthelicenceboundaryofthewindfarm.
Thisresearchwasspecifictomonopilefoundations,andCefas(2005)notedthatdifferent
foundationtypesmayproducedifferentimpacts.Cefas(2005)alsoindicated,however,thatwhile
CGBFsgenerallyhavemoretotalcrosssectionalareathanamonopilemuchofthisisattheseabed,
andthecrosssectionalareasattheseasurfacearesimilarinbothcases.Cefas(2005)therefore
concludedthataswaveorbitalmotionsarelargestatthesurface,CGBFswilltendtohavesimilar
impactsonwaveenergytomonopiles,ifthecrosssectionalareasattheseasurfacearesimilar.
EmpiricalevidencefortheeffectsofCGBFsonwaveclimateiscurrentlypoor,howeverinitial
monitoringresultsfromthesixCGBFsattheThorntonBankOffshoreWindfarmareavailable
(DegraerandBrabant,2009;Degraeretal.,2010).Thesedataappeartoindicatenosignificant
alterationtothehydrodynamicsinthefirsttwoyearsofmonitoring.Nomonitoringresultsfromthe
jacketfoundationsattheBeatriceDemonstrationSiteandOrmondeOffshoreWindfarmare
available,buttheEnvironmentalStatementsforthesedevelopmentsindicatelittleimpactofthese
structuresonthehydrodynamics(EclipseEnergyCompanyLimited,2005;TalismanEnergy,2005).
InadditionLambkinetal.(2009)indicatethatsinceRound3siteswilltendtowardsintermediateor
deeperwaterdepthswherewaveactionwillreachtheseabedlessfrequentlyandhavealess
dominanteffect.Lambkinetal.(2009)doesalsoindicate,however,thatsomeexamplesofdeepbut
wavedominatedsitesdoexist,e.g.theCelticSea,whereobservedbedformsarealignedtothe
dominantstormfetch,ratherthanthetidalaxis;andthereforegravitybasestructuresinRound3
environmentsmighthavethepotentialtocausewavediffractioneffects.
Allfoundationtypes,includingCGBFs,willhaveanegligibleeffectonwaveclimateduring
construction,withtheseeffectsrelatingprincipallytothelegsofjackupsusedtoinstallthe
monopiles,oranchoringofinstallationvessels.Waveswillbeaffectedbysheltering,diffractionand
refractionaroundtheturbinefoundationsduringtheoperationalphaseforallfoundationtypes.
DecommissioningofCGBFs,suctioncaissonandpossiblyfloatingplatformsinvolvescomplete
removalofthestructureandfollowingdecommissioningtherewillbenofurtherimpactsofthe
foundationstructure(NB:itiscurrentlyunknownifcompleteremovalofanchorpilesusedwith
largescalefloatingplatformsisachievable).Theremovalofmonopiles,steeljacketsandtripodsmay
leavesomepartofthestructureabovetheseabed,andwhilstthemajorityofwaveactionwillnot
39

AReviewofMarineEnvironmentalConsiderationsassociatedwithConcreteGravityBase
FoundationsinOffshoreWindDevelopments.

reachtheseabedtheremaybepotentialforthesestructurestohavealowlevelofimpactonwave
climatefollowingdecommissioning.
Changes in Tidal Currents
Tidalcurrentsareanimportantcontrolonsedimenttransportinmanycoastalandoffshoreareas
aroundtheUK,andtidalcharacteristicsaresummarisedintheAtlasofUKMarineRenewableEnergy
Resource(BERR,2008).Lambkinetal.(2009)indicatethatifturbinefoundationssignificantlyaffect
themagnitudeordirectionoftidalcurrentsexitingtheoffshorewindfarmsite,thenthereisthe
potentialforanindirectimpactonsensitivereceptorse.g.sedimenttransportontosandbank
systems(Section6.2.3)andthecoastline(Section6.2.3);orwheresedimentchangesaffect
organismsadaptedtoaparticularsedimenttypes(Section7.2.2).
Previousresearch(ETSU,2002;ABPmer,2005;reportedinLambkinetal.,2009)hasshownthatthe
effectofmonopilesontidalcurrentsislikelytobeminimal.Theeffectofthemonopileonthetidal
flowistogenerateawakearoundeachpile.Thepilescauseabifurcationofflow,withflows
acceleratingaroundtheedgeofeachpile,andareductioninflowvelocitydirectlyintheleeofeach
pile.Otherthanintheimmediatevicinityofthemonopilesmodificationoftidalcurrentsdoesnot
occur(Cooper,2010).
EmpiricalevidencefortheeffectsofCGBFsontidalcurrentsiscurrentlypoor,duetothesmall
numberofCGBFscurrentlydeployedinoffshorewindfarmsites.Initialmonitoringresultsfromthe
sixCGBFsattheThorntonBankOffshoreWindfarmareavailable(DegraerandBrabant,2009;
Degraeretal.,2010)andtheseindicatenosignificantalterationtothehydrodynamicsinthefirst
twoyearsofmonitoring.Thesereportsdo,however,acknowledgethatuncertaintiesstillexiston
thepossibleeffectsonthehydrodynamicsandmorphodynamicsinthearea,andfurthermonitoring
isrequired.
Allfoundationtypeswillhaveanegligibleeffectontidalcurrentsduringconstruction,witheffects
relatingprincipallytothelegsofjackupsusedtoinstallthemonopiles,oranchoringofinstallation
vessels.Tidalcurrentsmaybeaffectedbytheturbinefoundationsduringtheoperationalphaseof
allfoundationtypesincludingCGBFs.DecommissioningofCGBFs,suctioncaissonandpossibly
floatingplatformsinvolvescompleteremovalofthestructureandfollowingdecommissioningthere
willbenofurtherimpactsontidalcurrents(NB:itiscurrentlyunknownifcompleteremovalof
anchorpilesusedwithlargescalefloatingplatformsisachievable).Theremovalofmonopiles,steel
jacketsandtripodsmayleavesomepartofthestructureabovetheseabed,andinthiscasethere
maybeongoingpotentialforthesestructurestohaveanimpactontidalflowsfollowing
decommissioning.
Modelling Water Column Effects
CooperandBeiboer(2002)highlightthepotentialblockageeffectsonflowsandwavesandwith
particularattentiongiventothemonopilecaseanticipatedforRound1.Whereslenderpiletheory
remainsapplicablethendragandinertiaforcescanbeconsideredastheprimarymeansofscaling
blockageeffectsonoscillatingflowsandthroughtheuseofexpressionssuchasMorisonsEquation
(thisexpressionassumestheforcesapplyequallyaroundtheslenderpileandsodiffractionforces
whichmightvaryaroundalargerstructurearenotconsidered).Thiscalculationremainsan

40

AReviewofMarineEnvironmentalConsiderationsAssociatedwithConcreteGravityBase
FoundationsinOffshoreWindDevelopments.

importantstepinparameterisingthenearfieldtermwhichcanthenbeincludedinalargerscale
coastalprocessmodelstoinvestigatebothnearandfarfieldissues.
Coastalprocessmodelsdonotexplicitlyallowfortheeffectsofsmallstructuresorofcomplex
shapesandneitherdotheyresolveambientturbulenceortheadditionalturbulencethatmightbe
containedinanywakeformedintheleeofastructure.Rather,thesemodelsresolvethechangesin
themeanfloworphaseaveragedwave,andoftenin2D,byparameterising(upscaling)atasubgrid
leveltheeffectsofstructures.Typically,theparameterisationsimplyaddsadditionalfrictioninthe
correctproportions.
Here,theresolutionofthemodelneedstobeconsideredwithcareassubgridparameterisation
infersthescaleofeffectisminorinrelationtotheprocessbeingaffectedovertheresolutionofthe
modelatthispoint.Itisalsothecasethatacoarsescalemodelwilldiffusetheeffectmorerapidly
thanmightoccurinpractice.
Giventhesesimplificationstheapplicationofcoastalprocessmodelsisstillconsideredacceptable
whentheobjectiveofthemodelsistoquantifytheoveralleffectofthewindfarmarraywhichmay
extendbeyondthesiteboundaryandacrossthewiderarea(farfield).
Wheretheconsentingprocesshasneededtomanageanuncertaintyintheassessmentofeffects,
suchasthosebasedonmodelsappliedinthisway,thenmonitoringhaspreviouslybeenappliedasa
licenceconditiontohelpvalidatetheEIA.Therearenowexampleswhichdemonstratethesubgrid
parameterisationissufficienttodescribethescaleofreductionsinthemeanflowintheleeof
monopilefoundations.Asyetthisevidencehasnotextendedtogravitybasecases.
Forverylargeorcomplexstructuresthelimitsofslenderpiletheorymightbeexceededand
variationsofflowwilloccuraroundastructureandwavesmaybecomediffracted.Atthisscalethe
structureshouldideallyberesolvedinthemodeloralternatenearfieldparameterisation
consideredbasedondetailedcomputationalfluiddynamics(CFD)typemodels.
Atthearrayscale,thecombinationoffrictionaleffectscanbeanticipatedtoslowmeancurrent
speedswithinandbehind(downstreamof)thearrayinconjunctionwithamarginalincreasein
speedaroundthesidesofthearray.Themagnitudeoftheseeffectsistypicallyfoundtobelargely
indistinguishableinthefieldandnotpracticaltomeasure.
Waveinteractionwithastructureismorecomplexanddependsonthescaleandshapeofthe
structure(whichmayvaryoverdepth)andrelativetotheincidentwavelength.Waveinteractions
withanindividualstructureincludereflection,scatteringanddiffractioneffects,andthewaves
whichareincontactwiththestructurearealsoaffectedbyfrictionaldragforces.Forverylong
periodwaves,thegapbetweenstructurescanalsobecomerelevanttodiffraction.Ultimately,these
interactionsatthearrayscalecanleadtolossesinwaveenergyintheleeofthewindfarmandmost
oftenbyaffectingshorterperiodwaves.Theselossesalsotendtodissipatequicklysuchthat
patternsofwaveenergyatthecoastarenotmeasurablyaffected.TheresearchprojectA1227
(Cefas,2005)attemptedtomonitorthechangeinwavebehaviourintheleeoftheScrobySands
offshorewindfarm(comprising30monopilesplacedonthesandbank)withawaveradar,butresults
wereinconclusiveanddidnotrevealanynoticeablefeaturesthatwereattributedtothewindfarm.
Rather,itwasthesandbankofthesamenamewhichdominatedthelocalwavebehaviour.
41

AReviewofMarineEnvironmentalConsiderationsassociatedwithConcreteGravityBase
FoundationsinOffshoreWindDevelopments.

Coastalprocessmodelsmayincludeavarietyofapproachestosimulatewaveclimateand
behaviour.AphaseaveragewavemodelistypicallyusedforEIAinordertocoverthelargeareas
involved;extendingfromoffshoreboundaries,acrossthearrayanduptothecoastwithasufficient
extenttocapturedifferenteffectsfromdifferentwavedirections.However,thesetypesofwave
modelarenotappropriateforexaminingnearfieldwavemodificationsaroundindividualfoundation
units,especiallywherediffractioneffectsareconsideredtobeimportant.Inthiscaseamore
detailedlocalphaseresolvingmodelislikelytobeneeded,butthesetypesofmodelarealsolimited
tosmallareas.Goodpracticeistousethelocalscalemodelfornearfieldconsiderationsandup
scaletheseeffectstothelargerscalecoastalmodelswhichcantheninvestigatethefarfieldeffects.
ConsideringthedistancesforsomeoftheRound3zonesfromthecoastthencoastalimpactstudies
areexpectedtoyieldnegligibletoloweffects.However,forthereasonsdescribedabove,therewill
bearequirementtoconductthesestudiesaspartoftheprojectspecificEIAconsideringthelackof
dataavailabletodatefordesignspecificmodels;especiallyatacumulativearrayscale.
6.2.2 Subseabed Geology
Thesubseabedgeologyofanoffshorewindfarmsiteiscontrolledbytheconditionsthatpreviously
existedwithinthesite,oftenovermillionsofyears.TypicallyinoffshorewindfarmEnvironmental
StatementsthesubseabedgeologyisdescribedintermsoftheQuaternarydeposits(i.e.thoselaid
downduringtheQuaternaryperiodapproximately2.588millionyearsagotothepresent);andthe
preQuaternarybedrock.TheQuaternaryperiodwascharacterisedbyrepeatedglaciationsand
majorsealeveltransgressionsandregressions;andalsorepresentstheperiodwhenearlyhuman
firstappeared.Quaternarydepositsthereforehaveapotentialarchaeologicalvalue,andimpactson
theseunitsmayhaveaneffectonculturalheritagewhichwillbediscussedfurtherinSection8.6of
thisreport.
Purelyfromaphysicalreceptorstandpointdifferentrocktypeswillhavedifferentgeotechnical
propertiesandmayrequiredifferentengineeringsolutions.Ofparticularimportanceforthisreport
isthescaleofthedirecteffectsonsubseabedgeologyassociatedwiththeCGBFwhencompared
withalternativesolutionssuchasasuctioncaisson,steeljackets,tripodsandmonopiles.
ThemostcommonlyusedfoundationtypeforoffshorewindfarmsinEuropeandtheUKiscurrently
thesteelmonopile,andisgenerallyengineeredforuseinwaterdepthsof30morless,andtodate
onlyfittedwithmaximum3.6MWturbines.Monopilesdonotgenerallyrequireanyseabed
preparation,suchaslevellingorexcavation.Themonopiletypicallypenetratestheseabedbyupto
50m,andinstallationisusuallyundertakenbyusingahydraulichammertodrivethepilesintoplace.
Seabeddrillingmaybeusedasanalternative;howeverthisisdependentonlocalgroundconditions.
Installationofamonopilethereforehasadirecteffectonthesubseabedgeologytoamaximum
depthofapproximately50mbelowtheseabedsurface.Assumingamonopileshaftdiameterof58m
andseabedpenetrationof50m,anestimatedvolumeofapproximately9802,513m3ofsubseabed
geologywillbedirectlyaffectedbyasinglemonopile.Pilesassociatedwithsteeljacketsandtripods
(andfloatingplatforms)have3or4pilesofsmallerdiameters(approximately3m)andpenetrateto
depthsgreaterthan50m(60mcitedinRPSEnergyandRWENPowerRenewable(2011)).
CGBFsmayrequiresomeseabedpreparationpriortoinstallation,involvingdredgingorgrab
excavationoftheseabedtoreachtherequiredloadbearingstrata;andalsotoprovidealevel
surfacefortheCGBF.Estimatesofthevolumesofmaterialremovedcanbemadeusinginformation
42

AReviewofMarineEnvironmentalConsiderationsAssociatedwithConcreteGravityBase
FoundationsinOffshoreWindDevelopments.

providedinTable6.1,whichsuggeststhatthefootprintofaCGBFattheseabedmightvarybetween
approximately1,150m2and1,386m2.Assumingthematerialbeinglevelledtoadepthoftwo
metrestoaccommodatethegravitybasestructure,andassumingthatthelevellingremovessub
seabedmaterialonly(i.e.noseabedsediments),thenestimatedvolumesof2,3002,772m3ofsub
seabedgeologywillbedirectlyaffectedbyasingleCGBF.Theexactvolumesandexcavationdepths,
however,willdependentirelyoneachturbineslocationandthedepthofloadbearingstrata,as
withanylargebuildingorstructureconstructedeitheronshoreoroffshore.
Theseimpactstothesubseabedgeologyoccuratconstructionforallfoundationstypestovarying
degreeswiththepossibleexceptionoffloatingplatformsifsurfaceanchorsratherthanpilesare
used,andnofurthersubseabedeffectswouldbeexpectedduringmaintenanceand
decommissioning.Thereceptorwillnotrecoverfollowingdecommissioning,andtheeffectsare
thereforepermanent.Itshouldbenoted,however,thatthesubseabedgeologyisnotasensitive
receptorandtheimpactsarelikelytohaveanegligiblesignificance,unlessthatgeologicalsequence
hasanadditionalculturalvalueorgeologicalrarity(Section8.6).
6.2.3 Sediment Regime
Seabedsedimentscanbeaffecteddirectlybytheplacementofstructuresontheseabed,and
indirectlybychangestosedimenttransportasaresultofhydrodynamicalteration.Offshorewind
developmentsmayincludeinstallationoffoundationunitsatmultiplelocations,andalargeproject
comprisinghundredsofturbinesmayproduceeffectsonthesedimentregimeovermanyyears.
Theenvironmentalrisksassociatedwithchangestothesedimentregimedependontheproximity
andsensitivityofmarinereceptorsandtheserisksmaybeheightenedwherethereare
contaminantscontainedinthedisturbedsediments.
Direct Effects on Seabed Sediments
Monopiles,steeljackets,tripodsandfloatingplatformsdonotgenerallyrequireanyseabed
preparation,suchaslevellingorexcavation,priortopiling,thereforetheirdirecteffectonthe
seabedsedimentisrestrictedtofootprintofeachpileitselftypically58mindiameterfora
monopileand2.54mforeachpileusedwithasteeljacketortripodfoundation(NB:thetotal
cumulativevalueforanindividualsteeljacketfoundationwillbe34timesthevalueofeachpileper
foot;andforatripoditwillbe3timesthevalueofeachpileperfoot).
Inaddition,thisdirectimpactzoneforfoundationsisextended,inthoseareaswherescour
protectionisputinplace.Scouristheprogressiveloweringoftheseabedaroundastructure,in
responsetochanginghydrodynamicsdrivenbythepresenceoftheinstallation(Whitehouse,1998).
Scourpitscanjeopardisetheintegrityofastructureandincreasesedimenttransport(DECC,2008)
andscourprotectionisoftenputinplacetoresistthelocallyenhancedflowandturbulencearound
thestructure(Whitehouseetal.,2011b).
Scourprotectiontypesincluderockarmourplacedontheseabedaroundthefoundation;
sandbags/geotextilebagsplacedontheseabedaroundthefoundation;concretemattressesplaced
ontheseabedaroundthefoundation;orfrondmatsplacedontopofconcretemattressesor
anchoreddirectlytotheseabedaroundthefoundation(DECC,2008).Scourprotectiontypically,
therefore,changestheseabedsedimentsfromeasilyerodiblesediments(e.g.finegrainedsand)to

43

AReviewofMarineEnvironmentalConsiderationsassociatedwithConcreteGravityBase
FoundationsinOffshoreWindDevelopments.

rocksubstrate.ThescourprotectioninplacearoundmonopilesandCGBFsisthereforeadirect
impactontheseabedsedimenttype.
TheTritonKnollEShaspresentedindicativescourprotectionparametersforvariousfoundation
solutionsattheirsiteandthedataispresentedinTable6.1below.
Table6.1:Indicativescourprotectionparametersforindividualturbinelocations(excludingfoundationareatake)
(adaptedfromRPSEnergyandRWENPowerRenewable,2011).

Concept
3.6MW
5MW
8MW

Areaofseabedcoverperlocation(excludingfoundationarea)inm2
Steelmonopile
1,636
1,791
1,791
CGBF
1,414
1,571
1,723
Steeljacket(piled)
274
274
431
Tripod(piled)
771
771
1,341
Suctioncaisson
1,100
943
1,495

Thesedatashowthatgreateramountsofscourprotectionweresuggestedasnecessaryfor
monopilefoundationscomparedwithaCGBF,howeverthesevaluesexcludethefoundationarea
itself.
RPSEnergyandRWENPowerRenewable(2011)indicatethatforthe5MWturbinethesteel
monopilewouldbe8.5mindiameter,whilethe5MWCGBFwouldrequirea40mdiameter
foundationanda5MWsuctioncaissonwouldbe22m.ThevaluesinTable6.1canthereforebe
adjusted,tocalculatethetotalareaofdirectimpactofseabedsediment,ofcombinedfootprintand
scourprotectionformonopilesandCGBFs(Table6.2).
Table6.2:Totalseabedareadirectlylosttoacombinationoffoundationandscourprotectionrequiredfora5MW
turbine(adaptedfromRPSEnergyandRWENPowerRenewable,2011).

Concept

Steelmonopile
CGBF
SteelJacket(piled)
Tripod(piled)
Suctioncaisson

Foundation
footprint(m2)
57
1,257
57
305
380

5MW
Scourprotection(m2)

Totalarea(m2)

1,791
1,571
274
771
943

1,848
2,828
331
1,076
1,323

ArmouredscourprotectionhasalsobeeninstalledaroundtheCGBFsoftheThorntonBankOWF,
Belgium.Themaximumdiameterofthescourprotectionlayerisreportedas62.5m,whichequates
toaseabedareaaffectedof3,068m2(Peireetal.,2009).
Thesedirectimpactsontheseabedsedimentoftheplacementoffoundationsand,potentially,
scourprotectionwouldoccuratconstructionforallfoundationtypeswiththepossibleexceptionof
floatingplatforms,andwouldpersistduringtheoperationoftheOWF.Followingdecommissioning
thefoundationandscourprotectioncouldberemoved(indeedthismaybearequirementofthe
consentfortheproject)andthereispotentialtoreturntheseabedsedimenttoitspreinstallation

44

AReviewofMarineEnvironmentalConsiderationsAssociatedwithConcreteGravityBase
FoundationsinOffshoreWindDevelopments.

state.However,theefficacyofremovingscourmaterialfromtheseabedhasyettobeprovenfor
offshorewindfarmdevelopments(MMO,pers.comm.).
Indirect Effects on Sediment Transport
Theindirecteffectsonseabedsedimentswillbethosewhichoccurasaresultofhydrodynamic
changessetupasaresultofthepresenceofastructureinthewatercolumn,orbecauseofother
alterationstotheseabedcausingafarfieldeffect,namely:

Scour;
Sedimentplumes;and
Alterationofsedimenttransportpathways.

Iftheseeffectsoverlapwithsensitivefeatures,suchassubtidalsandbanksorthecoastline,then
impactsonthesefeaturesmayoccur.
Scour
Scouringresultsfromtheinteractionbetweenambientflowsandwavesandablockageposedby
structuresattheseabed.Theseinteractionsgenerateflowaccelerationsandturbulencewhichcan
leadtolocallyenhancedsedimenttransportandlocalerosionaroundthebaseofafoundation,i.e.
scour.Scouringinitiatesassoonasthefoundationisinplaceandcontinuesuntilanequilibrium
profileisachieved(Whitehouseetal.,2011b).
Wheretheseabediscomprisedofstiffclayorbedrock,orthereisasuperficiallayerofsediment
overlyingclayorbedrock;orwherethewaveandcurrentconditionsarenotgenerallystrongenough
tocausetheseabedsedimenttobenaturallymobile,scourwillbesloworlimited.Inenvironments
wherescourislikelytooccur,however,(i.e.areasofmobilesedimentoreasilyerodiblesubseabed
geology),scourislikelytooccurifnoprotectionisincludedintheschemedesign.
Scourhasthepotentialeffectofchangingtheseabedsedimenttypeatthepointofscour,aswellas
creatingalocalsourceofsediment.Itisthereforecommonthattheissueisdiscussedaspartofthe
sedimentdisturbanceeffectsrelatedtotheconstructionphase.Whilstscouringmightbeallowed
forinthecaseofamonopiledesign(i.e.noscourprotectionisofferedinsomecases),itremains
unlikelythatanygravitybase,steeljacket,tripodorsuctioncaissoncanbeconsideredonalivebed
withouttheuseofscourprotection.IndeedguidancepublishedbyDNV(2007)statesthatgravity
basefoundationswillforalllocationsrequiresomeformofscourprotection,theextentofwhichis
tobedeterminedduringdetaileddesign.
Thedimensionsandrateofscouringdependonthescaleandshapeofthestructureandthe
propertiesofthesoil(Whitehouseetal.,2011b).Scourpitsmaybesignificantmorphological
featuresandlaboratoryderivedpredictiveformulaeexistforestimatingthedepthofscouraround
cylindricalfeatures(e.g.monopiles).ThesesuggestthatthecurrentinducedscourdepthS,relative
tothecylinderdiameterD,variesbetweenS/D=1.3(DNV,2004)andS/D=1.75(denBoonetal.,
2004).Areviewofdatafrommonopilesatfiveoffshorewindfarmsites(DECC,2008)indicateda
maximumdepthofscourobservedtobeS/D=1.38,attheScrobySandsOWF,UK.Whitehouseetal.
(2011b)reportsthatitisusuallyassumedthatareductioninrelativescourdepthoccurswhenthe
waterdepthfallsbelowthreetofivetimesthepilediameter.

45

AReviewofMarineEnvironmentalConsiderationsassociatedwithConcreteGravityBase
FoundationsinOffshoreWindDevelopments.

MonitoringofthescourpitevolutionatScrobySandshasshownthepitstoreach5mindepthand
100mindiameter(OSPARCommission,2006).Scourpitsofthisdiameteraffectapproximately
7,854m2ofseabed.ThisissignificantlygreaterthanthevaluesindicatedinTable6.2foraCGBF
withscourprotection(ifused).
Thereisalsosomeevidencefordevelopmentofsecondaryscouringeffectsawayfromthe
foundationunit(e.g.observedscourtailsatScrobySandsOWF,Cooperetal.(2008)).The
mechanismscreatingtheseeffectsarenotwellunderstoodandwerenotpredictedbytheEIA.
Scouringaroundslenderpilestendstobefairlysymmetricalinform,whereasscouraroundgravity
basesmaytendtooccuratdiscretelocationsaroundthebase,especiallyifthegravitybasehasa
complexshapeorabruptcorners.Whitehouse(2004)reportstheresultsoflaboratorybasedtesting
whichindicatedthataconicalstructureproduceddeeperscourthanaflattoppedstructure,forthe
sameforcingconditions.
Sediment Plumes
Sedimentplumesaregeneratedwhensedimentisintroducedintothewatercolumnand
subsequentlytransportedbythelocalandregionalhydrodynamics.
SedimentplumesmaybegeneratedduringtheconstructionphaseofOWFsby:

Resuspensionofbedsedimentthroughbedpreparation(dredging)ifrequired;
Interactionwiththeseabedofconstructionequipment;
Piling/drillingformonopiles;
Emplacementoffoundations;
BackfillandballastingofCGBFs(ifrequired);and
Emplacementofscourprotection(ifused).

Furthersedimentresuspensionmaybegeneratedduringtheoperationalphasebyalterationof
hydrodynamicsparticularlyifscouroftheseabedoccurs.Finally,furthersedimentplumeswillbe
generatedduringthedecommissioningprocess,asinfrastructureisremovedfromtheseabed.
Anyinteractionsbetweenequipment,OWFinfrastructure,orscourprotectionmaterial(ifdeployed)
withtheseabedwillresultinlocalresuspensionofsediment.Anysedimentreleasedintothewater
columnwillbedispersedlaterallyandverticallybywaves,tidesandgravitationalsettling,and
transportedbytidalcurrentsasasedimentplume.Theextentoftheplumeislargelycontrolledby
theamountofsedimentresuspended,thegrainsizeofthereleasedsediment,andthelocal
hydrodynamicregime.Largeparticleswillsettlequicklytotheseabed,withfinerparticlespotentially
travellingfurther.Whenparticlessettlebacktotheseabedtheyhavethepotentialtochangethe
localbaselineseabedsedimentcomposition.
Theprocessesbywhichsedimentisintroducedintothewatercolumnduringmarinedredging
operationsarewellunderstood,anddescribedindetailinAppendixEofthisreport.Insummary,
however,sedimentisreleasedbydredgingintothewatercolumnviathefollowingroutes(Tillinet
al.,2010):

46

Thephysicaldisturbanceofseabedsedimentsbythedraghead;

AReviewofMarineEnvironmentalConsiderationsAssociatedwithConcreteGravityBase
FoundationsinOffshoreWindDevelopments.

Fromthedredgeroverflow,whilstthevesselisloading;and
Deliberatescreeningofthedredgedmaterial,althoughthismechanismisunlikelyduring
seabedpreparationworks,andwherescreeningisnotused,theplumeeffectsmaybe
confinedtothedredgearea(Newelletal.,2004;Tillinetal.,2010).

Significantdredgingforbedpreparationwouldnotbeexpectedformonopilewindturbines,
howeverCGBFswilloftenrequiresomemeasureofbedpreparationbeforedeploymenttoensurea
stableandlevelinstallationandincludeapreparedseabedofgravelbedsandfilterlayerstospread
theloadevenlyandtoprotectthestructurefromscour.Somesoilsmayalsobeunsuitablefor
gravitybasesolutions(e.g.clayswhichmaydeformunevenlyunderload).
Wherealargediameterbaseisconsideredandtheareaforscourprotectionmayalsoneedtobe
prepared,thenlevellingmayberequiredoveramoreextensiveareaoftheseabed.Asanexample
(whichmaynotbeappropriateatallsites);extensiveseabeddredgingoccurredaspartofthe
ThorntonBankOWFdeployment,wheresixfoundationpitsweredredgedandinvolvedlevelling
overanareaof50mby80mandtoadepthof7mbelowthenormalseabedlevel.Peireetal.(2009)
reportedthat,onaverage,approximately90,000m3ofsedimentwasdredgedforeachsite,noting
thattheactualvolumeofmaterialremovedfromeachturbinelocationalsovariedasafunctionof
localsandwaves.
Ifrequired,thedredgingforgroundpreparationforCGBFsdiffersfromstandardmarineaggregate
dredginginthatthesedimentsdredgedaspartofthegroundpreparationmayberetainedwithin
thedevelopmentareaoronbargesandlaterreusedasfilland/orballastmaterial.TheThornton
Bankdevelopmentprovidesanexampleofthis,wherethedredgedsedimentsweredeposited
withinthefootprintoftheOWFareaandlaterredredgedtosupplyballastmaterialfortheCGBFs
andbackfillmaterialtorestorethefoundationpitstoreferenceseabedlevels(Peireetal.,2009).
Eachoftheseactivitieswillgenerateasedimentplume,extendingtheimpactfootprintofthe
groundpreparation,andincreasingthepotentialtoaffectthebaselineseabedsedimenttype
throughsettlingofplumesedimentsalongthelocalandregionaltransportpaths.
Comparisoncanbemadewithsedimentplumesgeneratedbymonopileinstallationtechniques,
whichtypicallyinvolvepiledrivingordrilling.Duringpilingmonopilesaredrivenintotheseabed
fromajackupbargeusingahydraulichammer,andthismethodispreferredwheretheseabedis
sufficientlysofttoallowpilepenetration,asitisquickerandmoreefficient(CentricaEnergyLtd,
2010).Drillingisusedwheretherockorsoilishard,andpilingisnotfeasible.Drilledpilescreate
arisingswhichmightpotentiallybeequivalenttothefulldepthofthepile,whichforlargemonopiles
couldbeinexcessof50msoildepthanddiametersgreaterthan7m.Thetypeofsedimentmayvary
overdepthwithsoilstratigraphyanddrillingmethods.
PreliminaryinformationfortheTritonKnollEIA(RPSEnergyandRWENPowerRenewable,2011)
indicatesthatforasinglesteelmonopileavolumeofsedimentofbetween1,925and2,838m3
wouldbegeneratedasaresultofinstallation.
Pilesusedtosituatesteeljacketsandtripodsmayalsoconceivablyneeddrillingifthesubsurface
geologynecessitatesthis.Itisexpectedthatthedrillarisingswillbesmallerinvolumesperfoot
duetothesmallerdiameterofthepile.However,considerationtothetotalvolumeofsucharisings
isneededwhenconsideringthecumulativeeffectof34arisingsperfoundationstructure.RPS
47

AReviewofMarineEnvironmentalConsiderationsassociatedwithConcreteGravityBase
FoundationsinOffshoreWindDevelopments.

EnergyandRWENPowerRenewable(2011)predictedtotalspoilarisings(fora5MWturbine
scenario)perfoundationas1,166m3foratripodand1,697m3forasteeljacket.Thefigurefora
concretegravitybasewascitedas7,389m3and2,268m3forasuctioncaissonfoundation.
Managementofthedrillarisingsmayincludedirectdischargeontotheseabedorcollectingthe
materialinabargebeforeagreeddisposalelsewhereatsea(usuallyalicenseddisposalsite).
Arisingsasaresultofdrillingofchalkhavetendedtobeafocusofinterestfornatureconservation
bodiesandarediscussedfurtherinSection7.7.
Alteration of Sediment Transport Pathways
Itmaybenecessary,aspartofanEIA,todemonstratethatanynaturalsedimenttransportthat
occursthroughtheOWFareaisnotdisruptedasaresultofthedevelopment,particularlyif
sedimenttransportpathwaysfeedoffshoresandbanksorthecoastline.
Alargenumberofstudieshavebeenconductedduringthepastdecadesinvestigatingsediment
transportaroundtheUKshelf.Theserangefromsitespecificstudiesundertakentoinvestigatethe
resultsofmarineaggregatedredgingtolargerscaleregionalsedimenttransportmapping(e.g.
KenyonandStride,1970,HRWallingfordetal.,2002).
InUKRound3sitesCGBFsarelikelytobedeployedinwaterdepthsgreaterthan30m,wherebed
sedimentsareunlikelytobemobileexceptunderextremewaveandtidalconditions.Thereis
thereforeareducedpossibilitythatCGBFs,suctioncaissons,steeljacketsandtripodswillinterfere
withnaturalsedimenttransportpathwayswhencomparedwithstructuresplacedinshallower
water.Inaddition,astheUKRound3sitesarelocatedfurtheroffshorethanRound1and2sites,
thepossibilityofeffectsgeneratedbyRound3sitesinteractingwiththecoastlineismuchlesslikely.
Modelling Sediment Regime Effects
Coastalprocessmodelscanhelpunderstandthefateofdisturbedsedimentsandappraisethelikely
temporaryandlocalisedincreasestosuspendedsedimentconcentrationsthroughthewatercolumn
(e.g.toinformriskofinterferencetopelagicorbenthicreceptors)andidentifythelocationsand
levelsforanysubsequentdeposition(e.g.toinformriskofsmotheringofbenthicreceptors).The
constructiondetailsrequiredtoquantifysedimentinputsisdefinedbythePDSandthe
environmentaldatafromthebaselinesurveys(e.g.geophysicalandbenthicsurveys,inparticular).
Nevertheless,certainassumptionswillalwaysbenecessarywhendefiningsomemodelinputsandin
thefundamentaldesignofthemodelsthemselveswhichmay,inturn,introduceadditional
uncertainties.Theseuncertaintiescanbemanagedbyacombinationofsensitivityanalysisand
retainingaconservativeapproach.
Thescouringprocessisnotdescribedinacoastalprocessmodeldirectly;ratherstandardempirical
toolsareusedtodefinethelikelydegreeofscouratequilibriumandtheseestimatesarethen
appliedtothemodelaspotentialsourcetermsforanysedimentdisturbanceissuesifscour
protectionisnotofferedinthedesign.
Blockageeffectsalsohavethepotentialtoalterasedimenttransportpathwayduetomodifications
towaveandtidalprocesseswhichdrivethetransportprocessalongthepathway.Consequently,the
greaterthescaleofchangetowavesandcurrentsthegreaterthereisapotentialtomodifya
sedimentpathwayaffectedbythesechanges.Itmaybethecasethatahighlymodifiedpathwayis
48

AReviewofMarineEnvironmentalConsiderationsAssociatedwithConcreteGravityBase
FoundationsinOffshoreWindDevelopments.

notsensitivetosuchchangesifnosedimentisavailabletomovealongthepath;similarly,asmall
changetoanactivepathwayontoadesignatedfeature(e.g.subtidalsandbank)maybeagreater
concernovertimeifthesedimentbudgetisaffected.Coastalprocessmodelscanbeusedtohelp
predictthepotentialtransportratesforvarioussedimentgradesanddeterminechangestothese
ratestohelpinformtheconsiderationofthelongtermeffectsbutthelevelsofuncertaintyatthis
stageofassessmentremainrelativelyhigh.
6.2.4 Summary
Acomparisonoftherelativemagnitudeofeffects,betweenasingleCGBFandalternativefoundation
types,ispresentedconsideringtheevidencereviewedinthissection.Notethattheeffectsofalarge
numberofsmallfoundations,comparedwithasmallernumberoflargerfoundations,isnotyetwell
understood.Alsonotethatthistablemakesnoestimationofthesignificanceofaneffect.

Key
I
O
D

Installation(includinganygroundpreparationandremedialworksrequired)
Operation(includinganysettlement)
Decommissioning

Receptor

Sub
receptor

Description

Phaseeffect
detected

Relativeeffect
Scale

Physical

Waves

Structureblocksthe
normalpassageof
waves

Tidalcurrent Structureblocksthe
normalpassageoftidal
currents

Subseabed
geology

Removalofsubseabed
geologyby
piling/drillingorseabed
preparation(Ifrequired)

Seabed
sediments

Directimpactonthe
sedimentofplacement
offoundationonly

I/O

CGBFsimilar
toorgreater
thanother
Round3
solutionsin
mostcases

CGBFsimilar
toorgreater
thanother
Round3
solutionsin
mostcases

CGBFsimilar
toother
Round3
solutions
CGBFsimilar
toorgreater
thanother
Round3
solutionsin
mostcases

Significance
Likelytobe
lowgiven
distances
offshore

Likelytobe
lowgiven
distances
offshore

Likelytobe
lowdueto
limitedarea
ofimpact

Likelytobe
lowdueto
limitedarea
ofimpact

49

AReviewofMarineEnvironmentalConsiderationsassociatedwithConcreteGravityBase
FoundationsinOffshoreWindDevelopments.

Directimpactonthe
I/O
CGBFsimilar
Likelytobe
sedimentofplacement
toorgreater
lowdueto
offoundationplusscour
thanother
limitedarea
protection(ifrequired)
Round3
ofimpact
solutionsin
mostcases
Sediment
Scouraroundbaseof
I/O
CGBFsimilar
Likelytobe
transport
structuredueto
toorlessthan lowdueto
changesinlocal
otherround3
limitedarea
hydrodynamicscaused
solutionsin
ofimpact
bythestructure
mostcases

Generationofsediment
I/D
CGBFsimilar
Likelytobe

plumesbyground
toorgreater
lowdueto
preparationforCGBF(if
thanother
limitedarea
required),monopile
Round3
ofimpact
drillingandremoval
solutionsin
mostcases

Alterationofsediment
O
CGBFsimilar
Likelytobe

transportpathways
tootherround lowdueto
3solutions
limitedarea
ofimpact

"

"

50

AReviewofMarineEnvironmentalConsiderationsAssociatedwithConcreteGravityBase
FoundationsinOffshoreWindDevelopments.

7 Biological Receptors
7.1

Introduction Aims and Scope

ThenearfuturemarketfortheuseofCGBFwillbeassociatedwithRound3offshorewindfarm
developmentareas.Thesezonesaregenerallylocatedonareasofseabeddominatedbysediment
habitatsandcanbeconsideredmoredistantfromthecoastalandnearshoreenvironments
associatedwithexisting,andproposed,Round1and2arrays.Theseoffshoreenvironmentscontain
awidevarietyofbenthichabitatsandcommunitiesandcansupportdiverseecosystemsutilisedby
fishspecies,seabirdsandmarinemammals.Forthesereasonssomeoftheseareasarealsothe
currentfocusfordesignationofaseriesofmarineprotectedareas(MPAs).
Thissectionwilldescribethevariouseffectpathways(waysthateffectscaninteractwithreceptors)
andlikelyimpactsassociatedwitheachstageofCGBFdeployment,lifespananddecommissioningas
describedinSection5.2(detailedintheflowdiagrams,Figure5.1Figure5.6).Particularfocuswillbe
giventothescaleofeffectslikelyfromasingleCGBFandconsiderationgiventotheseeffectsin
relationtootherfoundationsolutions.
Availableinformation,focussedwherepossibleonrecentuseofCGBFsinOWFshasbeenbrought
togetherinthisreporttoidentify:

Thelikelysensitivitytoandpossibleadverseeffectsonmarinespeciesandbenthicbiotopes,
mobilemegafauna,birdsandfishfaunaasaresultofCGBFs;
Theconsiderationsrequiredforexistingandproposeddesignatednatureconservationsites
(MPAs)andforwhichmeasuresshouldbetakentoensuretheyarenotadverselyaffected
byCGBFs;and
PossiblepositiveeffectsassociatedwithCGBFsandtheirinteractionwithbiological
receptors.

Identificationofdiscretebiologicalreceptorgroupshasbeenascribedfromthosethatareroutinely
consideredwithinproductionofanEIA.Informationregardingtheassessmentofsensitivityisdrawn
fromgeneralacceptedEIAtoolkitsincludingMarLIN(2012)andtheGenusTraitHandbook(MES,
2008)etc.Receptorspecificsensitivitythresholdswillbesignpostedratherthanlistedindividually
withinthisguidanceasthesewillbepresentedandconsideredataprojectspecificEIAlevel.
OfparticularimportanceisthescaleofeffectsthatmaybeassociatedwithaCGBFwhencompared
toalternativesolutionssuchassteeljackets,tripodsandmonopilesandspecificallyanyuseofscour
protectionandgenerationofunderwaterenergy(noiseandpressurewaves)(foranyfoundation
considered).Directeffects(suchashabitatremoval)uponfacevaluemayappeartobegreaterfor
CGBFsolutionswhencomparedwithalternativefoundationsolutions.However,considerationof
steeljacketandtripodfoundationsshowsthatCGBFshaveacomparableseabedfootprintwhen
accountingforshadowingandreefeffects.Indirecteffectssuchasthoserelatedtoanabsenceof
noisedisturbanceandcreationofrefugiaforfishspecies,duetotheengineeringandinstallation
techniquesassociatedwithaCGBF,mayresultinpositiveeffects(whencomparedwithcurrent
foundationsolutions).Theseissuesarediscussedinthereceptorspecificsubsectionsbelow.

51

AReviewofMarineEnvironmentalConsiderationsassociatedwithConcreteGravityBase
FoundationsinOffshoreWindDevelopments.

7.2

Benthic Resources

Thissectionisintendedtoprovideanoverviewofbenthichabitatsandfaunalikelytointeractwith
CGBFsinUKwatersandlikelyeffectsandassociatedimpacts.Detailedinformationondistributionof
biotopesandsensitivityinformationcanbedrawnfromseveralsourcesataregionalandsub
regionalseasscale;alongwithprojectspecificinformationderivedfromsitespecific
characterisationandbaselinesurveysconductedtosupportEIAandEnvironmentalStatements.
Section5.2hasidentifiedBenthosasareceptortoactivitiesandeffectsassociatedwitheachphase
ofthelifespanofaCGBFconsideredinthisreport.Benthosconsistsofmanysubreceptorsthatcan
bedescribedinvariousways.Thissectionwillconsiderthebenthicsubreceptorsunderseveral
broaddescriptorsdependentuponlifestrategiesandbiologicaltraits.Ostensiblythesubreceptors
canbeidentifiedasthoselivingwithintheseabedsedimenthabitatsinfauna;thoselivingattached
totheseabedcoarsesedimentsandrocksessileepifauna;andmobileorerrantspeciesableto
moveacrosstheseabed.Eachofthesebroadsubreceptorgroupsmayhavedifferentsensitivitiesto
impactsfromaCGBFandareconsideredbelow.
InthecaseofRound3offshorewindfarmdevelopments,themostlikelybenthichabitatsand
biotopestobepresentarethoseassociatedwithsurficialsedimentssuchassandsandgravels.The
distributionandlocationofRound3areaspredominatelyoccupysedimenthabitattypes(Figure
7.1),althoughtherearelocalisedareasofbedrock,andbedrockwithsedimentveneers,insomeof
theregionsandassociatedareas(especiallyalongtheSouthCoastandBristolChannel).Therangeof
communitiesandbiotopesaregenerallyrepresentedbyburrowinginfaunaassociatedwithmobile
sedimentssuchassandsandgravellysands.Morestablesedimentsconsistingoflargerparticlesizes
suchassandygravels,gravels,pebblesandcobblestendtosupportepifaunalcommunitiesgrowing
onthesedimentsurfacewithsomeinfaunaassociatedwithanypocketsoffinerparticlesize.In
undisturbedconditionstheseepifaunacanactuallyconsolidatetoformbiomattresseswhichmay
furtherstabilisethecoarseandmixedsedimenthabitat.Biogenicreefhabitatcreatedbyspecies
suchasthebivalvemolluscsModiolusmodiolusorMytilusedulisandthepolychaeteworm
Sabellariaspinulosacanexistacrossasuiteofsedimenthabitattypes.

52

AReviewofMarineEnvironmentalConsiderationsAssociatedwithConcreteGravityBase
FoundationsinOffshoreWindDevelopments.

Figure7.1:BenthicHabitatsandRound3OffshoreWindfarmZones(Source:JNCC,2010a;TheCrownEstatedata).

53

AReviewofMarineEnvironmentalConsiderationsassociatedwithConcreteGravityBase
FoundationsinOffshoreWindDevelopments.

7.2.1 Notable Benthic Receptor Groups


Hiscocketal.(2002)presentsacomprehensivelistanddescriptionofbiotopesexpectedtobe
distributedwithinareasassociatedwithRound1and2offshorewindfarmdevelopments.Theseare
likelytoberepresentativeofbiotopesexpectedtooccurfurtheroffshoreandinteractwiththe
intendeduseofCGBFs.FurtherreferencetothevariousmappingdataassociatedwithRound3
zoneswillidentifythefullsuiteofbenthichabitatsandbiotopeslikelytointeractwiththeproposed
arrays.
Thegeneraldescriptionsandstatementsforthebroadbenthicreceptorgroups(detailedbelow)are
drawnfromvariousliteratureincluding:Hiscock(1998);Hiscocketal.(2002);Connoretal.(2004);
Thorson(1971);andNybakkenandBertness(2004).
Infaunal Species and Communities / Biotopes
Sedimentbiotopestendtoconsistpredominantlyofspecieswhichburrowbeneaththesurfaceof
thesediment.Thespeciestypicallyrepresentedareburrowingandtubebuildingpolychaeteworms;
burrowingbivalvemolluscs;tubedwellingandburrowingcrustaceans;andechinodermssuchas
brittlestarsandburrowingurchins.
Energyexposure(relatedtowaterdepth,waveclimate,tidalstreamsandnearbedsediment
transport)andsedimentparticlesizearetwophysicalenvironmentalfactorsthatgreatlyinfluence
thecohesionandconsolidationofsurficialsedimenthabitats(seeSection6).Thesenaturalphysical
pressuresexertagreatenvironmentalforceonthebiologyassociatedwiththesedimenthabitat
resultingindifferentcommunitiesandbiotopesinsimilarsedimentparticlesizesdependentupon
energyexposure.
Mediumfinesandsinhighenergyenvironments(suchasthecrestsofsubtidalsandbanks)tendto
bemobileandnoncohesive.Asaresulttheinfaunalbiotopesaredominatedbyspecieswhichare
abletorapidlyreburrowthemselvesandmovethroughthemobileupperlayersofsand.These
speciestendtobemotileanddonotconstructpermanentburrowstructures.Theyarerepresented
bymobilepolychaeteworms,smallbivalvemolluscsandburrowingamphipodcrustaceans.
Muddysandscanexistinmoderatelowenergyexposedseabedtypes.Speciesassociatedwiththese
habitatstendtoberepresentedbymediumlargesizebivalvemolluscs,burrowingurchins,
brittlestars,andpolychaeteworms.Asthesedimenthabitatisrelativelystablethenburrowscanbe
builtandoccupied.
Subtidalmudsarefoundinlowenergyenvironmentssuchasdeeperwatersdistantfromtidal
streams.Thesehabitatsarestableandcohesiveandarecolonisedbytubebuildersanddwellers
suchasburrowingmegafauna(suchasburrowingshrimp),largebivalvemolluscsandechinoderms
andseapens.
Gravelsandcoarsesandsinhighenergyhabitatssuchastidesweptsandbanktroughs,tendto
supportrobustmediumlargesizedinfaunasuchaslargebivalvemolluscs,burrowinganemones,and
polychaeteworms.Theseinfaunalbiotopesmayhavelowspeciesdiversitybutamoderatehigh
biomassduetothelargesizeofthefewdifferentspecies.

54

AReviewofMarineEnvironmentalConsiderationsAssociatedwithConcreteGravityBase
FoundationsinOffshoreWindDevelopments.

Subtidalmixedsedimentsconsistofgravels,sandsandmudsandcanexistsunderarangeofenergy
exposures.Thevariablematrixofsedimentparticlesizestendstostablehabitatswitharangeof
ecologicalnichesavailabletoinfauna.Thesehabitatssupportawiderangeofburrowingfaunasuch
aspolychaetewormsandtubedwellingspeciessuchas:SabellariaspinulosaandLaniceconchilega;
smallmediumsizedbivalvemolluscs;burrowinganemones;echinodermsincludingophiuroids
(brittlestars);andholothurians(seacucumbers).
Epifaunal Communities / Biotopes
Benthichabitatscomposedofthelargerparticlesizedsedimentsandgeogenicstructuressuchas
gravels,pebblesandcobbles,alongwithbedrocksandboulders,supportspecieswhichattachtothe
outsideofthesehabitats.Theepifaunaconsistsofawideandvarieddiversityofphylawhichhave
evolvedtotakeadvantageofthenumerousecologicalnichesassociatedwithhardsubstrata.
Subtidalcoarse(gravels)andmixedsediments(gravels,sandsandmuds)cansupportahighdiversity
ofspecies.Mostoftheseepifaunaformcomplexmosaicsofbiotopesandgrowasencrustationsand
turfsacrossthesupportinghardhabitat.Inundisturbedsituations,withplentifulrecruitmentand
abundantfoodsupply,thesebiotopemosaicscanmeshtogether,consolidatingthecoarse
sedimentsthatsupportthemtofurtherincreasethestabilityofthesubstrata.Thisbioarmouring
effectmayincreasetheoverallsensitivityofthebiotopematricestocertainremovalandabrasion
impacts;asrecoverytopreimpactstatusmaytakeconsiderabletime(>8years)orneverbe
achieved.
Speciesassociatedwithcoarseandmixedsedimentbiotopesarerepresentedby:encrustingand
tubebuildingpolychaetewormssuchasSabellariaspinulosaandPomatocerosspp.;barnacles,
colonialascidians(seasquirts);anemones;ophiuroids(brittlestars);encrustinganderectsponges;
encrustinganderectbryozoans(seamats)anderecthydroids(seafirs).Thematsandturfscreated
bythesecommunitiesaddtothephysicalcomplexityofthehabitatcreatingecologicalnichesand
allowingsmallmediumsizedmobilespeciesrefugia.Thesenichesareutilisedbypredatorssuchas
crustaceans(squatlobsters,prawnsandcrabs),gastropodmolluscs(snails),starfishandsmallfish
species.
Thesebiotopes/biotopecomplexescanhaveahighbiodiversitywhichmaybefurtherincreasedfor
areasofmixedsedimentswhichcanalsosupporthighnumbersofinfaunalspecies.
Biogenicreefhabitatsaregenerallyassociatedwithcoarseandmixedsedimenthabitatsandcan
supportepifaunalcommunitiesduethealterationofthelocalhabitatthroughadditionalstructural
complexity.Theyareknowntosupportcommunitiesofencrustingpolychaetes;ascidians,erect
sponges,bryozoansandhydroids;brittlestars;andpredatorssuchassquatlobsters,prawns,shrimp
andcrabs.GeogenicreefsassociatedwiththemusselspeciesModiolusmodiolusandMytilusedulis
alongwiththepolychaetewormSabellariaspinulosaarethosemostlikelytointeractwithCGBFs
associatedwithRound3projects.Duetothelifestrategiesofthereefbuildingspeciesthenthe
sensitivitytovariousimpactsfromCGBFsmaybedifferente.g.M.modiolusreefmaybemore
sensitivetosmotheringimpactthanS.spinulosareef(Holtetal.,1998;Lastetal.,2011;Pearceet
al.,2011).
Geogenicreefhabitatssuchaspebblesandcobble(stony)reefs,bouldersandbedrockgenerally
supporthighdiversitycommunitiesandbiotopesinareasthatarenotinfluencedbynearseabed
55

AReviewofMarineEnvironmentalConsiderationsassociatedwithConcreteGravityBase
FoundationsinOffshoreWindDevelopments.

sedimenttransportationresultinginscouringeffects(Connoretal.,2004).Thebiotopessupported
bythesehardsubstratahabitatsrangefromalgaldominatedintheupperwatercolumnphotic
zonestothosedominatedbyepifaunaintheaphoticcircalittoralzone.MostCGBFlocationsare
likelytointeractwiththecircalittoral,animaldominatedcommunities.Again,aswithsediment
biotopes,differencesingeogenicbiotopesaredependentuponenergyexposure.Thehigherenergy
habitats(tidalstreams,highwaveexposure)supporterectandbranchingformsoflifesuchaslarge
sponges,octocorals(seafansanddeadmansfingers),bryozoans(seamats)andhydroids(seafirs)
withcarpetsofanemonesandcolonialascidians(seasquirts).
Lowerenergysystemstendtomoresiltyconditionsandsupportdiverseturfsofencrustingsponges,
bryozoans,hydroids,ascidianswithanemones.
Certainofthegeogenicbiotopesconsistoflonglived,slowgrowing,lowrecruitmentspeciesandare
susceptible(sensitive)tomanyanthropogenicimpacts.
Mobile / Errant Species
Mobilebenthicspeciestendtobepredatorsandscavengersderivedfromphylasuchascrustaceans,
molluscs(gastropodsnails),echinoderms(sunstarsandstarfish)andpisceans(fish).Speciesfrom
thesephylapreyupontheinfaunaandepifaunaandusetheecologicalniches,associatedwiththe
morestructurallycomplexcoarseandmixedsedimentandgeogenichabitatsandassociated
epifaunalcommunities,forrefugia.Whilstsensitivetodirectimpactssuchashabitatremovalthese
speciesaregenerallylesssensitivetoindirecteffectsduetotheirmobility.Thisallowsthemto
relocatetoless/unimpactedareasavoidingorrecoveringfromimpactsmoreeasilythansessile
organisms.
Brittlestarsaregenerallysuspensionfeederswithalimitedmobilityandarethussensitivetoboth
directandindirectimpactslikelyfromCGBFs.
7.2.2

Some Key Aspects of Benthic Habitat and Community Responses to CGBFs

Effects of a CGBF on Benthic Habitats and Communities


Benthiccommunitysensitivity(totheeffectsdiscussedinthissection)isverymuchdeterminedby
thehabitatsthatsupportthem.Asageneralrule,highenergyexposedsedimentsaremoremobile
andthussupportinfaunalspeciesevolvedtoopportunisticallyrespondtodisturbanceeventsthe
speciesaremobile,fastgrowing,shortlivedandabletoreproducerapidlyrselectedor
opportunisticspecies(NybakkenandBertness,2004).Speciesassociatedwithmorestablehabitats
suchaslowenergyexposed,stablemixedorcoarsesediment(gravelsandpebbles)aregenerally
lesstoleranttodisturbancethespeciesaresessile,slowgrowing,longlivedwithaslower
reproductiverate(thanopportunisticspecies)Kselectedorequilibriumspecies(Nybakkenand
Bertness,2004).Thereforepathwaysassociatedwithphysicalenvironmenteffectsareofparamount
importanceforthebiologicalenvironment.Effectsfromchangestobathymetryaffectingtidal
currents,sedimenttransportandwaveclimate;removal/alterationofhabitat;resuspension/
depositionofsediments;andnoiseandpressurewillresultindirectandindirecteffectsandpossible
impactsonbenthos.
Thetolerance,adaptabilityandrecoverability(sensitivity)ofspeciestothenaturalprocessesthey
areadaptedtohavearelationshiptothesensitivitytothoseanthropogenicactivitiesresultingin
56

AReviewofMarineEnvironmentalConsiderationsAssociatedwithConcreteGravityBase
FoundationsinOffshoreWindDevelopments.

similarpressures.Forexamplehigherenergysystemsexertgreaterdisturbance/turbationforceson
thespecieslivinginthem,thandolowenergysystems,andthiscanreflecttheirsensitivityto
anthropogenicpressuresresultingindisturbance.
Impactsresultinginphysicallossanddamagetobenthicbiotopesareassociatedwithallphasesand
activitiesofCGBFsconsideredinthisreportasdetailedinSection5.2.Theseinteractionsand
possibleimpactsaredescribedbelow.
Physical Loss of Habitat
Ifrequired,theseabed/groundpreparationthroughdredging(seeAppendixEfordetailed
considerationofthisactivity)willdirectlyremovethesurfacelayeroftheseabed,whichhasadirect
impactonthebenthiccommunitieswithinthedredgingarea,includingtheremovalofinfaunaand
epifauna.Physicallossofhabitatduringextractionoperationscouldalsoresultfromthesettlement
ofsuspendedparticlesmobilisedduringdredgingi.e.smothering.Thedepositionofthesefine
sedimentscanlocallychangethenatureofthesurfacesubstratum,makingitfinerandpotentially
alteringthebenthiccommunitieswherethesechangesoccur.Also,finesedimentssettlingontothe
seabedcan(subjecttoprevailingenvironmentalconditions)betransportedonorneartheseabed
furtherawayfromthedredgingareabytidalcurrentsandwaves,extendingthepotentialareaof
seabed/communitychangesandpotentialsmotheringofsessilebenthiccommunitiesbeyondthe
boundariesofadredgingarea.
TheinsitulifespanoftheCGBFcanhavetwolevelsofdirectimpact(seabedsurfacelayerremoval)
dependentuponwhetherseabed/groundpreparationisrequired,ornot.Iftheparticularsolution
meansthatnogroundpreparationisrequiredthentheinitialdirectremovaloftheseabedsurface
layerwillrelatetothedirectfootprintextentoftheCGBFstructureitself(plusanyscourprotection
ifneeded).Wheregroundpreparationisrequiredthentheinitialextentofseabedremovedwillbe
relatedtotheexcavationfootprint.Itisexpectedthatthedredgeorgrabareawillrecovertopre
excavationconditionswithintheinsitulifespanoftheCGBF(solongasinfillfinesareofsame
particlesizedistributionaspreexcavation),buttheareabeneaththeconcretestructurewill
effectivelyberemovedfromthesedimenthabitatsystem;untilaftertheCGBFhasbeen
decommissionedandremovedfromtheseabed.
Mostinfaunalspeciesoccupythetop0.5mofthesedimenthabitat(Thorson,1971;Hiscocketal.,
2002;EMULtd,2010a).Thereforeanyactivitieswhichremovethisbiologicallycriticalhabitat
resourcearelikelytoresultinimpactstothecommunities/biotopes.Research(Hilletal.,2011)has
shownthathighenergyenvironmentswithmediumfinesedimentbiotopescanbeexpectedto
recoverwithinaperiodof624months.Coarseandmixedsedimentbiotopesmaynotshow
recoverywithinaperiodlessthan8yearsand>15yearsinsomecases(Cooperetal.;2011;Hillet
al.,2011).Thereforethehabitattype,durationofhabitatremoval/alterationandpotential
recoveryperiodsareimportantwhenconsideringthemagnitudeofeffectsanddifferentactivities
willresultinvaryinglevelsofimpact.Itcanbesummarisedthatbenthicassemblagesinregionsof
highnaturaldisturbanceandlowgravelcontentappeartobelesssensitivetochangesinparticle
sizedistribution(Cooperetal.,2011).Thelongestbiologicalrecoverytimesoccurwithinless
dynamicandenergeticenvironments,suchasgravelsandcoarsesedimentsassociatedwithlow
waveexposureandtidalstreams(Hilletal.,2011).

57

AReviewofMarineEnvironmentalConsiderationsassociatedwithConcreteGravityBase
FoundationsinOffshoreWindDevelopments.

FromthetwoscenariospresentedaboveitisevidentthatsolongastheCGBFisexpectedtoremain
insituforlongerthan10yearsthemainconsiderationofhabitatlossshouldbethedirectfootprint
oftheCGBFstructure(includinganyscourprotectionifused)andnotnecessarilythefullextent
groundpreparationfootprint(ifthisisalsorequired)e.g.dredgingassociatedwithground
preparationwillresultinlossofanareaofbiotopes,butitwouldbeexpectedthatthesebiotopes
mayrecovertopredredgeconditionsduringthelifespanofthewindfarm;solongassimilar
sedimentparticlesizeisusedtobackfillthedredgepit.Howeverseabedhabitatlostbeneaththe
baseofthefoundationitselfwilleffectivelyberemovedfromtheenvironmentforthedurationof
thewindfarmoperation(andforarecoveryperiodfollowingdecommissioningandremoval).Seabed
habitatovershadowedbyasteeljacketortripodstructure(butnotdirectlybeneaththefeetand
anyscourprotection)canalsobeinanalteredstateduetolocalisedchangesinwaterflow,
sedimenttransport,shadingandnutrification.Thesefactorsaffectinganindirectphysicallossof
habitataredescribedinmoredetaillaterinthissection.Thesecanresultinequivalentfootprintsto
CGBFdirecthabitatlossandareeffectivefortheinsitulifespanofthestructureontheseabed.
ItisalsonecessarytoconsiderthenatureofthefoundationbaselayeruponwhichtheCGBFrests.In
mostcasesthefoundationlayerconsistsofgravelorcrushedrock(Piereetal.,2009)whichmaybe
averydifferentparticlesizecomparedwiththenaturallyoccurringsediments.Asdiscussedinthe
previoussubsections,particlesizeandsedimenttypehasagreateffectuponthecommunitiesable
tocolonisethehabitat.Also,asthebiologicalzonetendstopenetratetoadepthgenerallynot
exceeding0.5mfromseabedsurface(EMULtd,2010a;Thorson,1971;Hiscocked.,1998),thenthe
burialdepthofthefoundationlayerisimportant.Figure7.3:presentsadiagrammaticcrosssection
ofaCGBFbaseatThorntonBankOWF,Belgium.Thisshowsthatfoundationlayerresidesat
approximately4mbelowreferenceseabedlevel.Thereisnopathwayforbiologicalzonealteration
duetothefoundationlayerbeingdeeperthan0.5mbelowseabedlevel.Itisproposedthatsolong
asthefoundationlayerortheloadbearinglayerisalwaysdeeperthanaprecautionarydepthof1m
belowreferenceseabedlevel,andthatbackfillisusedofthesamegrainsize(aspreexcavation),
thenimpactsassociatedwithremovalofbenthichabitatwillbemitigated(solongasscourmaterial
isnotdepositedonthesedimentsurface).
Figure7.2:DiagrammaticCrossSectionofCGBFbase,FoundationLayersandScourProtectionfromThorntonBankOWF,
Belgianwaters(FromPeireetal.,2009).

58

AReviewofMarineEnvironmentalConsiderationsAssociatedwithConcreteGravityBase
FoundationsinOffshoreWindDevelopments.

Physicallossofbenthichabitatsandshiftsinmacrobenthiccommunitiescanalsoresultfromeffects
associatedwithchangestohydrography(Hiscocketal.,2002;Coatesetal.,2010;Zuccoetal.,2006).
Thealterationofthephysicalenvironmentcanleadtoscourpitevolutionwhichmayrequire
mitigationthroughtheadditionofscourprotectionsolutions.Impactsonbenthicbiotopescan
manifestduetochangesinsedimentparticlesizewithinscourpits(Whitehouseetal.,2011a,2011b;
Hiscocketal.,2002;Coatesetal.,2010;Zuccoetal.,2006).Differentinfaunalspeciesand
communitiesareevolvedtooccupydifferentsedimenttypesandacoarseningofthesediment
(throughwinnowingoffines)willeffectivelyremovepreinstallationhabitat.Therefore
considerationofscouring,baseduponprojectspecificmodels(seeSections5.3,6.2.1.and6.2.3),is
averyimportantfactorofanysitespecificEIA.Similarly,theadditionofscourprotection(if
deployed)willresultin:alossofsedimenthabitatbelowtheprotectionfootprint;andalsoin
colonisationbyepifaunalcommunitiesnaturallyassociatedwithrocky/geogenicreefs.Thiswill
resultinpotentialalterationstotheecosystemandthesearediscussedlaterinthissubsection.The
importantfactoristhatbothscourpitsandmitigationsolutionswilllikelyalterthenaturally
occurringdistributionofsedimentbiotopespresentatthepreinstallationbaselinebyreplacing
sedimenthabitatwithhardhabitat.
AspresentedinTable1.1theworstcasescenariofootprintofCGBFstructureatseabedsurfacelevel
is36.2mdiameterequivalenttoanareaof1,029m2(5MWturbineat50mbelowchartdatumon
sand)(basedondataprovidedbytheGravityFoundationInterestGroupmembers).Wherescour
protectionisrequired,thentheareaofseabedhabitatloss(theremovalofpreinstallationhabitat),
increasesfrom1,029m2to2,324m2(worstcase).Monitoringofscourpitevolutionfrommonopile
foundationsatScrobySandsOWF,UK,hasbeenrecordedto5mdepthand100mdiameter(OSPAR
Commission,2006;Rees,2005).Thereforethelargestscourpitsweredemonstratedtoeffect
approximately7,850m2ofseabed,anareaconsiderablygreaterthantheworstcasescenario
seabedareatakeforCGBF.Steeljacketandtripodfoundationshavearelativelylargeseabed
footprintwhichincreasestocomparableorgreaterareathanCGBFswhenconsideringthestructure
footprintontheseabedasawhole(seeTable3.2).Theconstructionsurfaceareaiswillresultinpre
installationhabitatlossduetoacombinationofovershadowingorshadingeffectsandreef
effects(discussedindetaillaterbelow).Theshadingeffectsarelikelyariseduetosediment
particlesizealterationfromscouringandchangestobeneathfoundationwaterflow.Reefeffects
willinteractwiththesedimentcommunitieswithintheconstructionareaduetochangestoorganic
nutrificationandlikelypredationeventsfrommobilepredatorsattractedtotheartificialstructure
(Zuccoetal.,2006;Hiscocketal.,2002).
Suctioncaissonfoundationscanhaveadirectfootprintofupto2,000m2whichwillresultinsome
casestocomparableseabedhabitatlosstoCGBFs(butgreaterthansomeCGBFdesignsolutions)
(DECC,2011a).Table3.2citesaslightlylowerseabedfootprint,includingscourprotection,of
1,323m2(RPSEnergyandRWENPowerRenewable,2011).
TheUKRound2TritonKnollOWFEnvironmentalStatement(RPSEnergyandRWENPower
Renewable,2011)presentsamodellingstudyexaminingthepotentialintroductionofscourresulting
fromturbinefoundations.Thestudyconcludedthatthemaximumadverseenvironmentalscenario
concerningscourofsandandfinersedimentswouldbefoundinthesurficialsedimentlayerof
approximately1mdepthanduptoa23mradiusfromthefoundationformonopilefoundations.For
CGBFscourpitsweremodelledas510madditionalradiusaroundthefoundationbase.Estimated
59

AReviewofMarineEnvironmentalConsiderationsassociatedwithConcreteGravityBase
FoundationsinOffshoreWindDevelopments.

maximumvolumesofmaterialthatmightbereleasedbyscourwereapproximately1100m3per
gravitybasefoundationcomparedwithapproximately92m3formonopilefoundations.Foreither
solutionthemodelshowedthatscourmaterialwouldbedispersedawayinthesamewaythat
materialreleasedduringconstructionispredictedtobedispersed.
TheTritonKnollESpresentedindicativescourprotectionparametersforvariousfoundation
solutions.ThesedataarepresentedinTable6.1andTable6.2.Itisevidentfromthesedatathat
greateramountsofscourprotectionwereindicatednecessaryformonopilefoundationsthanfora
CGBFsolution.ItshouldbenotedthatTable6.1presentsthevaluesforscourmaterialalone,whilst
Table6.2presentsthecumulativeextentofscourmaterialandthefoundationareatake.Fora5MW
turbinescenariothenan8.5mdiametermonopileispredictednecessarywithaseabedfootprintof
57m2.ThesevaluesforthesamescenarioforCGBFweredeterminedas40mdiameterwith1,257m2
seabedareatake.Thereforeadjustedtotalseabedareatakepersolution,withscourprotectionis:

Monopile:
CGBF

1,848m2
2,828m2

FromthescenariospresentedaboveitisevidentthatCGBFsmaynotalwayshaveagreaterseabed
habitatlossfootprintthanmonopilefoundations.Thisiscontrarytowidelyheldpreconceptionsthat
CGBFs,duetothelargerdiameterthanmonopiles,steeljacketsandtripods,willalwayshavea
largerseabedfootprint.
Artificial Reef Effect and Habitat and Community Loss / Alteration
Notonlyistheredirecthabitatlossbelowthefoundationandanyscourprotection(ifrequired),but
theremayalsobeindirecteffectsassociatedwiththeintroductionofartificialgeogenic/rocky
habitatsintosedimentecosystems.Introductionoftheseartificialhabitatscanresultinthesocalled
reefeffectwhichcanresultinthegreatestimpactattheecosystemlevel(CrippsandAabel,2002;
Hiscocketal.,2002;Zuccoetal.,2006).Thereefeffectisexpectedtobeconfinedtotheclose
vicinityoftheCGBFstructureandanyscourprotectionthatmayberequired.Fringeorhalo
effectscanmanifestduetoorganicnutrientenrichmentfrombiotopesthatestablishonthe
foundationstructureandscourprotectionmaterialifrequired(Zuccoetal.,2006andreferences
citedtherein;Coatesetal.,2010andreferencescitedtherein).Coatesetal.(2010)statethat:
Thepresenceofhardsubstrateepifaunaproducesadepositionalflowoffaeces,(pseudofaeces)and
otherorganicmaterialwhichcouldcreateorganicenrichedsedimentsandthereforealterthesoft
sedimentmacrobenthiccommunities.
Notonlyaretherepossiblenutrientenrichmentpathwaysbutalsomobilefaunaattractedtothe
artificialreeflikestructurescanexertpressuresonthesurroundingsedimentbiotopesandbenthos.
Predatoryorganismssuchascrustaceans(shrimps,prawns,crabsandlobsters)andfishmaynotonly
liveandhuntonthehardsubstratacommunitiesbutshowwiderforagingrangesacrossnearby
sedimentcommunities(Pageetal.,1999;Bremneretal.,2006).PoseyandAmbrose(1994)
conductedastudyonarockyreefofftheNorthCarolinacoastoftheUSA.Theirresearchsuggested
atrophiclinkbetweenthereefandthesurroundingsedimentcommunities.Theresultoftheirstudy
indicatedpotentiallyimportantindirecteffectsofpredatorpreyinteractionamongthereef
associatedpredatorsandthesedimenthabitatpreyspecies.However,changesofsurrounding
60

AReviewofMarineEnvironmentalConsiderationsAssociatedwithConcreteGravityBase
FoundationsinOffshoreWindDevelopments.

infaunalcommunitiesappeartobelimitedtoasmallareaaroundreefsorstructures,generallyno
morethantensofmetresdistant(Zuccoetal.,2006).
Fishpredatorsaremoremobile,orabletoforagewiderdistancesandreturntotheartificialreef
refugiamorerapidly,thaninvertebratepredators.Therearerecordsofthesepredatorsforagingout
fromthereefsonsomecasesupto200maway(referencescitedinZuccoetal.,2010;Bremneret
al.,2006).
MonitoringofthepostinstallationofCGBFsattheThorntonBankOWFinBelgianwatershasshown
thatchangestoinfaunalcommunitieshaveoccurredinassociationwiththeintroductionofCGBF
structuresintothemarineenvironment(Coatesetal.,2010;CoatesandVincx,2010;Derweduwen
etal.,2010).Noticeabledifferencesinthesoftsedimentmacrobenthiccommunitieswereobserved
withrespecttodistancefromtheCGBFsstudied.Gradientsexistedwithastrongrelationshiptothe
tidalandcrosstidalaxeswithinthearrayarea.Themainobservationsrecordedwere:

Inclosevicinitytothefoundationstructurecertainhardsubstratespecieswerefoundin
highdensitiesinthesoftsediment;and
Adecreaseinmediangrainsizecoincidedwithanincreaseinpolychaetedensities(suchas
LaniceconchilegaandSpiophanesbombyx)atshortdistancefromtheCGBF.

Itwasconcludedthatalongtidethechangesinhydrodynamics(fromtheconcretefoundation)due
todecreasedcurrentspeedsmayhavealteredthemediangrainsizeofthesedimentalongwiththe
creationofsomestablesandpitsasarelicofgroundpreparationdredgingactivities.Thisprobably
causedtheaccumulationoforganicmatterandenhancedlarvalsettlement.Thecrosstidalgradient
showedlowerorganicmaterialconcentrationsandaslightlyhighermediangrainsizeanda
dominanceofthetubebuildingamphipodMonocorophiumacherusicumnotobservedatbaseline
conditions.Thoughlimitedinscaleandrepetitionthissmallscalestudysuggeststhatthe
introductionofthehardsubstrateturbineinducedalocalshiftinthesoftsedimentmacrobenthic
community.ThebaselinehomogenoussandybiotopesoftheThorntonsandbankhaveundergonea
changetoaslightlyhigherheterogeneityataverylocalscale.
However,itisunclearwhatfactor(s)aloneorcombinedhasresultedinthecommunity/biotope
changes.Theauthorsproposedthatthecommunityshiftislikelylinkedto:

Changinghydrodynamics;
Organicenrichment;
Alteredparticlesizedistribution;and/or
Dredgepitsnotremediatedtoreferenceseabedlevels.

AnintensivemonitoringprogrammewasconductedinassociationwithtwoDanishoffshore
windfarms,HornsRevandNysted(DONGEnergyetal.,2006).Themonitoringdemonstratedthat
themaineffectfromestablishingthewindfarmswasassociatedwiththeintroductionofhard
bottomstructuresontosandysedimentseabeds.Theresultwasincreasedhabitatheterogeneity
thatchangedthebenthiccommunitiesatthefoundationsitesfrominfaunalbiotopestoepifaunal
biotopes.Abundanceandbiomassofthebenthiccommunitiesincreasedatthefoundations
(includingscourprotectionused)comparedwiththepreinstallationbaselines:anincreasein
biomassby50150timeswasrecordedwithinthearraysi.e.atalocalscale.Itwashypothesisedthat
61

AReviewofMarineEnvironmentalConsiderationsassociatedwithConcreteGravityBase
FoundationsinOffshoreWindDevelopments.

muchofthisincreasedbiomassmaybeavailableasfoodforfishandseabirds.However,monitoring
datasuggestthatfishabundancesandbiomasshavenotincreasedsignificantlybeyondbaselines
andseabirdsaregenerallyexhibitingavoidancebehaviour(duetoabovewatereffects)(DONG
Energyetal.,2006).
Theartificialreefeffectcanalsomanifestindirecthabitatremovalatthebaseofthefoundation
and/orscourprotection(ifutilised)throughthebiologicaldetritusassociatedwiththeepifaunal
reefcommunities.DeadbluemusselMytilusedulisshellsfallenfromreefcommunitiesonthe
artificialhardsubstratemayaccumulatearoundthebaseofthefoundationstructureandalter/
coarsenthesedimenthabitat(Hiscocketal.,2002).Thiswillresultinalossofpreinstallation/
baselinehabitatandwillbemostrelevantforCGBFswithnoscourprotection.Whilstnotrestricted
toCGBFsalone,itispossiblethatthelargersurfaceareaofsubmergedstructure(c.f.monopileand
floatingplatform)mayresultinalargerfootprintofshellmulch,duetothefactthatattachment
spaceformusselsinaccordinglygreater.
Table1.1showsthatthesubmergedsurfaceareaofconcreteavailableforcolonisationis3,338m2
(worstcasescenario50mBCD).Thesimilarareaassociatedwitha7mdiametermonopileis
1,924m2.ThereisconsiderablemorehabitatspaceforepifaunaassociatedwithCGBFthanwith
monopileinstallations.Zuccoetal.,(2006)proposedthatsteeljacketfoundationsmayprovidea
comparablehardhabitatresourcetoCGBFs.Theintricatenatureofthelatticestructuremayprovide
amorecomplexnicheandcrevicehabitatthatmayresultinincreasedbiodiversitywhencompared
withflatsurfaces.Howeverthisisexpertopinionandnotcurrentlysupportedbydataorevidence
fromthefield.
Physical Damage
Physicaldamagecanmanifestitselfinmanywaysandisgenerallyassociatedwithindirector
secondaryeffects.Inassociationwithgroundpreparationoperations(whererequired)themain
pressuresareabrasion(fromthedraghead)andchanges(increases)tosuspendedsedimentloads
(concentrations)(Tillinetal.,2011).High(increased)suspendedsedimentloadswouldbeunlikelyto
affectmanyofthecommunitiesfoundatlocationsusingCGBFsastheyareevolvedtoexistinhigh
turbiditywaters.However,sedimentplumescanelevatesuspendedsedimentconcentrations(SSC)
abovenaturalbackgroundloads,especiallythoseassociatedwithcalmweatherperiods.Alsothe
temporalscaleofdredgingorgrabbingmayhaveanadditiveeffecte.g.SSCincreasemayonlybein
orderoftensmg/lelevationabovebackgroundlevelsbutifthisoccurseveryweektheneffectively
theoperationismimickingasignificantincreaseineffectssimilartostormevents.Thereforecareis
neededwhenassessingplumeeffectsaswhilstSSCincreasemaybeminimal,thescaleof
(cumulative)effectmayreachanecologicaltippingpointi.e.communitiesmaybeadaptedto
periodicstormeventsbutrepetitiveexposureoverashortperiodoftimemayhaveadetrimental
effectasrecoveryperiodsarereduced.
Thespecificeffectsassociatedwiththepotentialgroundpreparationarenotconsideredindetailin
thissectionastheyareconsideredanalogoustothoseassociatedwithmarineaggregatedredging
operations.AppendixEprovidesspecificdetailsregardingmarineaggregateoperationsinthe
contextofgroundpreparationshoulditberequired.Thebenthicreceptorsarelikelytobethesame
as,orsimilarto,thoseexposedtoeffectsfrommarineaggregateoperations.Itissuggestedthatany

62

AReviewofMarineEnvironmentalConsiderationsAssociatedwithConcreteGravityBase
FoundationsinOffshoreWindDevelopments.

projectspecificEIAwilladdresstheseissuesusingthewealthofmarineaggregateextraction
environmentalresearchidentifiedinAppendixE.
However,thereisaforeseeablepathwayassociatedwithCGBFspecificgroundpreparationthatwill
requireextraconsiderationforEIAifitisrequired;beyondthatcurrentlyassignedtomarine
aggregateoperationsoroffshorerenewablesprojectsusingmonopiles.Thisisassociatedwiththe
possiblefateoffinesdredgedfromthegroundpreparationarea.TheThorntonBankOWF,Belgium,
usedtrailersuctionhopperdredgerstoremovethesurficiallayersofthefoundationpits(Peireet
al.,2009).Thiscomponentofgroundpreparation(whererequired)wouldrealisethesametypesof
environmentaleffectsasforcommercialmarineaggregateextractionactivity.Piereetal.(2009)
describehowthedredgedfineswerethentemporarilydisposedof(stored)withinthefootprintof
theOWFarea.Thetemporarilydisposedfineswerethenredredged,followingemplacementofa
CGBFinthefoundationpit,tosupplyballastmaterialfortheCGBFs.Theredredgedfineswerealso
usedasbackfillmaterialtorestorethefoundationpitstoreferenceseabedlevels.
Thistwinphasedredgeincreasedtheextentoftheenvironmentaleffectfootprintoftheproject.
Additionaltoimpactsassociatedwithseabedremovalatthefoundationpit,includingimpactsfrom
thesedimentplume,therewascumulativeseabedlosswherethedredgefinesweredisposed.
Duringthedepositionofthefinesitisexpectedthatasedimentplumewouldpropagate.
Considerationofthesecondary(indirect)effectsassociatedwiththissecondsedimentplumewill
havetobeconsideredinanyprojectspecificEIAwherethisactivitymayberequired.
Itisassumedthatanyareaofseabedhabitatsandcommunitiesreceivingthetemporarydeposition
offineswillbeidentifiedashavingahighrecoveryrate/hightolerancetosmotheringimpacts.
Assumingthisfactorandthetemporarynatureofthedeposition/storagethenthemagnitudeof
effectsarepossiblylow.Thereforetheimpactmayhavealowoverallsignificanteffect,butitisstill
animpactgreaterthanusuallyassociatedwithmonopile,steeljacket,tripodorsuctioncaisson
installations.Theexceptionwillbewheremonopiles,steeljacketsandtripodsrequiredrivedrill
driveoperationsforinstallation;inEnglishwatersthisisusuallyassociatedwithspecificchalksub
seabedbedrocklayers(IanReach,pers.comm.;CentricaEnergyLtd,2008,2010).Butherethe
footprintofdispositionislikelytobemuchsmallerthanthatassociatedwithfoundationpitdredge
finedeposition/storage(CentricaEnergyLtd,2008,2010;Piereetal.,2009).Suctioncaisson
foundationsmayrequireadegreeofseabedlevellingtoensureanegativepressuresealatthe
seabedsurface.However,thefootprintofanyfinesremovedaspartoftheseabedpreparationis
likelytobemuchsmallerthanthoseassociatedwithCGBFfoundationpits(wheretheseare
required).
Duringtheredredgingoperationanothersedimentplumeislikelytobegenerated,thoughitis
possiblethismaybemorelimitedinvolumeandextent(thantheinitialdredgeanddeposition
plumes)duetoactivesortingandscreeningoffinesfromthepreviousdredgeanddeposition
events.Regardless,thiscomponentofoperationsisnoveltotheuseofCGBFsandwillrequireclear
considerationwithinanyEIA.
Theeffectsassociatedwithdepositionandredredgingofexcavationfineswillbemitigatedifa
bargeisusedtohold/storethefinesuntiluseasballastorbackfill,orremovaltoalicenseddredge
disposalsite.
63

AReviewofMarineEnvironmentalConsiderationsassociatedwithConcreteGravityBase
FoundationsinOffshoreWindDevelopments.

Habitatdamagewilloccurinassociationwithconstructionvesselsattendantatthearraysite.The
benthicimpactpathwaysarederivedfromthespudcans(weightspreadingfeet)andanchorsused
byjackupbargesandotherconstructionvesselsandtenders.Theseimpactswouldmanifestas
abrasioneffectsandwouldbeashortterminnatureassociatedwiththepositioningoflegsfromthe
jackupbargeontothesubstrateforthedurationoftheengineeringworks.Anindirectimpact
pathwaywillbeassociatedwiththedepressionareasfromthespudsandanchors.Observations
suggestthatincertainbenthichabitatsandenvironmentsthendepressionsfromspudsandanchors
canremainforupto18months(CentricaEnergyLtd.,2009;EMULtd,2009).Recoverythroughin
fillingfromnaturalprocessessuchastide,currentandsedimenttransportationwillrestorethe
seabedtoitsnaturalstatesolongasactivetransportsystemsexist.Inareasofverylowenergythen
theseeffectsmaypersistforyears(Cooperetal.,2011;Hilletal.,2011).Assessmentoftotalareaof
seabedimpactedbyplacementoftheinstallationvesselswillbeassessedattheEIAstage.
Itisimportanttonotethatbenthiceffectsdirectlyassociatedwithinstallationvesselsandtenders
forCGBFisnotexpectedtobeanygreaterthanthoseassociatedwithinstallationofalternative
foundations.RPSEnergyandRWENPowerRenewable(2011)reportthatanaverageseabed
footprintassociatedwithajackupbargeisapproximately416m2perjackup(includinglegprofile
area,additionalspudcanandanadditional10%margin).Wherespudcandepressionsmaybeless
duetofewerjackupbargesused,foundationlaying/spreaderbargeswillrequireanchoringtothe
seabed.Thespreaderbarge,theThornton1,usedattheThorntonBankOWFrequiredsix712
tonneflipperdeltaanchorstomaintainpositionwhilstdeployinginfillandballastmaterials
(Figure7.3).
Figure7.3:MultipurposebargeThornton1depictedinbackfillandinfillmode(FromPeireetal.,2009).

Elevatedsedimentloadsmayresultduetoalterednearbedtransportationassociatedwiththebase
ofthefoundation(seeSection6).Inmostcasesthesewouldbeexpectedtobeatlowerlevelsthan
thosederivedfromseabedpreparation/dredgingactivitiesifused.Increasedsuspendedsediment
concentrations(SSC)andscouringwereimpliedasapossiblesourceforsuppressingbluemussel
64

AReviewofMarineEnvironmentalConsiderationsAssociatedwithConcreteGravityBase
FoundationsinOffshoreWindDevelopments.

MytiluseduliscolonisationatseabedlevelontheNystedOWFscourprotection(DONGEnergyetal.,
2006).However,therewasnodetectionofeffectsduetoincreasedSSCtothelocalinfaunal
communitieswithinthearray.
Invasive NonNative Species
Invasivenonnativespeciesareathreattonativefaunaandfloraduetotherapidcolonisationand
displacementeffectsthatcanensue.Alackofenvironmentalchecksandbalances(fromtheabsence
oftheirnaturalpredators)meansthatinvasivenonnativespeciescaneffectivelyremovenative
speciesfromseveralenvironmentalniches.Artificialhardsubstratacanallowthecolonisationby
invasiveepiphytesandepifaunalspeciesthatwouldnotnormally(intheabsenceofsuchstructures)
haveaccesstocertainareasofseas,duetotheprevalenceofsedimenthabitatsandlackofnaturally
occurringbedrockandboulderreefs.
ThemonitoringprogrammeattheThorntonBankOWFreportedthepresenceofnonnative
barnaclespeciesBalanusperforatusandMegabalanuscoccopomainthebarnaclezone(Degraeret
al.,2010).ThisillustratespointscitedbyBrabantandJacques(2010)andLinleyetal.(2007)about
thecolonisationopportunityofferedbyartificialhardsubstratatononnativeinvasivespecies
spreadingintonewregionalseassuchastheNorthSea.Thesteppingstoneeffectofartificialhard
substrata(Hiscocketal.,2002),suchaslargewindturbinefoundationsmaybeevenmorecriticalfor
speciesthathavenodispersiveplanktoniclarvalstage.
Itiscriticalthatmonitoringprogrammesforoffshorewindfarmsaredetailedenoughtodetectthe
spreadofanyinvasivespecies.HoweverthisisnotaCGBFspecificrequirement,rathergeneric
acrossthesectorforallfoundationtypes.

7.3

Fish Fauna and Assemblages

ThissectionisintendedtoprovideanoverviewofthefishfaunalikelytointeractwithCGBFsand
howtheeffectpathwaysandimpactsmayinteractwiththeecology.Informationonthedistribution
andrepresentativityoffishspeciesandassemblagespresentwithintheRound3zonescanbedrawn
fromseveralsourcesataregionalandsubregionalseasscale;alongwithprojectspecific
informationderivedfromsitespecificcharacterisationandbaselinesurveysconductedtosupport
EIAandEnvironmentalStatements.
Section5.2hasidentifiedBenthosasareceptortoactivitiesandeffectsassociatedwitheachphase
ofthelifespanofaCGBFconsideredinthisreport.Benthosconsistsofmanysubreceptorsthatcan
bedescribedinvariouswaysandforthepurposesofthisreportfishspeciesandcommunityare
consideredaspartofthebenthos.Thissectionwillconsiderthefishreceptorsunderseveralbroad
descriptorsdependentuponlifestrategiesandbiologicaltraits.Ostensiblyfishreceptorscanbe
identifiedasthoselivingonordependentuponseabedsedimenthabitatssandeels,flatfishetc.;
thoseassociatedwithreefs;andthosespeciesgenerallypelagic,butwithkeylifestagesassociated
withsedimentorrockyreefhabitats.Eachofthesebroadsubreceptorgroupsmayhavedifferent
sensitivitiestoimpactsfromaCGBFandareconsideredbelow.
InthecaseofRound3offshorewindfarmdevelopments,themostlikelybenthichabitatsandfish
assemblagespresentarethoseassociatedwithsurficialsedimentssuchassandsandgravels.The
65

AReviewofMarineEnvironmentalConsiderationsassociatedwithConcreteGravityBase
FoundationsinOffshoreWindDevelopments.

distributionandlocationofRound3areaspredominatelyoccupysedimenthabitattypes(Figure
7.1),althoughtherearelocalisedareasofbedrock,andbedrockwithsedimentveneers,insomeof
theregionsandassociatedareas(especiallyalongtheSouthCoast,SouthwestApproachesand
BristolChannel).Therangeofspeciesandassemblagesaregenerallyrepresentedbyburrowingfish
suchassandeels,weaverfishandflatfishassociatedwithmobilesedimentssuchassandsand
gravellysands.Morestablesedimentsconsistingoflargerparticlesizessuchassandygravels,
gravels,pebblesandcobblesmaysupportmorediversefishassemblagesthoughthereisstilla
representationofflatfishspecies.Rocky/geogenicreefscanactasanaturalfishaggregatingdevice
(FAD).TheFADandreefeffectcanresultfromtheintroductionofartificialhardsubstrataintothe
marineenvironmentsuchasfoundationstructuresandscourprotection(ifused).
7.3.1

Important Fish Resources

Sandy or Mobile Sediment Habitat


Sandysedimenthabitatsattractavarietyoffishspecieswhicharegenerallyadaptedtobeingableto
burrowintothetopfewcentimetresofsand.InUKwatersdemersal(bottomliving)fishspeciesare
commonlyrepresentedbysandeels,weaverfish,flatfish,skatesandrays(Wootton,1992).These
fisharepredators,preyinguponinfaunaassociatedwiththesedimenthabitatsorpredating
planktonicorfreeswimmingpreyclosetotheseabedsurface(NybakkenandBertness,2004).
NybakkenandBertness(2004)reportthatdemersalfishassemblagesassociatedwithsediment
communitiescanhaveaforcingeffectuponcommunitysizeandstructureduetopredation
pressure.Theyareadaptedtothemobilenatureofthesandysedimentsandarerelativelytolerant
ofhighturbidityandelevatedsuspendedsediments(MarLIN,2012).Theirkeysensitivityisrelatedto
habitatlossand/orimpactsuponpreyspecies.
Coarse / Mixed Sediment and Rocky Habitats
Consolidatedcoarseandmixedsedimenthabitats(gravels,pebblesandsandymuddygravels)may
notbeverymobilewithaclastmatrixandstructurethatexcludesburrowingbyfishspecies.These
habitats(asdescribedinSection7.2),alongwithhardsubstrata,tendtosupportcomplexand
possiblydiverseepifaunalcommunities.Theabundanceofpreyitemsandthestructural
heterogeneityofthesehabitatsattractmanyfishspecies(Wootten,1992).Representativesof
demersalspeciessuchasflatfish,gobies,wrasses,dragonets,pipefish,seascorpions,butterfish,
gurnards,skatesandraysarecommonlyassociatedwithepifaunalcommunitiesofmixedandcoarse
sedimenthabitats(Pinnegaretal.,2010;Reissetal.,2010).
Pelagic Species
Therearemanypelagicspeciesassociatedwiththewatercolumnandsurfacewatersoftheseathat
mayinteractwithoffshorewindfarminstallations.Somespecies,suchasherringClupeaharengus,
usecoarsesediments(gravel)asspawninghabitat;layingtheireggsontoseabedsurface.Other
species,suchasmackerelScomberscombrus,mayhaveannualmigrationrouteswhichtraverse
windfarmzones.
Reeffeaturesstandingproudofthesurroundingseabedaddalevelofstructuralcomplexityand
heterogeneitytothebenthicenvironment.Ineffecttheyactasoases,attractingfishspecieswhich
cometoforageandpredatetheepifaunalcommunitiesandothermobilespeciessimilarlyattracted
tothereef(NybakkenandBertness,2004;Wootten,1992).Somespeciesseekrefugeprovidedby
66

AReviewofMarineEnvironmentalConsiderationsAssociatedwithConcreteGravityBase
FoundationsinOffshoreWindDevelopments.

thereefwhilstothersmayusethefeatureasabreedingsite,shelterfromprevailingphysical
conditionsandpredatoravoidance(Reubensetal.,2010).Thisattractiontothehabitatisknownas
thereefeffectandartificialstructuresactinasimilarmanner,eitherdemonstratingartificialreef
effectsoractingasafishattractiondevice(FAD)(Linleyetal.,2007).
PelagicspeciesknowntoexhibitresponsetoFADsand/orrecordedfromOWFmonitoring
programmes(DONGEnergy,2006;Zuccoetal.,2006;Derweduwenetal.,2010;OSPARCommission,
2006)arenumerousbutinclude:mackerel,cod,saithewhiting,pouting,pollack,bib,sprat,mullet,
seabassandherring.
7.3.2 Important Interactions between Fish Species and Assemblages with CGBFs
Severalpossibleinteractionsbetweenoffshorewindturbinefoundations(includingCGBFs)andfish
specieshavebeenidentified(Linleyetal.,2007;Zuccoetal.,2006;DONGEnergyetal.,2006;
ScottishExecutive,2007).ThesearelistedinSection5ofthisreportanddescribedinthissection
below.
NoneoftheeffectslistedabovearesolelyspecifictoCGBFsolutionsbutscaleofeffectsmaybe
differentcomparedwithotherengineeringsolutions.
Impactsassociatedwithelectromagneticfrequency(EMF)emissionsfrompowercablesarenot
consideredwithininthisreportastheseeffectsarenotadirectresultoffoundationsuperstructure
itself.
Direct Impacts and Physical Loss of Habitat
ThemonitoringprogrammesatHornsRevandNystedOWFS(DONGEnergyetal.,2006)havenot
documentedmajorchangesinthefishfaunawithregardtooverallabundanceorspecies
compositionfollowingtheconstructionandoperationofthewindfarms.However,itisimportantto
notethatatthetimeofpublicationofthemonitoringprogrammes(DONGEnergyetal.,2006)ofthe
resultsthatcolonisationofthefoundationsbyepifaunawasrelativelynew.Thereforeitis
hypothesisedthatsuccessionalcolonisationwouldcontinuetodevelopandastableclimaxfish
faunaisyettoappear.DataindicatethatmanyofthespeciesmentionedinSection7.3.1have
colonisedthefoundationsandscourprotection.Theseinclude:pipefish,wrasse,gurnards,flatfish,
cod,whiting,saithe,gobies,dragonetsandseascorpions.Diversitywasfoundtobegreateratthe
HornsRevarrayincomparisonwiththeNystedfarm.Itissuggestedthatthismaybeanartefactof
thedifferencesinepifaunalcommunitycomposition.Nystedartificialsubstrata(CGBFsandscour
protection)aredominatedbyanearmonocultureofbluemusselMytilusedulis.Thisrelative
homogeneitymaybemitigatingthefavourablereefeffects(duetodiverseandheterogeneous
epifauna)thatattractadiversereeffishfauna(DONGEnergyetal.,2006).
ThesandyhabitatsstudiedatHornsRevsupportanabundantsandeelpopulation(DONGEnergyet
al.,2006).Sandeelsareanimportantcomponentoftheecosystemactingasafoodsourceforlarger
fishandapexpredatorssuchasmarinemammalsandbirds(Pinnegaretal.,2010).Ascitedabove,
alterationandremovalofthesedimenthabitatswithinanarraymayhavenegativeimpactsonfish
assemblages.Iftheseimpactsresultinadverseeffectstoecologicalkeystonespeciessuchas
sandeelstheeffectscancascadethroughfoodwebs(Frederiksenetal.,2006).Thereforespecific
investigationsintothepossibleeffectsofsedimenthabitatlossandsandeelpopulationwere
conducted.Theresultsdonotsuggestthatsedimenthabitatandcommunitycompositionhasbeen
67

AReviewofMarineEnvironmentalConsiderationsassociatedwithConcreteGravityBase
FoundationsinOffshoreWindDevelopments.

affectedandsandeelpopulationsareconsistentrelativetobaseline.Itisnotedthatsandeel
abundanceinthearrayitselfmayhaveincreasedduetolinksbetweenorganicnutrientenrichment
(asaresultoftheepifaunalcommunitiesonthefoundations)andsuccessfulsandeelrecruitment.
Themonitoringconcludesthatshortterm,nearfieldeffectsonthefishabundanceandcomposition
inthewindfarmareasarefewandnoteasilyseparatedfromlargerscalechangesinthefish
communities.
DONGEnergyetal.(2006)postulatethattheconclusionsofthemonitoringmayapplytoboththe
NorthSeaandtheBalticSeastudies,thecolonisationofthenewartificialhardsubstratahabitats
maybemorerapidandmorepronouncedinotherregionalseasareaswherenaturalreefstructures
inthevicinityofthewindfarmareamayenhancethesupplyoffishe.g.inthecaseoftheUK;the
EnglishSouthCoast,SouthwestApproaches,BristolChannel,theNorthWelshcoastandNorth
Scotland.
Artificial Reef and Fish Aggregation Effects
Reubensetal.(2010)specificallyinvestigatedthereefeffectsoftheThorntonBankCGBFs,Belgium.
FishAggregationDevice(FAD)effectsresultfromseveralmechanismsaffectingfishbehaviour:
increasedforaging/predationefficiency;predatoravoidance/refuge;recruitment/nursery
location;andshelterfromprevailingphysicalenvironmentalfactors(waves,currentsetc.)(Reubens
etal.,2010andreferencescitedtherein).
ItisimportanttonotethattheFADqualitiesofCGBFsmaynotmeanadirectincreaseinthe
numbersofindividualfishspecieswithinaregion.ThenatureoftheFADorreefeffectissuchthat
theartificialstructuresattractandconcentratefishfromotherareas,nearfieldandpossiblyfarfield
too(Reubensetal.,2010).Apossibleecologicalpositiveimpactisthatthisaggregationoffish
speciesmaybeaffordedprotectioniffisheriesexclusionzonesareinplacewithinthearrayfootprint
(Linleyetal.,2007).Ifnoprotectionmeasuresexistthenoverfishingmayresultduetoincreased
catchperuniteffort(CPUE)(Reubensetal.,2010;Linleyetal.,2007).
Reubensetal.(2010)observedthatseveralspeciesrecordedfromshipwrecksintheBelgianNorth
SeaappearedtotakeupresidenceattheThorntonBankOWFCGBFs.Theseincludedpollack,cod,
pouting,andhorsemackerelandmackerelinthewarmersummerandearlyautumnmonths.
Flatfisharenotedtobeattractedtoscourprotectiontakingadvantageofincreasedpreyspecies
abundance(Zuccoetal.,2006).
Themackerelspeciesdata(obtainedintheThorntonBankstudy)impliedthatlargermature
individualswereattractedtotheCGBFscomparedtoindividualsassociatedwiththesurrounding
sedimenthabitats.Thissameobservationwasmadeforpouting.Codattractedtothefoundation
werepredominantlyjuvenileswhichmaybenefitmorethanadultsfromtheartificialrefugiahabitat
providedbytheCGBFs,thoughthisisonlyconjecture.
ComparedtothenaturalsedimenthabitatsurroundingtheCGBFsthedensityofcod,poutingand
horsemackerelwasstatisticallysignificantlyhigher;supportingthehypothesisthattheCGBFsare
actingasFADs.Stomachcontentanalysisofsampledpoutingindicatedadietconsistingofthe
crustaceansJassaherdmaniandPisidialongicornis.Theseepifaunalcrustaceansarehighdensity

68

AReviewofMarineEnvironmentalConsiderationsAssociatedwithConcreteGravityBase
FoundationsinOffshoreWindDevelopments.

colonisersoftheCGBFsatThorntonBank.Reubensetal.(2010)hypothesisethattheCGBFsareaisa
positiveattractant(FAD)duetothedensityofpreyspeciesnotfoundinthesurroundingsediment.
Unfortunatelytherearenodirectlycomparablemonopile,steeljacketortripodversusCGBF
artificialreefeffectstudies.ThecomparisonbetweenHornsRev(monopile)andNysted(CGBF)
OWFsisskewedduetotheinfluenceofthedominatingbluemusselcommunityandthebrackish
waterconditions(oftheBalticSea)fortheNystedOWFcomparedwiththediverseepifaunal
communitiesandfullmarineenvironmentatHornsRev.Itisunclearifthereisadirectrelationship
betweenincreasedsurfaceareacolonised,increasedrefugehabitatspaceandaparallelincreasein
fishpopulationdensity.However,Zuccoetal.(2006)statethatthegreaterthephysicalcomplexity
offoundationthenthehigherthelikelihoodoflargerreefeffectmanifesting.Thisisbasedinparton
monitoringofoilandgasplatforms.ThereforeitispossiblethatCGBFsholdthepotentialfor
increasedreefeffectswhencomparedwithmonopilesandthatsteeljacketsmayprovidethemost
complexandattractiveartificialhabitat;duetothecomplexityofthelatticestructure,beingsimilar
tooilandgasplatformfoundations.ResearchconductedprimarilyintheU.S.A.andinsmallpartin
theNorthSea,UK,demonstratesthatoilandgasplatformshavelargereefeffectsandarewell
documentedFADs(MineralsManagementService,2000andreferencescitedtherein;Crippsand
Aabel,2002;KolianandSammarco,2008;BoEMRE,2012)andthisisthoughttobeinpartduetothe
complexityofthestructures.
Theattractantorimpactrangeofanartificialreefisintheorderof200300mforpelagicspeciesand
1100mfordemersalspecies(Zuccoetal.,2006andreferencescitedtherein).Flatfishspecieshave
beenrecordedmovingbetweenreefs>900mapartandsignificantabundancesofreefdwellingfish
speciesobservedwhereinterreefdistancesare<400mapart(Zuccoetal.,2006andreferences
citedtherein).Thereforeintraarrayturbinespacingmaybecomeafactorindeterminingtheinter
connectionofartificialreefeffectsinOWFs.Asturbinesincreaseinsize(rotorsweepdiameter)the
greatertheinterturbine(andthusfoundation)spacingwillberequiredtomitigateturbulence
contaminationbetweenneighbouringturbines.Movingtoward5MWturbineswillresultin
approximately800morgreaterintervalsandthesemayisolateeachfoundationtoactasasingle
reefwithsomeinteractionsrestrictedtoflatfishspecies(Zuccoetal.,2006).
Physical Damage
Increasesinsuspendedsedimentconcentrations(SSC)andturbidityandresultantdeposition
(smothering)resultingfromseabedpreparation(ifrequired)mayaffectspawninggroundsfor
demersalspawnerse.g.herringandsandeel.Zuccoetal.(2206)suggestthatsomesmalldemersal
fishspecieswithlimitedswimmingrangesmayalsobesensitivetosmotheringimpacts.EIApractices
adoptedformarineaggregateextractionoperationsareapplicablewhenconsideringsmothering
effects.Regionalscalehabitatmapping(suchasStrategicEnvironmentalAssessment(SEA),marine
aggregateRECandREA),resourceidentificationfromICESandCefasspawningdatarecordsetc.will
assistidentificationofanysensitiveareas.TheScottishExecutivesoffshorerenewablesSEA(Linley
etal.,2007)advisesthat:
Potentialeffectsignificance(forsmothering)isconsideredtobemoderatefordemersalfishspecies
whicharesensitivetosmotheringandmajorfordemersalspawningspecies(herringandsandeel).A
smotheringepisodeonaherringgravelbank,forexample,couldpotentiallyimpactanentireyear

69

AReviewofMarineEnvironmentalConsiderationsassociatedwithConcreteGravityBase
FoundationsinOffshoreWindDevelopments.

classinthelocality.Avoidanceofsensitivesitesandperiodscouldbeexpectedtoreduceresidual
effectstominor.
Impactsuponbenthichabitatsandbiotopescanalsoresultinindirecteffectstodemersalfish
species.Reducedbiotopequalitythroughhabitatremovalorsmotheringevents(describedin
Section7.2above)willhavedirecteffectsonpreyavailabilityforfishesthatforageinthesehabitats.
Zuccoetal.(2006)detailsresearchthathasshownadeclineinflatfishpopulationsandrelated
reproductivesuccesslinkedtolargescaleremovalofhighinfaunalabundancesandhabitat.
ResearchfrommarineaggregatelicenceareaofftheHumbercoast,UK,hassuggestedthatbetween
40%and90%ofspeciesdiversity,populationdensityandbiomassmaybelostasaresultofdirect
dredgingeffects(Newelletal.,1998).Itislikelythatsuppressionofpreyspecieswithinthe
foundationpits(whereused)willhaveeffectsonforagingefficiencyofdemersalfishfauna.The
scaleoftheseimpactswillbedependentuponsimilarunimpactedcommunitiesaccessiblein
foragingrangeofthefish.Dependentuponsedimenthabitattyperemovedbyseabedpreparation
operations(ifundertaken)andassumingthatbackfillmaterialisofthesameparticlesizeasbaseline
thenrecoverytopredredgecommunitiescanbeexpectedtotake6monthsto8yearsdependent
uponsedimenthabitattype(Hilletal.2011;Cooperetal.,2011;seeSection7.2.2).
ImpactsfromanyfoundationpitdredgingrequiredarespecifictoCGBFsolutions(comparedwith
alternativesolutionswhichdonotrequirethisseabedpreparation).
Noise
Certainfishspeciesaresensitivetonoiseandpressureimpacts.Thesefishspeciesandidentification
ofsoundandpressurefrequencieslikelytocausedeathordamageareknowntosomedegreeinthe
contextofoffshorewindfarmconstruction(Hiscocketal.,2002;Zuccoetal.,2006;DONGEnergyet
al.,2006;ScottishExecutive,2007;OSPARCommission,2006).Modellingsoundgeneration,
propagationandattenuationisastandardcomponentofOWFEIA.Sourcerecordingandmonitoring
isconductedandtheunderstandingofimpactsisbeingincreased.
ThemajorsourceofnoiseimpactsassociatedwithOWFconstructionandoperation,likelytoaffect
fishfaunareceptors,isassociatedwiththeinstallationofmonopilesbypiledrivingusinghydraulic
hammers.Therepeatedhammeringofthemonopilefoundationintotheseabedresultsinsound
andpressurewavesthatimpingeuponfish.
Incontrasttotheinstallationofmonopile,steeljacket,tripodandpossiblyfloatingplatforms,CGBFs
andsuctioncaissonsareplacedontotheseabed.Thereisnorequirementforpiledrivingordrill
drivedrilltechniques.ThismeansthatinstallationandemplacementworksforCGBF(andsuction
caisson)solutionshaveasignificantlyreducedimpactpathwayfornoiseimpacts(incomparisonwith
monopilefoundations).DuetoalackofpercussivepilingoperationsCGBFsareunlikelytosource
damagingorbehaviourchanginglevelsofnoise.Noisewillbeassociatedwithemplacementbutat
levelsdifficulttodistinguishfrombackgroundvesselgeneratedlevels(Haeltersetal.,2009).
NoiseeffectsofCGBFsonsensitivereceptorgroupsarespecificallydiscussedinSection7.6below.

70

AReviewofMarineEnvironmentalConsiderationsAssociatedwithConcreteGravityBase
FoundationsinOffshoreWindDevelopments.

7.4

Megafauna Resources Marine Mammals, Turtles and Basking Sharks

ThissectionisintendedtoprovideanoverviewoftheinteractionslikelytooccurbetweenCGBFs
andtheirinducedeffectsandimpactpathwayswithmarinemegafauna(largeverylargeanimals).
InformationonthedistributionandrepresentativityofmarinemegafaunapresentinUKwatersand
associatedwiththeRound3zonescanbedrawnfromseveralsourcesatanational,regionaland
subregionalseasscale;alongwithprojectspecificinformationderivedfromsitespecific
characterisationandbaselinesurveysconductedtosupportEIAandEnvironmentalStatements.
Section5.2hasidentifiedMarineMammalsasareceptortoactivitiesandeffectsassociatedwith
eachphaseofthelifespanofaCGBFconsideredinthisreport.Forthepurposesofthisreportthe
receptorgroupMarineMammalsshouldalsobeassumedtoincludepelagicsharksandseaturtles
aswellaswhales,dolphins,porpoisesandseals.ThissectionwillconsidertheMarineMammal
receptorsunderseveralbroaddescriptorsdependentuponlifestrategiesandbiologicaltraitsof
marinemegafauna.Eachofthesubreceptorgroupsmayhavedifferentsensitivitiestoimpactsfrom
aCGBFandtheseareconsideredbelow.
InthecaseofRound3offshorewindfarmdevelopments,themostlikelymegafaunalassemblages
presentwillvarydependentuponregionalseasanddistancefromthecoast.Somereceptorspecies
suchasHarbourporpoisePhocoenaphocoenaarerelativelyubiquitousthroughoutUKwaters,whilst
BaskingsharksCetorhinusmaximushaveadistributiongenerallyrestrictedtotheSouthwest
ApproachesandtheIrishandCelticSeas.HarboursealsPhocavitulinatendtobecoastally
distributedcomparedwithGreysealsHalichoerusgrypuswhichhaveawideroffshoreforaging
range.
7.4.1 Important Megafaunal Resources
MarinemegafaunainUKwatersaretypicallyrepresentedbypelagicElasmobranchs(sharks),
Pinnipeds(seals)andCetaceans(whales,dolphinsandporpoises)whichareregularlyrecordedinall
UKregionalseas(UKBAP,1999).
SeaturtlesalsoconstituteacomponentoftheUKmarinemegafaunabuttheseareconsidered
transientormigratoryvisitorsandarenotresidentspecies,beingoccasionallyrecordedmostlyalong
thewesterncoastsofEngland,WalesandIreland(UKBAP,1999).
Pelagic Sharks
TherearemanyspeciesofmediumlargesizedpelagicsharksthatfrequentUKwaters.Someare
residentandothersdemonstratemigrationacrosslargedistances.Allthelargespeciesofsharksare
carnivorouswithmosthavingadietconsistingoffishandsquidandcarrion(Sharktrust,2010;
Compagnoetal.,2005).ThenotableexceptionistheplanktivorousBaskingsharkCetorhinus
maximuswhichfeedsprimarilyonzooplankton.ThelargesharksencounteredwithintheUKbelong
tothegroupGaleomorphiiandincludespeciessuchas:BaskingsharkCetorhinusmaximus;
PorbeagleLamnanasus;LongfinMakoIsuruspaucus;ShortfinmakoIsurusoxyrhincus;Thresher
sharkAlopiasvulpinus;andBluesharkPrionaceglauca.
CoastalspeciessuchasthePorbeagleandBaskingsharkaremostlylikelytohavethehighestratesof
interactionwithRound3zones(BloomfieldandSolandt,2008),whilstpelagicspeciessuchasBlue,
ThresherandtheMakotendtobemorerestrictedindistribution,associatedwithdeeperwaters
alongtheUKwesternoffshoreandnearshore(Compagnoetal,2005).
71

AReviewofMarineEnvironmentalConsiderationsassociatedwithConcreteGravityBase
FoundationsinOffshoreWindDevelopments.

Sea Turtles
Aspreviouslymentioned,marineturtlesinUKwatersareconsideredmigratoryvisitorswithonlythe
largeLeatherbackturtleDermochelyscoriaceaconsideredpartofthenativeBritishfauna(JNCC,
2007).
ThemajorityofrecordsfromrecentyearsaredistributedalongtheSouthwestApproachesand
throughtheIrishSeawiththeLeatherbackthemostcommonspeciesrecorded(TURTLE,2012;MCS,
2012;UKBAP,1999).
Marine Mammals
MarinemammalsinUKwatersarerepresentedbyseals(Pinnipeds)andwhales,dolphinsand
porpoise(Cetaceans)withnumerousspeciesfromarangeoffamiliesandgenera.2speciesofseal
areconsiderednativetoBritain,theseare:theHarboursealPhocavitulina;andtheGreyseal
Halichoerusgrypus.ColoniesofHarboursealsarestronglydistributedwithintheNorthSeaand
Scottishwaterswithapproximately90%oftheEuropeanpopulationinBritishwaters(Scottish
Executive,2007).Britainholdsabout39%oftheworldspopulationofGreysealswith90%ofthese
locatedinScottishwaters(ScottishExecutive,2007;JNCC1995).
Thereare15speciesofcetacean(whales,dolphinsandporpoise)knowntoinhabitUKwaters
(http://www.seawatchfoundation.org.uk/speciesid.php);ofthese10havebeenrecordedregularly
alongthecoastsornearshorewaters(within60kmofthecoast)since1980(JNCC,1995;Reidetal.,
2003).
DuringJune2008TheNationalWhaleandDolphinWatchconductedaweekofdedicatedsurveys
acrosstheUK.Thefindingsfromthesesurveysindicatedthatmaximumcountswererecordedin
WestWales83;andtheminimumwassouthernEnglandandBristolChannel,bothwith1sighting;
N=372.Thesurveyonlyprovidesasnapshotofsightingsbutdoeshighlightimportantregionsfor
cetaceansaroundtheUKcoast.ThesouthwestcoastsandthroughtheIrishandCelticseasto
Scottishwatersmaintainingthemostdiverseassemblagesofcetaceans(ScottishExecutive,2007;
Reidetal.,2003).
7.4.2 Important Interactions between Marine Mammals and Basking Sharks with CGBFs
Severalpossibleinteractionsbetweenoffshorewindturbinefoundations(includingCGBFs)and
marinemammalshavebeenidentified(Linleyetal.,2007;Zuccoetal.,2006;DONGEnergyetal.,
2006;ScottishExecutive,2007).ThesearelistedinSection5.2ofthisreportanddescribedinthis
sectionbelowandforthepurposesofthisreportareassumedtoalsobeapplicabletoBasking
sharksandseaturtles.
Sensitivitiesforelasmobranchs(sharks)withwindfarmsaregenerallyassociatedwith
electromagneticfieldsproducedbyelectriccurrentpassingthroughtheinterarrayandlandfall
powercables(Zuccoetal.,2006).Thiseffectpathwayispredominantlyassociatedwithdemersal
elasmobranchssuchascatfish,angelsharks,skatesandraysandnotnecessarilygaleomorphs.As
thisimpactpathwayisnotsourceddirectlyfromthefoundationstructureitself(notassociatedwith
CGBFstructures),thenitisnotconsideredwithinthisreport.

72

AReviewofMarineEnvironmentalConsiderationsAssociatedwithConcreteGravityBase
FoundationsinOffshoreWindDevelopments.

Collision Risk
Collisionriskwithvesselsassociatedwithgroundpreparation(ifused),CGBFinstallationand
servicingisoneofthemainpressurepathwaysformarinemegafauna.Forseaturtlesthisisdeemed
negligibleconsideringtheverylowabundanceofturtlesandgenerallackofexposurepathway.The
risktoturtlesfromCGBFinstallationandemplacementisassumedtobelessthanthatforcollisions
withothervesselsinUKwaters.ThisisduetothefactthattransittositewithCGBFstructuresislow
speed(Peireetal.,2009)andduringemplacementinstallationplantisrelativelystatic(Scottish
Executive,2007).
Marinemammalsaremostsusceptibletocollisionwherevesselsdisplayerraticbehaviourand/or
operateathighspeeds>14knots.Theexpectedtypicalspeedofadredgerpreparingafoundation
pit(ifthisisrequiredanddredgersareusedratherthangrabs)willbenomorethan23knotsand
thevesselwilltransitalongapredeterminedroutewithindefinedseabedpreparationareas.Both
factorsarelikelytomitigateagainstanypotentialcollisionrisks.Norecordedcollisionincidents
betweenaggregatedredgersandmarinemegafauna(includingseaturtles)havebeenrecordedin
UKwatersduring50+yearsofoperation(MarkRussell,BMAPA,pers.comm.).Inthecontextof
foundationpitexcavationitisimportanttonotethattheareaswillbemuchsmaller(50mby80m)
thanmarineaggregateareasandassociateddredginglanes(Peireetal.,2009).Thiswillfurther
mitigatecollisionduetothesmallareaofdredgingoperations.Baskingsharksshowavoidance
behaviourtoslowmovingvessels(IanReach,pers.obs.)andcanbeexpectedtoavoidCGBFrelated
vesselmovements.
Allspeciesofmarinemammals,turtlesandBaskingsharksaremobilespeciesthatcanavoidareasof
activedredgingandemplacementworksandtheresultingeffectsfromvesseldisplacement,noise
andvibration,andsuspendedsedimentplumes.Theyareabletoreturntotheareaoncedredging
hasceased.
Physical Disturbance, Displacement and Habitat Exclusion
SealsandHarbourporpoisehavebeenobservedtoavoidconstructionzonesforOWFs(Scottish
Executive,2007;Zuccoetal.,2006;DONGEnergyetal.,2006)withnoisedescribedasthekeyfactor
alongwithphysicalpresenceofvessels.Hauledoutsealsappeartobethemostsensitivewitha
flightreactionthresholdof900minresponsetovesselsreportedbytheScottishExecutive(2007).
VesselpresenceisbynomeansCGBFspecificandwillbeconsideredaspartofanyprojectspecific
EIA.TheindustryforecastandthisreportassumesthattheimmediateUKmarketforCGBFsis
intendedtobetheRound3offshorewindfarminstallations(LynchandFulcher,2012).Round3
zonesaregenerallylocatedintheoffshoremarineenvironmentwithsignificantdistancesfrom
coastlinesandnearshorebanksthatactassealhauloutareas.Thereforethelackofpotential
exposureofvesseldisturbanceeffectsduringtheinstallationofCGBFsresultsinnegligibleeffects.
ThisdeterminationappearstobesupportedbymonitoringconductedatNystedOWFduring
constructionin2003(DONGEnergyetal.,2006).NystedfoundationsareCGBFsonopiling
associatedwithfoundationinstallationwasanticipated.ThedistancebetweenaHarbourandGrey
sealcolonyatRdsandisgreaterthanthe900mradiusflightresponsethreshold,astheNysted
Windfarmis4kmawayfromthesealsanctuary.Nodisplacementorflightresponsewasobservedin
hauledoutsealsduetoconstructionvesseltraffic(DONGEnergyetal.,2006).Howevertherewasa
73

AReviewofMarineEnvironmentalConsiderationsassociatedwithConcreteGravityBase
FoundationsinOffshoreWindDevelopments.

clearlinktoconstructionactivitiesseenduringsheetpilingoperationsthatwereconductedoutata
singlefoundationlocatedapproximately10kmdistantfromthehauloutarea.Theoperation
comprisedpilingofseveralindividualsheetpilesovera3monthperiod.Asignificantdecreaseinthe
numberofsealshauledoutduringpiledrivingwasseen.Theseobservationssupporttheposition
thatemplacementofCGBFsdoesnotcausedisplacementtohauledoutHarbourandGreyseals,or
affecttheiraccessanduseofthesehabitats,solongasdisturbancezonesarenotencroached.
Introductionofpercussivesoundintothemarineenvironmenthowever,doescausedisturbanceand
displacementimpacts.
SatellitetrackingofsealsfromtheRdsandcolonyhasshownthatthereisnochangeinhabitatuse
orforagingbehaviourpostconstruction.Presentstudiesdonotsuggestthatoperationattheeither
HornsRevorNystedhasresultedinnegativeimpactstothesealpopulations.
Therearenoknownrecordsofdisplacementofbaskingsharksduetowindfarmconstructionorin
situfoundationsandarrays.
MonitoringattheNystedandHornsRevOWFshasshownsomeinterestinghabitatuseresponses
fromharbourporpoisePhocoenaphocoena.Asidefromeffectsassociatedwithnoiseimpacts
(discussedbelowandinSection7.6)thebehaviouralresponsestothephysicalpresenceofthe
arrayshavebeenstudied.Strongnegativeimpactsresultingindisplacementofporpoisefromthe
HornsRevsiteduringconstruction(duetopiledrivingoperations)wasobservedwithasubsequent
returnpostconstruction(DONGEnergyetal.,2006).Theoperationandpresenceofthearraydoes
notappeartohavedisplacedtheporpoises.AtNystedthesmallpopulationofHarbourporpoisesdid
notreturntothearraypostconstruction(first2yearsofoperationmonitoring).NystedusedCGBFs
buttherewasasheetpilingconstructionphaseforonefoundationthatcausednoisedisplacement.
However,theporpoisesappeartohaveremaineddisplaced.Theauthorshypothesisethatthe
differenceindisplacementresponsemaybeassociatedwiththequalityofthehabitatatbaseline
conditions.Nystedhadasmallpopulationandmaynothavebeenkey(prime)habitatforthat
population.IncontrastHornRevoccupiesahighdensitypopulationareaandthehabitatappearsto
beimportant.Implicationsonpopulationscannotbeestimatedbutarethoughtunlikelytobevery
large(DONGEnergyetal.,2006).
Smothering of Prey Species
Section7.3.2describestheeffectsofsmotheringonbenthichabitatsandcommunitiesandsensitive
(lowmobility)fishfauna.Smotheringimpactsresultingindirectimpactstomegafaunaareunlikely
buttheremaybecomplexindirecteffectsduetocascadesthroughtrophic/foodwebs(Frederiksen
etal.,2006).Alterationofbenthicproductivitymayaffectfishpredatorpopulationswhichmay
affectsecondarypredatorconditionormortality;theseeffectsmaythenknockon(cascade)toapex
predatorssuchascetaceansandseals(NybakkenandBertness,2004;Frederiksenetal.,2006).
Howeverduetothelargeforagingrangesofmarinemammals,andusingHarboursealsasthe
benchmarkduetosmallestrangeat60km(Tappinetal.,2011),thenthesignificanceofremovalof
benthiccommunitiesandfishthroughsmotheringisdeemedtohaveanegligibleeffectonmarine
mammalcondition(ScottishExecutive,2007).

74

AReviewofMarineEnvironmentalConsiderationsAssociatedwithConcreteGravityBase
FoundationsinOffshoreWindDevelopments.

Increased Turbidity and Changes in Suspended Sediment Concentrations


TheScottishExecutivesRenewablesSEA(2007)identifiesthatincreasedturbiditycanhaveeffects
onforaging,socialandpredator/preyinteractionsformarinemammals.Projectspecificvariables
willhavetobeconsideredthroughtheEIAprocesswiththehighestloadingsassociatedwithany
seabedpreparationdredgingoperationswherethesearerequired.Howeverconsideringthe
locationoftheRound3zonesandinformationpresentedinSection6itislikelythesmallamountsof
sedimentreleasedintothewatercolumnduringCGBFemplacementwillhaveanegligibleimpacton
backgroundsuspendedsedimentandturbiditylevels.Greyandharboursealshavebeenidentified
ashavingahighsensitivitytoreductionsinvisibility,whilstthecetaceansinthestudyareahavea
moderatesensitivitytothisimpact(ScottishExecutive,2007).Evidencefrommarineaggregate
RegionalEnvironmentalAssessmentssuggestthatimpactsfromincreasedsedimentsandelevated
SSCarenotsignificantataregionalscale(EMULtd,2010b,2011;ERM2011)formarinemammals.
Astheseassessmuchlargerscaledredgingcampaignsthenanygroundpreparationsworksthatmay
beassociatedwithCGBFinstallationthenitisreasonabletoassumethatimpactsfromthisactivity
willbenegligibleincomparison.
Increased Foraging Opportunities
AsdiscussedinSection7.3.2CGBFswilllikelyfunctionasartificialreefsorfishaggregatingdevices.
Asaproductofthishabitatchangetheyhavethepotentialtoalterthedistributionofcertainmarine
mammalfaunathroughenhancedforagingopportunities(ScottishExecutive,2006).Harbour
porpoise,HarboursealsandGreysealsarethespeciesmostlikelytointeract/beattractedtothe
proposedarrays.ThereisalsovideofootageavailableonthesocialmediumYouTubethatshows
PorbeaglesharksrecordedbyremoteoperatedvideosystemsatNorthSeasubmerged
superstructures(IanReach,pers.obs.).Whethertheartificialreefeffectpresentopportunitiesthat
wouldenhancetheforagingprospectsforsuchspeciesforthebetterisnotyetclear.
Noise
Marinemammalsalongwithcertainfishspeciesaresensitivereceptorstosoundandpressurewave
impacts.Thesespeciesandidentificationofsoundandpressurefrequencieslikelytocausedeathor
damageareknowntosomedegreeinthecontextofoffshorewindfarmconstruction(Hiscocketal.,
2002;Zuccoetal.,2006;DONGEnergyetal.,2006;ScottishExecutive,2007;OSPARCommission,
2006).Modellingsoundgeneration,propagationandattenuationisastandardcomponentofOWF
EIA.Sourcerecordingandmonitoringisconductedandtheunderstandingofimpactsisbeing
increased.
ThemajorsourceofnoiseimpactsassociatedwithOWFconstructionandoperation,likelytoaffect
megafaunareceptors,isassociatedwiththeinstallationofmonopiles,steeljacketsandtripodsby
piledriving.Therepeatedhammeringofthemonopilefoundationintotheseabedresultsinsound
andpressurewavesthatinteractwiththereceptorspecies.CurrentlyallRound1and2OWF
foundationshavebeensteelmonopileswithverylimiteduseofsteeljackets(withsmallsuction
caissonrestrictedtometeorologicalmasts)incorporatingpilingordrivedrilldriveinstallation
techniquesused.
Incontrasttotheinstallationofmonopile,steeljacketandtripodfoundations,CGBFsareplaced
ontotheseabed.Thereisnorequirementforpiledrivingordrivedrilldrivetechniques.Thismeans
thatinstallationandemplacementworksforCGBFsolutionshaveasignificantlyreducedimpact
75

AReviewofMarineEnvironmentalConsiderationsassociatedwithConcreteGravityBase
FoundationsinOffshoreWindDevelopments.

pathwayfornoiseimpacts(incomparisonwithmonopile,tripodandsteeljacketfoundations).Due
toalackofpercussivepilingoperationsCGBFsareunlikelytosourcedamagingorbehaviour
changinglevelsofunderwaternoiseandpressurewaves.Noisewillbeassociatedwithemplacement
butatlevelsdifficulttodistinguishfrombackgroundvesselgeneratedlevels(Haeltersetal.,2009).
NoiseeffectsofCGBFsonsensitivereceptorgroupsarespecificallydiscussedinaSection7.6below.

7.5

Avifauna Birds

ThissectionisintendedtoprovideanoverviewoftheinteractionslikelytooccurbetweenCGBFs
andtheirinducedeffectsandimpactpathwayswithornithologicalreceptors(avifaunabirds)
presentatUKcoastsandwaters.Informationonthedistributionandrepresentativityofmarine
megafaunapresentinUKwatersandassociatedwiththeRound3zonescanbedrawnfromseveral
sourcesatanational,regionalandsubregionalseasscale;alongwithprojectspecificinformation
derivedfromsitespecificcharacterisationandbaselinesurveysconductedtosupportEIAand
EnvironmentalStatements.
Section3.2.7and5.2hasidentifiedbirdsasareceptortoactivitiesandeffectsassociatedwitheach
phaseofthelifespanofaCGBFconsideredinthisreport.Inthecontextofthisreportitisimportant
tonotethateffectsassociatedwithengineeringandstructuresabovetheseasurfacearenot
considered.Thefocusofidentifyinganyeffectandimpactsonavifaunawillbeprimaryeffects/
pressuresfromCGBFstructuresrelatedto:

Waterquality(changesinturbidity)interferingwithpredation;
Alterationofhabitatsupportingbirdsspecies(roosting,nesting,loafing,preyspecies);
and/or
Disturbance/displacement.

Thebirdreceptorscanbecategorisedunderseveralbroaddescriptorsdependentuponlife
strategiesandbiologicaltraits.Ostensiblybirdreceptorscanbeidentifiedasthosepassingthrougha
windfarmarrayaspartofforagingbehaviourforagers;thosepassingthroughanarrayaspartof
migrationtransitspassagemigrants;andthosespeciesusingthehabitatforsocialbehavioure.g.
loafingrafters.Ofthesegroupsforagersmaybeattractedtodifferentbenthichabitattypes
dependentupongeomorphologicalfeaturesorpreyhabitatpreference,ordisplacediffavoured
habitatsareremoved.SimilarlyifCGBFsresultinchangestobenthichabitatsorgeomorphologythat
altershabitatsthensocialbehaviourmaybeimpacted.Thepassagemigrantreceptorgrouparenot
investigatedinthisreportfurtherasanyimpactsarenotdirectlyrelatedtoCGBFpresence/
absence.TheexposurepathwaysexistduetotheproposedlocationoftheOWFarrayandwouldbe
presentevenifalternativefoundationsolutions(toCGBFs)wereused.
7.5.1 Important Bird Resources
Seabirdsincludingdivers,grebes,seaducks,auks,gannets,gulls,terns,petrelsandshearwatersare
numerousinUKwaterswithinternationallyimportantpopulationsofmanyspeciesrecognisedby
variousdesignatednatureconservationsitesaroundthecoastlineandoffshore.

76

AReviewofMarineEnvironmentalConsiderationsAssociatedwithConcreteGravityBase
FoundationsinOffshoreWindDevelopments.

InthecontextofmonitoringenvironmentaleffectassociatedwithOWFsallseabirdspeciesshould
beconsideredofsignificantimportanceasmostwillhavesomeformofconservationstatus.
7.5.2 Important Interactions between Birds And CGBFs
Thethreemaineffectspossiblyaffectingseabirdsare:habitatlossduetodisturbance,barrier
effects,andfatalcollisions(Zuccoetal.,2006).Ofthesethefirsteffectgroup,habitatlossdueto
disturbance(and/oralteration),accordswiththeanalysisofcriticaleffectsinthisreport.Additional
arewaterqualityimpactsonpreyavailabilityandpredationsuccess.Barriereffectsandcollisionsare
bothrelatedtoabovewaterpressures.
Habitat Loss
AccordingtorecentstudiesreviewedinZuccoetal.(2006):
sixoutofthe35seabirdspeciesregularlylivinginGermanwatersstronglyavoidoffshorewindfarms
(RedthroatedDiver,BlackthroatedDiver,Gannet,CommonScoter,Guillemot,Razorbill),andone
otherspecies(LongtailedDuck)wasrecordedwhichshowedmuchlowernumbersinwindfarmareas
afterconstructionthanbefore.Sevenspeciesoccurwithinwindfarmswhichdonotshowanyobvious
effects,andthreegullspeciesevenincreasedinnumberscomparedtothepreconstructionperiod.
For18seabirdspecies,itisnotknownhowandwhetherthewindfarmsaffecttheirhabitatuse.
Itisalsoimportanttonotethatspecieswhichavoidthearrayareasareexposedtogreaterextentof
habitatlossthanjustthewindfarmareaitself,duetoavoidancedistancesfromtheturbines
themselves(ScottishExecutive,2007;DONGEnergyetal.,2006).DONGEnergyetal.(2006)state
thatbehaviouralavoidanceofthevicinityofturbinescouldalsopotentiallydisplacefeedingbirds
fromwindfarms.Thiswouldresultineffectivehabitatlossasstatedabove.So,evenifthehabitat
andfoodresourceremainintact,theyarelosttothebirdsbecauseoftheirreticencetoapproach
theturbines.Howeverthishabitatremovalispredominantlyassociatedwiththevisualpresenceof
theturbinesandisnotbelievedtobeassociateddirectlywiththefoundationstructures.
Zuccoetal.(2006)goontosaythatphysicalhabitatlossduetotheintroductionofahardbottom
faunaonfoundationsandscourprotectionsseemstobeofminorimportance.Theoverall
considerationshouldbejudgedonthenetchangeofhabitati.e.baselinehabitatlossconsidering
newhabitatcreated.Akeyquestionstillunansweredistowhatextent,ifatall,seabirdsmakeuseof
anynewfoodsupplyassociatedwithartificialhardsubstrataoriffishfaunaattractedbyreefeffect
willbeexploited.
Tosomedegreeanypositiveeffectsofadditionalfoodsupplymaybemaskediftheavoidance
behaviourduetoturbinepresencemeansthatthisresourceiseffectivelybeyondreach.Alsoifbird
faunaisattractedtonewfeedinghabitatwillthisincreasethepossibilityofcollisionwiththe
turbines/rotorsresultinginahighermortalityrate?
Disturbance and Displacement
Displacementanddisturbanceduringanygroundpreparationrequiredandemplacementare
impactsthatmaymanifestforCGBFs.Pathwaysexistsduetothepresenceofdredgers,removalof
habitatandeffectsassociatedwiththesedimentplumes.Installationplantandvesselsmaydisplace
birdsfromareasofuse.

77

AReviewofMarineEnvironmentalConsiderationsassociatedwithConcreteGravityBase
FoundationsinOffshoreWindDevelopments.

ResearchhasbeenconductedthroughtheMarineAggregateLevySustainabilityFund(MALSF)to
investigatepotentialimpactsonseabirdsfromcommercialmarineaggregateactivities.Cookand
Burton(2010)consideredalltheimpactsandpotentialimpactpathwaysassociatedwithmarine
aggregateoperationsbyreviewingtheexistingresearchandthecurrentstateofknowledgeupto
2010.Variousreceptorspeciesandtheirsensitivitiestohabitatremoval,sedimentplumeeffects
includingincreasesinturbidityandelevatedsuspendedsedimentconcentrationsandvessel
displacementeffectsareconsidered.Foragingrangesfromcoastalcoloniesarealsopresentedper
speciesreviewed.
CookandBurton(2010)determined,consideringthescaleofdredgingareasinthecontextofoverall
habitatavailability,thathabitatremovalwaslikelytonotbesignificant.Consideringthescaleof
marineaggregatedredgingthenitisreasonabletoproposethathabitatlosstoanyCGBFground
preparationworkrequiredwillhaveminimaleffectsonseabirds.However,thisdeterminationwill
havetobemadethroughprojectspecificEIAtoensurethatlocalconditionsandenvironment,
includinganyhotspotsoflocalbirdpopulationsoraggregations,areaccountedfor.
CookandBurton(2010)alsodetermineddisplacementofseabirdsduetodredgerpresencewas
unlikelyconsideringvesseltrafficinEnglishwaters.ForRound3projectsspecificnavigationand
vesseltrafficstudieswillhavetobecommissioned.ThesewillinformEIAregardingdisplacement
effects.Criticaltotheassessmentofvesselassociateddisplacementimpactswillbethedensityof
vesselsalreadyusingthehabitatwhereCGBFswillbeinstalled.Iftheseareasareoutsideofexisting
navigationroutesthenadditionaldisplacementeffectsfromanygroundpreparationrequiredand
emplacementvesselsmayoccur.Theseeffectsmaymanifestbothonsiteandalsowhilstvesselsare
intransittoandfromthesite.WhilsttheseeffectsarenotcompletelyCGBFspecificconsiderationof
anydifferencesinpayloadandcarryingcapacitybetweenvariousfoundationsolutionsmayequate
tovariationsinnumberoftransitsrequired.Thismaythenresultindifferentpotentiallevelsof
disturbance.
Changes in Water Quality
CookandBurton(2010)determinedthatinassociationwithmarineaggregateoperationsthat
changestowaterclarityresultingfromtheresuspensionofsedimentswouldnegativelyaffectthe
foragingcapabilitiesofsomespecies.TheyreportthatinthecaseoftheSandwichtern,thishas
resultedinnegativeimpactsonpopulationselsewhere.However,theimpactofincreasesinturbidity
islikelytobedependent(bothinscaleandspatialextent)oninitialsuspendedsedimentbackground
levels.
ConsideringanygroundpreparationactivitiesthatmayberequiredforCGBFsinspatialand
temporalterms,inrelationtoexistingandproposedmarineaggregateextractioninEnglishwaters,
andconsideringthemagnitudeoftheseeffectsitisunlikelythattheconstructionofOWFsusing
CGBFswillhavesignificanteffectsonoverallseabirdpopulations.Howeverlocalandsitespecific
environmentalconditionshavetobeconsideredandcumulativeeffectsassessed.Lossofaforaging
forasmallperiodoftimemaynotbesignificantalone,butifotherforagingareasareaalsoreceiving
plumeimpactsatthesametimethenthismayhaveimpactsonforagingefficiency.These
considerationswillbemadeatanEIAlevel.

78

AReviewofMarineEnvironmentalConsiderationsAssociatedwithConcreteGravityBase
FoundationsinOffshoreWindDevelopments.

7.6

Noise

ThissectionisintendedtopresentanoverviewofCGBFsourcenoiseeffectpathwaysandassociated
impactstobiologicalreceptors.Detailedinformationconcerningnoisefrequencies,propagationand
attenuationandattendantpressurewaveeffectscanbedrawnfromtechnicalpapers,peer
reviewedpapersandguidancenotesgeneratedoverthelastdecadeorsoandarebeyondthescope
ofthisreporttoprovideindetail.InformationheldbySubacoustechLtd
(http://www.subacoustech.com/index.shtml)andthatgeneratedbyCOWRIE
(http://data.offshorewind.co.uk/)isparticularlyusefulinsettingthecontextandcurrentknowledge
basefornoiserelatedimpactsfromOWFs.Itisexpectedthatthisinformationwillbedrawnupon
andpresentedinanyprojectspecificEIAandEnvironmentalStatement.
TheMarineStrategyFrameworkDirective(ECDirective2008/56)isaEuropeanUnionDirective
whichcommitsEuropeanUnionmemberstatestoachieveGoodEnvironmentalStatus(GES)by
2020acrossEuropesmarineenvironment.GoodEnvironmentalStatus(GES)involvesprotectingthe
marineenvironment,preventingitsdeteriorationandrestoringitwherepractical,whileusing
marineresourcessustainably.ThisalignswiththeUKGovernmentsandDevolvedAdministrations
visionofclean,healthy,safe,productiveandbiologicallydiverseoceansandseas.
TheDirectivesetsout11highlevelDescriptorsofGoodEnvironmentalStatuswhichcoverallthe
keyaspectsofthemarineecosystemandallthemainhumanpressuresonthem.Ofsignificancefor
theoffshorewindfarmsectorarethequalitativedescriptorsfordetermininggoodenvironmental
statuswithparticularreferencetodescriptornumber11:
Introductionofenergyincludingunderwaternoiseisatlevelsthatdonotadverselyaffectthe
marineenvironment.
HMGovernmentiscurrentlyconductingapublicconsultationonthedescriptorsforGESandvarious
scenariosproposedtomeettargetsthatmaybesettoachieveGES(HMGovernment,2012).For
impulsivenoise,whichincludeshammerpilinggeneratednoise,oneoftheproposedtargetsisto:
establishandmaintainanoiseregistrywhichwouldrecordinspaceandtimeactivities
generatingnoise(allowingadeterminationof)whethertheymaypotentiallycompromisethe
achievementofGES.
IssuessurroundingconsiderationsofHabitatsDirectiveAnnexIVEuropeanprotectedspecies(EPS)
andcompliancewithRegulation41(1)(b)oftheHabitatsRegulationsandRegulation39(1)(b)ofthe
OffshoreHabitatsRegulationsareconsideredinSection7.7below.
Anycompliancewithlegislationgoverningtheproductionofunderwaterenergy,includingnoise,
mayhavetimeandcostrepercussionsforRound3developments.Anyfoundationsolutionthatwill
notgenerateunderwaternoiseatlevelsdeemedtobesignificantmaybringanadvantagetothe
preapplicationandapplicationprocessforanyRound3projectusingthem.
Asdiscussedwithinthisreview,andspecificallywithinthissection,itisapparentthatCGBFspresent
anotablepositiveeffectconsideringthelackofsignificantunderwaternoiseemissionsduring
emplacement.Alternativedeeperwaterfoundationsolutionssuchassteeljacketsandtripodswill
requirepilingoperations.Whilstthepilesaregenerallysmaller(2.54m)indiameterthanmonopiles,
79

AReviewofMarineEnvironmentalConsiderationsassociatedwithConcreteGravityBase
FoundationsinOffshoreWindDevelopments.

thefactthat34pilesperfoundationarerequired,maynegateanyreducednoiseemissionsdueto
possiblesmallerforcesanddurationsofhammeringrequiredperpilei.e.thetotalperiodfor
installationofasinglefoundationstructuremaybesimilartothatassociatedwithamonopile.
Section5.2hasidentifiednoiseasaneffectwithpathwaysassociatedwithbenthos(including
sensitivefishspecies)andmarinemammals(pinnipedsandcetaceans).Noiseimpactsareidentified
withvariousphasesofthelifespanofaCGBFconsideredinthisreport.Thesearenotably:ground
preparation(ifrequired),emplacementofaCGBF,remedialactivities(placementofscourmaterials
ifdeemedappropriate)anddecommissioning.
Propagationofnoiseduringoperationisnotconsideredwithinthisreportasthesourceofemissions
isnotassociatedwiththeCGBFstructure.
Thecontextofnoiseemissionswillfocusontheknowngreatestpointsourceofunderwaternoise
impacts;namelythoseassociatedwithpiledrivingoperationsduringinstallationofmonopile,steel
jacketandtripod(andpossiblyfloatingplatform)structures.Thisisconsideredappropriateasthere
isalargeevidencebasefortheseeffects(specificallymonopilesandsteeljackets)andallexisting
Round1and2projectshaveusedmonopilesortoamuchsmallerdegreesteeljackets.Thisisalso
significantgiventhelackofpilingdrivingtechniquesrequiredfortheemplacementofCGBF
structures(andsuctioncaisson)ontheseafloor.Whilsthammerpilingsourcednoiseimpactsarenot
derivedfromCGBFinstallationitisimportanttonotethatanadditionalnoisesourcemaybe
associatedwiththeuseofCGBFs:thisisnoiseassociatedwithdredgersorgrabsandexcavation
operationsaspartofanygroundpreparationactivitiesshouldtheyberequired.
7.6.1 Sensitive Noise Receptors
Asmentionedabovethereareseveralreceptorsthatareconsideredsensitivetoartificial
underwaternoiseemissions.Primarilytheseare:

Benthicinvertebrates;
Certainfishspeciesincludinglarvalstages;and
MarinemammalsPinnipeds(Seals)andCetaceans.

Thedifferentreceptorgroupsdisplaydifferentsensitivitiesandarelikelytoreceivedifferent
exposuresdependentupontheactivitiesconsiderede.g.dredgingoffoundationpits,scour
protectioninstallationetc.ifused,andtheirlifestrategies.Averybriefoverviewofthevarious
sensitivitiesispresentedbelow.
Benthic Invertebrates
Thereisaveryweakevidencebaseconsideringnoiseimpactsuponbenthicinvertebrates.The
literaturereviewconductedbyZuccoetal.(2006)citesafewexamplesofspeciesspecific
investigationsthathavebeenconducted.Researchoneffectsofnoiseongrowthandreproduction
inthebrownshrimpCrangoncrangoniscited.Reductioningrowthandthereproductionrate,
increasedaggression(cannibalism)andmortalityrate,anddecreaseinfoodintakewereobservedin
thelaboratory.Itispostulatedthatresponsesinthewildmaymanifestasavoidancebehaviour
resultingindisplacement:itwasnotreportedifthisdisplacementwasconsideredlikelytobe
temporaryorpermanent.

80

AReviewofMarineEnvironmentalConsiderationsAssociatedwithConcreteGravityBase
FoundationsinOffshoreWindDevelopments.

Itisapparentthatvibrationassociatedwithnoisepropagationunderwaterandoperationofoffshore
windfarmsmaybemoresignificantthanthenoiseimpactsalone(Zuccoetal.,2006).Thebrittlestar
OphiuraophiuracandetectbothnearfieldvibrationsdowntoafewHertzandfarfieldpressure
waves(MooreandCobb,1986citedinZuccoetal.,2006).
Itisinterestingtonotethatduetorecordedcolonisationofexistingwindturbinetowersand
foundationstheeffectsofvibrationistakenasanindicationthatnoiseandvibrationhaveno
detrimentaleffectsontheattachedepifauna(Hiscocketal.,2002;Zuccoetal.,2006;OSPAR
Commission,2006).TheScottishMarineRenewablesSEAdidnotevenconsidernoiseandvibration
asavalidpressuregroupforbenthicecologyreceptors(ScottishExecutive,2007).
Furtherstudiesarerequiredtosignificantlyaddknowledgeoftheeffectsofnoiseandvibrationon
marineinvertebrates.Especiallyintherangeofthoseeffectsassociatedwithfoundationinstallation
andoperationofwindturbines.
Fish Species
TheScottishMarineRenewablesSEA(ScottishExecutive,2007)reportsthatmarinefishcanproduce
andhearnoisewhichmaybeassociatedwithalarmcallsandsocialbehaviour.
Hiscocketal.(2002)reviewedindetailconsiderationsoffishfaunasensitivitytounderwaternoise.
Insummarythesensitivityoffishspeciesdependsontheirhearingthresholds,whichhaveonlybeen
studiedinafewspeciessuchascod,salmon,haddock,plaice,pollockanddab.Swimbladdersmay
resonateatlowfrequenciessothatfishwithswimbladdersmaybemoresensitivetolowfrequency
soundthanfishwithoutswimbladders,e.g.flatfish,sharksandrays.Similarly,largerfishwithlarger
swimbladdersmaybemoresensitivetonoiseimpactse.g.largercodavoidedareassubjectto
seismicsurveysmorethansmallcod(referencescitedinHiscocketal.,2002).Furtheritissuggested
thatfishinwhichtheswimbladderisphysicallycoupledtotheearwouldbemoresensitivestill.
Thecurrentstateofknowledgeimpliesthatfishresponsestonoise,pressureandvibrationimpacts
arenotdissimilarforthoserecordedformarinemammals(seebelow).Primarilytheseare:

Alterationofschoolingandsocialbehaviour;
Avoidanceresultingindisplacement;and
Deathorphysicaldamageresultingfrompressurewavedamagetoairspaces(swim
bladders).

Adverseeffectsarealsopossibletofisheggsandlarvae/fryandprimarilythosethataredemersal
(bottom)spawners(Hiscocketal.,2002;Perrowetal.,2011).
Marine Mammals Pinnipeds and Cetaceans
Inoverviewmarinemammalsareconsideredhighlysensitivetoartificialunderwaternoise
generationandpropagation.Thisisdueinparttotheecologyandlifestrategiesthatthesefauna
haveevolvedandthewaythattheyusesoundtointeractwiththemarineenvironment(Thomsenet
al.,2011).Cetaceans,inparticulartoothedwhales(Odontocetes),usesoundinnearlyeveryaspect
ofthelivesincludingcommunication,socialisation,navigationandhunting(byecholocation)(Evans,
1987).Thebaleenwhales(Mysticetes)usesoundtocommunicateandsocialiseoverlongdistances,
andpossiblyfornavigation(Evans,1987).
81

AReviewofMarineEnvironmentalConsiderationsassociatedwithConcreteGravityBase
FoundationsinOffshoreWindDevelopments.

Pinnipeds(trueseals)usesoundtocommunicateandsocialiseandrecentresearchworkhas
suggestedthatdetectionofsoundorpressurechangesmayplayanimportantroleinassistingseals
tosensetheirenvironmentandtohuntefficiently(RoyalHaskoning,2005citedinScottishExecutive,
2007).Sealsarealsosensitivetonoiseimpactsclosetohauloutsiteswhichmaycausedisplacement
effects(Skeateetal.,2011).
WithinthezoneslistedbyHiscocketal.(Section7.7.2below)impactsonmarinemammalscan
manifestinseveralwaysbutcangenerallybegroupedas:

Deathcausedbydamagingpressurewavesdisruptinginternalorgansandtissues;
Injurycausingauditoryimpairment;
o PermanentdamagetohearingPermanentThresholdShift(PTS);
o TemporaryhearinglossTemporaryThresholdShift(TTS);
Displacementcausingreceptortovacateanareaofsea;
o Temporaryuntilnoiseeffectsisremoved/ceases;
o Permanentreceptordoesnotreturntoareareceivingthenoiseimpact;and
Maskingnoiseissuchthatitinterfereswithecologyofreceptore.g.preventssuccessful
hunting.

Observedeffectsofnoiseonmarinemammalsinclude:changesinvocalizations,respiration,swim
speed,diving,andforagingbehaviour;displacement,avoidance,shiftsinmigrationpath,stress,
hearingdamage,andstrandings(Thomsenetal.,2011).Responsesofmarinemammalstonoisecan
oftenbesubtleandbarelydetectable,andtherearemanydocumentedcasesofapparenttolerance
ofnoise(Weilgart,2007).

7.6.2 Important Interactions between Noise Sensitive Receptors and CGBFs


Hiscocketal.(2002)listtheareasofnoiseeffectonreceptorspeciesas:

Zoneofaudibilitythewidestareainwhichanorganismcanperceiveorhearthenoise;
Zoneofresponsivenesstheareainwhichtheorganismreactsbehaviourallyor
physiologically;
Zoneofmaskingtheareainwhichthenoiseisintense(loud)enoughtointerferewith
communication;
Zoneofphysiologicaleffecttheareainwhichthesoundlevelisgreatenoughtocause
physiological;and
Damagesuchashearinglossorinjurytointernalorgans.

Assuchahierarchyofimpactsislikelytooccurwithnoisefromoffshorewindfarmconstructionand
operation,withminoreffectssuchasmaskingofnaturalsoundsatgreatdistancetomoreserious
effectsofavoidanceanddisplacementtoinjuryorfatalityclosetothenoisesource.
DifferentreceptorspeciesfromthegroupsidentifiedinSection7.7.1willhavedifferentsensitivities
tonoiseimpactsasaproductofthethresholdsatwhichtheyareintolerantandtheexposuretothe
sourceofthenoisedependentuponcomplexphysicalenvironmentalfactorsincluding;water
depth,bathymetry,haloclines,distanceandstrength(andsoundwaverange)oftheemission.
82

AReviewofMarineEnvironmentalConsiderationsAssociatedwithConcreteGravityBase
FoundationsinOffshoreWindDevelopments.

ModellingofnoiseimpactsconductedaspartofroutineEIAforoffshorewindfarmprojectsbut
currentlythereislittleinfieldvalidationofthesemodelsconducted(Baileyetal.,2010).
Thereforeitisimportantthatconsiderationofnoiseimpactsreceivesasuitablelevelofmonitoring
andvalidationmovingintothefuture.EspeciallyasRound3zonesarelocatedindeeperwater,are
moredistantfromcoastalandinshoregeomorphologicallycomplexfeaturesandwithpossible
greaterinteractionwithsomesensitivereceptorse.g.pelagicandlesscoastalspecies.
ForCGBFprojectsthenotablephasesofactivitylikelytosourcenoiseimpactsare:

Groundpreparation(ifrequired);
EmplacementofaCGBF;
Remedialactivities(placementofscourmaterialsifdeemednecessary);and
Decommissioning(ifrequired).

Noise from Dredging Foundation Pits (where required)


RecentresearchhasbeenconductedbyRobinsonetal.(2011)regardingnoisegeneratedbymarine
aggregatedredgers,fundedthroughtheMarineAggregateLevySustainabilityFund.Thesourcesof
noiseassociatedwithmarineaggregatedredgingarederivedfrom:thevesselitself(propeller
cavitationetc.),noiseassociatedwithmachineryandspecificallythecentrifugalpumpandtheintake
pipe,andpossiblythedragheadontheseabed.Noiseemissionsarealsoassociatedwithgrabbucket
dredging,whichisanalternativemethodtotrailersuctionhopperdredgingthatcouldbeusedfor
groundpreparationonsomeprojects.
Itislikelythatfishareabletoavoidsitesofintermittentnoise(Tillinetal.,2011),butthatthey
habituatetoregularnoiseofthefrequencyandlevellikelytobeencounteredclosetoshipping
activity(Hiscocketal.,2002;Zuccoetal.,2006;ScottishExecutive,2007;OSPARCommission,2006).
Thisobservationappearstobesupportedbythefactthatcommerciallyimportantinshorefisheries
resourceareasarelocatedincloseproximitytomajorvesseltransitandmarineaggregatelicence
areas.
TheresearchundertakenbyRobinsonetal.(2011)determinesthathearingdamageisunlikelyto
occuratthesoundfrequenciesandintensitiesassociatedwithaggregatedredgingandthatthemain
effectthatcouldbeexpectedintheaffectedzonewouldbeavoidancebymobileanimals.Dredging
ofsandcargoeswaslessnoisythandredgingforgravelcargoesanditisproposedthatthisisdueto
variationsinmechanicalnoiseintheuptakepipeandpumpduetothedifferenceinparticlesizeof
thesediments.Therefore,ifrequired,groundpreparationofsandyseabedswillgeneratelessnoise
thanforareasofmixedandcoarsesediments.
BasedontheRobinsonetal.(2011)report,eventhoughnoiseassociatedwithanyfoundationpit
preparationrequiredislikelytobeheardsomedistanceaway(asitisanalogoustomarineaggregate
dredgingwitheffectsdetectedatdistancesoflessthanakilometre),theeffectofnoisedisturbance
onfishislikelytobenegligible.Atpresentthereisinsufficientscientificevidencetosupportfirm
conclusionsrelatingtotheimpactsofdredgerelatednoiseonfishcommunitiesparticularly
regardingrecoveryfromanydisplacementthatoccurs.However,thefactthatsuccessfulcommercial
fisheriescoincidewithmarineaggregatelicenceareasimpliesthatfisheitheracclimatetodredger
noise,orrapidlyreturnareasfromwhichtheymaybedisplaced.
83

AReviewofMarineEnvironmentalConsiderationsassociatedwithConcreteGravityBase
FoundationsinOffshoreWindDevelopments.

CEDA(2011)statesthatnoisegeneratedfromtheoperationofgrabbucketsdredgingisgenerally
relativelylowfrequencyandthesearenotexpectedtoelevateabovebackgroundlevelsassociated
withcoastalvesseltransits.
Piling Operations
Aspreviouslystatedthesinglelargestsourceofanthropogenicsourcedunderwaternoiseis
recordedfrompecussivepilingactivityassociatedwithfoundationinstallation(Hiscocketal.,2002;
Zuccoetal.,2006;ScottishExecutive,2007;DONGEnergyetal.,2006;OSPARCommission,2006;
Perrowetal.,2011a,2012;Baileyetal.,2010;Thomsenetal.,2011).Piledrivinggeneratesveryhigh
soundpressurelevelsthatarerelativelybroadband(20Hz>20kHz)andtheseinteractwith
auditoryrangesofthesensitivereceptors.
TheconstructionmonitoringprogrammeattheDanishOWFs,HornsRevandNysted,observedthe
effectsofpilingoperationonsensitivereceptors.InparticularHarbourandGreysealsandHarbour
porpoiseweremonitoredtolookforanyimpactsoradverseeffectsassociatedwithpiling
operations(DONGEnergyetal.,2006).Agoodcomparisonbetweenpiledandnonpiledinstallation
shouldhavebeenachievedgiventhatNystedusesCGBFsandHornsRevisbuiltwithmonopiles.
However,therequirementforsheetmetalpilingatoneofthefoundationsatNystednegatedthis
comparison(DONGEnergyetal.,2006;Zuccoetal.,2006).
InoverviewthemonitoringofHarbourporpoiseatHornsRevshowedastatisticallysignificant
displacementofHarbourporpoisefromthelocationandvicinityoftheinstallationsite(DONG
Energyetal.,2006).Thisdisplacementwasstrongandoccurredduringtheentiretyofthe
constructionperiodbutrelativelyshortlived,asthepopulationreturnedtotheareainpre
constructionnumberswithinthefirst2yearspostconstruction.
ThedatacollectedfromNystedwasalsousefulinthecontextofpilingnoiseimpacts.Duringthe3
monthsthatintermittentsheetmetalpilingoccurreddidtherewasastrongnegativereactionwith
totalavoidanceoftheareaatapopulationscale.Further,thereisaprolongedeffectasduringthe
first2yearspostconstructiontheporpoisedidnotreturnedtothearea.Someofthehypothesesfor
thisprolongeddisplacementarepresentedinSection7.6.2above.Howeverthisdoeshighlightthe
factthatsitespecificconsiderationsareextremelyimportantwhendeterminingprojectspecific
impactscenarios.
FortheHarbourandGreysealpopulationsinthevicinityofHornsRevandNystednostatistically
significantvariationsinpopulationnumbersorusageoftheareaswereobserved,exceptforthe
hauloutsiteasRdsandduringthepiledrivingoperations,whenreducednumbersofsealswere
observedhauledout.Thesenumbersrecoveredtopreconstructionlevelsfollowingcessationof
piling.
ThenoisemonitoringrecordedbyHaelteretal.(2009)attheThorntonBankOWF,Belgium,is
interestingbecausethisassessedtheemplacementoflargeCGBFstructuresintothesouthernNorth
Sea.ThemarineenvironmentoftheThorntonBankmaybesimilartosomeRound3zonesand
specificallynoiseeffectsduringemplacementwhererecorded.Thelevelsmeasuredwere5to25dB
higherthanthebackgroundnoiselevelsmakingthemsimilartoincreasescausedbylocalshiptraffic.

84

AReviewofMarineEnvironmentalConsiderationsAssociatedwithConcreteGravityBase
FoundationsinOffshoreWindDevelopments.

TosettheemplacementoftheCGBFsincontext,duringthisfirstphaseofpilingactivityattheBligh
Bank(Belwind)OWF,Belgium,thenoisefrompiledrivingwasrecordedatamaximumpeakof
196dBre1Paatadistanceof520m,withapilingblowenergyof990kJ(Norroetal,2010).
ThemonitoringstudiesconductedattheBelwindOWF,confirmedthattheunderwaternoiselevel
associatedwithpilingshouldbeofconcern,particularlyforHarbourporpoise(Norroetal.,2010).
Theauthorsfurtherstatedthatitisverydifficulttoquantifyandqualifytheeffectsoftheincreased
underwaternoiselevelonothercomponentsoftheecosystemandthatfurtherresearchisrequired
tomodelnoisepropagationinthebathymetricallycomplexsouthernNorthSearegion.
Skeateetal.(2011)observedthattherewasasignificantdisplacementofHarboursealsfromthe
hauloutsitesattheScrobySandsbank,UK,duringtheconstructionoftheScrobySandsOWF.This
appearedtobelinkedtothepilingconstructionperiod.SimilartothecaseofHarbourporpoiseat
Nysted,thesealsdidnotreturnduringthepostconstructionperiod.Greysealsatthesiteappeared
lesssensitiveandhavesubsequentlyreturnedtothearea.Thecontinuedabsenceofpre
constructionpopulationofHarboursealsmayberelatedtointerspecificcompetitionbetweenGrey
andHarboursealswithsimilarshiftsininterspeciespopulationsobservedatotherEastAnglian
coastcolonies(Skeateetal.,2012).Howeveritissuggestedthatthenoiseimpactsmayhave
precipitatedthispopulationchangeatScrobySands.
PreviousreportedresearchatScrobySandsmayalsohelpexplainthedeclineintheHarbourseal
populationthere.Thisalsoislinkedtopilingimpacts,butrelatedtoherringClupeaharengusegg
mortalityduetonoise,pressureandvibrationinducedimpacts(Perrowetal.,2012).Herringare
importantpreyspeciesforapexpredatorssuchasHarboursealsandLittleternSternulaalbifrons.
Perrowetal.suggestthatasignificantreductioninherringabundancefrom2004(constructionyear)
onwardscouldnotbeexplainedbyenvironmentalfactors.Intenselynoisymonopileinstallation
duringthewinterspawningperiodwassuggestedtoberesponsible.Reducedpreyabundance
correspondedwithasignificantdeclineinLittleternforagingsuccessandalsodeclineofthelocal
Harboursealpopulation(linkedtodisplacementeffect).
Baileyetal.(2010)conductedrecordingstudiesduringthepilingoftwosteeljacketfoundationsto
support5MWturbinesoffshorefromtheMorayFirth,Scotland.Eachsteeljacketrequiredfourpiles
tosecurethestructuretotheseabedatwaterdepthsof42m(BCD).Piledrivingoperationstook
twohoursperpileresultinginatotaldurationof16hoursforbothfoundations.Hammerblow
forcesof200500kJperstrikeweremeasuredandameanaverageofjustover6000blowswas
requiredperpile.Strikeratewasjustunderoneminuteperblow.Noiseemissionsatdamaging
levelstobottlenosedolphinwererecordedatadistanceof100metresfromthesteeljacket.
Howevernoiseatlevelslikelytocausedisplacementototherwiseinterferewithnormalbehaviour
weredetectedatadistanceof50kmaway.Noiselevelsaboveambientweredetectableat70km
butnolongerdistinguishableatadistanceof80km.
Whilsttherearelocalityspecificissuesregardingseabedtopographyitisclearthatthereare
significanteffectsassociatedwiththeinstallationofsteeljacket(andlikelytripod)structures,much
thesameasforsteelmonopiles.Alsoafurtherlikelysignificantfactoristhenumberofpilesper
foundationstructureforsteeljackets(34)andtripods(3).Pilingdurationmaybelessperpilethana

85

AReviewofMarineEnvironmentalConsiderationsassociatedwithConcreteGravityBase
FoundationsinOffshoreWindDevelopments.

56mdiametermonopile,butBaileyetal.(2010)haveshownthatdamagingnoiseemissionsare
associatedwithinstallationofthesefoundations.
ItisimportanttorecognisethefactthatforCGBFspilingisnotrequiredtoemplacethestructures
ontotheseabed.Withoutthepilingoperationsthereisnoeffect/pressurepathwayassociatedwith
sensitivereceptors.Assuchtheadverseeffectsfrompilingdonotexist.Perrowetal.(2011)suggest
thataprecautionaryapproachmaytranslateintogreaterrestrictionofthetiminganddurationof
piledrivingactivitiesortheadoptionofalternativemeansofturbineinstallation.Thisviewmayalso
alignwiththenoiseregisterapproachconsideredtodeliverGESundertheMSFD.Skeateetal.
(2012)gofurthertorecommendthateffectivemeansofprotectingmarinemammals(seals)istouse
alternativestopiledrivenmonopilessuchasgravitybasedesigns(alongwiththedevelopmentof
moreeffectivemeansofmitigatingnoise).
Aconsortiumofdevelopers,sponsoredbytheGermanFederalEnvironmentMinistry,aspartofthe
EvaluationofPileDrivingNoiseMitigationSystems(ESRa)program,hasjustpublishedareport(July,
2012)detailingfieldtrialsintheGermanBalticSeatoassesstheuseofpilingnoisemitigation
systems(ESRa,2012).ProtectingHarbourporpoisesfromharmfulnoisesduringpiledriving
operationshasundergoneclosescrutinybytheGermanauthorities.Duringconstructionofthe
AlphaVentusandBARDOffshore1windfarmsthenoiseemissionlimitof160dBat750mfromthe
sourcewasoftenexceededby10dB(afactorof10).Fivenoiseprotectionsystemswerecompared:
apipewithaninternalbubblecurtain;thefirehosemethod;asmall,stagedbubblecurtain;noise
reductionshellswithtwobubblecurtainsandaHydroSoundDamper(ESRa,2012;Wilkeetal.,
2012).
ThepiledrivingoperationswereevaluatedbytheInstituteforTechnicalandAppliedPhysicsof
Oldenburg.Itwasfoundthatwithina750mradiusfromthesoundsource,andinthehighestenergy
rangeof100300Hertz,thesounddampingeffectwasfoundtobebetween0and10dB(Wilkeet
al.,2012).Wilkeetal.(2012)alsofoundthatattherangeuptoaround5000Hertz,towhichsea
mammalsareparticularlysensitive,thehighestreductioneffectwas25dB.
Theauthorsofthestudyconcludethatfurtherresearchtoimprovetheunderstandingofthefactors
influencingsoundduringpiledrivingoperationsforoffshorewindturbinefoundationsarerequired.
Alsothecostofemployingsuchmitigation,bothintermsofcapitalandtime,isstillcurrentlya
limitingfactorineffectivelydeployingthesemitigationsystems(ESRa,2012).
7.6.3 Summary
PossiblythesinglemostimportantconsiderationfortheuseofCGBFsinthemarineenvironmentis
thefactthatpilingisnotrequiredtoemplacethestructuresontotheseabed.
Monopiles,steeljacketsandtripods(andpossiblyfloatingplatforms)allrequirehammerpilingto
securethemtotheseabed.Steeljacketandtripodfoundationscaneachhave34pileswithpiling
timesofapproximately2hoursperpile.Cumulativelythesenoiseemissionsareverylikelytobe
significant.IntheabsenceofpilingoperationsassociatedwithCGBFemplacementthereisnohigh
impactnoisepressurepathwaylinkingCGBFswithnoisesensitivereceptors.Assuchtheadverse
effectsdonotexist.

86

AReviewofMarineEnvironmentalConsiderationsAssociatedwithConcreteGravityBase
FoundationsinOffshoreWindDevelopments.

Thereisanincreaseinlegislativerequirementstodemonstratenoimpulsivenoiserelatedimpacts
onsensitiveanddesignatednatureconservationspecies.TheuseofCGBFscanstreamlineRound3
preapplicationandapplicationphaseswhenconsideringnoiseimpactsspecificallyasuseofCGBFs
maynotrequiretheneedtobeaddedtoanoiseregisterandshouldbesecureunderRegulation
41(1)(b)oftheHabitatsRegulationsandRegulation39(1)(b)oftheOffshoreHabitatsRegulations(as
consideredinSection7.7below).

87

AReviewofMarineEnvironmentalConsiderationsassociatedwithConcreteGravityBase
FoundationsinOffshoreWindDevelopments.

7.7

Designated Sites and other Nature Conservation Interests

ThissectionpresentsanoverviewofthecurrentandproposedMarineProtectedAreas(MPA)
networkinUKwaters.Detailedinformationcanbedrawnfromseveralsourcesincluding:site
assessmentdossiers;departmentbriefings;(Habitats)Regulation33(2)and35(3)packagesand
(Regulatory)ImpactAssessments.
Section5.2hasidentifiednatureconservationhabitatsandspeciesasareceptortoactivitiesand
effectsassociatedwitheachphaseofthelifespanofaCGBFconsideredinthisreport.Manyofthe
considerationsofsensitivityofconservationhabitatsandspecieshavebeendescribedinthe
precedingsubsectionsofSection7ofthisreport.Benthichabitatandspecies,fishspecies,bird
faunaandmegafaunaallhaverepresentativesthatareconsideredtobeofconservationimportance.
Anoverviewofinternationalandnationalmarinenatureconservationlegislationisprovidedin
AppendixA.Listsofinternationalandnationalmarinehabitatsandspeciesofconservation
significanceandlikelytointeractwithCGBFsarepresentedinAppendixF.
Itisimportanttonotethatimpactsassociatedwithdevelopmentofconstructionyardsinterrestrial,
coastalandestuarinehabitatsarebeyondthescopeofthereport;includinganydesignatednature
conservationfeaturesrestrictedtoassociationwiththeseoperationsandnotalsofoundoffshore.
NatureconservationsitesatthecoastmayneedtobeconsideredbyaprojectusingCGBFs,though
forRound3developmentsitisbelievedunlikelythatenvironmentaleffectswillmanifestatthecoast
(seeSections5.3,6.2.1and6.2.3).
ProjectsthatmayuseCGBFsaremostlikelytohavetoconsiderimpactsupon:

SpecialAreasofConservation(SAC)designatedundertheHabitatsDirective;
SpecialProtectionAreas(SPA)designatedundertheBirdsDirective;and
MarineConservationZones(MCZ)tobedesignatedundertheMarineandCoastalAccessAct
2009(atthetimeofdraftingthisreportMCZsarerecommendedtoDefra,whoare
reviewingthembeforedesignation).

7.7.1 Nature Conservation Features


ListsofhabitatsandspeciesofsignificanceataNortheastAtlanticbiogeographicregionalscaleare
presentedinAppendixF.TheseincludeAnnexIhabitats,AnnexIIspeciesandAnnexIVEuropean
protectedspeciesoftheHabitatsDirectiveandAnnexIbirdspecieslistedundertheBirdsDirective.
Alsoincludedarebroadscalehabitats,habitatfeaturesofconservationinterestandspeciesof
conservationinterestlistedundertheMarineandCoastalAccessAct(2009).Linkstootherlistsof
marinehabitatsandspeciesofconservationimportance,suchUKbiodiversityActionPlansand
OSPARConventionlists,arealsopresentedinAppendixF.
Thefocusofconservingmarinehabitatsandspecieswasderivedfromprotectingrare,scarceand
threatenedspecies.Ashiftinrecentyearshasbroughtafocusontoareasofseathatare
representativeoftherangeofmarinewildlifeinUKwatersthusbuildingresilienceintotheMPA
network.
AsdescribedbelowthefocusforCGBFsshouldbeconsiderationofthelocationofRound3zones,
theextentoflikelydirectandindirectimpactfootprintsfromthefoundationsandspatialor
88

AReviewofMarineEnvironmentalConsiderationsAssociatedwithConcreteGravityBase
FoundationsinOffshoreWindDevelopments.

temporaloverlapwithdesignatedfeatureswithindesignatedorrecommendednatureconservation
sites.
ThemainfocusofassessinginteractionsofeffectsfromCGBFswithnatureconservationfeatureswill
besetbytheconservationobjectivesforasite.Theseobjectivesdetailthedesignatedfeaturesand
parametersusedtoensurethatfeaturesaremaintainedorrestoredtofavourablecondition;
allowingcontributiontooverallfavourableconservationstatusforthathabitatorspeciesata
networkscale.
MPAsitespecificinformationisprovided(fromthestatutorynatureconservationagencies)to
advisemanagementofactivitiesthatinteract,ormayforeseeablyinteract,witheachMPA.This
informatione.g.Regulation35(3)packagesforSACs,willindicate:theboundaryofthesite;location
andextentofdesignatedfeatures;importantbiologicalcomponentsandattributes(with
thresholds);andsensitivitiestoeffects.Theseallowassessmentofimpactsandjudgementabout
featureconditiontobedetermined.
AssessingtheimpactsonanyfeaturesfromCGBFderivedimpactswillusuallybeconductedthrough
aHabitatsRegulationsAssessmentwithintheEIA.Ifthestatutorynatureconservationagencies
(SNCAs)cannotdeterminethattherewillbenolikelysignificanteffectsthenanappropriate
assessmentwillberequired.ThemostcommonmechanismforassessmentisthroughtheHabitats
RegulationsorOffshoreHabitatsRegulationsTheappropriateassessmentprocessisanalogoustoa
detailed,focussedEIAandmustallowadeterminationofnoadverseeffectonsiteintegrity,ornot,
tobemade.
AssessmentofnoiseimpactsfromOWFinstallationandconstructionhasrecentlyreceivedintense
scrutinyfromtheSNCAs.CaseLawfromtheEuropeanCourtofJusticehastightenedthe
considerationsofdeliberatedisturbanceoffaunalistedunderAnnexIVEuropeanProtectedSpecies
oftheHabitatsDirective.Itisnowanoffence(underRegulation41(1)(b)oftheHabitats
RegulationsandRegulation39(1)(b)oftheOffshoreHabitatsRegulations)todeliberatelydisturb
wildanimalsofaEuropeanProtectedSpecies:
insuchawayastobelikelysignificantlytoaffect:
a)theabilityofanysignificantgroupofanimalsofthatspeciestosurvive,breed,orrearor
nurturetheiryoung;or
b)thelocaldistributionorabundanceofthatspecies.
Theinstallationofdrivenpilesinthemarineenvironmentwithoutmitigationislikelytoproduce
noiselevelscapableofcausinginjuryanddisturbancetomarinemammals.Sucheffects,although
incidentaltoconsentedactivities,havethepotentialtoconflictwiththelegislativeprovisionsofThe
HabitatsandOffshoreHabitatsRegulations.
JNCC,NEandCCWhaveproducedguidanceontheprotectionofmarineEuropeanprotectedspecies
frominjuryanddisturbance(JNCC,NEandCCW,2010).TheJNCChasalsoproducedaspecificpiling
protocolwhichformspartofthatmoregeneralguidanceandtherecommendationsshouldbe
consideredasbestpracticeforpilingoperations(JNCC,2010b).Theimplicationsofthisstatutory
assessmentarediscussedinthesectionbelow.
89

AReviewofMarineEnvironmentalConsiderationsassociatedwithConcreteGravityBase
FoundationsinOffshoreWindDevelopments.

TheMarineStrategyFrameworkDirective(MSFD)commitsEuropeanUnionmemberstatesto
achieveGoodEnvironmentalStatus(GES)by2020acrossEuropesmarineenvironment.Good
EnvironmentalStatus(GES)involvesprotectingthemarineenvironment,preventingitsdeterioration
andrestoringitwherepractical,whileusingmarineresourcessustainably.
TheDirectivesetsout11highlevelDescriptorsofGoodEnvironmentalStatuswhichcoverallthe
keyaspectsofthemarineecosystemandallthemainhumanpressuresonthem.Ofsignificancefor
theoffshorewindfarmsectorarethequalitativedescriptorsfordetermininggoodenvironmental
statuswithparticularreferencetodescriptornumber11:

Introductionofenergyincludingunderwaternoiseisatlevelsthatdonot
adverselyaffectthemarineenvironment.

TheissuesfromMSFDDescriptorTargetnumber11andthebenefitsfromthepotentialuseofCGBFs
inRound3projectsarediscussedaboveinSection7.6.
7.7.2 Important Interactions between Nature Conservation Features and CGBFs
ThepotentialimpactsondesignatednatureconservationfeaturesfromCGBFsaredetailedin
Section5.2butmaybesummarisedas:

Impactswithintheboundariesofthedredgedsite;
Impactsoutsidetheboundariesofthedredgesite;
Therateofrecoveryofseabedresourcesfollowingemplacementandsettlement
impactsandatdecommissioning;and
Impactsonnonsiteprotectedmobilespecies.

Asdiscussedinmanyofthesectionsabovetheextentofimpactswilldependonacombinationof
factorsincluding:theoperationoccurring;thesedimentandhabitattype;thesensitivityofthe
receptorstotheimpact;thephysicalconditionsoftheenvironment,thetypeofCGBFbeingused
alongwithorientation,spacingandpossiblytimingofoperations.Thereforeonlygenericstatements
canbemadeaboutsignificanteffectsonnatureconservationfeaturesoutsideofaprojectspecific
EIA.
Feature Removal / Loss
EnvironmentaleffectsassociatedwiththelifespanofaCGBFontheseabedwillresultinphysical
effectsthatmayinteractwithandinfluencethehealth,functionandqualityofconservationsites,
featuresandspecies.ThemostsignificantimpactfromCGBFswillbethedirectremovalofhabitats
andspecies.IftheCGBFsarelocatedondesignatedfeaturesthenthiswillresultindirectimpactsof
physicallossofthefeature.ThismaynotexcludethecolocationofCGBFswithcertainnature
conservationfeaturese.g.AnnexIsandbanksthataresubmergedbyseawateratalltimes,buta
largeamountoftimeandlikelycostswillhavetobeexpendedbythedeveloperduringthe
applicationprocesstoallowadeterminationofnoadverseeffectontheintegrityofthesite.
Featureremovalorlossmaybeassociatedwith:dredgingofthefoundationpits(ifrequired);under
thephysicalfootprintoftheCGBF;belowanysurficialscourprotection(ifused);andfrompossible
reefeffecthalos.Considerationofanyareasintendedfordisposalofthefoundationpitfines(if
appropriate)willalsohavetobeassessed.
90

AReviewofMarineEnvironmentalConsiderationsAssociatedwithConcreteGravityBase
FoundationsinOffshoreWindDevelopments.

Physicallossmayalsoresultfromsmotheringeffectsassociatedwithsettlementoffinesdredged
fromthefoundationpitsifundertaken.Ifdisposalorstorageofthedredgedfinesisproposedwithin
theboundaryofthesitethenthelocationoffeaturesrelatedtothesmotheringfootprintwillhave
tobeassessed.Ifthedepositedfinesareintendedtobeusedforfoundationpitbackfillthenfurther
smotheringeffectsmayresultatboththestorageareawhentheyareredredged,andalsoatthe
foundationpitwhendepositedforbackfill(ifneeded).Itisconsideredunlikelythatanysignificant
sedimentplumesorsmotheringimpactswillbeassociatedwithCGBFballastingoperations(aside
fromthosementionedpreviouslyfromanyredredgingoperations).
Duringdecommissioningthefateofballastwillalsohavetobeconsidered.Iftheintentionistore
depositballastoriginallysourcedfromfoundationpitswithinthedesignatedsitethentoxic
contaminationwillhavetobeassessedforimpactpathways.Therewillalsobeasmothering
footprintinvolvedwiththedeposition,thoughthismaybemitigatedifassociatedwithparticlesizes
likelytoallowfastcolonisatione.g.sands.Ifcrushedrockfinesornonmarinegravelsareusedfor
ballastthentheremaybearequirementtoeitherdisposeofthese(whenpumpedoutoftheCGBF)
atalicenseddisposalsite.Ifthedeveloperintendstodepositthesewithinthesiteandcertainlyonto
anydesignatedfeaturethenlossthroughsmotheringwillhavetobeassessedalongwithanytoxic
contaminationpathways.SNCAsarelikelytohaveapositionthatballastandscourprotection
material,alongwithanyfoundationlayerswillhavetoberemovedfromtheseabedduring
decommissioning.Thereisevidencetosupportapositionthatfoundationlayersmaybeleftinsitu
atdecommissioningsolongasthematerialisdeeperthan1mbelowtheseabedsurfaceandnot
likelytobeexposedthroughsubsequentseabedbedformactivity.Thisissupportedbytheuseofthe
upper1mofsedimentlayersbyinfaunalspecies(EMULtd,2010a;Hiscocketal.,2002).Solongas
thefoundationlayerisbackfilledtoadepthgreaterthan1m(belowseabedsurface)witha
sedimentofthesamegrainsizeasoccurrednaturallypreinstallation,thenrecoverytobaseline
conditionsmaybeachievable.Howeverthiswilllikelyrequiredetailedprojectspecificdiscussion
betweenthedeveloperandtherelevantSNCA(s).
Feature Damage and Displacement Impacts
Indirecteffectsthatoverlapdesignatedfeatureswillhavetobeassessedforimpact.Thismayresult
fromalterationsinsedimenttransportpathwaysandsedimentfluxfromhydrologicalchangesdue
toCGBFstructures.Changesinnearseabedenergyfromalteredwaveclimatesandtidalstreams
mayaffectsedimenthabitats,thoughatthewaterdepthsconsideredforRound3zonestheseare
unlikelytomanifest(seeSection6.2).Impactsatthecoastlinearealsounlikelytooccurin
associationwithCGBFsatRound3zones(seeSection6.2)soimpactsonhabitatsatcoastalsitesare
notexpected.
Sedimentsplumesresultingfromvariousdredgingactivitiesassociatedwithgroundpreparation(if
required)willraiseturbiditylevelsandincreasesuspendedsedimentconcentrations.Ifthese
footprintsoverlapdesignatedfeaturesthenanassessmentofsignificancewillberequired.Itis
expectedthatindirectimpacthalosforsedimentplumeswillbethesameasthoseroutinely
assessedformarineaggregateextractionoperationsinrelationtoMPAs;thoughofsmallervolumes
andeffectivelytimelimitedeventsunlikeaggregateextraction(NEandJNCC,2011).
Theintroductionofhardsubstrataintodesignatedsiteswithsedimenthabitatfeatureswillalterthe
habitatmatrix.Reefeffecthalosmayaltertheinfaunalcommunities.Ifthesehalosoverlapthe
91

AReviewofMarineEnvironmentalConsiderationsassociatedwithConcreteGravityBase
FoundationsinOffshoreWindDevelopments.

extentofdesignatedfeaturestheninteractionsmayneedconsideration.Lossordamageofinfaunal
communitiesmayoccurthoughthisisgenerallyrestrictedtopredatorsforagingoutfromthereefs
uptonomorethan200maway(referencecitedinZuccoetal.,2010;Bremneretal.,2006).
Natureconservationbenefitsofartificialhardsubstrataactingasreefsorasfishaggregatingdevices
(FADs)andanyincreasedbiodiversityeffectsaregenerallynotconsideredbytheSNCAsaspositive
effectsiflocatedwithinadesignatedsite(IanReach,pers.obs.).Thesearenotnecessarily
consideredasnegativeeffectseither,justthatifthesiteisdesignatedforsedimenthabitatfeatures
thenintroductionofreefcommunitiesdoesnotcontributetodeliveringconservationobjectivesfor
thosefeaturesandthatsite.Thissaidtheremaybepositiveeffectsforcertainfishspeciesorapex
predatorssuchassealsandHarbourporpoise;throughincreasedforagingefficiencythatmay
contributetofavourableconditionofaconservationspecies.Theseeffectsaredifficultto
demonstratebutshouldnotbediscounted.
Displacementofsensitivespeciesmayresultduetothepresenceofartificialstructureonthe
seabed.DONGEnergyetal.(2006)reportedthatHarbourporpoisedisplacedfromNystedOWF,
Denmark,bypilingoperationshadnotreturnedtothehabitatspaceuptotwoyearspost
construction.Itisnotdeterminedifthiscontinueddisplacementisduetothepresenceofthearray
orthatotherecologicalfactorsarecontributing.RegardlessitisunlikelythatCGBFsthemselveswill
causeanygreaterdisplacementeffectsofmobilefaunathanotherfoundationsolutions.
Zuccoetal.(2006),ScottishExecutive(2007),andDONGEnergyetal.(2006)haveallnotedthat
habitatlossandsubsequentdisplacementofsensitivebirdfaunamaybecomemorecriticalunder
cumulativeconditions.Forspecieswithhighlyrestrictedmarinehabitats,habitatlossmayhave
populationleveleffects,becausedisplacedbirdshavepoorerqualityorlittlealternativehabitatto
moveto.However,itisclearthatthehabitatlosseffectanddisplacementforbirdfaunaisrelatedto
physicalpresenceofthearrayitselfandabovewaterlineeffectsoftowersandturbines.Theareaof
habitatlossisthereforemuchgreaterthanthephysicalfootprintofanyfoundationtype.Asturbine
sweepdiametersincreasethentherequiredinterfoundationspacingwillalsoincrease.Thismay
resultingreaterhabitatlossforsensitivemobilespecies,howeveragainthisisindependentof
foundationtype.
Possible Positive Effects
CGBFsmayprovidepathwaysfornatureconservationgains.Therequiredconsiderationof
deliberatedisturbancetoEuropeanProtectedSpeciesisusefulinthecontextoftheuseofCGBFs.
Thefactthatnoiseemissionsfromemplacementofthesestructuresinnomorenoisythanthat
sourcedfromshippingtransits(Haeltersetal.,2009)meansthatdemonstratingcompliancewith
Regulation41(1)(b)oftheHabitatsRegulationsandRegulation39(1)(b)oftheOffshoreHabitats
Regulations,shouldbemuchlessonerousthanforprojectsinvolvingpiledrivingoperations(e.g.
steeljacketsandtripods).ItisalsopossiblethatinstallationandemplacementofCGBFsmay
mitigatetherequirementforaprojectusingthemtoberequiredtoenrolonanoiseregister;ifthis
proposedlegislativeprocedureisagreednecessaryfromresponsestoDefrasMSFDconsultation.
Thesignificantlackofimpactpathwaymaytransferintosignificanttimeandcostsavingsduringthe
applicationphaseofaprojectproposingtouseCGBFs.

92

AReviewofMarineEnvironmentalConsiderationsAssociatedwithConcreteGravityBase
FoundationsinOffshoreWindDevelopments.

Thecombinationofreefeffectandfishaggregatingdeviceeffectsandthepossibilityoffishery
exclusionzonesaroundturbinesmeanthatpositiveeffectsonlocalfishpopulationmayaccrue.
PostconstructionmonitoringoftheThorntonBankOWF,Belgium,showedthatsomefishspecies
attractedtotheCGBFswereofconservationimportancesuchascodGadusmorhua(Reubensetal.,
2010).IthasbeenproposedthattheFADeffectmaycontributetoMPAlikeeffectswithsaferefuge
forcertaincommercialspeciesthatmaythenspilloverintofisheryaccessibleareas.Thecounter
pointisthatifnofisheryexclusionzonesexistthencatchperuniteffort(CPUE)mayincrease
resultinginincreasedpopulationlevelpressuresforcertainspecies(Reubensetal.,2010).
DONGEnergyetal.,(2006)notedthattherosswormSabellariaspinulosamayhavethepotentialto
colonisethefoundationstructureattheHornsRevOWF,Denmark.Thisspeciesoftubebuilding
polychaetewormcanformbiogenicreefstructureswhichqualifyasAnnexIhabitat(alsolisted
undertheOSPARConvention;UKBAP;andMCZlists).Ithasbeenhypothesisedthatstructural
complexartificialstructuresintherightenvironmentalconditionsmayhaveahighpotentialfor
colonisationortohaveincreasedreefeffects(Zuccoetal.,2006).CGBFscertainlyfallintothis
category.
IfCGBFsdoactassanctuariesfornatureconservationimportanthabitatsandspeciesitis
noteworthytoquestiontheconsequencesthatdecommissioningthesestructuresmayhaveonthis
natureconservationenhancement.
Invasive NonNatives Organisms
Artificialhardsubstratamayactassteppingstonesforinvasivenonnativeepiphyticandepifaunal
speciesbyprovidinghabitatthatelsewisewouldnotbepresentinsedimenthabitats(Hiscocketal.,
2002).Thismaybeevenmorecriticalforspeciesthathavenodispersiveplanktoniclarvalstage.
MostMPAconservationobjectiveshaveastatementabouttheintroductionofinvasivenonnatives
resultingindetrimentaleffects,possiblyresultinginfailureofmaintainingfavourableconservation
status.
ThemonitoringprogrammeattheThorntonBankOWFreportedthepresenceofnonnative
barnaclespeciesBalanusperforatusandMegabalanuscoccopomainthebarnaclezone(Degraeret
al.,2010).Considerationofappropriatecontrolmethodsmayberequiredifinvasivenonnative
speciesaredetected.However,thereareexamplesofSACsbeingdesignatedinfavourablecondition
withalargecommunityofinvasivenonnativespeciespresentwithinthesitee.g.TheSolent
MaritimeEuropeanmarinesiteandtheAmericanslipperlimpetCrepidulafornicata.Soitisunclear
atthistimeofthesignificancethatthepresenceofthesespeciesinrelationtoconservation
objectives.
TheconsiderationofnonnativespeciescolonisationisnotCGBFspecificthoughtheincreased
surfaceareaofthesestructuresmayfacilitateahigherpotentialforcolonisation;thoughthis
statementisnotsubstantiatedbyevidence.

93

AReviewofMarineEnvironmentalConsiderationsassociatedwithConcreteGravityBase
FoundationsinOffshoreWindDevelopments.

7.9

Summary of Biological Receptors

Acomparisonoftherelativemagnitudeofeffects,betweenaCGBFandalternativesolutions,is
presentedconsideringtheevidencereviewedinthissection.Notethattheeffectsofalargenumber
ofsmallfoundations,comparedwithasmallernumberoflargerfoundations,isnotyetwell
understood.Alsonotethatthistablemakesnoestimationofthesignificanceofaneffect.

Key
I
O
D

Installation(includinganygroundpreparationandremedialworksrequired)
Operation(includinganysettlement)
Decommissioning

Receptor

Biological
Benthos

94

Subreceptors Description

Infauna
Epifauna
Mobile
species

Phase
effect
detected

Relativeeffect
Scale

Significance

Directlossofhabitat
fromplacementof
foundationonly

I/O/D

CGBFsimilar
toother
Round3
solutionsin
mostcases
CGBFsimilar
toorgreater
thanother
Round3
solutionsin
mostcases

CGBFsimilar
toorless
thanother
Round3
solutionsin
mostcases

Maybe
moderately
significant
acrossa
largearray

Maybe
moderately
significant
acrossa
largearray

"

Directlossofhabitat
fromplacementof
foundationplussurficial
scourprotection(if
used)

I/O/D

"

I/O

"

Alterationofthe
sedimenthabitatand
communitiesthrough
changestoparticlesize
orsedimentmatrixdue
tochangesinlocal
hydrodynamiccaused
bythefoundation

Habitatlossfrom
excavationofsediment
fromground
preparationforCGBF(if
required)andremoval

"

Smotheringfrom
sedimentplumesby
groundpreparationfor

I/D

I/D

CGBFsimilar
toorgreater
thanother
Round3
solutionsin
mostcases

CGBFsimilar
toorgreater
thanother

Maybe
moderately
significant
acrossa
largearray

Maybe
moderately
significant
acrossa
largearray

Maybe
moderately
significant

AReviewofMarineEnvironmentalConsiderationsAssociatedwithConcreteGravityBase
FoundationsinOffshoreWindDevelopments.

Infauna
Epifauna
Mobile
species

"

Round3
solutions
whereused

acrossa
largearray

I/D

CGBFsimilar
toorgreater
thanother
Round3
solutionsin
mostcases

Maybe
moderately
significant
acrossa
largearray

CGBFsimilar
toother
Round3
solutionsin
mostcases

CGBFsimilar
toorgreater
thanother
Round3
solutionsin
mostcases

CGBFsimilar
toother
Round3
solutionsin
mostcases

CGBFless
thanother
Round3
solutions

CGBFsimilar
toother
Round3
solutionsin
mostcases

CGBFsimilar
toorgreater
thanother
Round3
solutionsin
mostcases

Maybe
moderately
significant
acrossa
largearray

"

Reefeffects

O/D

"

Foundationactingasa
steepingstonefor
colonisationbynon
nativeinvasivespecies

O/D

"

Noiseimpactstofauna
fromemplacement/
installationactivityor
removal

I/D

Biological
Fish

CGBF(ifrequired)or
drillingofpileor
removal

Impactfromincreased
turbidityorraised
suspendedsediment
concentrationsfrom
sedimentplumesby
groundpreparationfor
CGBF(ifrequired)or
drillingofpileor
removal

Alterationofsediment
habitatfromchangesto
sedimenttransport
pathways

Demersal
Directlossofhabitat
Pelagic
fromplacementof
Reefdwellers foundationonly

"

Directlossofhabitat
fromplacementof
foundationplussurficial
scourprotection(if
used)

I/O/D

I/O/D

Maybe
moderately
significant
acrossa
largearray

Maybe
moderately
significant
acrossa
largearray
Likelytobe
insignificant
forCGBFs

Maybe
moderately
significant
acrossa
largearray
Maybe
moderately
significant
acrossa
largearray

95

AReviewofMarineEnvironmentalConsiderationsassociatedwithConcreteGravityBase
FoundationsinOffshoreWindDevelopments.

Demersal
Alterationofthe
I/O
CGBFsimilar Maybe
Pelagic
sedimenthabitat
toorless
moderately
Reefdwellers supportingfishfauna
thanother
significant
andassemblages
Round3
acrossa
throughchangesto
largearray
solutionsin
particlesizeor
mostcases
sedimentmatrixdueto
changesinlocal
hydrodynamicscaused
bythefoundation

Habitatlossfrom
I/D
CGBFsimilar Maybe

excavationofsediment
toorgreater moderately
fromground
thanother
significant
preparationforCGBF(if
Round3
acrossa
required)
solutionsin
largearray
mostcases

Smotheringfrom
I/D
CGBFsimilar Maybe

sedimentplumesby
toorgreater moderately
groundpreparationfor
thanother
significant
CGBF(ifrequired)or
Round3
acrossa
drillingofpileor
solutionsin
largearray
removal
mostcases

Impactfromincreased
I/D
CGBFsimilar Maybeof

turbidityorraised
toorgreater minor
suspendedsediment
thanother
significance
concentrationsfrom
Round3
acrossa
sedimentplumesby
solutionsin
largearray
groundpreparationfor
mostcases
CGBF(ifrequired)or
drillingofpileor
removal

Alterationofsediment
O
CGBFsimilar Maybe

habitatfromchangesto
toother
moderately
sedimenttransport
Round3
significant
pathways
solutionsin
acrossa

mostcases
largearray

FishAggregationDevice
O
CGBFsimilar Maybe

potential
toorgreater moderately
thanother
significant
Round3
acrossa
solutionsin
largearray
mostcases

"

"

"

"

"

96

AReviewofMarineEnvironmentalConsiderationsAssociatedwithConcreteGravityBase
FoundationsinOffshoreWindDevelopments.

Demersal
Potentialforincreased
Pelagic
preyspeciesand
Reefdwellers foraginghalosover
surroundingsediment
habitats

Displacementfrom

existinghabitatdueto
presenceof
foundationsnegative
fishaggregation
throughavoidance
behaviour

Noiseimpactstofauna

fromemplacement/
installationactivityor
removal

Directlossofhabitat
Biological Marine
Megafauna mammals
fromplacementof
Seaturtles
foundationonly
Pelagicsharks

incl.Basking
shark
Directlossofhabitat

fromplacementof
foundationplus
surficialscour
protection(ifused)

Marine
Directlossofhabitat
mammals
supportingprey
Pelagicsharks
speciesfrom
(Notapplicable
foundationonly
toseaturtlesor
Baskingshark)
Directlossofhabitat

supportingprey
speciesfrom
foundationplusscour
protection(ifused)

CGBFsimilar
toother
Round3
solutionsin
mostcases

Maybe
moderately
significant
acrossa
largearray

"

O/D

CGBFsimilar
toother
Round3
solutionsin
mostcases

Maybe
moderately
significant
acrossa
largearray

"

I/D

CGBFless
thanother
Round3
solutions

Likelytobe
insignificant
forCGBFs

I/O

CGBFsimilar
toother
Round3
solutionsin
mostcases

Maybe
moderately
significant
acrossa
largearray

I/O

CGBFsimilar
toother
Round3
solutionsin
mostcases

Maybe
moderately
significant
acrossa
largearray

O/D

CGBFsimilar
toother
Round3
solutionsin
mostcases

Maybe
moderately
significant
acrossa
largearray

O/D

CGBFsimilar
toorgreater
thanother
Round3
solutionsin
mostcases

CGBFsimilar
toorless
thanother
Round3
solutionsin
mostcases

Maybe
moderately
significant
acrossa
largearray

"

"

"

Alterationofthe
sedimenthabitat
supportingprey
speciesthrough
changestoparticle
sizeorsediment
matrixduetochanges

Maybelow
to
moderately
significant
acrossa
largearray

97

AReviewofMarineEnvironmentalConsiderationsassociatedwithConcreteGravityBase
FoundationsinOffshoreWindDevelopments.

inlocalhydrodynamic
causedbythe
foundation

Marine
Preyspecieslossfrom
I/D
CGBFsimilar Maybe
mammals
excavationof
toorgreater moderately
Pelagicsharks
sedimentfromground
thanother
significant
(Notapplicable preparationforCGBF
Round3
acrossa
toseaturtlesor
(ifrequired)
solutionsin
largearray
Baskingshark)
mostcases

Preyspecies
I/D
CGBFsimilar Maybe

smotheringfrom
toorgreater moderately
sedimentplumesby
thanother
significant
groundpreparation
Round3
acrossa
forCGBFordrilling(if
solutionsin
largearray
required)ofpileor
mostcases
removal

Marine
Impactfromincreased
I/D
CGBFsimilar Maybe
mammals
turbidityorraised
toorgreater moderately
Seaturtles
thanother
suspendedsediment
significant
Pelagicsharks
concentrationsfrom
Round3
acrossa
incl.Basking
sedimentplumesby
solutionsin
largearray
shark
mostcases
groundpreparation
forCGBF(ifrequired)
ordrillingofpileor
removal

Marine
Alterationofsediment
O
CGBFsimilar Maybe
mammals
habitatandprey
toother
moderately
Pelagicsharks
speciesfromchanges
significant
Round3
(Notapplicable tosedimenttransport
solutionsin
acrossa
toseaturtlesor
pathways
mostcases
largearray
Baskingshark)

Structureblocksthe
O
CGBFsimilar Maybe

normalpassageof
toother
moderately
tidalcurrentsaltering
Round3
significant
distributionof
solutionsin
acrossa
planktonicprey
mostcases
largearray

Marine
Collisionriskfrom
I/D
CGBFsimilar Maybe
mammals
presenceofground
toother
moderately
Seaturtles
preparationand
Round3
significant
Pelagicsharks
installationvessels
solutionsin
incertain
incl.Basking
shouldtheybe
mostcases
areasacross
shark
required
alargearray

"

"

98

AReviewofMarineEnvironmentalConsiderationsAssociatedwithConcreteGravityBase
FoundationsinOffshoreWindDevelopments.

Marine
Potentialforincreased
mammals
preyspeciesdueto
Pelagicsharks
FishAggregation
(Notapplicable
Deviceeffects
toseaturtles
orBasking
shark)

Marine
mammals
Seaturtles
Pelagicsharks
incl.Basking
shark

Displacementfrom
existinghabitatdueto
presenceof
foundationsand
avoidancebehaviour

Noiseimpactsto
faunafrom
emplacement/
installationactivity

Directlossofhabitat
fromplacementof
foundationonly

I/D

CGBFless
thanother
Round3
solutions

Likelytobe
insignificant
forCGBFs

I/O

CGBFsimilar
toother
Round3
solutionsin
mostcases

Likelytobe
insignificant
acrossa
largearray

I/O

CGBFsimilar
toother
Round3
solutionsin
mostcases

Likelytobe
insignificant
acrossa
largearray

I/O

CGBFsimilar
toother
Round3
solutionsin
mostcases

CGBFsimilar
toorgreater
thanother
Round3
solutionsin
mostcases

CGBFsimilar
toorless
thanother
Round3
solutionsin
mostcases

Likelytobe
insignificant
acrossa
largearray

"

Biological
Birds

Grebes,divers,
Seaducks,
gulls,terns,
auks,gannets,
petrelsand
shearwaters

"

"

Directlossofhabitat
fromplacementof
foundationplus
surficialscour
protection(ifused)

Directlossofhabitat
supportingprey
speciesfrom
foundationonly

"

Directlossofhabitat
supportingprey
speciesfrom
foundationplusscour
protection(ifused)

I/O

"

Alterationofthe
sedimenthabitat
supportingprey
speciesthrough
changestoparticle
sizeorsediment

I/O

CGBFsimilar
toorgreater
thanother
Round3
solutionsin
mostcases
(Positive
effect)
CGBFsimilar
toother
Round3
solutionsin
mostcases

Maybe
moderately
significant
acrossa
largearray

Maybe
moderately
significant
acrossa
largearray

Likelytobe
insignificant
acrossa
largearray

Likelytobe
insignificant
acrossa
largearray

99

AReviewofMarineEnvironmentalConsiderationsassociatedwithConcreteGravityBase
FoundationsinOffshoreWindDevelopments.

Grebes,divers, matrixduetochanges
Seaducks,
inlocalhydrodynamic
gulls,terns,
causedbythe
auks,gannets,
foundation
petrelsand

shearwaters

Preyspecieslossfrom
I/D
CGBFsimilar Likelytobe

excavationof
toorgreater insignificant
sedimentfromground
thanother
acrossa
preparationforCGBF
Round3
largearray
(ifrequired)
solutionsin
mostcases

Preyspecies
I/D
CGBFsimilar Likelytobe

smotheringfrom
toorless
insignificant
sedimentplumesby
thanother
acrossa
groundpreparation
Round3
largearray
forCGBF(ifrequired)
solutionsin
ordrillingofpileor
mostcases
removal

Impactfromincreased
I/D
CGBFsimilar Likelytobe

turbidityorraised
toorgreater insignificant
suspendedsediment
thanother
acrossa
concentrationsfrom
Round3
largearray
sedimentplumesby
solutionsin
groundpreparation
mostcases
forCGBF(ifrequired)
ordrillingofpileor
removal

Alterationofsediment
O
CGBFsimilar Likelytobe

habitatandprey
toother
insignificant
speciesfromchanges
Round3
acrossa
tosedimenttransport
solutionsin
largearray
pathways
mostcases

Structureblocksthe
O
CGBFsimilar Likelytobe

normalpassageof
toother
insignificant
tidalcurrentsaltering
Round3
acrossa
distributionof
solutionsin
largearray
planktonfishprey
mostcases
trophiclink

Displacementfrom
I/D
CGBFsimilar Likelytobe

presenceofground
toother
insignificant
preparation(ifused)
Round3
acrossa
andinstallation
solutionsin
largearray
vessels
mostcases

"

"

"

"

"

"

100

AReviewofMarineEnvironmentalConsiderationsAssociatedwithConcreteGravityBase
FoundationsinOffshoreWindDevelopments.

Grebes,divers, Potentialforincreased
Seaducks,
preyspeciesdueto
gulls,terns,
FishAggregation
auks,gannets,
Deviceeffects
petrelsand
shearwaters

Noiseimpactsto
faunafrom
emplacement/
installationactivity(if
required)

Habitatsand Directlossofhabitat
benthic
orspeciesfeatures
species
fromplacementof
features
foundationonly

"

Biological
Nature
Conservation

"

Mobile
species
features

"

Habitatand
benthic
species
features

Directlossofhabitat
orspeciesfeatures
fromplacementof
foundationplus
surficialscour
protection(ifused)

Directlossofhabitat
supportingafeatures
preyfromfoundation
only

I/D

I/O

I/O

I/O

Directlossofhabitat
supportingfeatures
preyfromfoundation
plusscourprotection
(ifused)

I/O

Alterationofthe
sedimenthabitat
throughchangesto
particlesizeor
sedimentmatrixdue
tochangesinlocal
hydrodynamiccaused
bythefoundation

CGBFsimilar
toorgreater
thanother
Round3
solutionsin
mostcases
(Positive
effect)

CGBFless
thanother
Round3
solutions

Likelytobe
insignificant
acrossa
largearray

Likelytobe
insignificant
acrossa
largearray

CGBFsimilar
toorgreater
thanother
Round3
solutionsin
mostcases

CGBFsimilar
toorgreater
thanother
Round3
solutionsin
mostcases

Likelytobe
insignificant
forCGBFs

CGBFsimilar
toorgreater
thanother
Round3
solutionsin
mostcases

CGBFsimilar
toorgreater
thanother
Round3
solutionsin
mostcases

CGBFsimilar
toorless
thanother
Round3
solutionsin
mostcases

Likelytobe
insignificant
acrossa
largearray

Likelytobe
insignificant
acrossa
largearray

Maybe
moderately
significant
acrossa
largearray

Maybe
moderately
significant
acrossa
largearray

101

AReviewofMarineEnvironmentalConsiderationsassociatedwithConcreteGravityBase
FoundationsinOffshoreWindDevelopments.

Mobile
Alterationofthe
O
CGBFsimilar Maybe
species
sedimenthabitat
toorless
moderately
features
supportingprey
thanother
significant
speciesthrough
Round3
acrossa
changestoparticle
solutionsin
largearray
sizeorsediment
mostcases
matrixdueto
changesinlocal
hydrodynamiccaused
bythefoundation

Habitatand Lossorremovalfrom
I/D
CGBFsimilar Maybe
benthic
excavationof
toorgreater moderately
species
sedimentfrom
thanother
significant
features
groundpreparation
Round3
acrossa
forCGBF(ifrequired)
solutionsin
largearray
mostcases

Mobile
Lossoffeaturesprey
I/D
CGBFsimilar Maybe
species
speciesfrom
toorgreater moderately
features
excavationof
thanother
significant
sedimentfrom
Round3
acrossa
groundpreparation
solutionsin
largearray
forCGBF(ifrequired)
mostcases

Habitatand
Smotheringfrom
I/D
CGBFsimilar Maybe
benthic
sedimentplumesby
toorgreater moderately
species
groundpreparation
thanother
significant
features
forCGBF(ifrequired)
Round3
acrossa
ordrillingofpileor
solutionsin
largearray
removal
mostcases

Mobile
Smotheringof
I/D
CGBFsimilar Maybe
species
featurespreyspecies
toorgreater moderately
features
fromsediment
thanother
significant
plumesbyground
Round3
acrossa
preparationforCGBF
solutionsin
largearray
(ifrequired)ordrilling
mostcases
ofpileorremoval

Habitat,
Impactfrom
I/D
CGBFsimilar Maybe
benthicand increasedturbidityor
toorgreater moderately
mobile
raisedsuspended
thanother
significant
species
sediment
Round3
acrossa
features
concentrationsfrom
solutionsin
largearray
sedimentplumesby
mostcases
groundpreparation
forCGBF(ifrequired)
ordrillingofpileor
removal
102

AReviewofMarineEnvironmentalConsiderationsAssociatedwithConcreteGravityBase
FoundationsinOffshoreWindDevelopments.

Habitat,
benthicand
mobile
species
features
Mobile
species
features

"

"

Alterationof
sedimenthabitatand
preyspeciesfrom
changestosediment
transportpathways

Structureblocksthe
normalpassageof
tidalcurrentsaltering
distributionof
planktonfishprey
trophiclink

Displacementof
mobilespecies
featuresfrom
presenceofground
preparationand
installationvesselsif
used

Barriereffectsto
migrationortransits
ofmobiledesignated
species

CGBFsimilar
toother
Round3
solutionsin
mostcases

Maybe
moderately
significant
acrossa
largearray

CGBFsimilar
toother
Round3
solutionsin
mostcases

Maybe
moderately
significant
acrossa
largearray

I/D

CGBFsimilar
toother
Round3
solutionsin
mostcases

Maybe
moderately
significant
acrossa
largearray

CGBFsimilar
toother
Round3
solutionsin
mostcases

CGBFsimilar
toorgreater
thanother
Round3
solutionsin
mostcases
(Positive
effect)

CGBFsimilar
toorgreater
thanother
Round3
solutionsin
mostcases
(Positive
effect)

CGBFsimilar
toorgreater
thanother
Round3
solutionsin

Maybe
moderately
significant
acrossa
largearray

"

Potentialfor
increasedprey
speciesduetoFish
AggregationDevice
effectsandcascade
uptrophicchain

"

PotentialforFish
AggregationDevice
resultinginincrease
offishpopulationsof
conservationor
commercial
importance

Potentialfor
enhancementof
habitatorspecies
features

Habitatand
benthic
features

Maybe
moderately
significant
acrossa
largearray

Maybe
moderately
significant
acrossa
largearray

Maybe
moderately
significant
acrossa
largearray
103

AReviewofMarineEnvironmentalConsiderationsassociatedwithConcreteGravityBase
FoundationsinOffshoreWindDevelopments.

mostcases
(Positive
effect)
Habitatsand Foundationactingas
O
CGBFsimilar Maybe
benthic
asteepingstonefor
toother
moderately
species
colonisationbynon
Round3
significant
nativeinvasive
solutionsin
acrossa
species
mostcases
largearray

Noiseimpactsto

CGBFless
Maybe

faunafrom
thanother
moderately
significant
emplacement/
Round3
installationactivity
solutions
acrossa

largearray

Likelytobe
insignificant
forCGBFs

"

104

AReviewofMarineEnvironmentalConsiderationsAssociatedwithConcreteGravityBase
FoundationsinOffshoreWindDevelopments.

8 Human Receptors
ThereareanumberofpotentialinteractionsthatcouldoccurwithCGBFsandtheHuman
environment.ThemajorityoftheseissuesarisefromthephysicalpresenceoftheCGBFonsite,and
theassociateddisplacementactivitiesassociatedwiththeiremplacementandsubsequentremoval.
Inaddition,thereisalsothepotentialduringemplacementworkstoimpacttheprehistoryofthe
seabedandwreckagewhichmightexistattheemplacementsite.Thefollowingsectiontherefore
highlightstheeffectsandissuesidentifiedwithinSection5.2butdoesnotprovideanexhaustivelist
ofpotentialhumanreceptorstoCGBFsinthemarineenvironment,butmayhighlightsomeofthe
moreimportantwhichshouldbeconsidereduniversallyacrossallCGBFEIAdocuments.Theeffects
onArchaeologyaresplitintoaseparatesubheadingastheeffectsareindependentfromallother
humanreceptors.

8.1

Vessel Presence during Emplacement, Ground Preparation,


Remediation and Removal of the CGBF

Vesselpresenceduringgroundpreparationifundertaken,emplacementandremedialwork(ifused)
willdisplaceactivitiesthatusuallyoccurwithintheregionunimpeded.Thepresenceofthevessel
thatareutilisedifgroundpreparationworkisundertakenmayprohibitactivitiessuchasfishing
(bothcommercialandrecreational),navigation,recreationcrafttransitingtheareaandother
activitiessuchasdiving.ThereforetheESshouldreviewavailableliteratureanddatasourcesor
commissionappropriatesitespecificstudiesinordertoascertaintheexactuseofthesitepriorto
construction.TheESshouldalsomakeajudgementonthelevelofimpactgiventheproposed
constructionmethodologysetoutbythedeveloper.
Vesselsdisplacedfromthewindfarmzonemayresultinincreasednoiseinanotherpartoftheregion
whichmaycontainreceptorsthataresensitivetoit.ThereforetheESshouldidentifyallfeatures
withinthevicinityofaproposedwindfarmthatcouldpotentiallybeimpactedfromthedisplacement
oftheseactivities.
Theplumeandturbiditygeneratedduringgroundpreparation,foundationandremediation
placementontheseabedifused,visibilitycanbesignificantlyreduced.Thiscanhaveimpactsupon
recreationalactivitiessuchasdivingwhichmaybeprecludedfromoperationsasaresultofthe
decreasedvisibilityintheregion.Asabove,theESshouldconsidertheeffectsinlightofthe
constructionplanproposedbythedeveloper.
8.1.1 Secondary Effects
Inadditiontothedirecteffectsasaresultofdisplacement,therearealsoindirecteffectsassociated
withthedisplacementofactivitiesintootherareasthatwouldnotnormallybetargetedbythe
displacedactivity.Thiscanhaveknockoneffectsasaresultofincreasedpressureonthereceptors
nowbeingtargetedbythedisplacedactivities.Thiscanpotentiallyhavesignificanteffectsupon
fishing,astheresourcesarepotentiallytargetedbymultiplevesselsputtingpressureonthefish
stockstargeted.
ThepotentialpreparationofthegroundsurroundingtheCGBFandremedialactionifutilisedcan
potentiallyimpactinfrastructurealreadyinplaceintheareasaffected.Itisthereforeimportantto
mapoutthepositionofallinfrastructurepriortotheselectionofemplacementsitestominimisethe
potentialimpactsuponthesestructures.
105

AReviewofMarineEnvironmentalConsiderationsassociatedwithConcreteGravityBase
FoundationsinOffshoreWindDevelopments.

Furthersecondaryimpactsresultfromtheeffectsreceivedonthebenthosfromanypreparation,
remediation,emplacementandremovalactivitiesundertaken.Changestothebenthiccommunity
canaffectavarietyofhumanreceptorssuchasfishinganddiving.
EffectsmayalsoariseasaresultofdecommissioningoftheCGBFstructuresisthefillandscour
protectionmaterial(ifused)isdisposedofoutsideoftheexistingfootprintofeffects.Ifthisisthe
case,thenhumanreceptorsoperatingattheproposeddisposalsitecouldpotentiallybeimpacted.
Thereforeitispertinenttocheckthelocationofthedisposalsiteonceamethodologyandtimetable
havebeenestablishedfordecommissioning.

8.2

CGBF Presence during Settlement and Operation

OnceemplacedthepresenceoftheCGBFalsohasadisplacementeffectonactivitiesthatwould
havehistoricallyhadaccesstothesite.However,inadditiontothisdisplacement,thereefeffects
associatedwiththeCGBFsmayattractactivitiessuchasfishinganddivingtotheCGBFs.This
potentialinteractioncouldbedangerousifthefishinggeargetscaughtinthestructureoftheCGBF,
orifvesselsoperatingclosetotheCGBFsloosepowerandstriketheCGBFspotentiallycausing
damagetotheCGBForthevesselitself.
8.2.1

Secondary Effects

Inadditiontothedirecteffectsasaresultofdisplacement,therearealsoindirecteffectsassociated
withthedisplacementofactivitiesintootherareasasdiscussedaboveinSection8.1.1.
Furthermore,asaresultofthephysicaleffectsresultingfromthestructures,itispossiblethat
erosionresultingfromhydrodynamicchangesaroundtheCGBFcouldpotentiallyimpactupon
infrastructurewithinthescourfootprint.Thereforeallinfrastructureshouldbemappedoutin
advancetoensurethatanyoverlapofthescourandexistinginfrastructurecanbeavoided.

8.3

Effects as a Result of Biological Impacts

Furthermore,asaresultofsomeoftheothereffectsidentifiedinSections6and7,theindirect
effectofchangestothebenthoscouldpotentiallyaffectfisheriesintheregion.Fisheriesare
transientandtendtobemobileandareoftenabletoadapttochangesinthepopulationsand
spatialchangesthatmaybeassociatedwiththereceptors.
Inaddition,effectsoftheCGBFsonhabitatsandfeaturesofconservationsignificancecouldalso
impactuponhumanreceptorsasaresultofthedecreasedavailabilityofbenthicspecies
particularlythoseofcommercialinterest.

8.4

Fisheries

Inordertofullyunderstandthefishingactivityoccurringwithinagivenregion,itisimportanttomap
thefishingeffortfromrecentlandings,VMSandobservationdatatoensurethatthecurrentstatus
ofthefisheryiscaptured.Historicaldatacanalsohelptoanalysetrendsandmayhelptoidentify
areasthatareconsistentlyfished.Liaisonwithlocalfishermenisalsoadvisedasthiscanhelpto
understandtheirconcernsandcurrentpractices,aswellasidentifyingimportantareascurrently
fished.
Detailsofthescopeandnatureofsuchanassessmentaredetailedinthe2004windfarmguidance
notewrittenbyCefas(2004).
106

AReviewofMarineEnvironmentalConsiderationsAssociatedwithConcreteGravityBase
FoundationsinOffshoreWindDevelopments.

8.5

Navigation

NavigationalimpactsshouldbefullyconsideredwithintheES.Guidanceforthiselementhasbeen
writtenbytheMaritimeandCoastguardAgency(MCA)inconjunctionwiththeDepartmentfor
TradeandIndustry(Dti)andtheDepartmentforTransport(DfT)andisavailablefromtheMCAs
website.Thisdocumentdetailsthepotentialissues,providesamethodologyforassessmentof
impactsandshowstheprocessfordecisionmakers.

8.6

Archaeology and other Historical Uses of the Seabed

Archaeologyhasbecomeakeyconcernformarinedevelopment,includingforthedevelopmentof
offshorewindfarms.ThereisexpressprovisioninwiderUKpolicyonmarineplanningandlicensing,
andinEIAregulations,forconsideringtheeffectsofmarinedevelopmentonthearchaeological
heritage(seeAppendixA).Theseprovisionsaresupportedbycommitmentsininternationallawand
theyareaccompaniedbymeasuresfordesignatingimportantsites,togetherwithotherlegal
requirements.Archaeologyalsoenjoyswidespreadpopularinterest,whichcanenable
archaeologicalworkinconnectionwithwindfarmdevelopmenttobedisseminatedasabenefitto
thelocalandwidercommunity.Agoodtrackrecordofengagementbymarinedevelopersandtheir
teamswitharchaeologicalconcernsonaproactivebasishasenabledtheintroductionofavarietyof
bestpracticemechanisms,includingagreedmethodologicalstandardsandaProtocolfor
ArchaeologicalDiscoveriesintroducedbyTheCrownEstateacrosstheoffshorewindfarmsector.
Althoughthereisapotentiallywiderangeofarchaeologicaleffectsarisingfromoffshorewindfarms,
mostdirecteffectsarisefromimpactsontheseabedattributabletofoundations.Depositsof
archaeologicalinterestcanbefoundmanymetresbelowtheseabed,andthesedepositsmaybeat
riskfrompiledfoundations.Althoughgravitybasefoundationsareunlikelytohavesucheffectson
deeperdepositsofarchaeologicalinterest,theyarelikelytorequireintentionaldisturbanceofa
largerareaontheseabedthanpiledsolutions.Wherepreparationoftheseabedisrequired,
dredginginadvanceofinstallationisapotentiallysignificantconcern.Thefullrangeofpotential
archaeologicalimpactsfromconcretegravitybasedfoundationsisconsideredbelow.
The Scope of Archaeological Heritage
Archaeologicalmaterialcomprisesartefacts,structuralremains,thedepositsinwhichtheyare
situated,andtheirwidercontext.Artefactsfoundatseasometimesprovetobeisolated,thatisto
saytheyarenolongerassociatedwithotherartefacts,structuresordepositsthatwarrants
examinationasasite.Isolatedartefactscansometimesbeveryimportant,astheycanprovidenew
insightsintothepastsimplybythemselves.However,ingeneralterms,greatersignificancearises
fromassemblagesofartefacts,andartefactsthatcanbeshowntobemoreorlessintheiroriginal
location(insitu)withassociatedstructuresordeposits.
Archaeologistscommonlyusethetermhistoricenvironmenttoencompassthetotalityofthe
physicalremainsofheritagematerialintheenvironment,underliningtheneedtoconsidertherole
andvalueofpasthumanactionsalongsidenaturalprocessesinthedevelopmentoftheenvironment
weexperiencetoday.Thetermheritageassetisusedtorefertodiscretefeatureswithinthe
historicenvironment,suchasidentifiablesitesormonuments.IninternationalandEuropean
frameworks,thetermsarchaeologicalheritageandculturalheritageareoftenused,including
underwaterculturalheritageforelementsofthehistoricenvironmentsituatedunderthesea.
107

AReviewofMarineEnvironmentalConsiderationsassociatedwithConcreteGravityBase
FoundationsinOffshoreWindDevelopments.

Thearchaeologicalconcernsraisedbyoffshorewindfarmsgenerallyfallintofivecategories,as
follows:
Prehistory
Prehistoricarchaeologyisconcernedwithartefactsanddepositsdatingfromtheearliesthuman
inhabitationoftheBritishIslesthroughtotheRomanperiod,whensealevelapproacheditscurrent
height.Sealevelhasfallenandrisenrepeatedlyoverthepastmillionyearssochangesinsealevel
areofparamountimportancetounderstandingearlyhumanactivity.Attimesoflowersealevel,
verylargeareasoflandthatarenowsubmergedaspartoftheUKContinentalShelfwereavailable
forhumanstoinhabit.Themoststrikingrecentillustrationofthepotentialforprehistoricmaterial
tobepresentontheUKCShasbeenthediscoveryoflargenumbersofflinttoolsthatweremade
over200,000yearsago.Thesetoolsappeartobeinsituandareassociatedwithanextensivegravel
depositinabout30mofwateroffEastAnglia.
Maritime
Maritimeremainscompriseartefacts,structuresandwrecksthathavearisenfromvariousformsof
seafaringfromtheprehistoricperiodonwards,encompassingallmannerofvesselsfromlogboatsto
20thCenturywarships.Althoughgenerallysmallinoverallextent,shipwreckscanincludeverydense
concentrationsofsignificantarchaeologicalmaterial.Recentexamplesofpreviouslyunknown
wrecksdiscoveredinthecourseofmarinedevelopmentincludesubstantiallyintactremainsof
vesselsfromtheSixteenthandSeventeenthCenturies.Inaddition,awiderangeofmaritime
materialsometimesisolated,sometimesasassemblageshasbeenfoundinthecourseof
dredginginUKwaters.
Aviation
Aircraftcrashsitesatseahavebecomeaparticularconcerninrecentyearsbecauseofthefrequency
withwhichtheyhavecometolightasaresultofmarinedevelopment,andtheimportanceofthe
materialthathasbeenuncovered.Eventhoughaircraftweremassproduced,surprisinglyfew
examplesofsometypeshavesurvivedinmuseums;sometypesandversionsareeffectivelyextinct.
Recentexamplesofaircraftdiscoveriesthathavearisenfromdevelopmentledarchaeologyinclude
substantialfragmentsandentireairframesofavarietyofBritish,AmericanandGermanbombers
andfighters.MilitaryaircraftcrashsitesareautomaticallyprotectedundertheprotectionofMilitary
RemainsAct1986,andthereareparticularconcernsaboutthepresenceofhumanremainsand
ordnance.
Coastal
Thereisanenormousrangeofarchaeologicalmaterialfoundatthecoast.Someofitwasintended
tohaveacoastallocation,suchaslandingsites,shipbuildingsites,fishinginfrastructure,defensive
installationsandarangeofindustrialsitesfortheproductionofsaltandpottery,forexample.Some
archaeologicalmaterialjusthappenstobepresentattodaysshorelineasaresultofcoastalchange.
Thewidestrangeofperiodsmayberepresented,fromearlyprehistorytotheModernperiod.
Coastalarchaeologyrangesfromimportantprehistoricdepositsburiedunderbeachesthroughto
historicbuildingsandstandingruins,includingdesignatedsitessuchasListedBuildingsand
ScheduledMonuments.

108

AReviewofMarineEnvironmentalConsiderationsAssociatedwithConcreteGravityBase
FoundationsinOffshoreWindDevelopments.

Landscape
Landscapeisabroadtermforavarietyofcircumstanceswherearchaeologicalsignificancearises
fromremainsthatareextensiveorareinfluencedbyalargearea,andwherepartofthecharacterof
aplacearisesfromtheinterestgeneratedbythelandscapeasawhole,ratherthaneachseparate
structureordeposit.Onland,itcanincludedesignedlandscapessuchasparksandgardens,but
alsohistoriclandscapeswhosecharacterhasarisengraduallyfromsmallincrementalchangesover
verylongperiods.Landscapeisalsousedasatermthatdrawstogetherevidenceofprehistoric
inhabitationinnowsubmergedareasoftheUKContinentalShelf,andalsotoidentifywiderpatterns
ofshiporaircraftbasedactivityoffshore.Landscapecanencompasselementsoftheother
categoriesabove,butisdistinguishedhereasanadditionalcategorybecauseitintroducesparticular
perspectivesondealingwiththehistoricenvironmentatlargescales.
Impacts and Effects
Theimpactscausedbyoffshorewindfarmscanhaveavarietyofeffectsonarchaeologicalheritage.
Thechoiceoffoundationsolution,however,isonlygoingtobeofincidentalrelevancetothe
assessmentofsomearchaeologicaleffects.Specifically,thechoiceofconcretegravitybasesis
unlikelytohaveanydistincteffect,ascomparedtootherfoundationsolutions,onthefollowing:

Visualeffectsonhistoriclandscapesandseascapes,asperceivedbypeopleeitheronshore
oroffshore.
Effectsfrominterarrayandexportcabling,whicharenotaffectedbychoiceoffoundations.

Althoughtheseimpactswillhavetobeassessedinrespectofanyparticularoffshorewindfarm
development,theyareunlikelytobealteredbychoosingCGBFinsteadofothermethods.
Itisalsolikelythatthefollowingpotentialarchaeologicaleffectscanbescopedoutwithrespectto
CGBF:

Effectsoncoastalarchaeologypromptedbychangestowaveenergyreachingtheshore,to
sedimenttransportetc.,asanysuchchangesarelikelytobeminororindiscernibleinterms
of,forexample,archaeologicalmaterialbeingnewlywashedoutofadjacentforeshores.
Effectsattributabletosmothering/plume.Theeffectsofdepositionoffinegrainedmaterial
overartefacts,sitesanddepositsareunlikelytobedistinguishablefromcyclesofnaturally
occurringdeposition.Inanycaseandingeneraltermsdepositionoffinegrained
materialislikelytobebeneficialtothefuturesurvivalofarchaeologicalmaterial,thoughit
mayresultinsomemaskingtovisualorgeophysicalsurvey.
Effectsattributabletooffsitedredgingofsandandgravel.Itisassumedthatanysuch
externalmaterialwillbeacquiredfromsourcesthataresubjecttoarchaeological
assessment,mitigationandmonitoringinthecourseoftheirownconsentingprocesses.

FromtheaboveitwillbeapparentthattheeffectsoftheuseofCGBFonthecategoriesCoastaland
Landscapes(above)areindistinguishablefromtheeffectsofotherfoundationsolutions.
Consequently,theremainderofthissectionwillfocusonimpactsandeffectsrelatingtoPrehistory,
MaritimeandAviationarchaeology.
ItshouldbenotedthatwhilstimpactsonlandscapesasawholefromCGBFmaybeindistinguishable
fromothersolutions,impactsonlandscapeelementse.g.specifichorizonsofprehistoric
109

AReviewofMarineEnvironmentalConsiderationsassociatedwithConcreteGravityBase
FoundationsinOffshoreWindDevelopments.

archaeologicalinterest,orindividualwrecksthatmightbeinterpretedwithinabroadersetting
maybegreaterasaconsequenceoftheuseofCGBF,steeljacket,tripodsorsuctioncaissons.Hence
althoughlandscapeimpactsmightnotberelevantinchoosingCGBF,thisisnottosuggestthatthey
donothaveimpactsthatarerelevanttolandscapes.Theseimpactscan,however,beaddressedin
termsofPrehistoryMaritimeAviation,asbelow.
Archaeologicalmaterialofprehistoric,maritimeoraviationinterestisgenerallyfragileandnon
renewable.Althougharchaeologicalmaterialmayhavesurvivedinitslocationforthousandsof
years,disturbanceislikelytodestroytheallimportantrelationshipsbetweenartefacts,structures
andtheirsurroundingmatrixdirectly,orasaconsequenceofphysical,biologicaland/orchemical
processestriggeredbythedisturbance.Inconsequence,archaeologicalmaterialshouldberegarded
ashavingalowtolerancetobeingdisturbed,low(no)adaptabilitytodisturbance,andlow(no)
recoverability.Wheredisturbanceisunavoidableandthesiteistobeextinguished,mitigationmust
focusonseekingtoconservethesignificanceofthearchaeologicalmaterialanditsrelationshipsby
investigation,recording,recoveryandanalysis,coupledwithmaterialconservationofartefactsand
structuresthatarerecovered.
Effects on Archaeological Heritage Associated with CGBF
TheeffectswherethedecisiontoadoptCGBFislikelytosignificantlyaltertheconductofEIAand
associatedlicensingandmanagementaresetoutbelow:
Direct: Seabed Preparation (if required)
Archaeologicalmaterialofprehistoric,maritimeoraviationinterestismostlikelytooccurinthe
upperfewmetresofseabed,especiallyinareaswheretheseabedissufficientlyconsolidatedtobe
suitableforCGBF.Asnotedabove,archaeologicalmaterialishighlysusceptibletophysicalimpacts.
Consequently,thegreatestpotentialarchaeologicaleffectsarisewheretheseabedissubjectto
directimpactsofthesortassociatedwithgroundpreparation.
Impactswillvaryaccordingtothegeologyandmorphologyofthefoundationsite,thedetailsof
groundpreparation,andthepresenceandcharacterofanyarchaeologicalmaterialpresent.
IfgeologicalstrataarepresentthatpredatetheinhabitationoftheBritishIsles,eitheratthesurface
orjustbelow,thenanyarchaeologicalmaterialwillbepresentatorabovebedlevel,orwithinthe
veneerofoverlyingmaterial.However,itshouldnotbeassumedthatthepresenceofexposedrock
willmeanthatnoarchaeologicalmaterialispresent.Suchmaterialcansurviveextraordinarilywell
eveninsmallnichesofshallowsedimentorinfissures.Insomecases,thehighlylocalised
hydrodynamicinfluenceinthepastofastructuresuchasawreckcancausescouring,suchthat
archaeologicalmaterialcanburyitselfwithinevenrelativelyhardseabedmaterials.
Iftheseabedcomprisesrecent(i.e.posttransgressionHolocene)mobilesandthenthereispotential
forverysubstantialremainstosurviveburiedwithinandbeneaththesanditself.Sandmayalso
overliefeaturesthathaveprovidedasuitablenicheforarchaeologicalmaterial,suchasinfilled
channels.Largesandwaves,orevenrelativelythinmobilesandthatoverliessofterfinegrained
deposits,canhideentireshipwrecks.
Wheretheseabediscomprisedofgenerallystablegravelsandsandsofpretransgressionorigin,
thereisalsothepossibilitythatstructuressuchaswrecksmayburythemselvesthroughtheactionof
110

AReviewofMarineEnvironmentalConsiderationsAssociatedwithConcreteGravityBase
FoundationsinOffshoreWindDevelopments.

localisedscouringprocesses.Thesandsandgravelsalsohavearchaeologicalpotentialtoo,asthey
maycontainorcompriseartefactsanddepositsfromveryearlyprehistory.
CGBFhastheadvantageoverpilebasedandsuctioncaissonapproachesinthatitwillnothavea
directimpactondeeperhorizonsofarchaeologicalinterest.However,theareaanddepthofseabed
preparationforCGBFislikelytobegreaterwithintheimportanttopfewmetresthanistypicallythe
caseforpiledfoundations.Effectswillbeminimisedwhereseabedpreparationcanbereduced,e.g.
byreducingthemarginofoverdredgingaroundandbelowthefoundation,andthroughtheuseof
designsthatrequirelessexcavationbecausetheycanadapttononlevelground.
Thescopeformitigatingimpactswillbegreatestwheredetailedsiteinvestigationsbecomeavailable
atanearlystage,tohelpestablishthepresenceandcharacterofanyarchaeologicalmaterialatthe
foundationlocation.Wheresiteinvestigationdatahasbeenacquiredinawaythatoptimisesits
archaeologicaluse,suchdatamayalsoprovidecontributetomitigationwhereimpactsare
unavoidable.
Directimpactsattributabletogroundpreparationarelargelyconfinedtotheconstructionphase.
Subsequentseabedworksduringoperationandmaintenance,anddecommissioning,mightbe
expectedtoberestrictedtothehorizontalandverticalextentsofconstruction.Heritageassetsdo
notrecover;impactsduringconstructionarelikelytobesuchthatimpactsinsubsequentphaseswill
beofminorconcern.Thekeyexceptiontothisisifgroundworksintheoperationalphaseorduring
decommissioningcutintoareasthathavenotpreviouslybeenaffected,thenarchaeologicaleffects
couldcertainlyarise.Thepotentialforoperationaland/ordecommissioningimpactsonthe
archaeologicalheritagewillbegreatestwherearchaeologicalmaterialisclosetoorcontinuesfrom
thefootprintoftheoriginalseabedpreparation.Thisscenariomightarise,forexample,wherea
CGBFhasbeenmicrositedtoavoidaheritageassetinorderthatconstructionphaseeffectsare
minimised;butthisconstraintisnottakenintoaccountwhenmanagingoperationalactivitiesonthe
seabed,orduringdecommissioning.
Direct: Scour Protection (if used)
Scourprotectionwillextendtheseabedfootprintofdirectimpactsonmaterialofarchaeological
interest,especiallyiftheinstallationofscourprotectionrequirespriorpreparationofgroundthat
haspreviouslybeenundisturbed.Itmaybepossibletoinstallscourprotectionontopofburied
archaeologicalmaterialwithoutpromptingadirectimpact.However,assessmentwillneedtotake
intoaccountsecondaryimpactsontheunderlyingarchaeologicalhorizonsfromtheimpositionof
extensive,weightymaterial.
Theinstallationofscourprotectionovermaterialofarchaeologicalinterestwillhavetheeffectof
precludingaccesstothatmaterialinfuture,eitherforresearchpurposesorbythepublic.
Obstructingaccessmayberegardedasasignificanteffect,evenifthematerialitselfisnotsubjectto
directimpacts.
Asabove,installationofscourprotectionispredominantlyaconstructionphaseimpact.Impacts
fromscourprotectionduringoperationanddecommissioningwillbelimitedtocircumstanceswhere
theoriginalfootprintofworksrelatingtoscourprotectionextendverticallyorhorizontally
beyondtheseabedthathasalreadybeenaffected.
111

AReviewofMarineEnvironmentalConsiderationsassociatedwithConcreteGravityBase
FoundationsinOffshoreWindDevelopments.

Direct: Vessel Activity


Impactsonarchaeologicalmaterialcanarisefromconstructionvesselswherethosevesselshave
contactwiththeseabed,eitherthroughanchoringorfromjackupfootingsetc.Dependingonthe
detailofanticipatedvesselactivities,CGBFmayhavealowerarchaeologicalimpactattributableto
vesselactivitiesthaninstallationofpilebasedfoundations.Archaeologicalconcernscanbe
alleviatedbycarefulmanagementofvesselactivitywithrespecttoseabedimpacts.
Impactsfromvesselactivitycouldoccurineachmainphase:construction;operation;and
decommissioning.
Secondary: Scour
Scourmayaffectarchaeologicalmaterialinthesamewayasseabedpreparation,exceptthatthe
processisnotundertheimmediatecontrolofconstructionandenvironmentalmanagement
personnel.Archaeologicalmaterialofprehistoric,maritimeoraviationinterestmaybedisplaced,
disrupted,removedfromitssurroundingcontextorsubjectedtorenewedphysical,chemicalor
biologicalprocessesasaresultofscour.Thehorizontalandverticalextentsofscour,andits
archaeologicalimplications,willdependonthegeological/geomorphologicalcharacterofthesite
andthepresenceandcharacterofarchaeologicalmaterial.Thecommentsaboveonseabed
preparationaregenerallyrelevanttoscouralso.
Impactsattributabletoscouraremostlikelytobecomeapparentinthelaterstagesofthe
constructionphaseandintheoperationalphase.
Secondary: Changes to Bedforms and Sediment Fluxes
Anychangeintheseabedattributabletohydrodynamicandsedimentologicalprocessescouldhave
implicationsforthesurvivalofarchaeologicalmaterial.Thegreatestconcernariseswhere
archaeologicalmaterialthatwasburiedbecomesexposed,asitmaycollapseand/orsufferfrom
renewedphysical,chemicalorbiologicalprocessesthatresultinitsdecay.
Aswithscour,impactsattributabletoscouraremostlikelytobecomeapparentinthelaterstagesof
theconstructionphaseandintheoperationalphase.
Secondary: Accessibility
Asnotedabove,anyprocessthatresultsinaccesstoarchaeologicalmaterialbeingpreventedor
constrainedmayberegardedasanimpact,becausethescopetoresearchthematerialortoenable
visitsbythepublicarecurtailed,compromisingthecapacitytorealisethematerialssignificance.
Accessibilitymaybecurtailedwherearchaeologicalmaterialisoverlainbythefoundationandany
scourprotection.InsofarasCGBFandanyscourprotectionarelikelytobemoreextensivethanpile
basedfoundations,thenthepossibleimpactfromCGBFmaybegreaterthanpiling.Nonetheless,it
maybemorelikelythatintheeventthatarchaeologicalmaterialisidentifiedbelowaproposed
CGBFandanyscourprotection,ifrequired,thentheimpactismitigatedbyavoidance(resitingthe
CGBF)orbyinvestigationinadvanceofconstructionifthereareconcernsabouttheeffectsof
placingafoundationabovearchaeologicalmaterial.
Thewiderimpactsofoffshorewindfarmsonarchaeologicalmaterialasaresultofreduced
accessibilityactingatlargerscaleswhere,forexample,accessforresearchorpublicappreciationis
112

AReviewofMarineEnvironmentalConsiderationsAssociatedwithConcreteGravityBase
FoundationsinOffshoreWindDevelopments.

curtailedbythepresenceofsafetyzonesisunlikelytobegreaterforCGBFthanforotherformsof
foundation.
Accessibilitymaybeaneffectthroughouttheconstruction,operationalanddecommissioning
phases.
Cumulative Effects
CGBFarenotdistinguishablefromotherformsoffoundationintermsofcumulativeeffectson
archaeology,exceptinrelationtocumulativeinterarrayimpactsfromseabedpreparationandscour
protection/scouronhorizonsofprehistoricinterest.Wheretherearehorizonsofprehistoric
interestwithintheverticalandhorizontalfootprintofCGBFseabedpreparation,thentheoverall
extentofseabedpreparationmightberegardedashavingasubstantialcumulativeeffect.
Thismatterisunlikelytoariseinrespectofmaterialofmaritimeandaviationinterestbecausesuch
sitesareusuallynotcloselyassociatedwitheachotheratwindfarmscales.

8.7

Summary

Acomparisonoftherelativemagnitudeofeffects,betweenasinglemonopileandsingleCGBF,is
presentedconsideringtheevidencereviewedinthissection.Notethattheeffectsofalargenumber
ofsmallfoundations,comparedwithasmallernumberoflargerfoundations,isnotyetwell
understood.Alsonotethatthistablemakesnoestimationofthesignificanceofaneffect.

Key
I
O
D

Installation(includinganygroundpreparationandremedialworksrequired)
Operation(includinganysettlement)
Decommissioning

Receptor

Human

Subreceptor

Description

Effect
occurrence

Relativeeffect
Scale

Significance

CGBF
similartoor
greaterthan
other
Round3
solutionsin
mostcases

CGBF
similartoor
greaterthan
other
Round3
solutionsin
mostcases

Maybe
moderately
significant
acrossa
largearray

Fishingactivity

Displacementof
fishingactivityfrom
thevicinityofthe
foundation

I/O/D

Othervessel
activity

Displacementof
othervesselactivity
fromthevicinityof
thefoundation

I/O/D

Maybe
moderately
significant
acrossa
largearray

113

AReviewofMarineEnvironmentalConsiderationsassociatedwithConcreteGravityBase
FoundationsinOffshoreWindDevelopments.

Navigation
Displacementof
I/O/D
CGBF
Maybe
shippingfrom
similarto
moderately
established
other
significant
navigationroutes
Round3
acrossa

solutionsin
largearray
mostcases

Infrastructure
Impactonrenewable I/O/D
CGBF
Maybe
energy,oilandgas,
similarto
moderately
cables,pipelines,
other
significant
disposalsites,
Round3
acrossa
tourism,recreation
solutionsin
largearray
mostcases

Archaeology
Potentialimpacton
I
CGBF
Maybe
palaeolandscape
similarto
moderately
surfaces
other
significant

Round3
acrossa

solutionsin
largearray
mostcases

I/O/D
CGBF
Maybe
Potentialimpactof

placementand/or
similarto
moderately
scouronknown
other
significant
wrecksandaircraft
Round3
acrossa
remains
solutionsin
largearray
mostcases

Potentialimpactof
I/O/D
CGBF
Maybe

placementand/or
similartoor moderately
greaterthan significant
scouronunknown
wrecksandaircraft
other
acrossa
remains
Round3
largearray
solutionsin
mostcases

"

"

114

AReviewofMarineEnvironmentalConsiderationsAssociatedwithConcreteGravityBase
FoundationsinOffshoreWindDevelopments.

9 Cumulative and Incombination Effects


TheEIADirective(seeSection2.1)requiresconsiderationofthedirectimpactsandofanyindirect,
secondaryandcumulativeeffectsofaproject.
Thereforecumulativeimpactassessment(CIA)formspartoftheEIAprocess.Itconsiderstheeffects
oftheconstruction,operationanddecommissioningoftheproject,bothintraarrayandwithother
offshorewindfarmprojectsaswellasotherseabeduseractivitiesintheareathathavethepotential
toimpactonthesamereceptors.Thenatureofpotentialcumulativeeffectsandtheirresulting
impactswilldependonthedensityofCGBFswithinasinglewindfarm,theproximityofother
windfarmsandtheproximityandnatureofotheranthropogenicactivities.
UndertheHabitatsandBirdsDirectivesthereisalsoastatutoryrequirementtoconsidercumulative
impactsaspartofanappropriateassessmentifitcannotbedeterminedthataplanorprojectwill
nothavealikelysignificanteffect.Article6(3)statesthat:
Anyplanorprojectnotdirectlyconnectedwithornecessarytothemanagementofthesitebut
likelytohaveasignificanteffectthereon,eitherindividuallyorincombinationwithotherplansor
projects,shallbesubjecttoappropriateassessmentofitsimplicationsforthesiteinviewofthesite's
conservationobjectives.
Itisgenerallyacceptedthatincombination(underArticle6(3))isinterpretedtohavethesame
meaningascumulativeasdescribedintheEIADirective(underArticle4(2)).Article6(3)is
transposedintonationallegislationunderRegulation61oftheHabitatsRegulations(see
AppendixA)andRegulation25oftheOffshoreHabitatsRegulations.
CumulativeImpacts:
Impactsthatresultfromincrementalchangescausedbyotherpast,presentorreasonably
foreseeableactionstogetherwiththeprojectunderconsideration.Forexample:

Incrementalhabitatlossfromanumberofseparatewindfarms;

CombinedeffectofindividualimpactsfromCGBFs,e.g.removal,fromasinglewindfarm
onaparticularreceptor(e.g.habitat);and/or

Severalwindfarmswithinsignificantimpactsindividuallybutwhichtogetherhavea
cumulativeeffect,e.g.developmentofanoffshorewindfarmmayhaveaninsignificant
impact,butwhenconsideredwithseveralnearbywindfarmstherecouldbeasignificant
cumulativeimpactonlocal,regionalornationalecologyandlandscape.

115

AReviewofMarineEnvironmentalConsiderationsassociatedwithConcreteGravityBase
FoundationsinOffshoreWindDevelopments.

Figure9.1:Flowdiagramforassessingcumulativeimpacts(adaptedfromWalkerandJohnson,1999).

TheintroductionofasingleCGBFstructurehasbeenidentifiedasresultinginaseriesof
environmentaleffects(seeSections5,6,7and8ofthisreport).AsdescribedinSection5and6
thereislimitedrealworldevidencefromintroductionatalargerdiscretespatialscaleofconcrete
structuresintotheoffshoremarineenvironment;certainlyinUKwaters.Thescientific
understandingofthenonlinearinteractionsbetweenthemarineenvironmentandalargernumber
ofCGBFs,whicharepotentiallyalsocomplexshapes,alsoremainspoorforcertainphysical
receptorsandparameters.ItislikelythatdifferingprofilesfromthevariousCGBFengineering
solutionswillresultinvariationsofeffects,aloneandcombined,andthereforefoundationtype
specificmodellingwillberequired.
DeploymentofCGBFsatascaleassociatedwiththeRound3programmewillresultincumulative
effects,atintraandinterarraylevelsandwithotherseabeduseractivities,whichwillneed
considerationtoalloweffectiveEIAs.HoweverthisisnotrestrictedtothespecificuseofCGBFsand
willberequiredforanyRound3project,regardlessofthefoundationstructuredeployed.
IntraArray (InterFoundation and within a Single Windfarm) Cumulative Effects
Themostobviousinterfoundationcumulativeeffectwillbedirecthabitatremovalandlossof
benthichabitat.Thiswillimpactbenthicfaunaandpossiblyfishandbirdfauna,megafaunaand
natureconservationand/orarchaeologicalfeaturesandfisheriesresources.Considerationofthe
extentofthearrayandlocationoffoundationsandthevarietyofdifferentbiotopesaffectedwillset
theinitialvalueofimpact.Thiscanthenberelatedtoknownreceptorresourceatanappropriate
scale,e.g.withinasedimentplumefootprintoratregionalorsubregionalseaformobilereceptors,
andconsiderationsofimpactsfromotheractivitiesonthesamereceptorcanthenbeassessed.
Consideringthepossibilityofapositivecorrelationbetweentheextentofsurfaceareaofartificial
submergedstructureandincreasedreefeffects(seeSection7.2.2)thenCGBFs(atacumulative
scale)mayresultingreaterreefeffects(includinghaloorfringeeffects)thanfoundationswitha
smallersurfacearea.Thismayresultinincreasednegativeeffects(damage)tothesurrounding
naturalsedimenthabitatandassociatedinfaunalbiotopese.g.increasedpredationfrommobile
macrofaunaattractedtothereefhabitat.Thismayalsobeincreasediftheinterfoundation
distancesarelessthantheattractantorimpactrangeofartificialreefs(200300mforpelagicfish
116

AReviewofMarineEnvironmentalConsiderationsAssociatedwithConcreteGravityBase
FoundationsinOffshoreWindDevelopments.

faunaand1100mfordemersalfishes,Zuccoetal.,2006).Howeverthisisextremelyunlikelydueto
theengineeringconstraintsasdiscussedbelow.IneffecttheCGBFswillactasmanyisolatedreefs
withconnectivityonlyestablishedformoremobilespeciessuchasflatfishandmarinemammals
(Zuccoetal.,2006andreferencescitedtherein).Thereisalsoapossiblecumulativepositiveeffect
forfishfaunafromthepotentialforincreasedreefeffect,iffishingexclusionzonesareimplemented
i.e.thefoundationsactasarefugeattractingfishfromareaswheretheymaybeexposedtofishery
pressurestoalocationwheretheyareprotectedfromfishingpressures.
Interfoundationdistancesarelikelytoplayacriticalroleinthescaleofcumulativeeffects,for
physical,biologicalandhumanreceptors.Rotorsweepdiameterofa5MWturbinewillresultin
approximately800morgreaterintervalsbetweenturbinesandthusfoundationstructures(Zuccoet
al.,2006).Thesedistancesandthenumberoffoundationsused,alongwiththeshapeofthe
structures(profile),willdictatethecumulativeeffectsandassociatedfootprintforphysical
environmentalconsiderations.AsdescribedinSections5.3,6.2.1and6.2.2,thecomplexitiesof
theseinteractionswillresultinblockageeffectsthatwillrequiredetailedmodelling.
ThecumulativeeffectsoftheCGBFstructuresonthephysicalenvironmentwillforcebiologicaland
certainhumanactivityreceptorstorespondtoindirecteffectssuchasscouring,changestosediment
particlesize,sedimentfluxetc.Thescaleofthesephysicalindirecteffectswillinfluencethescaleof
biologicalresponsee.g.largerareasofscouringorchangestosedimentsupplywillalterthe
sedimenthabitatresultinginhabitatlossforcertaininfaunalspeciesandcommunities.Similarly,
alterationstotidalstreamsorsedimentfluxcanresultinexposureorburialofpalaeolandscape
featuresorwrecks.Theseeffectswillbedeliveredtoagreaterextentduetothecumulativescale
butwillstillneedtobeconsideredwithinthecontextoftheoverallextentofanyreceptoratan
appropriatespatialscalee.g.local,regional,nationalandinternational.
SomeofthedisplacementeffectsassociatedwiththepresenceofmultitudesofCGBFsonthe
seafloormayactuallynotbefoundationtypespecific.Thepresenceofanthropogenicstructures
regardlessoftypemaypreventadisplacedorganismfromreturningtothearrayfootprint,beitdue
todirectnichehabitatremoval,alterationofecosystemsresultinginunfavourableenvironmental
conditions(e.g.attractionofpredatorsduetoreefeffect)orbehaviouralresponses.Thismay
certainlybethecaseforcertainseabirdswhichexhibitcontinueddisplacementduetotheabove
seasurfacetowersandturbines(seeSection7.5.2andassociatedreferencescited).Thislattereffect
isindependentoffoundationtypeused.
ExtraArray Cumulative Effects of CGBFs with other Windfarms and Plans or Projects
Cumulativeeffectswithotherwindfarmsandseabeduseractivitiesrelatedtothedeploymentof
CGBFsatwindfarmarrayscalesmayinclude:

IncreasedareaofsubstratumlossduetoCGBFfootprintsaffectingbenthichabitats;
Increasedriskofhabitatexclusion(fishfauna,seabirdsandmarinemammals);
IncreasedlongtermdisplacementoffishinggroundsduetoCGBFs;
Increasedchangesintidalflowandwaveenergyregimes;
Increaseddisplacementoffishingactivities;and
Increaseddisplacementofshipping.

117

AReviewofMarineEnvironmentalConsiderationsassociatedwithConcreteGravityBase
FoundationsinOffshoreWindDevelopments.

Dredgingfootprintfromanygroundpreparationactivitythatmaybeundertakenmaybefarfield
andhasthepotentialtointeractwithneighbouringwindfarmsandplansorprojects.Thehabitat
removalassociatedwiththefoundationpitexcavationwillhavetobeassessedatanappropriate
(regional)scale,includinghabitatlossduetodredgedisposal/holdingareas.
Cumulativehabitatlossanddisplacementeffectsarecitedasthegreatestconcernformany
biologicalreceptors(Hiscocketal.,2002;DONGEnergyetal.,2006;Zuccoetal.,2006;OSPAR
Commission,2006;ScottishExecutive,2007).TheinstallationofasingleOWFusingCGBFsmayonly
resultinanegligiblelossofbenthichabitat(atasubregionalscale),butifseveralOWFsare
constructedonthesamehabitatswithinthesubregionthenthescaleofextentincreases.Itmaybe
foreseeablewherecumulativelossesofaparticularhabitattoaseriesofOWFsusingCGBFs,when
combinedwithlossduetomarineaggregateextractionforexample,mayreachasignificantlevel.
Zuccoetal.(2006),DONGEnergyetal.(2006)andtheOSPARCommissionallnotethatcumulative
habitatlossanddisplacementmaybethegreatestimpactregardingcertainseabirdfaunasuchas
diversandseaducksandalsoHarbourporpoise.Howeveritislikelythatthesecumulativeeffectsare
notCGBFspecifici.e.itisnotexpectedthatCGBFswillresultinanygreaterdisplacementeffectsfor
thesemobilereceptorsthanfromtheuseofotherfoundationtypes.
ThereissomeresearchassessingthecumulativeseabedfootprintofanthropogenicactivitiesinUK
waters.Eastwoodetal.(2007)conductedanassessmentofdirectphysicalpressureontheseabedin
UKoffshorewaters.Theyconcludedthatthelargestpressurefootprintwasinrelationtoselective
extractioneffectsfromdemersalandbenthicfisheryactivity;accountingfor5.421.4%ofthetotal
seabedarea.Incontextmarineaggregatedredgingrelatedpressuresofextractionandsmothering
(fromplumes)totalled1.3%oftheUKoffshoreseabedarea.Oilandgasinfrastructurerelatedto
<0.1%(assumingaveragedfoundationfootprintof180m2)withoffshorewindfarmturbines(based
on4mdiametermonopileswithaverage100mdiameterscoureffects)alsoaccountingfor<0.1%of
theoffshoreseabedarea.
MorerecentlyFodenhasreviewedtheEastwoodetal.(2007)dataandrevisedtheextentof
anthropogenicpressuresinUKwaters(Foden,2011;Fodenetal.,2011).Sheestimatedthat52.2%
oftheUKseabed(134,400km2)hasbeenexposedtodemersalandbenthicfisheryactivityrelatedto
abrasionpressure.Usingdatafromtheperiod20012007theabrasionpressure(fromscouring)
relatedtooffshorewindturbinefoundationswasevaluatedat<0.01%ofthetotalUKseabed
(assumingcircularbuffersof100mdiameterequallinganareaofapproximately7850m2per
turbine,minusareaofscourprotection).Obstruction(directhabitatremoval)fromfoundation
footprintequatedto<0.01%oftheseabedarea(assumingthestatusofRound1and2OWFsbuilt
upto2007;andusingacircularbufferof30mdiameterequallinganareaofapproximately700m2
perturbine).Obstructionrelatedtosubmarinecablesandwreckswas<0.01%eachandsmothering
pressurefromlicenseddredgefinesdisposalcovered0.14%oftheUKseabed.Extraction(removal)
pressureduetomarineaggregatedredgingactivityresultedinremovalof0.05%oftheseabedarea.
Whilstthesefigures(at2007)donotdirectlyaccountforpressurefootprintsfromlargescale
deploymentofdeepwaterfoundations,suchasCGBFsorsteeljackets,itcanbeseenthatoffshore
windturbinefoundationrelatedpressuressitwellwithinorarecomparablewithothersector
relatedseabedpressurefootprints.InthiscontextitisworthconsideringthatforcertainCGBF

118

AReviewofMarineEnvironmentalConsiderationsAssociatedwithConcreteGravityBase
FoundationsinOffshoreWindDevelopments.

solutionsthefoundationseabedfootprintisapproximately0.7%ofthetotalwindfarmarea,andcan
be0.06%afterfillingandscourprotectioniscomplete(RobertFoyle,STRABAG,pers.comm.).
Fodenetal.(2011)alsoevaluatedthecumulativefootprintwheremorethanonepressurefromone
ormoreactivitiesoverlappedonbenthichabitatsandbiotopes.In2007only166km2or0.07%ofthe
UKseabedwasestimatedtobereceivingcombinedpressure(fromdemersaltrawlingandmarine
aggregateextraction).Approximately0.2%,anareaof513.4km2wasreceivingacumulativepressure
fromobstruction,extractionandsmothering.Effectively>99.9%ofanthropogenicpressure,based
onspatialareaofeffectbetweentheperiod20012007,wasduetodemersalandbenthicfishery
activity.
Itisimportanttonotethattheabovespatialfootprintanalysisisonlymeaningfulforseabed
pressuresandcannotbeusedtodrawconclusionsregardingfarfieldeffectssuchasnoiserelated
disturbanceordisplacementeffects.Further,theworkconductedbyEastwoodandFodenand
colleaguesassessesthefootprintatanationalscale.Ataregionalandsubregionalscaletherewill
beareasofseabedandassociatedfeaturesthathaveahighrepresentativityoftheentirenational
resourcee.g.anarchaeologicallyimportanthandaxesiteoramajorherringspawningsite.Itisfor
thesereasonsthatprojectspecificEIAarerequiredtoassesscumulativeeffectsatasitescale.
Itisworthstatingthatconsideringanthropogenicnoiseimpacts,thereisarouteforpositive
cumulativeeffectsifallRound3projectsweretouseCGBFs,inplaceofpiledrivenfoundation
solutions.Thiswouldresultinasignificantreductioninhighsignificancenoiseimpactsassociated
withpiling.AnyprojectsthatuselargescaledeploymentofCGBFsshouldcertainlynotbe
consideredasasignificantadditiontocumulativeassessmentsofunderwaternoiseimpacts
associatedwithOWFconstruction/installation.
Humanreceptorsofteninteractandassucharepronetocumulativeandincombinationeffects.
Displacementofactivitiesfromtheproposedwindfarmareacanpotentiallyresultinincreased
activityelsewhere.Thismayoccurwithinthesameorsimilarseaspaceforcertainactivitiesresulting
inasignificantincombinationeffectoncertainreceptors.Forexample,navigationalshippingroutes
couldbetransferredaroundthewindfarmarea,toalocationwherefishingactivityhastraditionally
beenhigh.Theincreasedvesselmovementsintheregionmaymaketheareadifficulttoworkforthe
fishermenanddangerousforshippingtotransitthrough.Againtheseeffectsarenotnecessarily
CGBFspecific.
Inaddition,ifseveralwindfarmsarelocatedinrelativecloseproximity,thedisplacementeffectsof
thewindfarmsitescouldconcentratehumanactivities/receptorsintothesameorsimilarseaareas.
Thiscouldnotonlypotentiallyincreasetheriskofcollisions,butmayalsoincreasethepressureon
sensitivereceptorssuchascommercialfish.
Displacementoffishingactivitycanalsoresultinincreasedfishingeffortelsewhere.Asaresult,
increasedpressurecanbeplacedonspecificreceptorswhichcouldresultinasignificanteffect
occurringoutsidetheboundariesofthewindfarmsite.Whileitisdifficulttopredicttheexact
location,natureandconsequencesofsuchdisplacementandincreasedeffort,theESshould
considertheseeffectsinthecontextofexistingfishingactivity,landingsdataandhistoricaltrends.

119

AReviewofMarineEnvironmentalConsiderationsassociatedwithConcreteGravityBase
FoundationsinOffshoreWindDevelopments.

PlumesarisingfromotheractivitiesmayalsocauseanincombinationeffectonDiving.Forexample,
ifawindfarmandaggregateextractionsitearelocatedwithinasingletidalextent,duringtheground
preparation(ifundertaken)andemplacementstageoftheCGBF,plumescouldpotentiallybe
presentoveralargerarea,precludingdivingfromsomesites.
AsaresultofthereefeffectfromtheCGBFsandtheirremediation,itispossiblethatahalois
producedaroundthefoundationsinanarrayasaresultofthecumulativeeffectofmanyCGBF
reefs.Asaresult,fishingactivitymayincreaseclosetotheboundariesofthewindfarmsite(dueto
spillovereffects)whereitisdeemedsafetofish,butwheretraditionallyfishinghasnotbeena
coreuseoftheseaspace.
Significance
Itisnotpossibletoquantifythecumulativeeffectsintermsofeffectsignificance.Thisisduetothe
levelsofuncertaintyassociatedwithprojectspecificenvelopes,interfoundationdistances,
clustering/spacingofOWFsandcombinedeffectswithothersectoralactivities.Infactthelatterof
thethreemaycurrentlybetheeasiesttoconsiderthroughrealisticworstcasescenarios,certainlyat
themoregenericpreapplicationphaseandwiththeRound3zonesalreadyidentified.
ThepotentialforcumulativeeffectsmaybeidentifiedwithinanREAorSEA,priortoEIA.IntheUKit
isenvisionedthatthecurrentroundofmarine(spatial)planning,bytheMMOtomeetthe
requirementsoftheMarineandCoastalAccessAct2009,mayidentifyregionalseascaleconstraints
fromcumulativeeffectsandpartitionseauseaccordingly.Howevertheefficaciesofthesemarine
plansareyettobeseen.
Summary
Asidentifiedinthisreport,effectsonalterationstowaveclimate,sedimenttransportspathways,
habitatremovalorlossthroughexclusionanddisplacementeffectswillcertainlyneedtobe
consideredcumulativelyforCGBFs.Alsothecombinedeffectsofartificialstructuresresultinginreef
effectswillhavetobeconsideredanditmaybethatCGBFswillhaveagreatercontributiontothese
effects(bothnegativeandpositive)thansomeotherfoundationstructurese.g.monopiles.
TheprofilesofsomeCGBFsolutionsmeanthatblockageeffectsarelikelytobecomplex.When
consideredcumulativelyatanarrayscale,thentheseblockageeffectsmayreachasignificant
threshold.Howeveruntilinterfoundationdistancescanbeconfirmedandknownprofiles
(dependentupontheengineeringofspecificCGBFsolutions)input,nonlinearmodellingwillremain
challenging.
CumulativedisplacementeffectsfromCGBFsonmobilefaunasuchasfish,seabirdsandmarine
mammalswillbevariablewhencomparedwithmonopilefoundations.Itisenvisagedthattheremay
beagreaterbenthichabitatlossthatassociatedwithCGBFcumulativeeffectsbutalterationatan
ecosystemscalee.g.reefeffectmaybegreaterandresultinpositive,attractanteffects.Thelackof
significantnoiseduringemplacementwillresultinlowercumulativeeffectsthatinstallationof
foundationsrequiringpiling.Thismaybesignificantforfishandmarinemammalfauna.Considering
birdfaunaspecifically,itmaybethecasethatCGBFcumulativeeffectsondirecthabitatlossmaybe
maskedbygreaterdisplacementimpactsassociatedwiththeabovewaterpresenceoftransition
pieces(towers)andturbines.

120

AReviewofMarineEnvironmentalConsiderationsAssociatedwithConcreteGravityBase
FoundationsinOffshoreWindDevelopments.

10 Decommissioning
Concreteisextremelydurableanddoesnotcorrodetothesameextentassteelstructuresplacedin
themarineenvironment.Therefore,CGBFswillhaveaminimumdesignlifeof50years(thelife
expectancyofthewindturbineis2025years),withthefoundationabletobeusedtorepowerfor
thenextgenerationof10MWwindturbineswithasmallamountofwork(AlanBromage,TCC,
pers.com.).
However,theremaycomeatimewhentheCGBFneedstoberemovedand/orreplaced.The
methodologyforundertakingtheseworksislikelytobetheoppositeofthoseutilisedduring
emplacementworks.Ifusedthefilland/orscourprotectionsurroundingthestructuremayneedto
beremovedtoallowtheCGBFtobefreedfromitsemplacementpositionandremovedfromthe
site.Themethodsutilisedforremovingthismaterialisnotcurrentlyknownandwillvaryfromsiteto
site,butitislikelytobesimilarmethodologiesutilisedtoplacethescourprotectionandfillmaterial
duringemplacementworks.Onceremoved,theCGBFcouldbetakentoanonshoresitewherethe
structurecouldbebrokenup,reinforcingmetalbarscouldberemovedandrecycled,andthe
concreteitselfcouldberecycledforuseasaggregate.
Inaddition,furthermitigatingactionsmayneedtobeundertakentorestoretheseabedtoitspre
emplacementcondition.Thismayrequiretheremovalorburialofanyballastand/orfoundation
materialandscourprotectionandreplacementoftheseabedsedimentsthatexistedpriortothe
emplacementofthestructure.Allmaterialsremovedwillneedtobedisposedinasuitablelocation
e.g.licenseddisposalsite,orreusedasaggregateforotherprojectsifthematerialisdeemed
appropriate.
Alternatively,asaresultoftheadditionalhabitatsthatmayhavebeenestablishedduringthe
lifetimeoftheCGBF,theremaybearequirementtoleavethestructuresinplace.Theincreased
biodiversityandreefeffectsassociatedwiththestructuremayrequirethestructureandanyscour
protectionmeasurestobeleftinplacefollowingdecommissioningofthewindturbines.Inthiscase,
someminormitigationmayberequiredtoensurethattheCGBFisnotahazardtoshippingand
otherusersofthesea,butthestructureandscourprotectionmeasureswouldberequiredtobeleft
astheywerewhenthewindfarmwasoperational.Overtime,withoutthemaintenancerequiredto
keeptheCGBFoperational,itislikelythatthestructurewouldeventuallydegradeandresultina
smaller,lessprominentreefstructurebeingpresentonthesite.
Thepotentialeffectsofdecommissioningonthemarineenvironmenthavebesummarisedin
Section5.2.6,withthepotentialeffectsonthephysical,biologicalandhumanenvironment
describedinSections6,7and8respectively.

121

AReviewofMarineEnvironmentalConsiderationsassociatedwithConcreteGravityBase
FoundationsinOffshoreWindDevelopments.

11 Discussion
Offshorewindisarapidlydevelopingindustrywhichisevolvingtowardsbiggerprojects,further
offshoreandindeeperandmoreexposedareasofthesea.IntheUKtheprimaryachievementsto
dateremaininconstructingsmallerscaleprojectsgenerallyusingsteelmonopilefoundations.Atthis
time,inUKwaters,monitoringevidenceofwindfarmsatconstructionandtheinitialperiodsof
operationismainlyrelatedtothemonopileoptiononly.However,evidenceisavailablefroma
limitednumberofdeploymentsintheNorthSeaenvironment,predominantlyfromDenmarkand
BelgiumforCGBFsandalsoGermanyforsteeljacketandtripodfoundations.
Wind turbine foundations A UK perspective, Round 1 and 2 and moving towards Round 3
UKRound1and2offshorewindfarmsarepredominantlyrestrictedtonearshorewatersandare
locatedinwaterdepthsgenerallylessthan20mdeep.Thesewaterdepths,andthesuitabilityofthe
substrate,hasresultedinUKdevelopersimplementingnearexclusiveuseofsteelmonopile
foundationsforconstructionofthearrays(notableexceptionsareBeatriceDemonstrationSiteand
OrmondeOffshoreWindfarmhavingusedsteeljacketfoundations).MostprojectssinceRound1
havebeenconsentedwithregardtounderstandingtheirpotentialenvironmentaleffectsusinga
conservativeapproachoftenprofiledaroundagravitybaseoptioni.e.aspartoftheRochdale
Envelopeapproach.
Thenextroundofoffshorewindfarmdevelopmentzonesareidentifiedprimarilyfordeeperwaters,
withamixtureofseabedtypes,whicharetypicallyfurtheroffshorethanthepreviousRound1and2
arrays(RampionandNavitasBayarenotableexceptionsatonly13kmoffshore).Thedifferent
physicalenvironmentwillrequiretheconsiderationofalternativefoundationsolutionstothosethat
theUKmarkethasusedtodate.Itisapparentthattheseoffshorelocationsandtheassociated
physicalenvironmentsforRound3zonesmeansthatthoseinvolvedintheconsentingprocesswill
havetoconsiderthedifferentenvironmentalimpactsofthesealternativedesignsasastandardfor
thedeeperwatersites.
Waterdepthandseabedgeologyhaveaninfluenceontheengineeringparametersrequiredto
provideastablefoundationforturbinesparticularlyregardingturbinesofa5MWcapacityand
above.Monopilestructuresarelesssuitedtodeepwaterdepthsastheycanbecomeunstabledue
tohydrodynamicstressesincludingsusceptibilitytowaveaction(Seidel,2010)andthepossibilityof
largerstormwaveloadingsmeansmoreresilientgroutingatthefoundation/transition/tower
connection.Tallermonopilesarealsolessstablewhenconsideringtheeffectsofrotorsweepand
transmissionofrotationalforces/cyclicloadingthroughthetowerandfoundationmakingitdifficult
tomeettherequirementsforturbineoperation.Increasedwaterdepthwillrequiregreater
penetrationdepthsformonopilesolutionsandstructuralresilienceresultsinincreaseddiameterof
monopilesandthickerpilewallsmeaningmoresteelrequiredtobuildeachfoundation.Given
todaysmarketforcesandthecostofsteel,thisaltersthecost/benefitbalancefortheuseofthis
solution.Shouldmonopilesstillprovefinanciallyviable,forthedeeperpenetrationandlarger
diametermonopiles,asignificantlylargerhammerwillberequiredtodrivethepilesintotheseabed.
Therefore,noiseeffectsarelikelytoincrease,andwillpropagatefurtherinthedeepwaterlocations
wheretheRound3sitesaretypicallylocated.

122

AReviewofMarineEnvironmentalConsiderationsAssociatedwithConcreteGravityBase
FoundationsinOffshoreWindDevelopments.

Alternative,deepwaterfoundationsolutionssuchassuctioncaisson,steeljacket,tripodand
concretegravitybasewillbynecessityhavetobeconsideredpartofthestandardtoolkitforRound
3installations.
Effects Associated with Deeper Water Foundations
Historicallythenonmonopilesolutionshavebeenconsideredasprovidingtherealisticworstcase
scenariothreshold(undertheRochdaleEnvelopeprinciple)regardingdirectseabedhabitatlossand
interruptionofhydrologicalandsedimenttransportprocessesblockageeffectsforRound1and2
developments.Whilsttheseassessmentsareappropriatewhencomparisonsaremadewithsteel
monopilesinshallowwaterenvironments,theywillrequireashiftinemphasisforRound3.The
directphysicaleffectfootprintswillhavetobeconsideredbydrawingcomparisonsbetweensteel
jacket,tripod,concretegravitybasesandsuctioncaissonfoundationsandnotnecessarilymonopiles.
AllthesestructureswillbelargerthanhasbeenthecaseinconsentedRound1and2projects.These
solutionshaveanincreaseddirectphysicalfootprintbutthereisvariationbetweenthedifferent
solutiontypes.
ThespatialfootprintanalysisofthefoundationsshowsthatCGBFscanhaveacomparablephysical
footprintforseabedhabitatremoval(duringthelifecycleatsea)whencomparedtosteeljacket,
tripodandsuctionbucketfoundations.Thisrelatestoadirectlossandalterationofseabedhabitats
andassociatedcommunities,bothindividuallyperfoundationandcumulatively;eitherwithinan
arrayorbetweenwindfarms.Thisfootprintalsoconsidershaloorfringeeffectsassociatedwith
seabedshadowinge.g.seabedlocatedbeneaththelatticeofasteeljacketbutnotunderoneofthe
feet,whichmayalsobeapplicabletotripods.
ItisalsoworthnotingthatCGBFsandsuctioncaissonshaveadistinctadvantageconsideringthe
completeremovalofthestructureatthetimeofdecommissioning.Nopilesareusedtosecurethe
foundationstotheseabedunlikesteeljacketsandtripods(andpossiblyfloatingplatforms)where
thecompleteremovalofpilesfromtheseabedatdecommissioningiscurrentlyunproven.
Alterationsto,oreffectson,thephysicalenvironmentwillbemorecomplextomodelfordeeper
waterfoundationtypeswhencomparedtomonopiles.Thisisinpartduetothemorecomplex
profilesofthefoundationsandpartduetoincreasedwaterdepthandthevariationsthisbringsto
waveenergytransfertotheseabed.Thisinturnmayaffecttidalcurrentsandsurfaceandnear
seabedsedimenttransportsystemsindifferentwaysthanforshallowwaterenvironments.The
numberoffoundationsusedwithinanarrayandtheinterturbinespacingwillalsoaddcomplexityto
thenonlinearmodels.ThesemodelsandscenarioshaveyettobetestedinaUKcontext,butthere
aredevelopmentsinotherEuropeancountriesthatmayprovideaninsightintothisareaofEIAwork.
TestbedprojectsandpilotstudiesareenvisagedinthenearfutureinGermanyandtheUK.Careful
considerationofenvironmentalmonitoringprogrammesassociatedwiththedeploymentofthese
testbedstudiesisadvised.Thismayenablesolutionspecificdata,relevanttophysicalandbiological
environmentalissues.tobecollectedtobetterdescribethelikelyspecificenvironmentalfootprintof
eachsolutiontype.TheseopportunitiesshouldbeseizedtoassistinfillingtheUKspecific
knowledgegapregardinglargescaledeploymentsofCGBFs.
ThegenerallocationofmostRound3zonesmeansthatlessofafocusmayberequiredoncoastal
impactsstudiesthanhasbeenthecaseforRound1and2arrays.Deeperwatermeansthatan
123

AReviewofMarineEnvironmentalConsiderationsassociatedwithConcreteGravityBase
FoundationsinOffshoreWindDevelopments.

alterationtothelocalwaveclimateandsubsequentwaveinducedeffectsaremuchlesslikelyto
impingeupontheseabedorreachthecoast.Anylocalchangestotidalcurrentsorsurfacesediment
transportpathwaysaresimilarlylesslikelytointerfacewithcoastalsystems.Modellingwillbe
requiredataprojectspecificleveltoinformanEIA,butoverallthiscouldbeoflessconcernthanfor
Round1and2projects.ItisnoteworthythatRampionandNavitasBaysitesarelocatedonly13km
fromtheSouthCoastanditisexpectedthatdetailedcoastalimpactstudieswillberequiredfor
thesearrays.
Thewatercolumnprofileofthedeeperwaterfoundationswillbegreaterandmorecomplexthan
monopileprofiles.Thisisinpartduetothesizeof5MW(andgreater)turbinesandpartlyduetothe
largerfootprintrequiredtoprovideastablefoundation.Theprofilesarelikelytoprovidemore
complexblockageeffectsandlocalisedchangestothephysicalenvironmentswhenconsideredalone
andalsoatanarrayscale.Steeljacketfoundationsmayhaveasimilarorgreaterblockageeffect
thanCGBFsduetotheircomplexstructureprofileandsurfacearea.Themagnitudeoftheseeffects
hastobeconsideredwithinthecontextoftheknownextentofenvironmentalresourcesata
regionalseascaleandaspartofappropriatemarineplanningandmanagementi.e.eventhough
theremaybealargerfootprintperfoundation(andarray)thiscanbeacceptableinsuitable
locationsgiventheentiretyoftheextentofreceptorswithinaregion.
Theintroductionofallfoundationstructuresontotheseabedwillresultinadiversificationofhabitat
typewhichmayhaveseveraleffectsonthenaturalenvironmentbycolonisationofrockyreef
communitiesonseabedareaspreviouslyunavailabletothem.Thereefeffectwillresultinlocal
changestobiodiversityandpossibleshiftsattrophicorecosystemscalesthrough:changesto
sedimentcommunitiesfromnutrificationbyorganicmaterialdepositedfromthereef;thespread
ofsomeinvasivenonnativespeciesthroughasteppingstoneeffectfromhabitatprovision;
predatorsattractedtothereefmayaltersedimentcommunitiesforashortdistancearoundeach
foundationhaloorfringethroughpredationeffects;localfishpopulationdynamicsmaychange
asthestructuresarelikelytoactasFishAggregationDevices(FADs),attractingfishfromsurrounding
areastosafetyandopportunitiesthatareefprovides;andsomemobilepredatorymegafaunasuch
assealsmaybeattractedtotherelativeabundanceofpreyspecies.
ReefandFishAggregationDeviceeffects,eithernegativeorpositive,arenotbelievedtobeany
greaterforCGBFsthanotherdeeperwaterfoundationsolutions,especiallywhenconsidering
seabedshadowingeffectsbeneathsteeljacketsandtripods.
InUKwaterstodate,possiblythegreatestmarineunderwaterimpactassociatedwiththe
constructionofoffshorewindfarmsisthecreationofveryhighlevelsofunderwaterenergy,noise
andsoundpressurewaves,fromthepiling,drillingandhammeringofmonopilefoundationsintothe
seabed:whichproduceunderwatersoundandpressurewavesathighenoughlevelstocausedeath,
damageanddisplacementofmarinemammals,sensitivefishspeciesandsomefisheggsandlarvae.
Thesignificanceofsuchimpactsisrelativelypoorlyunderstoodatpopulationorecosystemscales
anddomesticandinternationallegislationnowreflectstheseriousconsiderationofthesepossible
effects.
Mostimportantly,fromanenvironmentalperspective,istheconsiderationofincreasedwaterdepth
andtheattendantforcesrequiredtoinstallmonopiles.Thickerlargerpilesrequirelongerpiling
124

AReviewofMarineEnvironmentalConsiderationsAssociatedwithConcreteGravityBase
FoundationsinOffshoreWindDevelopments.

periodswithgreatersustainedhammeringusingheavierhammersincomparisontoshallowwater
installation.Thereisalreadyalevelofevidencebasedconcernregardingthesoundandpressure
waveimpactsfromthepilingoperationsassociatedwithUKRound1and2arraysandGerman
projectsandsensitivemarinespecies.Offshoreenvironmentsmayalsoprovidelargerpotentialfor
soundwavepropagationovergreaterdistanceswithlesspotentialforattenuation(thanin
nearshoreenvironments).
AnyCGBFsthatrequiregroundpreparationworkswillgeneratenoiseassociatedwiththedredging
activity.Evidencefrommarineaggregateextractionoperationsdemonstratesthatdredgingnoise
levelsarebarelydetectedabovethoseassociatedwithgeneraldredgernavigationandisnonoisier
thanmerchantshippingvesseltransitsinthelocalarea.Alsothemagnitudeofeffectsfromseabed
preparationwillbeverymuchlowerincomparisonwithmarineaggregateextractionareas;dueto
thesmallareaofseabeddredgedandthetimelimitedwindowofdredging.Notallground
preparationworksmaybeconductedviatrailersuctionhopperdredgers,asgrabdredgingmayalso
beemployed.Noisegeneratedbythisactivityagainfallswithintheenvelopeofbackgroundcoastal
vesseltraffic.
Underwaternoiseimpactpathwaysarestillevidentforsomedeeperwatersolutionssuchassteel
jacketsandtripods,evenifmonopilesarenotusedinRound3developments.Bothsteeljacketand
tripodfoundationsrequirepilingtosecureeachofthefeettotheseabed.Thiswillresultin
multiplenoiseemissionsperfoundation.Thereforeincreasednoiseimpactsarearealitythat,
movingintothefuture,willrequirecloserscrutinythanpreviously.
Morerigorousconsentingproceduresarenowinplaceduetotheimplementationofmarine
environmentallegislationsuchastheHabitatsDirectiveandtheMarineStrategyFramework
Directive.DemonstrationthatinstallationandemplacementofCGBFsisnoiseneutralorpositive
maymeanthatthesolutiontypedoesnothavetobeonanynoiseregister,shouldDefradeem
sucharegisterisrequiredfornoisyactivitiesasasuitableresponsetoimplementingtheMSFD.
InthiscontextitislikelythatCGBFinstallationandemplacementwillprovideaverypositive
foundationsolutionforRound3arraysduetothefactthatnopilingisrequired.Thismeansthatone
ofthemajorenvironmentalimpactsassociatedwithoffshorewindfarmdevelopmentscaneasilybe
mitigated.
Deepwaterfoundationsalsoimpactuponthehumanenvironmentinanumberofways.The
changestothephysicalandbiologicalenvironmentcanaffectthelivelihoodoffishermenoperating
withintheregion.Reefeffectsmayattractfishtothefoundationsawayfromtraditionalhabitat
areasandfishinggrounds.However,fishaggregationsmayalsoallowfisheriestodevelopinareas
alongsidewindfarms.Archaeologyisalsoamajorconsiderationforthehumanenvironment.
Archaeologicalreceptorstendtobelocatedwithinthefirstfewmetresofthegeologicalunitsonthe
seabed,whichmaybeimpactedbythedeepwaterfoundationitself,orthroughanyseabed
preparationrequired,scourandsecondaryimpacts.HoweverthesepossibleeffectsarenotCGBF
specificintheirnature.
Overall,evidencefromtheexamplesidentifiedtodatesuggeststhattheimpactsfromGCBFsare
broadlycomparabletootherfoundationtypeslikelytobeusedthroughoutRound3developments
intheUK.Furthermore,thesignificantadvantageoverotherfoundationtypesisthelackof
125

AReviewofMarineEnvironmentalConsiderationsassociatedwithConcreteGravityBase
FoundationsinOffshoreWindDevelopments.

significantlevelsofunderwaternoiseemissionsgeneratedduringinstallation,whichmanyofthe
otherfoundationtypesrequiretosecurethemtotheseabed.Thispresentsaverysignificant
advantagetodevelopersshouldtheychoosetouseCGBFsforRound3projects.

126

AReviewofMarineEnvironmentalConsiderationsAssociatedwithConcreteGravityBase
FoundationsinOffshoreWindDevelopments.

12 Conclusions
GiventheenvironmentalconstraintsassociatedwithRound3zonesitisunlikelythatmonopile
foundationswillbeaviablesolutioninalargenumberofcasesforthenextgenerationofUK
offshorewindfarms.Ofthedeeperwaterengineeringsolutionssteeljackets,tripods,suction
caissons,floatingplatformsandconcretegravitybasefoundationsaresuitableforRound3
installations.
Throughreviewofrecentoffshorewindfarmconstructioncasestudiesandenvironmental
monitoringprogrammes,andinthecontextoftheknownuseofconcreteinthemarine
environment,thereportisabletomakesomeevidencebasedstatementsabouttheuseofCGBFs
forRound3.
Blockage Effects
CGBFsatagenericlevelhavesimilarphysicalblockageeffectstootherdeeperwaterfoundation
solutions.Theintricacyofasteeljacketstructureislikelytohaveagreatereffectonthewater
column,butthismaybemitigatedbythereducedsurfaceareainteractingwiththewatercolumn
whencomparingeffectsfromCGBFs.Itisreasonabletoexpectsimilarlevelsofeffectsbetween
CGBFsandsuctioncaissonswheredesignparametersaresimilar:thetwosolutionsinsomecases
presentsimilarprofilestothewatercolumn.
Asalreadyidentifiedbysolutionproviders,complexnonlinearmodellingwillhavetobeconducted
toevaluateenvironmentalresponsestoeachsolutionssize,shapeandprofile.Waterdepthand
exposuretostormwaveeventswillhavetobefactoredaspartoftheprocess.Inmostcasesfor
Round3zones(notableexceptionsbeingRampionandNavitasBay)itisanticipatedthatCGBF
relatedeffectsonphysicalreceptorsmaybemitigatedbydistancefromshoreandwaterdepth.
CGBFs,atagenericlevel,havesimilarphysicalblockageeffectstootherdeeperwaterfoundation
solutions.However,theirdifferentfrontalandsurfaceareaswillresultinlocalisedeffectsonwaves,
tidalcurrentsandsedimenttransportmechanismsthatmaydifferfromsteeljacketandtripod
foundations.
Seabed Footprint of Foundation
Round3projectsarelikelytoresultingreaterdirectseabedfootprintsperfoundationincomparison
withthemajorityofRound1and2arrays.Thisisrelatedtothedeeperwateroffshoreenvironment
andtechnicalandcostconstraintsassociatedwithwidescaleuseofsteelmonopilesinthese
offshoreenvironments.Thereforetherewillbeashifttotheuseofalternativefoundationsolutions.
Thedirectphysicaleffectfootprintswillhavetobeconsideredbydrawingcomparisonsbetween
steeljacket,tripod,concretegravitybasesandsuctioncaissonfoundationsandnotmonopiles.
Thesesolutionshaveanincreaseddirectphysicalfootprint(incomparisontoshallowwater
monopiles)buttherearevariationsbetweenthedifferentsolutiontypesandCGBFscanhavea
comparableseabedfootprint.

127

AReviewofMarineEnvironmentalConsiderationsassociatedwithConcreteGravityBase
FoundationsinOffshoreWindDevelopments.

Seabed Preparation and Scour Protection


Itisimportanttonotethatpreparationoffoundationpitsandthedepositionoffoundationlayers
arenotrequiredforallCGBFdesignsanddependsontheconstructionandinstallationmethodology
selectedbyeachsolutionprovider.
WherepreparationoftheseabedisrequiredthenCGBFsandsuctioncaissonsarelikelytoresultin
largerfootprintsofeffectsthansteeljacketsortripodsandcertainlyfloatingplatforms(thoughitis
unlikelythatthissolutionwillbemarketableintimeforRound3developments).Foundationpit
excavationwillresultinatemporarydirecthabitatlosswithanassociatedsedimentplumeand
resultantindirecteffectsfromsmotheringandseabedbedformalteration.Thesefootprintsmay
significantlyincreasetheoverallimpactzones,butmaynotresultinpermanentdamagetobenthic
communities.Howeverpermanenteffectsonsubsurfacegeologyandarchaeologymayoccur.The
scaleofbiologicalimpactwill,toalargedegree,bebaseduponthesedimenthabitatsaffectedand
benthiccommunityrecoveryperiodsandtolerancestodredgingimpactse.g.mobilesandhabitats
mayrecoverwithin624monthstoextractionandwithindaysorweekstosmothering,whilstlow
energyenvironmentconsolidatedgravelcommunitiesmaytakegreaterthan8yearstorecoverfrom
extractionandsmothering.
Scourprotection,ifrequired,willresultindirectlossofseabedhabitats,biologicalcommunitiesand
possiblyarchaeologicalfeatures(ifthelatterarepresent).Allfoundationtypesmayrequirescour
protectionsothemagnitudeofeffectrelatestothetotaladditionalareaperfoundationandis
generallysitespecific.
Itisanticipatedthatgroundpreparationforsuctioncaissonfoundationswillresultinsmallerscales
ofeffecttoCGBFs.Bothofwhich,whererequired,willhaveagreatereffectfootprintthanforSteel
JacketandTripodfoundationswhichgenerallydonotrequireextensiveseabedpreparation.
WherepreparationoftheseabedisrequiredthenCGBFsandsuctioncaissonswillinitiallyresultin
largerfootprintsofeffectsthansteeljacketsortripods,whicharelesslikelytorequireseabed
preparation.Butrecoveryfromtheseeffectsisexpectedwithinthelifespanofthewindfarmproject.
Steeljacketandtripodfoundationsmayrequirescourprotectionwhichwilladdtotheoverall
seabedfootprintofthestructures;similartothecasesforsomemonopilefoundationsassociated
withRound1and2installations.
Reef Effects
Reefeffectsduetothepresenceofartificialhardsubstratadepositedontheseabedwillapplytoall
foundationtypes(thoughnotanticipatedtobegreatforfloatingplatforms),regardlessofwater
depthordistancefromshore.Theevidencebasedemonstratesthatmorecomplexshapesproviding
creviceandnichelikespacesarelikelytoresultinhigherbiodiversityofcolonisingrockyreefspecies
thansmoothorsimplesurfacereliefstructurese.g.thecomplexstructureofsteeljacketsmay
providegreaternichehabitatsforreefspeciesandresultinincreasedbiodiversitythanlarge
concretesurfaces.Reefhalopredationeffectsarenotshaperelatedbutlargerstructuresatthe
seabedsurfacewillhavelargerhalosthansmallerstructuresduetolargerpredatorpopulationsthey
support.Changestosedimentcommunitiesandrecruitmentofdifferentspecieshavebeenrecorded
inassociationwithfoundationstructures.

128

AReviewofMarineEnvironmentalConsiderationsAssociatedwithConcreteGravityBase
FoundationsinOffshoreWindDevelopments.

Theareaofseabeddirectlybelowatripodorsteeljacketstructurecanbeexpectedtobealtered
duetoahighincidenceofreefeffects.Thesewillmanifestthroughalteredhydrodynamics,
nutrificationandpredationandresultinalargerareaofnaturalhabitatlossthanthatburied
beneathaCGBF(whenalsoconsideringdirecthabitatlosstotripodandsteeljacketfootprint).
ArtificialreefsarealsoknowntoactasFishAggregationDevices(FADs).FADsattractmobilespecies
offishtothestructuresandthesizeandcomplexityofartificialstructuremaybeararelationshipto
thesizeoffishpopulationsattractedtoandsupportedbyafoundationstructure,thoughthe
evidencebaseisinconclusivetoalargedegree.Fromtheevidencerevieweditisdifficulttostate
thatanyonefoundationsolutionwillhaveagreaterorlessereffectivenessasaFAD.
FADeffectscanalsohaveaneffectonlocalfishingactivity.Itispossiblethatsomefishspeciesmay
leaveareasofseabedwhichtheyhavehistoricallyfavouredinpreferenceforthefoundation
structures.Howeverthereviewofevidencehasnotshownanyquantitativedifferencesbetween
foundationstructuretypes.
Reefeffectsduetothepresenceofartificialhardsubstratadepositedontheseabedwillapplytoall
foundationtypes,regardlessofwaterdepthordistancefromshore.
ReefandFishAggregationDeviceeffects,eithernegativeorpositive,arenotbelievedtodefinitively
beanygreaterforCGBFsthanotherdeeperwaterfoundationsolutions,especiallywhenconsidering
shadowingeffectsbeneathsteeljacketsandtripods.
Underwater Noise Impacts
ThereviewofthecurrentevidencebaseshowsthatCGBFshavealargepositivenoiserelatedeffect
associatedwiththeirinstallationontheseabed.Thereareverylowunderwaternoiseemissions
whenplacingtheconcretefoundationsontotheseabed.Nopiling,hammeringordrivedrilldriveis
requiredforCGBFsandthismitigatesoneofthepotentiallygreatestimpactpathways,namely
underwaternoiseandsoundpressurewaveimpactsonsensitivemarinespecies.
Deeperwaterenvironmentswillrequirelongerpilingperiodswithgreatersustainedhammering
usingheavierhammersincomparisontopreviousUKmonopileinstallation.Offshoreenvironments
mayalsoprovidelargerpotentialforsoundwavepropagationovergreaterdistanceswithless
potentialforattenuation(thaninnearshoreenvironments).Bothsteeljacketandtripodfoundations
requirepilingtosecureeachofthefeettotheseabed.Thiswillresultinmultiplenoiseemissions
perfoundation.
Theconcernaboutunderwaternoiserelatedimpactsisgrowinganddomesticandinternational
legislationnowreflectstheseriousconsiderationofthesepossibleeffects.TheuseofCGBFsmay
mitigatesomeofthislegislativeburdenfordevelopers.
ItisclearthattheuseofCGBFsandsuctioncaissonswillmitigatesignificantenvironmentalimpacts
associatedwithnoiseemissionsonmobile,widerangingsensitivespeciessuchasmarinemammals.
Assuch(duetotheunprovennatureofsuctioncaissonsforusewithlargeturbines5MWand
greater)CGBFsarecurrentlytheonlydeeperwater,Round3foundationsolutionthatcanbe
deployedthatwillmitigatenoiseimpacts.

129

AReviewofMarineEnvironmentalConsiderationsassociatedwithConcreteGravityBase
FoundationsinOffshoreWindDevelopments.

EvidenceshowsthatemplacementofCGBFs,includingseabedpreparation(ifrequired)isnonoisier
thanmerchantshippingvesseltransitsinthelocalarea.
CGBFsolutionspresentalargepositiveeffectwhenconsideringnearandfarfieldnoiseimpactsas
nopilingorhammeringisrequiredforinstallation.
Oneofthemajorenvironmentalimpactsassociatedwithoffshorewindfarmdevelopmentscan
easilybemitigatedsignificantlybyuseofCGBFs.

Overall,incomparisonwithothercurrentlycommerciallyviableoffshoredeepwaterturbine
foundationtypes,CGBFswill:

Presentsimilarblockageeffects;
Haveasimilardirectseabedfootprint(whenalsoconsideringshadingeffectsandhabitat
alteration);
Resultinalarger,thoughlikelytemporary,impactfootprint,whereseabedpreparationis
required;
ResultinsimilarreefandFishAggregationDeviceeffects;
Providenogreateropportunityforspreadofnonnativeinvasivespecies;
Havethesmallestdecommissioningfootprint;and
Provideamajorenvironmentalandconsentingadvantageduetomitigationofsignificant
underwaternoiseimpactsassociatedwithinstallationandemplacement.

130

AReviewofMarineEnvironmentalConsiderationsAssociatedwithConcreteGravityBase
FoundationsinOffshoreWindDevelopments.

13 Observations and Recommendations


Reviewofevidenceusedinthisreporthighlightsareasofuncertaintyregardingsomeinteractions
betweenthemarineenvironmentandCGBFstructures.Toprovideresolutiontosomeofthese
issuesthefollowingobservationsaremadeandrecommendationssuggested:
Observations

Nonlinearmodellingofphysicalenvironmentalandblockageeffectsisdependentupon
foundationsolutionspecificengineeringdesignandemplacementcriteria;
o Theengineeringsolutionshavedifferentdimensionsandprofileswhichwillresultin
variationsineffectsthephysicalenvironmentwillreactdifferentlytoeachdesign;
o Thenumbersandorientationoffoundationsandtheirspacingwillaffectthe
responsesfromthephysicalenvironment;
Therequirementforgroundpreparationandfoundationpitswillvarybetweensolution
types.Clarityofsolutionspecificrequirementswillassistenvironmentalconsultants,
regulatorsandtheiradvisorstobetterunderstandimpactscenarios;
ThelackofsignificantunderwaternoiseimpactsassociatedwithCGBFsisamajorpositive
effectfromtheuseofthisfoundationtype;
Atthedecommissioningphasethefateofballastmaterialandscourprotectionisunclear.
Considerationbythesolutionprovidersanddevelopersshouldbeprovidedtoidentify
feasibledisposaloptionsandunacceptableones;and
Someenvironmentaleffectsandimpacts,whilstassociatedwithCGBFs,arenotrestrictedto
thisfoundationtypealone.

Recommendations

Nonlinearmodellingofphysicalenvironmentaleffectsisdependentuponfoundation
solutionspecificengineeringdesign.Thevarioussolutionshavedifferentdimensionsand
profiles.Clarityonthesedimensionsandanyrealworlddataacquiredbyengineerswill
assistinrunningthesemodelsforEIA;
Earlyandclearengagementbetweentheengineersandtheregulatorsandtheirtechnical
andstatutoryadvisors(specificallyTheConcreteCentre,theGravityFoundationInterest
Group,theMMOandtheOffshoreRenewableEnergyLicensingGroup)isadvised.Case
historyfromotherseabedusersectorsdemonstratesthatearlyandcontinuedengagement
canmitigatemisunderstandingsandresultincosteffectiveapplicationsandtimelydelivery
ofprojects;
Regulatorsandtheiradvisors,alongwithsolutionprovidersanddevelopers,needtoensure
thatanymonitoringrequirementsarefitforpurposeandCGBFspecific.Clearhypothesesto
betestedshouldbeexpected;
Strategicresearchtoassessgenericeffectsshouldbeconsideredbyregulators,their
advisorsandindustry.Reefeffectsassociatedwithartificialhardsubstrataarecommonto
manysectorsandfoundationtypes,notjusttheoffshorewindsectorusingCGBFs;
Thefindingsanddeterminationswithinthisreportshouldbeusedtoinformanyrealistic
131

AReviewofMarineEnvironmentalConsiderationsassociatedwithConcreteGravityBase
FoundationsinOffshoreWindDevelopments.

worstcasescenariomodellingthattheregulatorsandtheiradvisorsconducttobetter
informallinvolvedindeliveringRound3developments;and
Anyopportunitytogatherrealworlddatashouldbeconsideredandacteduponpro
actively.DeploymentofsolutiontypesattestbedfacilitieswillenablePilotStudiestobe
conducted.Bestpracticedictatesthatearlyconsiderationofbeneficialmonitoringof
environmentaleffectsfromthetestingoftechniquesorstructureswillprovideinvaluable
data.Considerationtomonitoringdeploymentofmultiplestructureswillstarttoaddress
someofthecurrentmodellingconstraintsthatcanbemonitored.Althoughextracostwillbe
involvedupfronttherearelikelytobecostbenefitsthroughthepreapplicationand
applicationstages.

132

AReviewofMarineEnvironmentalConsiderationsAssociatedwithConcreteGravityBase
FoundationsinOffshoreWindDevelopments.

14

References

AarsleffBilfingerBergerJointVenture2011,OffshoreWindfarmRdsand2,viewed21May2012,
<http://www.abjv.com/files/abjv%20RDS2.pdf>.
ABPmer,2005.AssessmentofpotentialimpactofRound2offshorewindfarmdevelopmentson
sedimenttransport.ReportR.1109.
Aumnier,S.H.(2010).Carbonfootprintofmarineaggregateextraction.TheCrownEstate.Bailey,
H.,Senior,B.,Simmons,D.,Rusin,J.,Picken,G.andThompson,P.M.,2010.Assessingunderwater
noiselevelsduringpiledrivingatanoffshorewindfarmanditspotentialeffectsonmarine
mammals.MarinePollutionBulletin60(2010)888897.
Bailey,H.,Senior,B.,Simmons,D.,Rusin,J.,Picken,G.andThompson,P.M.,2010.Assessing
underwaternoiselevelsduringpiledrivingatanoffshorewindfarmanditspotentialeffectson
marinemammals.MarinePollutionBulletin60(2010)888897
BainesME,andEvans,PGH.2009.AtlasoftheMarineMammalsofWales.CCWMonitoring
ReportNo.68.
BERR,2008.AtlasofUKMarineRenewableEnergyResource.181pp.
BishopJ.R.,1981.ExperiencewithscourattheChristchurchBayTower.NationalMaritimeInstitute.
NMIR120.OTM8101.
Bloomfield,A.andSolandt,JL.,2008.TheMarineConservationSocietybaskingsharkwatch20year
report(19872006)
Boesen,C&Andersen,S2005,'EnvironmentaleffectstudiesStatusmorethantwoyearsafterthe
erectionofHornsRevandNystedOffshoreWindfarms',CopenhagenOffshoreWind,2628
October2005.
denBoonJ.H.,SutherlandJ.,WhitehouseR.,SoulsbyR.,StamC.J.M.,VerhoevenK.,HgedalM.and
HaldT.,2004..ScourBehaviourandScourProtectionforMonopileFoundationsofOffshoreWind
Turbines.In:Proc.2004EuropeanWindEnergyConference,London,UK,EuropeanWindEnergy
Association[CDROM].p14.
Brabant,R.andJacques,T.G.,2010.Chapter2.Introduction:offshorewindenergydevelopmentin
theBelgianpartoftheNorthSea&anticipatedimpactspp938inDegraer,S.,Brabant,R.&
Rumes,B.(Eds.)(2010)OffshorewindfarmsintheBelgianpartoftheNorthSea:Early
environmentalimpactassessmentandspatiotemporalvariability.RoyalBelgianInstituteof
NaturalSciences,ManagementUnitoftheNorthSeaMathematicalModels.Marineecosystem
managementunit.184pp.+annexes.
Bremner,J.,Paramor,O.A.L.andFrid,C.L.J.,2006.Developingamethodologyforincorporating
ecologicalstructureandfunctioningintodesignationofSpecialAreasofConservation(SAC)inthe
012nauticalmilezone.SchoolofBiologicalSciences,UniversityofLiverpool.158pp.
BureauofOceanEnergyManagement,RegulationandEnforcement(BoEMRE),2012.RigstoReef
website.Lastvisitedon28June2012.
http://www.gomr.boemre.gov/homepg/regulate/environ/rigstoreefs/information.html
133

AReviewofMarineEnvironmentalConsiderationsassociatedwithConcreteGravityBase
FoundationsinOffshoreWindDevelopments.

CarrollB.,CooperW.S.,DeweyN.K.,WhiteheadP.A.,DolphinA.,ReesJ.,JuddA.,WhitehouseR.,and
HarrisJ.M.,2010.Afurtherreviewofsedimentmonitoringdata.COWRIEScourSed09.Final
Report,March2010.
Cefas,2004.OffshoreWindfarms:GuidanceNoteforEnvironmentalImpactAssessmentinRespect
ofFEPAandCPARequirements.PreparedfortheMarineConsentsandEnvironmentalUnit,
Version2June2004.
Cefas,2005.AssessmentoftheSignificanceofChangestotheInshoreWaveRegimeasa
consequenceofanOffshoreWindArray.DefraProjectCodeA1227.
Cefas,2010.StrategicReviewofOffshoreWindfarmMonitoringDataAssociatedwithFEPALicence
Conditions.ME1117.August2010.
Cefas,2011.Guidelinesfordataacquisitiontosupportmarineenvironmentalassessmentsfor
offshorerenewableenergyprojects.Cefascontractreport:ME5403Module15.15thJune
2011.
CentralDredgingAgency(CEDA),2011.CEDAPositionPaper:underwatersoundinrelationto
dredging.TerraetAqua,number125,December2011,2328.
CentricaEnergyLtd,2008.EnvironmentalReportforMonitoringoftheDisposalofDrillArisingsat
LynnandInnerDowsing.DocumentNo.LDECE0130117300100004R.
CentricaEnergyLtd,2009.RaceBankOffshoreWindfarmES.
CentricaEnergyLtd,2010.LID6EnvironmentalStatement.
Coates,D.,Vanaverbeke,J.,Rabaut,M.andVincx,M.,2010.Chapter6.Softsedimentmacrobenthos
aroundoffshorewindturbinesintheBelgianPartoftheNorthSearevealsaclearshiftinspecies
compositioninDegraer,S.,Brabant,R.&Rumes,B.(Eds.)(2010)Offshorewindfarmsinthe
BelgianpartoftheNorthSea:Earlyenvironmentalimpactassessmentandspatiotemporal
variability.RoyalBelgianInstituteofNaturalSciences,ManagementUnitoftheNorthSea
MathematicalModels.Marineecosystemmanagementunit.184pp.+annexes.
Coates,D.andVincx,M.,2010.Chapter7Monitoringtheeffectsofoffshorewindfarmsonthe
softsubstratummacrobenthos:Year1BlighBankandYear2Thorntonbank.pp.83103in
Degraer,S.,Brabant,R.&Rumes,B.(Eds.)(2010)OffshorewindfarmsintheBelgianpartofthe
NorthSea:Earlyenvironmentalimpactassessmentandspatiotemporalvariability.RoyalBelgian
InstituteofNaturalSciences,ManagementUnitoftheNorthSeaMathematicalModels.Marine
ecosystemmanagementunit.184pp.+annexes.
Compagno,L.,Dando,M.andFowler,S.,2005.CollinsFieldGuide:SharksoftheWorld.pp368.
HarperCollins.ISBN:0007136102.
Connor,D.W.,Allen,J.H.,Golding,N.,Howell,K.L.,Lieberhnecht,L.M.,Northern,K.O.,andReker,
J.B.,2004.TheMarineHabitatClassificationforBritainandIrelandVersion04.05JNCC,
PeterboroughISBN1861075618(internetversion)
www.jncc.gov.uk/MarineHabitatClassification.

134

AReviewofMarineEnvironmentalConsiderationsAssociatedwithConcreteGravityBase
FoundationsinOffshoreWindDevelopments.

CookA.S.C.P.andBurtonN.H.K.,2010.Areviewofthepotentialimpactsofmarineaggregate
extractiononseabirds.MarineAggregateLevySustainabilityFund,MarineEnvironment
ProtectionFundProject09/P130.
Cooper,K.M.,Curtis,M.,WanHussin,W.M.R.,BarrioFrojan,C.R.S.,Defew,E.C.,Nye,V.,Patterson,
D.M.2011.Implicationsofdredginginducedchangesinsedimentparticlesizecompositionfor
thestructureandfunctionofmarinebenthicmacrofaunalcommunities.MarinePollution
Bulletin.62,20872094.
CooperW.S.,2010.Coastalprocesses.In:HuddlestoneJ.,(Ed.).Understandingtheenvironmental
impactsofoffshorewindfarms.COWRIE.138pp.
CooperW.S.,andBeiboerF.,2002.Potentialeffectsofoffshorewinddevelopmentsoncoastal
processes.ETSUW/35/00596/00/REP.
CooperW.S.,ReesJ.,andCoatesT.,2008.ReviewofRound1sedimentprocessmonitoringdata
lessonslearnt.AreportfortheResearchAdvisoryGrouponbehalfofDECC.
Cripps,S.J.andAabel,J.P.,2002.EnvironmentalandsocioeconomicimpactassessmentofEkoreef,a
multipleplatformrigstoreefsdevelopment.ICESJournalofMarineScience,59:S300S308.
2002doi:10.1006/jmsc.2002.1293,availableonlineathttp://www.idealibrary.com
DECC,2008.DynamicsofscourpitsandscourprotectionSynthesisreportandrecommendations
(Milestones2and3).FinalReportpreparedbyHRWallingfordLtd,ABPMarineEnvironmental
ResearchLtdandCentreforEnvironment,FisheriesandAquacultureSciencefortheResearch
AdvisoryGroup,DepartmentofEnergyandClimateChange(DECC)andDepartmentfor
Environment,FoodandRuralAffairs(Defra).
DECC,2011a.ComparativeReviewofFoundationsforOffshoreWindTurbines:Engineeringand
EnvironmentalConsiderations.
DECC,2011b.NationalPolicyStatementforRenewableEnergyInfrastructure(EN3).Presentedto
Parliamentpursuanttosection5(9)ofthePlanningAct2008.
DNV,2007.DesignofOffshoreWindTurbineStructures.OffshoreStandardDNVOSJ101.
DepartmentforEnvironment,FoodandRuralAffairs(Defra),2010.TheGovernmentsstrategyfor
contributingtothedeliveryofaUKnetworkofmarineprotectedareas.
DegraerS.,andBrabantR.,(Eds.),2009.OffshorewindfarmsintheBelgianpartoftheNorthSea:
Stateoftheartaftertwoyearsofenvironmentalmonitoring.RoyalBelgianInstituteforNatural
Sciences,ManagementUnitoftheNorthSeaMathematicalModels.MarineEcosystem
ManagementUnit.287pp.+annexes.
DegraerS.,BrabantR.,andRumesB.,(Eds.),2010.OffshorewindfarmsintheBelgianpartofthe
NorthSea:Earlyenvironmentalimpactassessmentandspatiotemporalvariability.RoyalBelgian
InstituteofNaturalSciences,ManagementUnitoftheNorthSeaMathematicalModels.Marine
EcosystemManagementUnit.184pp.+annexes.
Derweduwen,J.,Vandendriessche,S.andHostens,K.,2010.Chapter8Monitoringoftheeffects
oftheThorntonbankandBlighBankwindfarmsontheepifaunaanddemersalfishfaunaofsoft
bottomsediments:Thorntonbank:statusduringconstruction(T2),BlighBank:statusduring
135

AReviewofMarineEnvironmentalConsiderationsassociatedwithConcreteGravityBase
FoundationsinOffshoreWindDevelopments.

construction(T1).pp.105131inDegraer,S.,Brabant,R.&Rumes,B.(Eds.)(2010)Offshore
windfarmsintheBelgianpartoftheNorthSea:Earlyenvironmentalimpactassessmentand
spatiotemporalvariability.RoyalBelgianInstituteofNaturalSciences,ManagementUnitofthe
NorthSeaMathematicalModels.Marineecosystemmanagementunit.184pp.+annexes.
DepartmentofTransport,LocalGovernmentandtheRegions2000,'Environmentalimpact
assessment:Aguidetoprocedures',0727729608,HMSO,London.
DONGEnergy,2006.TheDanishOffshoreWindfarmDemonstrationProject:HornsRevandNysted
OffshoreWindfarmsEnvironmentalimpactassessmentandmonitoring2005,viewed21May
2012,
<http://193.88.185.141/Graphics/Energiforsyning/Vedvarende_energi/Vind/havvindmoeller/vvm
%20Horns%20Rev%202/begge%20parker/Review%20rapport%202005.pdf>.
DONGEnergy,Vattenfall,TheDanishEnergyAuthorityandTheDanishForestandNatureAgency,
2006.DanishOffshoreWindKeyEnvironmentalIssues.ISBN:8778446252
Eastwood,P.D.,Mills,C.M.,Aldridge,J.N.,Houghton,C.A.,andRogers,S.I.,2007.Humanactivities
inUKoffshorewaters:anassessmentofdirect,physicalpressureontheseabed.ICESJournalof
MarineScience,64:453463.
EclipseEnergyCompanyLtd,2005.OrmondeProjectEnvironmentalImpactAssessment:Non
TechnicalSummary.16pp.
EMULtd,2009.LynnandInnerDowsingHydrographicMonitoringSurvey.CentricaEnergy,Report
No:09/J/1/02/1495/0925,47pp.
EMULtd,2010a.MarineBiodiversityandAggregateDredginginBothaTwoandThreeDimensional
ContextVolume1.ReportNo.10/J/1/03/0843/1068StudycommissionedAugust2004.ISBN:
9780907545415.
EMULtd,2010b.SouthCoastMarineAggregateRegionalEnvironmentalAssessmentVolume1&2.
ReportNo.J/1/06/1165.
EMULtd,2011a.AnglianOffshoreMarineAggregateRegionalEnvironmentalAssessment
ERMLtd,2011b.DraftMarineMammalChapterfortheHumberRegionalEnvironmental
Assessment.
ETSU,2002.Potentialeffectsofoffshorewinddevelopmentsoncoastalprocesses.ETSU
W/35/00596/00/REP.PreparedbyABPmerandMETOC.
ESRa,2012.EvaluationofPileDrivingNoiseMitigationSystems(ESRa)program.Pressrelease
downloadedon23July2012.http://www.offshore
stiftung.com/60005/Uploaded/Offshore_Stiftung%7C0712PMESRaAbschlussbericht_en.pdf
EuropeanWindEnergyAssociation(EWEA),2009.OceansofOpportunity:HarnessingEuropes
largestdomesticenergyresource.67pp.
Evans,P.G.H.,1987.Thenaturalhistoryofwhalesanddolphins.AcademicPress.ISBN:012244200
8.

136

AReviewofMarineEnvironmentalConsiderationsAssociatedwithConcreteGravityBase
FoundationsinOffshoreWindDevelopments.

vandeEyndeD.,BrabantR.,FettweisM.,FranckenF.,MelotteJ.,andVanLanckerV.,2010.Chapter
3.MonitoringofhydrodynamicandmorphologicalchangesattheCPowerandtheBelwind
offshorewindfarmsitesAsynthesis.In:OffshorewindfarmsintheBelgianpartoftheNorth
Sea.Earlyenvironmentalimpactassessmentandspatiotemproalvariability.
Foden,J.,2011.IntegratedspatialassessmentofhumanpressuresandimpactonUKseabed
habitats.PhDThesis.
FodenJ.,RogersS.I.,JonesA.P.,2011.HumanpressuresonUKseabedhabitats:acumulativeimpact
assessment.MarEcolProgSer428:3347.
Frederiksen,H.,2008.OffshoreFoundationsforWindfarms,UROPProjectNationalUniversityof
Singapore.
Frederiksen,M.,Edwards,M.,Richardson,A.J.,Halliday,N.C.andWanless,S.,2006.Fromplankton
totoppredators:bottomupcontrolofamarinefoodwebacrossfourtrophiclevels.Journalof
AnimalEcology200675,12591268.
HaeltersJ.,NorroA.andJacquesT.G.,2009.Chapter3UnderwaternoiseemissionduringthephaseI
constructionoftheCPowerwindfarmandbaselinefortheBelwindwindfarm.pp.1737in
Degraer,S.andBrabant,R.(Eds.),2009.OffshorewindfarmsintheBelgianpartoftheNorthSea:
Stateoftheartaftertwoyearsofenvironmentalmonitoring.RoyalBelgianInstituteforNatural
Sciences,ManagementUnitoftheNorthSeaMathematicalModels.Marineecosystem
managementunit.287pp.+annexes.
HammerL.,AndersonS.,andRosenbergR.,2010.Adaptingoffshorewindpowerfoundationsto
localenvironment.SwedishEnvironmentProtectionAgency.Report6367.May2010.
HildebrandeJ.A.,2005.ImpactsofAnthropogenicSound.InJ.E.Reynoldsetal.(eds),Marine
MammalResearch:ConservationbeyondCrisis.TheJohnsHopkinsUniversityPress,Baltimore,
Maryland.Pages101124(2005)
Hill,J.M,Marzialetti,SandPearce,B.2011.RecoveryofSeabedResourcesFollowingMarine
AggregateExtraction.MarineALSFScienceMonographSeriesNo.2.MEPF10/P148.(EditedbyR.
C.Newell&J.Measures).44pp.ISBN:9780907545453.
Hiscock,K.(Ed),1998.MarineNatureConservationReview.BenthicmarineecosystemsofGreat
BritainandthenortheastAtlantic.Peterborough,JointNatureConservationCommittee.(Coasts
andseasoftheUnitedKingdom.MNCRseries).ISBN:186107445X
Hiscock,K.,TylerWalters,H.andJones,H.,2002.HighLevelEnvironmentalScreeningStudyfor
OffshoreWindfarmDevelopmentsMarineHabitatsandSpeciesProject.Reportfromthe
MarineBiologicalAssociationtoTheDepartmentofTradeandIndustryNew&RenewableEnergy
Programme.(AEATechnology,EnvironmentContract:W/35/00632/00/00.)
HMGovernment,2012.MarineStrategyFrameworkDirectiveconsultation:UKInitialAssessment
andProposalsforGoodEnvironmentalStatus.ImpactAssessment.March2012.
Houlsby,G.T.,Ibsen,L.B.&ByrneB.W.,2005.Suctioncaissonsforwindturbines,IN:Frontiersin
OffshoreGeotechnics:ISFOG2005Gourvenec&Cassidy(eds),Taylor&FrancisGroup,London,
ISBN041539063X.

137

AReviewofMarineEnvironmentalConsiderationsassociatedwithConcreteGravityBase
FoundationsinOffshoreWindDevelopments.

HRWallingford,Cefas,UEA,PosfordHaskoningandDOlierB.,2002.SouthernNorthSeaSediment
TransportStudy,Phase2.HRWallingfordReportEX4526.August2002
InternationalFederationforStructuralConcrete(fibfdrationinternationaledubton),2009.fib
BulletinNo.50:concretestructuresforoilandgasfieldsinhostilemarineenvironments.36pp.
ISBN:9782883940901.
JointNatureConservationCommittee(JNCC),1995.Europeanseabirdsatseadatabase:seabirdand
cetaceanUKDMAPdatasetsversion2.1.JNCC,Peterborough.
JointNatureConservationCommittee(JNCC),2007.SecondReportbytheUKunderArticle17onthe
implementationoftheHabitatsDirectivefromJanuary2001toDecember2006.Peterborough:
JNCC.Availablefrom:www.jncc.gov.uk/article17
JointNatureConservationCommittee(JNCC),2010a.UKSeaMap2010predictivemappingof
seabedhabitatsinUKWaters.JNCCReportNo.446.Availablefrom:
http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/page2117.
JointNatureConservationCommittee(JNCC),2010b.Statutorynatureconservationagencyprotocol
forminimisingtheriskofinjurytomarinemammalsfrompilingnoise.
JointNatureConservationCommittee,NaturalEnglandandCountrysideCouncilforWales(JNCC,NE
andCCW),2010.TheprotectionofmarineEuropeanProtectedSpeciesfrominjuryand
disturbanceDraftguidanceforthemarineareainEnglandandWalesandtheUKoffshore
marinearea.Draftguidance.
Jones,L.A.,Hiscock,K.andConnor,D.W.2000.MarineHabitatReviews.Asummaryofecological
requirementsandsensitivitycharacteristicsfortheconservationandmanagementofmarine
SACs.Peterborough:JointNatureConservationCommittee.
JonesLA,CoyleMD,GillilandPM,LarwoodJG&MurrayAR.2004.IrishSeaMarineNaturalArea
Profile:AcontributiontoregionalplanningandmanagementoftheseasaroundEngland.
Peterborough:EnglishNature.
Kolian,S.andSammarco,P.W.,2008.RemovalofOffshoreOilandGasPlatforms:Rationalefor
RetainingInfrastructuretoDevelopOffshoreRenewableResourcesintheGulfofMexico.Ecorigs
andLouisianaUniversityMarineConsortium.
LambkinD.O.,HarrisJ.M.,CooperW.S.,andCoatesT.,2009.CoastalProcessmodellingforoffshore
windfarmenvironmentalimpactassessment:Bestpracticeguide.COWRIECOAST0708.
September2009.
LindoeOffshoreRenewablesCenter2012,OffshoreWindfarmsListglobaldatabase,viewed21
May2012,<http://www.lorc.dk/offshorewindfarmsmap/list?os_sst=Gravity+based>.
LinleyE.A.S.,WildingT.A.,BlackK.,HawkinsA.J.S.andMangiS.,2007.Reviewofthereefeffectsof
offshorewindfarmstructuresandtheirpotentialforenhancementandmitigation.Reportfrom
PMLApplicationsLtdandtheScottishAssociationforMarineSciencetotheDepartmentfor
Business,EnterpriseandRegulatoryReform(BERR),ContractNo:RFCA/005/0029P.
Lynch,D.andFulcher,D.2012.WeightyChallenge.Energy:OffshoreWind.NewCivilEngineer
26.04.12.p16.
138

AReviewofMarineEnvironmentalConsiderationsAssociatedwithConcreteGravityBase
FoundationsinOffshoreWindDevelopments.

MarineConservationSociety(MCS),2012.Marinespeciessightingsmap.Availableat
http://www.mcsuk.org/sightings/map/index.php.Lastreferenced22May2012.
MarineEcologicalSurveysLtd.(MES),2008.MarineMacrofaunaGenusTraitHandbook.Marine
EcologicalSurveysLimited,24aMonmouthPlace,BATH,BA12AY.ISBN9780950692029.
http://www.genustraithandbook.org.uk/.Lastaccessedon20May2012.
MarineLifeInformationNetwork(MarLIN).2012.MarineLifeInformationNetwork.Lastaccessedon
20May2012atwww.marlin.ac.uk
MarineManagementOrganisation2011,'Marinelicensingguidancedocuments112',Marine
ManagementOrganisation,Newcastle.
MineralsManagementService,2000.PlatformEcologyStudiesFundedbytheMineralsManagement
ServicesEnvironmentalStudiesProgram:AnAnnotatedBibliography
NaturalEnglandandJointNatureConservationCommittee(NEandJNCC),2011.Generaladviceon
assessingpotentialimpactsofandmitigationforhumanactivitiesonMCZfeaturesusingexisting
regulationandlegislation.June2011.
Newell,R.C,Seiderer,L.JandHitchcock,D.R.1998.Theimpactofdredgingworksincoastalwaters:
areviewofthesensitivitytodisturbanceandsubsequentrecoveryofbiologicalresourcesonthe
seabed.OceanographyandMarineBiology:anAnnualReview,36:127178.
NewellR.C.,SeidererL.J.,SimpsonN.M.,andRobinsonJ.E.,2004.Impactsofmarineaggregate
dredgingonbenthicmacrofaunaoffthesouthcoastoftheUnitedKingdom.JournalofCoastal
Research,20,115125.
Norro,A.,Haelters,J.,Rumes,B.&Degraer,S.,2010.Chapter4Underwaternoiseproducedbythe
pilingactivitiesduringtheconstructionoftheBelwindoffshorewindfarm(BlighBank,Belgian
marinewaters).pp.3751inDegraer,S.,Brabant,R.&Rumes,B.(Eds.)(2010)Offshore
windfarmsintheBelgianpartoftheNorthSea:Earlyenvironmentalimpactassessmentand
spatiotemporalvariability.RoyalBelgianInstituteofNaturalSciences,ManagementUnitofthe
NorthSeaMathematicalModels.Marineecosystemmanagementunit.184pp.+annexes.
Nybakken,J.W.andBertness,M.D.2004.MarineBiology:AnEcologicalApproach(6thEdition).
BenjaminCummings.ISBN:0805345825.
OSPARCommission,2006.ReviewoftheCurrentStateofKnowledgeontheEnvironmentalImpacts
oftheLocation,OperationandRemoval/DisposalofOffshoreWindFarms.38pp.
HenryM.Page,H.M.,Dugan,J.E.,Dugon,D.S.,Richards,J.B.andHubbard,D.M.,1999.Effectsofan
offshoreoilplatformonthedistributionandabundanceofcommerciallyimportantcrabspecies.
MarEcolProgSer.Vol.185:4757.
PeireK.,NonnemanH.,andBosschemE.,2009.GravityBaseFoundationsfortheThorntonBank
OffshoreWindfarm.TerraetAqua,115,1929.
Perrow,M.R.,Gilroy,J.J.,Skeate,E.R.andTomlinson,M.L.,2011.Effectsoftheconstructionof
ScrobySandsoffshorewindfarmonthepreybaseofLittleternSternulaalbifronsatitsmost
importantUKcolony.MarinePollutionBulletin62(2011)16611670.

139

AReviewofMarineEnvironmentalConsiderationsassociatedwithConcreteGravityBase
FoundationsinOffshoreWindDevelopments.

Pinnegar,J.,Blasdale,T.,Campbell,N.,Coates,S.,Colclough,S.,Fraser,H.,Greathead,C.,
Greenstreet,S.,Neat,F.,Sharp,R.,Simms,D.,Stevens,H.,andWaugh,A.,2010.Charting
Progress2HealthyandBiologicalDiverseSeasFeederReport:Section3.4:Fish.Publishedby
DepartmentforEnvironmentFoodandRuralAffairsonbehalfofUKMMAS.p378505.In:
UKMMAS(2010)ChartingProgress2HealthyandBiologicalDiverseSeasFeederreport(Eds.
Frost,M&Hawkridge,J).
Posey,M.H.andAmbrose,W.G.,1994.Effectsofproximitytoanoffshorehardbottomreefon
infaunalabundances.MarineBiology118:745753.
Rees,J.M.2005.ScrobySandsoffshorewindfarmcoastalprocessesmonitoring.AE0262finalreport
toDefra/DTI.CentreforEnvironment,FisheriesandAquacultureScience,Lowestoft.51pp.
ReidJ.B.,EvansP.G.H.andNorthridgeS.P.,2003.AtlasofCetaceanDistributioninnorthwest
Europeanwaters.
Reiss,H.,Degraer,S.,Duineveld,G.C.A.,Kroncke,I.,Aldridge,J.,Craeymeersch,J.,Eggleton,J.D.,
Hillewaert,H.,Lavaleye,M.S.S.,Moll,A.,Pohlmann,T.,Rachor,E.,Robertson,M.,vanden
Berghe,E.,vanHoey,G.,andRees,H.L.2010.Spatialpatternsofinfauna,epifauna,anddemersal
fishcommunitiesintheNorthSea.ICESJournalofMarineScience,67:278293.
Reubens,J.,Degraer,S.andVincx,M.,2010.Chapter6.Theimportanceofmarinewindfarms,as
artificialhardsubstrata,fortheecologyoftheichthyofauna.pp.6982inDegraer,S.,Brabant,R.
&Rumes,B.(Eds.)(2010)OffshorewindfarmsintheBelgianpartoftheNorthSea:Early
environmentalimpactassessmentandspatiotemporalvariability.RoyalBelgianInstituteof
NaturalSciences,ManagementUnitoftheNorthSeaMathematicalModels.Marineecosystem
managementunit.184pp.+annexes.
Robinson,S.P,Theobald,P.D,Hayman,G,Wang,L.S,Lepper,P.A,Humphrey,VandMumford,S.
2011.Measurementofnoisearisingfrommarineaggregatedredgingoperations,MALSF(MEPF
Refno.09/P108).
RoyalHaskoning,2005.StrangfordLoughMarineCurrentTurbineEnvironmentalStatement.
RPSEnergyandRWENPowerRenewables,2011.TritonKnollPreliminaryEnvironmental
Information.
Schaumann,P.andBker,C.,2005.CanTripodsandJacketscompetewithMonopiles?Contribution
toCopenhagenOffshoreWind,2628October2005.
ScottishExecutive,2007.ScottishMarineRenewablesSEAEnvironmentalReport.Downloadable
fromhttp://www.seaenergyscotland.net/SEA_Public_Environmental_Report.htm.
SeaWatchFoundation,2008a.CetaceansofEasternEngland.
http://www.seawatchfoundation.org.uk/docs/EasternEngland.pdf
SeaWatchFoundation,2008b.CetaceansofSouthEastEngland.
http://www.seawatchfoundation.org.uk/docs/SoutheastEngland.pdf
Seidel,M.,2010.FeasibilityofMonopilesforLargeOffshoreWindTurbines,ConferenceProceedings
DEWEK2010,Bremen:DEWI2010.

140

AReviewofMarineEnvironmentalConsiderationsAssociatedwithConcreteGravityBase
FoundationsinOffshoreWindDevelopments.

Skeate,E.R.,Perrow,M.R.andGilroy,J.J.,2011.LikelyeffectsofconstructionofScrobySands
offshorewindfarmonamixedpopulationofharbourPhocavitulinaandgreyHalichoerusgrypus
seals.MarinePollutionBulletin64(2012)872881.
SharkTrust,2010.Anidentificationguidetothesharks,raysandchimaeras.Volume1:TheBritish
IslesandNortheastAtlantic.Chapter2Sharks.TheSharkTrust.Plymouth,UK.
StrabagOffshoreWindGmbH(STRABAG),2012.IndustrialSerialProductionProcessofSTRABAG
GravityBasesforlargescaleOffshoreWindfarms.
Thomsen,F.,McCully,S.R.,Weiss,L.,Wood,D.,Warr,K.,Barry,J.,andLaw,R.,2011.CetaceanStock
AssessmentinRelationtoExplorationandProductionIndustryActivityandotherHuman
Pressures:ReviewandDataNeeds.AquaticMammals37:193.
TalismanEnergy,2005.BeatriceWindfarmDemonstratorProjectEnvironmentalStatement.422pp.
Thorsen,G.,1971.LifeintheSea.WorldUniversityLibrary.
Tappin,DR,Pearce,B,Fitch,S,Dove,D,Gearey,B,Hill,JM,Chambers,C,Bates,R,Pinnion,J,Diaz
Doce,D,Green,M,Gallyot,J,Georgiou,L,Brutto,D,Marzialetti,S,Hopla,E,Ramsay,E,and
Fielding,H.2011.TheHumberRegionalEnvironmentalCharacterisation(REC).BritishGeological
SurveyReportOR/10/54.357pp.
TillinH.M.,HoughtonA.J.,SaundersJ.E.,andHullS.C.,2011.DirectandIndirectImpactsofMarine
AggregateDredging.MarineALSFScienceMonographSeriesNo.1.MEPF10/P144.(EditedbyR.
C.Newell&J.Measures).41pp.
TURTLE,2012.TurtleDatabaseaccessibleathttp://data.nbn.org.uk/Lastaccessed20May2012.
TylerWalters,H.andHiscock,K.2005.Impactofhumanactivitiesonbenthicbiotopesandspecies.
ReporttoDepartmentforEnvironment,FoodandRuralAffairsfromtheMarineLifeInformation
Network(MarLIN).Plymouth:MarineBiologicalAssociationoftheUK.[Contractno.CDEP
84/5/244].
UKBiodiversityActionPlan(UKBAP),1999.UKBiodiversityGroupTranche2ActionPlansVolumeV:
Maritimespeciesandhabitats.Availableathttp://www.ukbap.org.uk/
VanermenN.&StienenE.,2009.Chapter8Seabirds&offshorewindfarms:monitoringresults2008.
pp.151221inDegraer,S.,Brabant,R.&Rumes,B.(Eds.)(2010)Offshorewindfarmsinthe
BelgianpartoftheNorthSea:Earlyenvironmentalimpactassessmentandspatiotemporal
variability.RoyalBelgianInstituteofNaturalSciences,ManagementUnitoftheNorthSea
MathematicalModels.Marineecosystemmanagementunit.184pp.+annexes.
Vanermen,N.,Stienen,E.W.M.,Onkelinx,T.,Courtens,W.,Vandewalle,M.andVerstraete,H.,
2010.Chapter9Monitoringseabirddisplacementeffectsbyoffshorewindfarms:amodelling
approach.pp.133152ininDegraer,S.andBrabant,R.(Eds.),2009.Offshorewindfarmsinthe
BelgianpartoftheNorthSea:Stateoftheartaftertwoyearsofenvironmentalmonitoring.Royal
BelgianInstituteforNaturalSciences,ManagementUnitoftheNorthSeaMathematicalModels.
Marineecosystemmanagementunit.287pp.+annexes.

141

AReviewofMarineEnvironmentalConsiderationsassociatedwithConcreteGravityBase
FoundationsinOffshoreWindDevelopments.

VincentMA,AtkinsSM,LumbCM,GoldingN,LieberknechtLMandWebsterM.2004.Marine
natureconservationandsustainabledevelopmenttheIrishSeaPilot.ReporttoDefrabythe
JointNatureConservationCommittee,Peterborough.
Walker,L.J.andJohnston,J.,1999.GuidelinesfortheAssessmentofIndirectandCumulative
ImpactsaswellasImpactInteractions.ECDGXIEnvironment,NuclearSafety&CivilProtection.
ISBN:9289413379.
WeilgartL.S.,2007.ABriefReviewofKnownEffectsofNoiseonMarineMammals.International
JournalofComparativePsychology,20(2).
http://escholarship.org/uc/item/11m5g19h;jsessionid=CD8CECEACC213719C359AF603874E4F9
Weinhold,N.,2012.SeasthePotential.NewEnergy,1.
Whitehouse,R.J.S.,2004.Marinescouratlargefoundations.In:Proceedingsofthe2ndInternational
ConferenceonScourandErosion,Singapore.Chiew,Y.M.,Lim,S.Y.,andCheng,N.S.,(Eds).
StallionPress,Singapore,pp.455463.
WhitehouseR.J.S.,2008.ScouratMarineStructures.Telford,London.198pp.
Whitehouse,R.J.S.,Harris,J.M.,Sutherland,J.andRees,J.,2011a.Thenatureofscourdevelopment
andscourprotectionatoffshorewindfarmfoundations.MarinePollutionBulletin62,pp.7388.
Whitehouse,R.J.S.,Sutherland,J.andHarris,J.M.,2011b.Evaluatingscouratmarinegravity
foundations.MaritimeEngineering,Vol.164IssueMA4,pp143157
http://dx.doi.org/10.1680/maen.2011.164.4.143
Wilke,F.,Kloske,K.andBellman,M.,2012.ESRaEvaluationofPileDrivingNoiseMitigation
Systemsprogram:Technicalreport.
Wootten,R.J.,1992.FishEcology.Blackie.ISBN0412029316.
Zaaijer,M.B.,2003.Comparisonofmonopile,tripod,suctionbucketandgravitybasedesignfora6
MWturbine.DelftUniversityofTechnology,Netherlands.
Zucco,C.,Wende,W.,Merck,T.,Kchling,I.&Kppel,J.,2006.EcologicalResearchonoffshore
windfarms:Internationalexchangeofexperiences(PartBLiteratureReviewofEcological
impacts).pp.284.

142

AReviewofMarineEnvironmentalConsiderationsAssociatedwithConcreteGravityBase
FoundationsinOffshoreWindDevelopments.

Appendices

143

AReviewofMarineEnvironmentalConsiderationsassociatedwithConcreteGravityBase
FoundationsinOffshoreWindDevelopments.

Pageleftblank

144

AReviewofMarineEnvironmentalConsiderationsAssociatedwithConcreteGravityBase
FoundationsinOffshoreWindDevelopments:
AppendixA

Appendix A Regulatory Framework


TherearetworoutesforthelicensingofCGBFswithinthemarineenvironment:
1
2

ThroughtheMarineManagementOrganisation;and
ThroughthePlanningInspectorate(formallytheInfrastructurePlanningCommission).

MarineLicencesareobtainedthroughapplicationtotheMarineManagementOrganisation(MMO)
undertheMarineandCoastalAccessAct2009(MCAA).TheMMOareresponsibleforlicensingof
offshoreenergyinstallationswheretheprojectisbetween1and100MW.Guidanceforapplications
madeundertheMCAAisprovidedbytheMMOintheirguidancenoteswhichisavailablefromtheir
websitehttp://www.marinemanagement.org.uk/licensing/how/guidance.htm,MarineManagement
Organisation,2011.
AsimplifieddescriptionandoverviewoftheprocessisoutlinedinFigureA.1andcanbebroken
downinto5stages,describedbelow.
Stage1:ScreeningDeterminationTheApplicantcontactstheRegulatortorequesttheiropinionas
towhethertheapplicationconstitutesarelevantorhabitatproject,andwhethertheapplication
requiresanEnvironmentalStatement(ES).Theregulatorwillthencontacttheapplicantwiththeir
decision.
Stage2:ScopingDeterminationWheretheapplicationisdeemedtorequireanEnvironmental
Statement,theApplicant,ortheiragent,willprovideinformationtorelevantconsulteesthat
describethenatureofthedevelopmentandrequeststheiropinion,regardingthescopeoftheEIA
andES.AScopingReportisthencompiled,basedontheresponses,whichdescribestheresultsof
theconsultationandoutlinesthescopeoftheES.Thisreportisthensenttotheregulatortoensure
thattheirscopingopinionisalsocapturedwithinthedocument.
Stage3:InvestigationandPreparationoftheEnvironmentalStatementTheApplicantinitiates
productionoftheESbasedonthescopeagreedintheprecedingstages.Attheoutsetofthis
process,allconsulteesarecontactedtorequestthatrelevantinformationismadeavailabletothe
Applicant,toenablecompletionoftheES.Datagapsidentifiedarefilledwithspecially
commissionedstudies,orotherrelevantdataorstudiesidentifiedbytheApplicant.TheApplicant
willalsoprepareadraftscheduleofconditionsthatwillmanageormitigatethesignificanteffects
identifiedthroughtheproductionoftheES.
Stage3b:InformalConsultationFollowingcompletionoftheES,theApplicantmaywishtoseek
theopinionofconsulteesregardingitsfindingsandrecommendations.Changesmaybemadetothe
application,ESorsupportingevidencebeforefinalisingtheESforsubmission(Stage4).
Stage4:SubmissionoftheApplicationOncetheApplicantiscontentthattheevidencepresented
withintheapplicationaddressestheissuesraisedinthestagesabovethentheApplicantsubmitsthe
applicationtotheRegulatorfordecision.
Stage5:FollowsafterFigureA.1.
A-1

AReviewofMarineEnvironmentalConsiderationsAssociatedwithConcreteGravityBase
FoundationsinOffshoreWindDevelopments:
AppendixA

FigureA.1:TheApplicationprocessunderthetermsoftheMarineandCoastalAccessActMarineManagement
Organisation

A-2

AReviewofMarineEnvironmentalConsiderationsAssociatedwithConcreteGravityBase
FoundationsinOffshoreWindDevelopments:
AppendixA

Stage5:FinalConsultationandDecisionFollowingreceiptoftheapplication,theRegulatorwill
advertisetheapplicationandcontactconsulteestoseekconfirmationthattheyarecontentwiththe
application.FollowingthisprocesstheRegulatorwillmakeadecisionontheapplicationandwriteto
allpartiestonotifythemoftheirdecision,whichmaytaketheformofanapproval,refusalora
publicenquiry.
Stage5a:AppealTheApplicantmay,attheendofthisprocessappealthedecisionmade.
ApplicationsmadetothePlanningInspectoratearemadethroughthePlanningAct2008,whichwas
amendedbytheMCAA2009andtheLocalismAct2011.The2008Actwasintroducedtostreamline
theprocessfordecisionmakingofnationallysignificantinfrastructureprojects,allowingafairerand
fasterprocessforbothcommunitiesanddevelopers.Theprocesswasadministeredbythe
InfrastructureandPlanningCommission(IPC)untilApril2012whenitwasdissolvedandthedecision
makingpowerstransferredtothePlanningInspectorate.
Theprocesscanbesummarisedbythefollowingdescriptionofthestagesofapplicationinvolved.
PreapplicationTheapplicationisinitiatedbyadevelopernotifyingthePlanningInspectoratethat
theyintendtosubmitanapplication.Theapplicantisrequiredtoconsultextensivelyonthe
applicationpriortosubmissiontopreventissuesarisinglaterintheproject.Thispreapplication
consultationisaprocesswhichwillvaryinscaleandlength,dependinguponthesiteunder
consultation.
AcceptanceFollowingtheformalapplicationofthedevelopment,thePlanningInspectoratewill
examinethedocumentssubmittedforupto28daystoassesswhethertheapplicationmeetsthe
legislativerequirements.
PreexaminationPreexaminationallowsmembersofthegeneralpublictoregisterwiththe
PlanningInspectorateandsubmitwrittenrepresentationsontheapplication.Thisstagetakes
around3monthsandincludesaninformalmeetingwhereeveryonethathasregisteredand
submittedtheirviewisinvitedtoattend.
ExaminationTheexaminationstageoftheprocesslastssixmonths.Peoplewhohavemade
relevantrepresentationsareaskedtoprovidefurtherdetailsinwriting.TheExaminingAuthority
takesaccountofalltheinformationtheyhavebeenpresentedwithtoconsiderallrelevant
representations,evidenceandquestionsandanswersreceivedduringthehearing.
PlanningInspectoraterecommendation/SecretaryofStatesdecisionThePlanningInspectorate
isrequiredtosubmitareportwithin3monthsofthestartoftheexaminationperiodwitha
recommendationtotherelevantSecretaryofState.TheSecretaryofStatemustthenmaketheir
decisionontheapplicationwithinthefollowing3monthsoftheexaminationperiod.
PostdecisionDecisionmaybechallengedintheHighCourtthroughaprocessknownasJudicial
Reviewfor6weeksfollowingthedecisionfromtheSecretaryofState.

A-3

AReviewofMarineEnvironmentalConsiderationsAssociatedwithConcreteGravityBase
FoundationsinOffshoreWindDevelopments:
AppendixA

Nature Conservation Legislation


ThenatureconservationlegislationconsideredmostpertinenttotheuseofCGBFsinthedeeper
offshoremarineenvironmentismostlyinternationalinnaturesuchastheHabitatsDirectiveEC
Directive92/43ontheConservationofNaturalHabitatsandofWildFaunaandFloraandtheBirds
DirectiveECdirective79/409ontheconservationofwildbirds.Otherinternationallegislationthat
mayhaveabearinguponCGBFinstallationsincludes:

TheConventionfortheProtectionoftheMarineEnvironmentoftheNorthEastAtlantic
knownastheOSPARConventionisanintergovernmentaltreatyencouragesInternational
cooperationtoprotectthemarineenvironmentoftheNortheastAtlantic;
TheConventiononWetlandsofInternationalImportancecalledtheRamsarConvention
andisanintergovernmentaltreatythatprovidestheframeworkfornationalactionand
internationalcooperationfortheconservationandwiseuseofwetlandsandtheirresources.
Ramsar;
TheWaterFrameworkDirective(ECDirective2000/60)isaEuropeanUniondirectivewhich
commitsEuropeanUnionmemberstatestoachievegoodqualitativeandquantitativestatus
ofallwaterbodies(includingmarinewatersuptoonenauticalmilefromshore)by2015;
and
TheMarineStrategyFrameworkDirective(ECDirective2008/56)isaEuropeanUnion
DirectivewhichcommitsEuropeanUnionmemberstatestoachieveGoodEnvironmental
Status(GES)by2020acrossEuropesmarineenvironment.

Themostnotabledomesticlegislationpertinenttonatureconservationinthemarineenvironmentis
therecentlyenactedMarineandCoastalAccessAct2009.Thislegislationempowersthedeliveryof
anecologicallycoherentnetworkofwellmanagedmarineprotectedareasby20102discussed
below.
NationallegislationforthedesignationofconservationsitesundertheWildlifeandCountrysideAct
(1981)asamendedandtheNaturalEnvironmentandRuralCommunitiesAct2006isnot
consideredwithinthisreport.Mostofthesites,knownasSitesofSpecialScientificInterest(SSSI)
andAreasofScientificInterest(ASSI)inNorthernIreland,notifiedunderthislegislationarefor
terrestrialandcoastalfeaturesandareunlikelytointeractwiththeeffectsfromCGBFs(seeSection
6.2).
TheUKGovernmentandtheDevolvedAdministrationsareaimingtoachieveclean,healthy,safe,
productive,andbiologicallydiverseoceansandseas.TheUKMarinePolicyStatementdeveloped
undertheMarineandCoastalAccessAct2009setsouttheobjectivesandprioritiestoenablethat
aimtoberealised.Further,theUKGovernmentandtheDevolvedAdministrationshavecertain
commitmentsandobligationsdirectingpoliciesregardingmarinenatureconservationtodevelopan
ecologicallycoherentnetworkofwellmanagedMPAsundertheOSPAR12Convention(Defra,2010).
Theseareto:

EstablisharepresentativenetworkofMPAsby2012undertheWorldSummitfor
SustainableDevelopment(WSSD);
A-4

AReviewofMarineEnvironmentalConsiderationsAssociatedwithConcreteGravityBase
FoundationsinOffshoreWindDevelopments:
AppendixA

EstablishanetworkofwellmanagedMPAsby2012toenabledeliveryofWSSDtargets
undertheConventiononBiologicalDiversity;
EstablishSpecialProtectionAreasundertheWildBirdsDirectiveandSpecialAreasof
ConservationundertheHabitatsDirective;
SupporttheachievementofGoodEnvironmentalStatusundertheMarineStrategy
FrameworkDirective;
EnsurethecontinuingdeliveryoffavourableconditiononmarineandintertidalSitesof
SpecialScientificInterestinlinewiththepublicserviceagreementtarget;and
SupporttheachievementofGoodEcologicalStatusforestuarineandcoastalwatersunder
theWaterFrameworkDirective.

ProjectsthatmayuseCGBFsaremostlikelytohavetoconsiderimpactsupon:

SpecialAreasofConservation(SAC)designatedundertheHabitatsDirective;
SpecialProtectionAreas(SPA)designatedundertheBirdsDirective;and
MarineConservationZones(MCZ)tobedesignatedundertheMarineandCoastalAccessAct
2009(atthetimeofdraftingthisreportMCZsarerecommendedtoDefra,whoare
reviewingthembeforedesignation).

Archaeological Legal and Policy Frameworks


Responsibility
Themanagementofmarinearchaeologyissubjecttodevolution.Separateadministrative
arrangementsapplyineachhomecountry,andthereareseparatepoliciesandinsomecases
legalprovisions.
HomeCountry
England
Wales

Organisation
EnglishHeritage
Cadw

Scotland

HistoricScotland

NorthernIreland NIEnvironmentAgency

OverarchingPolicy
ConservationPrinciples
TheWelshHistoricEnvironmentStrategicStatement:
HeadlineActionPlan
CadwPriorities201116
ScottishHistoricEnvironmentPolicy(SHEP)
TheMarineHistoricEnvironment:strategyforthe
protection,managementandpromotionofmarine
heritage201215

Theimmediateremitofeachagencyisterritorialwaters,butinpractice,adviceisofferedtorelevant
regulatorsinrespectoftheoffshorezonesofeachhomecountrytothelimitoftheUKContinental
Shelf.
Policy
TheUKsoverarchingpolicywithrespecttomarinearchaeologyissetoutinOurSeasAShared
Resource:HighLevelMarineObjectivesandintheUKMarinePolicyStatement.
HMGovernmentsaspirationforthenext20years,assetoutinOurSeasASharedResource,
envisagesthatthemarineenvironmentsrichnaturalandculturalheritagearebetterprotected,
A-5

AReviewofMarineEnvironmentalConsiderationsAssociatedwithConcreteGravityBase
FoundationsinOffshoreWindDevelopments:
AppendixA

theintegrityofmarineandcoastalecosystemsandmarineculturalheritageisconserved,and
therewillbeappropriateprotectionfor,andaccessto,ourmarineheritageassets.
FurtherdetailisprovidedbytheUKMarinePolicyStatement,whichincludesthefollowingpassage:
2.6.6.3TheviewsharedbytheUKAdministrationsisthatheritageassetsshouldbeenjoyedfor
thequalityoflifetheybringtothisandfuturegenerations,andthattheyshouldbeconserved
throughmarineplanninginamannerappropriateandproportionatetotheirsignificance.
Opportunitiesshouldbetakentocontributetoourknowledgeandunderstandingofourpast
bycapturingevidencefromthehistoricenvironmentandmakingthispubliclyavailable,
particularlyifaheritageassetistobelost.
2.6.6.7Inconsideringthesignificanceofheritageassetsandtheirsetting,themarineplan
authorityshouldtakeintoaccounttheparticularnatureoftheinterestintheassetsandthe
valuetheyholdforthisandfuturegenerations.Thisunderstandingshouldbeappliedtoavoid
orminimiseconflictbetweenconservationofthatsignificanceandanyproposalsfor
development.
2.6.6.9Wherethelossofthewholeoramaterialpartofaheritageassetssignificanceis
justified,themarineplanauthorityshouldidentifyandrequiresuitablemitigatingactionsto
recordandadvanceunderstandingofthesignificanceoftheheritageassetbeforeitislost.
Thereisarelativelysmallnumberofdesignatedheritageassetsthataresubjecttoadditional
statutoryprotectionandarealsoaccordedspecialattentionintheUKMPS.However,theUKMPS
alsomakesthefollowingimportantstatementaboutundesignatedheritageassets:
2.6.6.5Manyheritageassetswitharchaeologicalinterestintheseareasarenotcurrently
designatedasscheduledmonumentsorprotectedwrecksitesbutaredemonstrablyof
equivalentsignificance.Theabsenceofdesignationforsuchassetsdoesnotnecessarily
indicatelowersignificanceandthemarineplanauthorityshouldconsiderthemsubjecttothe
samepolicyprinciplesasdesignatedheritageassets.
InEngland,furtherdetailontheconsiderationofarchaeologyinmarinelicensingisexpectedto
emergeinthedetailoftheregionallybasedmarineplansthatareeitheranticipatedorin
preparation.TheupdatedDraftVisionandObjectivesfortheEastmarineplans(EastInshoreand
EastOffshore)includesthefollowingobjective:
Objective6:Toconserveallheritageassetsandensurethatmarinedevelopmentanduseisin
keepingwiththecharacterofthelocalarea.
InScotland,thepreconsultationdraftofScotlandsNationalMarinePlanincludedasectiononthe
MarineHistoricEnvironmentthatidentifiedthefollowingkeychallenge:
Torealisethefullpotentialofthemarinehistoricenvironmentasaresourcecultural,
educational,economicandsocial.
Thefollowingobjectivesaresetout:
A-6

AReviewofMarineEnvironmentalConsiderationsAssociatedwithConcreteGravityBase
FoundationsinOffshoreWindDevelopments:
AppendixA

Toenhanceandpromoteknowledgeandunderstandingofthemarinehistoricenvironment
throughresearch,crosssectormappinginitiativesanddisseminationofevidenceaboutcoastal
andmarineheritageassets
Toprotectkeymarineheritageassetsthrougheffectivemarineplanning,supportedby
statutorydesignationwheredesirable
Toensuredevelopmentwithinthemarinecontextrespectsthesettingofkeyheritageassets
onland
Tosecuregreaterenjoymentandeconomicbenefitfrom,keycoastalandmarineheritage
tourismresources
MorespecificpoliciestoelaboratetheUKMPSareyettobedevelopedinWalesandNorthern
Ireland.
Designated Historic Assets
Arelativelysmallnumberofheritageassetsaredesignatedunderavarietyofpiecesoflegislation.
TheProtectionofWrecksAct1973(PWA1973)andtheAncientMonumentsandArchaeological
AreasAct1979(AMAA1979)havebothbeenusedtodesignatetheremainsofwrecksonthe
groundsoftheirarchaeologicalimportance.TheAMAA1979canbeusedtodesignateawiderrange
ofheritageassettypesinadditiontowrecks,thoughithasnotbeenusedextensivelyinthisrespect.
ThePWA1973isusedthroughoutterritorialwatersacrosseachofthefourhomecountries,but
administeredseparatelybythefournationalheritageagencies.TheAMAA1979appliesinEngland,
ScotlandandWales.InNorthernIreland,theHistoricMonumentsandArchaeologicalObjects
(NorthernIreland)Order1995applies,andincludessomegenerallyapplicablerulesonsearchingfor
andreportingarchaeologicalobjects,inadditiontoprovisionsonthedesignationofmonuments.In
parallel,theProtectionofMilitaryRemainsAct1986(PMRA1986)hasbeenusedtodesignationa
varietyofvesselsinmilitaryservicelostinUKwatersorfurtherafield.ThePMRA1986alsoprovides
thatallmilitaryaircraftcrashsitesareautomaticallyprotected.TheprovisionsofthePMRA1986are
administeredbytheMinistryofDefence.
Designatedsitesatseaareclearlyidentifiedinavarietyofpublicsources.Marineplanningwilltake
intoaccounttheirparticularimportance,butsuchsitesarealsosubjecttospecificlegalrestrictions
oftenrequiringalicenceforanypotentiallydamagingactivities.Ifawindfarmsiteistobe
developedinanareathatincludesdesignatedheritageassets,thenitisimportantthataccountis
takenoftheneedforlicenceseventocarryoutinvestigations,
AlthoughtheAMAA1979andthePWA1973remaininforceinScotland,thePWA1973isinthe
courseofbeingreplacedbyprovisionsonHistoricMarineProtectedAreas(HMPAs)containedinthe
Marine(Scotland)Act2010.HistoricScotlandpublishedguidanceinMarch2012onhowitintends
toselect,designateandmanageHMPAs.
Aswellashavingabearingonoffshorewindfarmproposalswheretherearealreadydesignated
heritageassetspresent,itshouldbeborneinmindthatthesamelegislationgenerallymakes
provisionforthedesignationofadditionalsites.Thisisespeciallyimportantifanimportantsite
A-7

AReviewofMarineEnvironmentalConsiderationsAssociatedwithConcreteGravityBase
FoundationsinOffshoreWindDevelopments:
AppendixA

comestolightinthecourseofmarinedevelopment,andwhereaheritageagencywantsasecure
mechanismoverandaboveplanningbasedrequirementstoensurethatthedevelopertakesproper
accountofthediscovery.TheProtectionofWrecksAct1973,inparticular,hasbeenusedto
introduceprotectionveryrapidlyincaseswheresiteshavebeenbroughttolightbydevelopment
activities.
Other Statutory Requirements
Allarchaeologicalmaterialthatmeetsthelegaldefinitionofwreckthatisfoundortaken
possessionofinUKwatersorbroughtwithinthosewatersmustbenotifiedtotheReceiverof
WreckbyvirtueoftheMerchantShippingAct1995(MSA1995).Thesubsequenttreatmentofsuch
wreck,includingownershipandsalvageawards,isgovernedbytheMSA1995.Forwreckthatcomes
tolightinthecourseofoffshorerenewabledevelopment,adherencetotheOffshoreRenewables
ProtocolforArchaeologicalDiscoveries(ORPAD)willsatisfytherequirementsoftheMerchant
ShippingAct1995.
Guidance
Asindicatedabove,proactivecollaborationbetweenmarineindustriesandarchaeologistshas
helpedestablisharangeofbestpracticeframeworkssetoutinguidancedocuments.
Joint Nautical Archaeology Policy Committee (JNAPC)
TheJNAPCCodeofPracticeforSeabedDevelopment(JNAPC2006)setsoutageneralframeworkfor
allformsofseabeddevelopment,providinggenericguidanceonthekeystepsthatmarineindustries
shouldconsiderinsafeguardingthemarinehistoricenvironmentinthecourseofdevelopingand
implementingtheirproposals.
COWRIE
Cowrieproducedthreesetsofdetailedguidancerelatingtooffshorerenewablesandthehistoric
environment,asfollows:
WessexArchaeology,2007.HistoricEnvironmentGuidancefortheOffshoreRenewableSector
OxfordArchaeologyandLambrickG.,2008.ArchaeologyandHeritage2008Guidancefor
AssessmentofCumulativeImpactsontheHistoricEnvironmentfromOffshoreRenewable
Energy.
Gribble,J.andLeather,S.,2011.OffshoreGeotechnicalInvestigationsandHistoric
EnvironmentAnalysis:GuidancefortheRenewableEnergySector.
The Crown Estate
TheCrownEstatehaspublishedtwodocumentsforindustrywideadoptionthatareintendedto
facilitatetheagreementandimplementationofspecificmitigationmeasuresforhistoric
environmenteffectsarisingfromoffshorerenewablesprojects:
WessexArchaeology,2010a.ClausesforArchaeologicalWrittenSchemesofInvestigation:
OffshoreRenewablesProjects.

A-8

AReviewofMarineEnvironmentalConsiderationsAssociatedwithConcreteGravityBase
FoundationsinOffshoreWindDevelopments:
AppendixA

WessexArchaeology,2010b.ProtocolforArchaeologicalDiscoveries:OffshoreRenewables
Projects.
English Heritage
ThegeneralpolicyofEnglishHeritagetowardswindfarmsissetoutinWindEnergyandtheHistoric
Environment.Thefollowingdetailedguidanceisalsorelevant:
EnglishHeritage,March2012.ShipsandBoats:Prehistoryto1840.IntroductionstoHeritage
Assets.
EnglishHeritage,May2012.ShipsandBoats:PrehistorytoPresent.DesignationSelection
Guide.
Aggregate Levy Sustainability Fund
TheAggregateLevySustainabilityFundsupportedalargeamountofhighlyrelevantworkonthe
range,character,importanceandoptimummethodologiesforaddressingthemarinehistoric
environmentoftheUKContinentalShelf.Althoughtheprincipalfocuswasonthepotentialeffects
ofmarineaggregatedredging,manyoftheresultsareapplicabletooffshorerenewable
development.AwiderangeofdetailedreportswasmadeavailableasaresultoftheALSF.Thebest
guidetotheseresultsistobefoundinthefollowingsummaries:
Bicket,A.,2011.SubmergedPrehistory:researchincontext.
Hamel,A.T.,2011.WrecksatSea:researchincontext.

Bibliography
Bicket,A.,2011.SubmergedPrehistory:ResearchinContext.MarineAggregateLevySustainability
Fund(MALSF)ScienceMonographSeriesNo.5.MarineAggregateLevySustainabilityFund.
Cadw,2011.CadwPriorities201116.
http://cadw.wales.gov.uk/docs/cadw/publications/Cadw_priorities_2011_to_2016_EN.pdf.
DepartmentforEnvironment,FoodandRuralAffairs(Defra),2010.TheGovernmentsstrategyfor
contributingtothedeliveryofaUKnetworkofmarineprotectedareas.
EnglishHeritage,2008.ConservationPrinciples,PoliciesandGuidancefortheSustainable
ManagementoftheHistoricEnvironment.EnglishHeritage.http://www.english
heritage.org.uk/publications/conservationprinciplessustainablemanagementhistoric
environment/.
EnglishHeritage,2012a.ShipsandBoats:Prehistoryto1840.IntroductionstoHeritageAssets.
EnglishHeritage.
EnglishHeritage,2012b.ShipsandBoats:PrehistorytoPresent.DesignationSelectionGuide.
EnglishHeritage.

A-9

AReviewofMarineEnvironmentalConsiderationsAssociatedwithConcreteGravityBase
FoundationsinOffshoreWindDevelopments:
AppendixA

Hamel,A.,2011.WrecksatSea:ResearchinContext.MarineAggregateLevySustainabilityFund
(MALSF)ScienceMonographSeriesNo.6.MarineAggregateLevySustainabilityFund.
HistoricScotland,2011.ScottishHistoricEnvironmentPolicy.HistoricScotland.
http://www.historicscotland.gov.uk/shepdec2011.pdf.
HistoricScotland,2012a.TheMarineHistoricEnvironment:StrategyfortheProtection,
ManagementandPromotionofMarineHeritage201215.HistoricScotland.http://www.historic
scotland.gov.uk/marinestrategy201215.pdf.
HistoricScotland,2012b.MarineProtectedAreasintheSeasAroundScotland:Guidelinesonthe
Selection,DesignationandManagementofHistoricMarineProtectedAreas.http://www.historic
scotland.gov.uk/historicmpaguidelines.pdf.
HMGovernment,2009.OurSeasASharedResource:HighLevelMarineObjectives.Department
forEnvironment,FoodandRuralAffairs.
HMGovernment,2011.UKMarinePolicyStatement.TheStationaryOffice.
http://archive.defra.gov.uk/environment/marine/documents/interim2/marinepolicy
statement.pdf.
JointNauticalArchaeologyPolicyCommittee,2006.CodeofPracticeforSeabedDevelopment.
JNAPC.
MarinemanagementOrganisation(MMO),2012.DraftVisionandObjectivesforEastMarinePlans:
Update.
OxfordArchaeology,andGeorgeLambrickArchaeologyandHeritage,2008.Guidancefor
AssessmentofCumulativeImpactsontheHistoricEnvironmentfromOffshoreRenewableEnergy.
COWRIEprojectreferenceCIARCH112006.COWRIELtd.
ScottishGovernment,2011.ScotlandsNationalMarinePlan:PreConsultationDraft.
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/346796/0115349.pdf.
WelshAssemblyGovernment,Cadw.2009.TheWelshHistoricEnvironmentStrategicStatement:
HeadlineActionPlan.http://www.rcahmw.gov.uk/media/123.pdf.
WessexArchaeology,2007.HistoricEnvironmentGuidancefortheOffshoreRenewableEnergy
Sector.COWRIEProjectARCH1105.Newbury:COWRIELtd.
WessexArchaeology,2010a.ProtocolforArchaeologicalDiscoveries:OffshoreRenewablesProjects.
London:TheCrownEstate.
WessexArchaeology,2010b.ModelClausesforArchaeologicalWrittenSchemesofInvestigation:
OffshoreRenewablesProjects.London:TheCrownEstate.

A-10

AReviewofMarineEnvironmentalConsiderationsAssociatedwithConcreteGravityBase
FoundationsinOffshoreWindDevelopments:
AppendixB

Appendix B Requirement for Environmental Impact Assessment


1.1

Statutory Requirements

TheEnvironmentalImpactAssessmentDirective(97/11/EC)(theEIADirective)requiresan
assessmentoftheimpactsthatmaypotentiallyarisefromthedevelopmentofcertainpublicand
privateprojects.Offshorewindfarms(andconsequentlytheirGBFs)requireanEIAbecausethe
generationofelectricityfromwindinstallationsarelistedinAnnexIIoftheEIADirective.TheEIA
DirectiveistransposedintoUKlawthroughthePlanningAct2008andtheMarineWorks(EIA)
RegulationsandenactedthroughthePlanningInspectorateandMarineLicensingsystem
respectively.

1.2

Screening Opinion

TheEIADirectiveallowsforanapplicanttorequestaScreeningOpinionfromtherelevantauthority.
ThisopinionassesseswhetherthedevelopmentrequiresanEIAtobecarriedout.However,given
thesize,natureandlocationofoffshorewindfarmsites(thatmayormaynotutiliseCGBFs),itis
unlikelythattherequirementforEIAwillbescreenedoutatanysite.

1.3

Scoping Opinion

AsdescribedinSectionError!Referencesourcenotfound.above,thescopingopinioncanbe
soughtbytheapplicantfromtherelevantauthoritytoascertaintheinformationandstudies
requiredtobeincludedwithintheEIA.Itisrecommendedthatascopingreportdetailingthescope
andcontentoftheproposedEIAiscirculatedtotherelevantauthoritiesforsignoff.

1.4

Habitats Directive and Birds Directive

ECDirective92/43ontheConservationofNaturalHabitatsandofWildFaunaandFlora(Habitats
Directive)
TheHabitatsDirectivewasintroducedtopromotebiodiversitybyestablishingmeasurestoprevent
thefurtherdeclineinbiodiversityexperiencedbyhabitatsorspecies.Furthermore,itestablisheda
mechanismfortherobustprotectionforthosehabitatsandspeciesofEuropeanimportancelistedin
theannexesofthedocumentAnnexIhabitats,AnnexIIspeciesandAnnexIVEuropeanprotected
species.
UndertheHabitatsDirective,alistofsitesisproposedtoformanetworkofSitesofCommunity
Importance(SCIs).OnceapprovedonaEuropeanscale,thesitesbecomedesignatedasSpecial
AreasofConservation(SACs),andtogetherwithSpecialProtectionAreas(SPAs)classifiedunderthe
BirdsDirective,formanetworkofprotectedareasknownasNatura2000.
TheHabitatsDirectiveisimplementedthroughTheConservationofHabitatsandSpeciesRegulations
2010TheHabitatsRegulationsandtheOffshoreMarineConservation(NaturalHabitats,&c.)
(Amendment)Regulations2010TheOffshoreHabitatsRegulations.WithinEnglishterritorial
waters,thelegislationisadministeredbyNaturalEngland(NE),whilsttheJointNatureConservation
Committee(JNCC)isresponsiblefortheadministrationofthelegislationforUKswatersbeyond12
nauticalmiles.
B-1

AReviewofMarineEnvironmentalConsiderationsAssociatedwithConcreteGravityBase
FoundationsinOffshoreWindDevelopments:
AppendixB

ECdirective79/409ontheconservationofwildbirds(BirdsDirective)
TheBirdsDirectiveprovidestheframeworkfortheconservation,managementandhuman
interactionswithwildbirdsinEurope.ThemainprovisionsoftheBirdsDirectiveinclude:

Themaintenanceofthepopulationsofallwildbirdspeciesacrosstheirnaturalrange(Article
2)withtheencouragementofvariousactivitiestothatend(Article3).
TheidentificationandclassificationofSpecialProtectionAreas(SPAs)forrareorvulnerable
specieslistedinAnnexIoftheDirective,aswellasforallregularlyoccurringmigratoryspecies
(Article4).
Theestablishmentofageneralschemeofprotectionforallwildbirds(Article5).
Restrictionsonthesaleandkeepingofwildbirds(Article6).
Specificationoftheconditionsunderwhichhuntingandfalconrycanbeundertaken(Article
7).
Prohibitionoflargescalenonselectivemeansofbirdkilling(Article8).
ProceduresunderwhichMemberStatesmayderogatefromtheprovisionsofArticles58
(Article9)
Encouragementofcertainformsofrelevantresearch(Article10andAnnexV).
Requirementstoensurethatintroductionofnonnativebirdsdonotthreatenedother
biodiversity(Article11).

TogetherwithSpecialAreasofConservation(SACs)designatedundertheHabitatsDirective,SPAs
formanetworkofEuropeanprotectedareasknownasNatura2000.
TheBirdsDirectiveisimplementedthroughtheWildlife&CountrysideAct1981(asamended),The
ConservationofHabitatsandSpeciesRegulations2010;theWildlife(NorthernIreland)Order1985;
theNatureConservationandAmenityLands(NorthernIreland)Order1985;theConservation
(NaturalHabitats,&c.)(NorthernIreland)Regulations1995(asamended);theOffshoreMarine
Conservation(NaturalHabitats&c.)Regulations2007(asamended2010)aswellasotherlegislation
relatedtotheusesoflandandsea.TheDirectiveisadministeredbythestatutorynature
conservationagenciesincludingNaturalEngland(NE)andtheJointNatureConservationCommittee
(JNCC).

1.5

The Marine and Coastal Act 2009

TheMarineandCoastalAccessAct2009createdanewtypeofMarineProtectedArea(MPA),called
aMarineConservationZone(MCZ).
MCZswillprotectnationallyimportantmarinewildlife,habitats,geologyandgeomorphology.The
MarineConservationZoneProjectconcernstheselectionofMCZsinEnglishinshorewatersand
offshorewatersnexttoEngland,WalesandNorthernIreland.Siteswillbeselectedtoprotectnot
justtherareandthreatened,buttherangeofmarinewildlife.
MCZs,togetherwithothertypesofMPA,willdelivertheGovernment'saimforan'ecologically
coherentnetworkofMarineProtectedAreas'.ThismeanstheMPAnetworkwillbeacollectionof
areasthatworktogethertoprovidemorebenefitsthananindividualareacouldonitsown.

B-2

AReviewofMarineEnvironmentalConsiderationsAssociatedwithConcreteGravityBase
FoundationsinOffshoreWindDevelopments:
AppendixB

CurrentlythereisnostatutoryobligationtoconsidertheseriesofrecommendedMCZssubmittedby
theregionalprojectstoDefrafordesignation.

1.6

Data for inclusion in the Environmental Statement

ThedetailsofexactlywhatisrequiredtobeincludedwithintheEnvironmentalStatementwillbe
bespoketotheindividualsitewhereGBFsareduetobeplaced.However,thereareseveralguidance
documentsthatprovidedetailsofthegenericinformationthatmaybeapplicable,andshow
methodologiesforundertakingtheEnvironmentalStatement.
TheMMOsuggestusingtheEssexGuideforEIA,whilsttheWindfarmguidancedocumentsuggest
useoftheEnvironmentalImpactAssessmentAGuidetoProcedures,producedbythe
DepartmentofTransport,LocalGovernmentandtheRegions(DTLR)(DepartmentofTransport,
LocalGovernmentandtheRegions2000),andinguidanceonassessmentsunderSection36and
Section37ofTheElectricityAct1989.
AtmosphericemissionsmustalsobetakenintoaccountduringtheEIAprocess,particularlyCO2and
NOx.ThesemustincludethecostsassociatedwiththeconstructionoftheCGBF,theemissions
relatingtothetransportandemplacementoftheCGBFsandtheirdecommissioning.Thecarbon
costsforaggregatesarewelldocumentedandAumnieretal.(2010)providesdetailonthecarbon
costsassociatedwithmarineaggregatedredging,whichcanbeusedasaproxyfortheground
preparationworksandbackfilloperations.AstheCGBFsarerecyclable(seeSection10formore
details)thecarboncostsassociatedwithconstructionareessentiallyaoneoffcost.Inaddition,the
ESshouldincludedetailsofthelikelycarbonsavingsarisingasaresultofthewindturbines
supportedbytheCGBF.

Bibliography
Aumnier,S.H.,2010.Carbonfootprintofmarineaggregateextraction.TheCrownEstate.

B-3

AReviewofMarineEnvironmentalConsiderationsAssociatedwithConcreteGravityBase
FoundationsinOffshoreWindDevelopments:
AppendixB

Pageleftblank

B-4

AReviewofMarineEnvironmentalConsiderationsAssociatedwithConcreteGravityBase
FoundationsinOffshoreWindDevelopments:
AppendixC

Appendix C A Methodology for Assessment of Environmental Risk


Posed by Concrete Gravity Base Foundation Structures
1.1

Overview

Inorderforaplan,projectorproposaltobeassessedinarobustmannerwithnecessarylevelsof
transparencyaclearriskassessmentmethodologyisrequired.Thereareanumberofwaysthatthis
canbeachievedbutinthesimplestsensetheassessmentprocessmustattempttoquantifythe
followinginordertodeterminethesignificanceoftheriskposedbytheproposals:
1. Thenatureoftheenvironmentinwhichtheplan,projectorproposalwillbeundertaken;
2. Thelikelyphysicaleffectsoftheproposalsintermsofhowtheyaltertheenvironment
aroundthem;
3. Thenatureoftheimpactsthatmayresultfromthephysicaleffectsoftheproposals;
4. Theenvironmental,socialandeconomicfeatures(knownasreceptors)inthevicinityofthe
worksthatmaybesusceptibletotheimpacts;
5. Thelevelofsusceptibilityofthereceptorstotheimpactsandtheirabilitytorecoverfrom
impacts(knownassensitivity);
6. Thespatialandtemporalextentoverwhichimpactsmaybefeltbythereceptors(knownas
exposure);and
7. Theseverityoftheimpactswithreferencetothebaselineconditionsofthesiteandthe
naturalvariabilityoftheenvironment(knownasmagnitude).
Items13abovearedeterminedthroughanalysisandreportingofavailabledataandliterature
review.Wheredata/knowledgegapsareevident,theremaybetheneedforspecifictechnicalor
fieldstudiestoobtain,a)themostrobustbaselinedescriptionofthedevelopmentsiteandb)the
natureofimpactslikelytoresultfromtheproposals.
Onceitems13havebeensatisfactorilycompleted,theriskassessmentcanbeundertaken.This
processbeginswithidentificationofallthepotentialreceptorsthatmaybeaffectedbytheimpacts
oftheproposals.Oncethishasbeencompleted,thesensitivityofthereceptorsisdetermined
throughreviewoftechnical/scientificliterature.Then,usingthedescriptionofthephysicaleffects
oftheproposals,thelevelofexposureofthereceptorstotheimpactscanbedetermined.Atthis
stage,ifitcanbeshownthatthereisnoexposurepathwaybetweentheprojectandthereceptor
thentheimpactassessmentcanconcludethatthereisnegligiblerisktothatreceptor.Ifexposureis
provenforaspecificreceptorandimpact,themagnitudeoftheimpactisthendetermined.Inthis
way,byapplyingastagedapproach,onlythosereceptorsthatareshowntobesensitivetoimpacts
andexposedtoimpactswillneedtobesubjectedtotheentireprocess.
Moredetailregardingtheprocessforitems13ispresentedinSections5,6,7,8and9.Further
detailregardingtheriskassessmentmethodology,items47,ispresentedbelow.Anoverviewof
therationaleandassessmentprocessthatcanbeusedtodeterminetheenvironmentalriskofa
proposedactivity,operation,planorprojectisprovided.IthasbeendevelopedbyMarineSpace
Limitedandallowsthedeliveryofastandardised,repeatableandtransparentmethodology.The
C-1

AReviewofMarineEnvironmentalConsiderationsAssociatedwithConcreteGravityBase
FoundationsinOffshoreWindDevelopments:
AppendixC

riskassessmentprocessflowisillustratedinFigureC.1andanillustrationoftheriskassessment
matrixispresentedinFigureC.2.
TheMarineWorksRegulations(2011)providethemostrelevantoverviewoftheprocessfor
completinganEnvironmentalStatement(ES)formarinedevelopments.Thebasicelementsofthis
processhavebeenincorporatedintothemethodologythathasbeenappliedtodevelopingtherisk
assessment.Inessence,themethodsappliedtodevelopingtheriskassessment,shouldutilisethe
bestavailableevidenceofenvironmental/impactreceptorsensitivityandthebestavailableevidence
ofthenature,scale,extentandmagnitudeofimpactsresultingfromtheproposedconstruction,
operationanddecommissioning,todeterminetheseverityoftheriskposedbytheproposals.
Obviously,theresultsofprocessareopentodebateinsofarasthedeterminationofthelevelofrisk
posedwillrequire,insomecases,applicationofexpertjudgement.However,providedthatthe
evidencebaseusedintheriskassessmentisrelevantandscientificallyrobust,thenthe
determinationoflevelofriskshouldbesuitableforpurposesofdeterminingwhetheralicenceto
constructoroperatemaybegranted.

C-2

AReviewofMarineEnvironmentalConsiderationsAssociatedwithConcreteGravityBase
FoundationsinOffshoreWindDevelopments:
AppendixC

FigureC.1:Processflowforcompletionofanenvironmentalriskassessment.
Project Design

ES / EIA / Risk Assessment


Scoping Study

Site Description

Impact Description

Identification of Receptors and


Determination of Sensitivity

Index of Sensitive Receptors

Determination Impact Extent

Determination of Receptor
Exposure to Impacts

Index of Sensitive Receptors


with Risk of Exposure

Determination of Impact
Magnitude

Determination of Risk

Options for Risk Mitigation

Risk Management Plan

C-3

AReviewofMarineEnvironmentalConsiderationsAssociatedwithConcreteGravityBase
FoundationsinOffshoreWindDevelopments:
AppendixC

1.2

Risk Assessment Methodology

Toassessthelevelofriskfromimpactsresultingfromaparticularplanorprojecttoarangeof
receptors,amethodologyhasbeendevelopedthattakesaccountofthesensitivityofthereceptor,
theexposureofthereceptortoeffects/impactsandthemagnitudeoftheeffects/impactsover
andabovethebaselineconditionandinherentnaturalvariability.Moreguidanceonthecriteriato
beconsideredwhendetermininglevelsofsensitivity,exposureandmagnitudeisprovidedbelow.It
shouldbeborneinmindthattherationaleforthisassessmentrequiresanunderstandingofthe
baselineenvironmentalconditionsatthelocationoftheproposedactivity.Thiswillusuallybe
providedfromadesktopstudyreviewingallsuitableavailableenvironmentaldata,published
researchreports,greyliteratureandpeerreviewpublications.Inmostcasesitisappropriatethata
dedicatedenvironmentalcharacterisationsurveywillalsoberequiredtoprovidethesuitable
resolutionofsitespecificenvironmentalinformation.Thisbaselinesetsthecontextforthe
environmentalriskassessments.
1.2.1 Criteria Employed to Determine Levels of Sensitivity, Exposure and Magnitude
Whenconductingtheriskassessmentprocess,detailedinthissection,determinationsshouldbe
supportedbyreceptorspecificriskmatrices.Theriskmatricesprovidedetailsofthelimits
employedwhendeterminingthescoresfortheindividualelementsofreceptorsensitivity,receptor
exposuretoimpactandimpactmagnitude.AnillustrativeexampleisprovidedinAppendixCSection
1.7below.
1.2.2 Sensitivity
Theriskassessmentprocesspresentedinthisdocumentfacilitatestheidentificationofnotable
seabedfeaturesthatmaybesensitivetotheproposedactivities.Suchfeaturesareusually
associatedwithnatureconservationhabitatsand/orspeciesand/orarchaeologyandheritage;
thoughimportantfeaturessupportingfisheriesresourcesorkeylifestageareasmayalsobe
identified.AnthropogenicstructuressuchasgaspipelinesandhighuseareassuchasTraffic
SeparationSchemelanesandapproachesmayalsobeidentifiedassensitivetoCGBFconstruction
andoperation.
WherespecificsensitivereceptorshavebeenidentifiedduringtheEIAscopingphaseofaproject,
theseareassessedasdiscreteentities.Sensitivitythresholdsaredeterminedforeachreceptorand
presentedindividuallywithintheriskmatricestoensureaclearsinglereceptorassessment.This
helpsclarifyexposureandmagnitudeassessmentstoallowappropriatemitigationormanagement
advicetobeidentified.
Notablefeatures/receptorsshouldalsobespecificallyidentified,describedandtheassessment
presentedwithinthefinalES.Forexample,inthecaseofheritagefeaturesandSabellariaspinulosa
reefs(whereidentifiedwithintheimpactfootprintoftheproposals)specificinvestigationof
sensitivitywillberequired.
Priortocompletion,thecontextoftheriskassessmentshouldalwaysbeclearlystatedintermsof
scaleoftheproposals,thenatureoftheworkstobecarriedout,aclearoverviewofthetypesof
effect/impactthatmayoccurduringdifferentphasesoftheworksandthetimescalesfor
constructionandoperationphasesoftheproject.Thiswillensurethataclearlydefinedeffect
C-4

AReviewofMarineEnvironmentalConsiderationsAssociatedwithConcreteGravityBase
FoundationsinOffshoreWindDevelopments:
AppendixC

envelopeisestablishedthatwillassistindeterminingifreceptorswillbeaffected(exposure)and
thefrequency,longevityandmagnitudeofanyeffect.
1.2.3 Sensitivity of Specific Receptors to Impacts from CGBFs
Sensitivityinformationshouldbedrawnfromrelevantscientificsources,asapplicable.Anoverview
ofthebasicprocessrequiredtodevelopunderstandingofsensitivityforarangeofbroadreceptor
groupsispresentedbelow.
Similarly,informationpresentedinrelevantNatura2000sitedesignationandassessmentdossiers
andRegulation33(2)and35(3)conservationobjectivepackagesshouldbeusedtodetermine
sensitivityofdesignatednatureconservationfeatures.
1.2.4 Coastlines and Nearshore Banks
Itiswellunderstoodthatthefoundationsofoffshorewindturbineshavethepotentialtoimpact
hydrodynamicprocessesandsedimenttransportpatterns.Generally,effectsarelocalisedalthough
thereisthepotentialforeffectsfromanumberoffoundationstructurestocombineandcreate
effectsoveragreaterextent(seeSection9).Thesensitivitycriteriaforthegeomorphological
receptorsofcoastlinesandnearshoresandbanksarerelatedtothestabilityanderosionalpotential
ofthesefeatures.Riskassessmentmustthereforeidentifyareasofthecoastornearshorebanks
thatmaybeparticularlyvulnerabletoerosionand/orhighenergy(storm)events,anddetermine
wheretherearepotentialinteractionsbetweenthepredictedfuturephysicaleffectsofCGBFsand
thereceptors.
Thephysicaleffectsdeemedtohavethegreatestpotentialimpactoncoastlinesandnearshore
banksarealteredwaveclimateandtidalcurrentscausedbyrefractioneffects,bathymetricchange,
nearbedsedimenttransport,andsedimentflux.Theseeffectsmayleadtopotentialimpactson
protectivebanks,whichmayinturnleadtoincreasedcoastlineerosion;disruption/alterationof
sedimentsupply;andchangesinwaveandtidaldrivenprocessesifstructuresareplacedcloseto
theshore.
Bothcoastlinesandnearshorebanksmayhavearangeofgeomorphologicalcharacteristicsanda
naturalpotentialforchangei.e.theyarenotequallyvulnerabletotheeffectsofinstallationof
gravitybasefoundationstructures.Thosecoastlinescharacterisedbyunconsolidatedeasilyerodible
sediments,withalowoccurrenceofhardcoastalengineeringstructures,aredeemedtobethemost
sensitivetotheeffects.Nearshorebankscomposedofunconsolidatedsandwillhavethegreatest
potentialtobeaffectedbyhydrodynamicchanges,andtheassociatedsedimenttransporteffects.It
isalsorecognisedthatnearshoresandbanksareoftenpersistentfeatures,despitethenatural
effectsoferosive,highenergy,stormevents.Theythereforehaveamoderatetohightolerance,
adaptabilityandrecoverabilitytotheeffectsofwavesandchangesinsedimentflux.
1.2.5 Benthic Ecology and Fish Species
Detailsoftheintolerancetoeffectsforspecificbenthichabitats,speciesandbiotopes(alsofish
species)aredescribedingreatdetailontheMarLINwebsite.UseoftheMarLINsensitivityindices
andthresholdsisstandardpracticewithinUKbenthicecologyEIAdeterminations(TylerWaltersand
Hiscock,2005;MarLIN,2012).

C-5

AReviewofMarineEnvironmentalConsiderationsAssociatedwithConcreteGravityBase
FoundationsinOffshoreWindDevelopments:
AppendixC

Wherepossibleindividualbiotopesmustbeidentifiedwithintheenvironmentalfootprint
(applicationareaandSIZ)oftheproposedactivitydescribedintheESandthenassessedaccording
tothevariouseffects/pressuresarisingfromgravitybaseconstructionactivityandduringtheir
operationallifetime.Inmanycasesduetothelimitedresolutionofbenthicdataandhabitatmaps
thenanamalgamationofbiotopes/biotopecomplexeswillneedtobeassessed.Inthesecases,
whereitisnotpossibletoassignaneffectpathwaytoonesinglebenthicreceptorgroup,
considerationshouldbeengiventothesensitivityofhabitatsorspeciesknowntobeconstituentsof
theamalgamatedgroupreceptor.Toensureaconservativeorprecautionaryassessmentinthe
absenceofhigherresolutiondatathesensitivityassessmentshouldbeconductedusingthemost
sensitiverepresentativespeciesorbiotope.
1.2.6 Fish and Shellfish Species
Possiblefishandshellfishreceptorspeciesshouldbeidentifiedandthemostsensitiveoftheseused
toinformtheriskassessment.Theprocessshouldconsiderthathighestsensitivityreceptorsare
likelytobethoseassociatedwithhabitatssupportingkeylifestagesofspecies,suchasspawning
groundsandnurseryareas.
InformationlocatedontheMarLINwebsite,bothspeciesspecificandthatassociatedwithhabitats/
biotopes,shouldbeusedalongwiththatcontainedinrelevantreferencematerialcitedinthe
baselinedescriptionoffishandshellfishcommunities.
1.2.7 Bird species
Specificreferencesrelatedtosensitivityofbirdspeciesshouldbereviewedandsummarisedinthe
baselinedescriptionofthedevelopmentsite.Theprimaryeffects/pressuresassessedarerelated
towaterquality(changesinturbidity)interferingwithpredation,alterationofhabitatsupporting
birdsspecies(roosting,nesting,loafing,preyspecies)ordisturbance/displacement.NBEffects
consideredinthisdocumentarerelatedtothefoundationsstructuresandnottheturbineblades.
Sensitivityassociatedwithhabitatsorpreyspeciesshouldbedrawnfromtheriskassessmentsfor
coasts,nearshorebanks,benthicecologyandfish/shellfishecology(asdescribedabove).Species
specificsensitivityshouldbeinformedbyreferencescitedinthebaselinesitedescription.
Additionallyforbirdspeciestheriskassessmentasawholewillneedtodrawfromthebaseline
descriptionandassessmentassociatedwithnatureconservation.RelevantreferencesfromNatural
England,CountrysideCouncilforWales,ScottishNaturalHeritageandtheJointNatureConservation
CommitteewillneedtobereviewedinrespectofSpecialProtectionAreasandRamsarsites
supportingbirdspecieslistedintherelatedsectionoftheenvironmentalbaselinedescription.
1.2.8 Nature Conservation Habitats, Species and Sites
Sensitivitiesfornatureconservationreceptorsareassociatedwithbenthichabitatsandspecies,fish
species,birdspecies,andmarinemammalspecies.Thesensitivitiesshouldbedrawnfromthe
informationusedtoassessthesereceptorsasdescribedabove.Thenatureconservationsensitivity
mustalsodrawoninformationpublishedbytheCountrysideCouncilforWales,NaturalEngland,
ScottishNaturalHeritageandtheJointNatureConservationCommitteeregardingdesignated
habitats,speciesandsites.Forexample,Regulation33(2)and35(3)conservationobjectivepackages
describeindetailthesensitivitiesofdesignatedfeaturesandtheseshouldbeusedaccordingly.
C-6

AReviewofMarineEnvironmentalConsiderationsAssociatedwithConcreteGravityBase
FoundationsinOffshoreWindDevelopments:
AppendixC

1.2.9 Heritage and Archaeological Features


Thesensitivitycriteriaandthresholdsforinsituarchaeological/prehistoricfinds,isolated
prehistoricfinds,aviation,andmaritimeheritageresourcesmustbedeterminedintheassessment.
Eachofthesebroadreceptor/resourcecategorieswillneedtobeassignedsensitivitycategories
(value,adaptability,toleranceandrecoverability)baseduponpeerreviewliterature,research
reportsandexpertjudgement.
Itshouldbenotedthatinmostcaseshistoric/archaeologicalreceptorsinthemarineenvironment
havehighnationalvalue,lowadaptability,lowtoleranceandlowrecoverabilityvalues.Theriskof
impactcan(generally)beconsideredmediumtohigh,yetappropriatemitigationmeasuresfor
knownresourcescanresultinimpactsignificancebeinglow.Thisreducedimpactsignificanceis
possiblethroughrestrictionofexposure(mostobviouslythroughavoidance),byclearlydetermining
themagnitudeofeffectsandapplyingrelevantmanagementmeasuresduringprojectplanningand
construction.
1.2.10 Other Sea Users and Seabed Infrastructure
Sensitivitiesassociatedwithothersectorsoperatinginthevicinityoftheapplicationareashouldbe
drawnfromrelevantliteratureandauthorities.Inthecaseofthecommercialfishing,recreational
sailingandshippingindustries,focusedconsultationand/ortechnicalstudiesislikelytoberequired
todeterminethenatureofuseofanarea.Todeterminethepresenceorabsenceofinfrastructure
ontheseabed,relevantauthoritiesshouldbeconsulted(e.g.DECCoilandgas,Kingfishercables
andpipelines).
Thesensitivityofotheruserswillneedtobedeterminedandwillprimarilybebasedontheirability
towithstandthedisplacementeffectsofconstructionactivitiesandCGBFoperation.Longerterm
displacementduringturbineoperationismorelikelytobeconsideredduringEIAforthewindfarm
developmentratherthantheconstructionofthefoundations.

1.3

Exposure

Exposureisdeterminedbytheoverlapofeffectstemporallyandspatiallywithreceptors.Exposure
pathwayscanbedeterminedthroughstrategicofregionalcumulativeassessmentsasaworstcase
scenario.Theseassessmentsareusefulforregulators,planners,managersandtheiradvisors.
Howeverfinalquantitativeassessmentscanonlybedeterminedattheapplicationstagewhena
projectspecificEnvironmentalStatementandEIAhavebeenproduced.
SpatialanalysisthroughtheuseofGISsoftwareandknownormodelledeffectfootprintsandthe
mappedextent,distributionandoccurrenceofreceptorsisastandardtoolusedtoallowexposure
determinations.

1.4

Magnitude of Impacts from CGBFs

ThemagnitudeofimpactsresultingfromCGBFsmustbeconsideredinboththecontextofthe
baselineconditionoftheenvironmentatthetimeoftheassessmentandthenaturalvariabilityin
physicalconditionsatthesite,whichmayexertsimilarpressuresasthoseresultingfromsite
preparationandemplacementactivity.Allconsiderationofimpactmagnitudeshouldbemadein
thecontextofthesebasicconsiderationsofbaselineconditionandnaturalvariability.
C-7

AReviewofMarineEnvironmentalConsiderationsAssociatedwithConcreteGravityBase
FoundationsinOffshoreWindDevelopments:
AppendixC

1.5

Magnitude in the Context of Natural Variability

Thenaturalvariabilityofphysicalandhydrodynamicconditionsatasitewillhaveaneffectonthe
significanceofimpactsoccurringasaresultofemplacementofagravitybasestructure.The
magnitudeofimpactsresultingfromtheGBFstructuresshouldbeconsideredinthecontextofthe
variabilityofthenaturalenvironmentalconditionsatthesite.Thisconsiderationisonlypossiblefor
receptorsthatareinfluencedbytheenvironmentalconditionsofthesitee.g.benthicspecies,fish,
birdsetc.Considerationofthemagnitudeofimpactsinthecontextofnaturalvariabilitycannotbe
giventoreceptorsthatareunaffectedbynaturalvariabilitye.g.fishing,shippingetc.
Theevidenceusedregardingthephysicalandbiologicalcharacteristicsofthesiteanditsregional
settingwillprovidethebasisfortheconsiderationofthenaturalvariabilityoftheenvironment.This
evidenceshouldthenbeenconsideredinthecontextofthemagnitudeofimpactsresultingfromthe
constructionandoperationoftheCGBFs.
Toassessthemagnitudeofimpactsinthecontextofnaturalvariabilitysomeexpertjudgementwill
needtobeappliedutilisingthedescriptionofthephysicalandbiologicalconditionsandthenature,
scaleandextentofimpactslikelytoresultfromGBFemplacement.

1.6

Magnitude above the Present Baseline

Inanyenvironmentalimpactassessment,thepresentbaselineofthesitewillhavebeendescribedin
termsofthephysical,biologicalandsocioeconomiccharacteristicsofthesite,including;

Oceanographicconditions,seabedcharacter,sediments,sedimenttransport
Benthiccommunities,fish,shellfish,birdsandmarinemammals
Conservationsites,habitatsandspecies
Otherusersoftheseabedandmarinespace

Theprimarymethodofdeterminingthemagnitudeofimpactsisbyexpertjudgement,informedby
thebestavailabledescriptionsofphysicalandbiologicalconditions,andadescriptionofthe
historicalactivitiesatthesite.
Themagnitudeofimpactabovecurrentbaselineconditionsisbestdeterminedthroughreferenceto
thetypeandlevelofhistoricalactivityatthesiteandthetypeandlevelofactivitylikelytoresult
fromtheCGBFemplacementproposals.Themagnitudeofimpactswillalsobecontrolledbythe
periodoverwhichseabedpreparationandconstructionwilloccur.

1.7

Worked Example

Forthepurposesoftheriskassessmentundertakeninthisdocument,sensitivityisdefinedinterms
ofareceptorsvalue(intermsofimportance,qualityandrarity),tolerance,adaptabilityand
recoverability.Foreachreceptor,considerationisgiventoeachofthesecomponentpartsofthe
sensitivityassessmentwithoverallsensitivitybeinggovernedbythecombinedscoresforeachpart.
Thescoresforeachelementrangefrom03andaredeterminedbasedonconsiderationofthe
availableevidence.
Inpractice,todeterminethesensitivityofareceptoreachcharacteristic(value,adaptability,
toleranceandrecoverability)isscoredfrom03.Inmostcases0representsanegligiblescore
C-8

AReviewofMarineEnvironmentalConsiderationsAssociatedwithConcreteGravityBase
FoundationsinOffshoreWindDevelopments:
AppendixC

whereas3indicatesahighvalueforthecharacteristic.Inthecaseofrecoverability,adaptabilityand
tolerancealowscoreindicatesthatthereceptoriscapableofwithstandingtheimpactpressureand
shouldreducethesensitivityscore,whereasahighscoreforthesecharacteristicswillleadtoahigh
sensitivity.
Asanexample,areceptorisconsideredtohavethefollowingscoresforthedifferentelementsof
sensitivity:
SensitivityElement

Value(importance,quality,rarity)
Tolerance

Adaptability

Recoverability

Combinedscore(sum)

Score

2
2
1
2
7

Thefollowinglimitshavesubsequentlybeenusedtodeterminewhetherthesensitivityofthe
receptorisnegligible,low,mediumorhigh.
Combinedscore

Sensitivity

03
46
79
1012

Negligible(0)
Low(1)
Medium(2)
High(3)

Inthisexampletheadditiveresultindicatesthatthesensitivityofthereceptorisconsideredmedium
asitfallsinthe79combinedscorerange(7).Asensitivityscoreof2isthereforecarriedforwardto
thefinalriskassessment(seebelow).
1.7.1 Exposure
Forthismethodology,exposureisdefinedintermsofhowtheimpactsaffectareceptorincluding
thespatialextentoftheimpact,itslongevityabovebaselinelevelsandthefrequencyatwhichthe
impactoccurs.
Inpractice,todeterminetheexposureofareceptortoaparticularimpact,eachcharacteristic
(spatialextent,longevityandfrequency)isscoredfrom03.Thecombinedscoresarethenusedto
determinethelevelofexposurethatareceptorwillexperience.Asanexample,areceptorisshown
tohavethefollowingexposurescores:
ExposureElement

Score

Spatialextent
Longevity

Frequency

Combinedscore(sum)

2
2
1
5

C-9

AReviewofMarineEnvironmentalConsiderationsAssociatedwithConcreteGravityBase
FoundationsinOffshoreWindDevelopments:
AppendixC

Thefollowinglimitshavesubsequentlybeenusedtodeterminewhethertheexposuretotheimpact
isnegligible,low,mediumorhigh.
Combinedscore

Exposure

0
14
57
89

Negligible(0)
Low(1)
Medium(2)
High(3)

Thereforeinthisexample,theadditiveresultindicatesthattheexposurelevelofareceptortoa
specificimpactismediumasitfallsinthe57combinedscorerange.Anexposurescoreof2is
thereforecarriedforwardtotheriskassessment(seebelow).
1.7.2 Magnitude
Magnitudeisdefinedintermsoftheleveloftheimpactabovebackgroundconditionsandnatural
variabilitybywhateverparametersaremeasurable.
Inpractice,todeterminethemagnitudeofanimpact,eachcharacteristic(levelabovebackground,
levelinthecontextofnaturalvariability)isscoredfrom03.Thecombinedscoresarethenusedto
determinethelevelofexposurethatareceptorwillexperience.Asanexample,areceptorhasbeen
scoredasfollows:
MagnitudeElement

Impactlevelabovebackground

Impactlevelinthecontextofnaturalvariability
Combinedscore(sum)

Score
1
2
3

Thefollowinglimitshavesubsequentlybeenusedtodeterminewhetherthemagnitudeofthe
impactisnegligible,low,mediumorhigh.
Combinedscore

Magnitude

0
12
34
56

Negligible(0)
Low(1)
Medium(2)
High(3)

Thereforeinthisexample,theadditiveresultindicatesthatthemagnitudeleveloftheimpactis
mediumasitfallsinthe34combinedscorerange.Amagnitudescoreof2isthereforecarried
forwardtotheriskassessment(seebelow).
Asnoted,themethodologyadoptedforthisassessmentutilisesthreeelements;receptorsensitivity,
exposuretoimpactandthemagnitudeofimpact.Asdescribed,limitswillbedefinedtoassistin
ascribingrelevantvaluestotheseelementsforallthereceptorsandpotentialimpactsconsidered.
C-10

AReviewofMarineEnvironmentalConsiderationsAssociatedwithConcreteGravityBase
FoundationsinOffshoreWindDevelopments:
AppendixC

Theparametersadoptedtoascribevaluestothelevelofsensitivity,exposureandriskwillbe
adjustedaccordingtothenatureofthereceptorandtheimpact.
1.7.3 Overview of the Environmental Risk Assessment Matrix
Ariskassessmentmatrixhasbeendevelopedtodeterminetheriskposedbyarangeofimpactstoa
rangeofreceptors.ThematrixisillustratedinFigure.Inpractice,todeterminethelevelofrisk
posedbyanimpacttoareceptor,thescoresresultingfromtheassessmentoutlinedaboveare
multipliedtodeterminethelevelofrisk.Usingthescoresintheexampleabove(sensitivity2,
exposure2,magnitude2)amediumlevelofriskhasbeenascribed(seeFigureC.2).
IntheexampleshowninFigureC.2,thereceptorandimpactconsideredhasresultedinamedium
levelofrisk.Byapplyingthismethodtoassessmentofallreceptorsandimpacts,aclearlydefined
resultcanbeachievedwhichwillbebasedonavailableevidenceregardingtheissuesdiscussed.
Itshouldbenotedthatbroadreceptorgroupse.g.thecoast,marineecology,infrastructureetc.,are
madeupofarangeofindividualreceptorse.g.fishandshellfish,pipelines,benthichabitatsetc.As
such,ariskassessmentwouldbeconductedtoaccountfortheindividualelementsofthebroad
receptorgroupswithanoverallrisksummaryforeachbroadgroupalsopresented.

FigureC.2:Riskassessmentmatrix.

Magnitude

2
Risk=2x2x2=8

Score
0
15
615
1630

Exposure
0
1
2

Sensitivity

C-11

=
=
=
=

RiskValue
Negligible
Low
Medium
High

AReviewofMarineEnvironmentalConsiderationsAssociatedwithConcreteGravityBase
FoundationsinOffshoreWindDevelopments:
AppendixC

Forthepurposesofthisassessment,riskscoresof<6(NegligibleandLowvalues)areconsidered
insignificantandmitigationisunnecessary.Riskscoresof615(Mediumvalues)areconsidered
significantbutimpactsarecapableofbeingsuitablymitigatedthroughapplicationofappropriate
managementormonitoringmeasures.Riskscores>15(Highvalues)areconsideredsignificantand
impactsarelikelytobemitigatedonlythroughapplicationofspecificallytargetedmeasuresand/or
acquisitionoffurtherenvironmentalinformationtobetterdetermineimpactseverityand
significance.

Bibliography
CIRIA,1998.Regionalseabedsedimentstudiesandassessmentofmarineaggregatedredging.
ConstructionIndustryResearchandInformationAssociation,London,ReportC505.
GenusTraitsHandbook:http://www.genustraithandbook.org.uk/
Jones,L.A.,Hiscock,K.andConnor,D.W.,2000.MarineHabitatReviews.Asummaryofecological
requirementsandsensitivitycharacteristicsfortheconservationandmanagementofmarineSACs.
Peterborough:JointNatureConservationCommittee.
MarLINwebsite:http://www.marlin.ac.uk/sensitivityrationale.php
TylerWalters,H.andHiscock,K.,2005.Impactofhumanactivitiesonbenthicbiotopesandspecies.
ReporttoDepartmentforEnvironment,FoodandRuralAffairsfromtheMarineLifeInformation
Network(MarLIN).Plymouth:MarineBiologicalAssociationoftheUK.[Contractno.CDEP84/5/244].

C-12

AReviewofMarineEnvironmentalConsiderationsAssociatedwithConcreteGravityBase
FoundationsinOffshoreWindDevelopments:
AppendixD

Appendix D Production of CGBFs


Haskoning(2011)providedetailsofthelikelyspacerequiredtoestablishaCGBFproductionplantof
around100unitsperyear.Thespacecalculatedwasamaximumof50Ha.Thereisalsosignificant
availablewharfspaceavailableatthemajorportaroundtheUKasshowninthefigurebelow:
FigureD.0:MajorUKPortavailabilityforCGBFconstruction(fromHaskoning,2011)

ThekeycomponentsrequiredtoproduceCGBFsare:
1. Cement
2. Fineaggregate(e.g.sand)
3. Coarseaggregate(e.g.gravelorcrushedrock)
Theseelementscanbesuppliedfromdifferentsources,butarerestrictedthroughthelocationof
thegeologicaldepositsfromwhichtheelementsaresourced.

Cement
Cementforexampleislocatedinregionswherelimestoneisreadilyavailable.Thefigurebelowis
takenfromtheMPAwebsiteandshowsthecementplantsoperatedbyitsmemberswhichare
concentratedinthemidlands.

D-1

AReviewofMarineEnvironmentalConsiderationsAssociatedwithConcreteGravityBase
FoundationsinOffshoreWindDevelopments:
AppendixD

FigureD.2:MPACementPlantsinUK(fromMPAwebsite)

Crushed Rock
CrushedrockproductionoccurswithinthegeologicallyolderpartsoftheUK.The2009quarries
utilisedintheBGSmineralssurveyareshowninthefigurebelow(Mankelowetal.2011).Whilst
crushedrockproducesthecoarseelementsofaggregaterequiredforconcrete,italsoproduces
significantfineswhichalthoughnotpresentlyutilisedinconcreteproduction,mayinfuturebe
utilisedforthispurpose.Alternatively,asaresultofthesignificantvolumesofcrushedrockfines
produced,thefinesmaybeusedasbackfillfortheCGBFs.

D-2

AReviewofMarineEnvironmentalConsiderationsAssociatedwithConcreteGravityBase
FoundationsinOffshoreWindDevelopments:
AppendixD

FigureD.3:UKQuarriesProducingCrushedRockFinesin2009(fromMankelowetal.,2011)

Sand and Gravel


Sandandgravelcanbeobtainedfromeitherlandbasedormarinebasedsources.Thecurrentland
basedsourcesasrecordedbyBGS(Mankelowetal.2011)areshowninthefigurebelow:

D-3

AReviewofMarineEnvironmentalConsiderationsAssociatedwithConcreteGravityBase
FoundationsinOffshoreWindDevelopments:
AppendixD

FigureD.4:UKQuarriesProducingSandandGravelin2009(fromMankelowetal.,2011)

ItisalsoimportanttonotethelocationofmarineaggregatedredgingsitesaroundtheUK,aswhist
somemarineportsareincludedwithintheSandandgravelsection,marinefillmaybeutilisedto
backfilltheCGBFs.ThereforethefollowingmapshowsthecurrentlocationofUKmarineaggregate
extractionareas:

D-4

AReviewofMarineEnvironmentalConsiderationsAssociatedwithConcreteGravityBase
FoundationsinOffshoreWindDevelopments:
AppendixD

FigureD.5:MarineAggregateLicenceAreasinEnglishandWelshWatersin2009(adaptedLicenceAreadatafromThe
CrownEstate)

Marine Aggregate Emissions


Aumnieretal.(2010)provideanassessmentofthecarboncostoftheproductionofatonneof
marineaggregate.Theycalculatetheemissionsoccurringasaresultoftransittoadredgingsite,the
dredgingofacargo,thetransittothewharfandthedischargeandprocessingofthecargo.The

D-5

AReviewofMarineEnvironmentalConsiderationsAssociatedwithConcreteGravityBase
FoundationsinOffshoreWindDevelopments:
AppendixD

carboncostofproducingthismaterialonalongrangecycle(whichmayberequiredforCGBF
backfill)wascalculatedtobe11.73kgCO2eqpertonneofaggregatedelivered.
ThisislikelytobeanoverestimationofthecarboncostastheBritishMarineAggregateProducers
Association(BMAPA)haveproducedasustainabledevelopmentreportthathascalculatedtheCO2
emissionsreleasedthroughtheproductionandtransportationofmarineaggregatesfrom2006to
2009(BMAPA2010).TheresultsofthisreportareshowninError!Referencesourcenotfound.,and
theaverageofthevaluespresentedis7.58kg/t.
TableD.1:CO2EmissionsArisingfromMarineAggregateExtractionduringthePeriod20062009UKQuarriesProducing
CrushedRockFinesin2009(fromBMAPA,2010)

TotalCO2emissions(tonnes)
Marineaggregateproduction
CO2emissionspertonnelanded

2009
2008
2007
2006
120.81t 134,64t 157,15t 158,20t
14.94mt 19.75mt 20.64mt 20.29mt
8.09kg/t 6.82kg/t 7.61kg/t 7.80kg/t

Excludingtransportationfromthecalculationandcomparingtheenergyusetolandbased
production,thefollowingcomparisoncanbeestablished(Kemp,2008):
FigureD.6:EnergyUseinMaterialExtraction(fromKemp,2008)

Whilstlonghaulmarineaggregateproductionappearstoconsumeasimilaramountofenergywhen
comparedtolandbasedproduction,thedifferencesareverysmall.Thedifferencesbecomesmaller
stillwhenthecostsoftransportationareaddedtotheproductioncostsillustratedabove.

Bibliography
Aumnier,S.H.,2010.Carbonfootprintofmarineaggregateextraction.TheCrownEstate.
BMAPA.,2010.Strengthfromthedepthsfourthannualsustainabledevelopmentreport.
Kemp,R.,2008.EnergyConsumptionofMarineAggregateExtraction.TheCrownEstate.
Mankelow,J.M.,Sen,M.A.,Wrighton,C.E.&IdoineD.,2011.Collationoftheresultsofthe2009
aggregatemineralssurveyforEnglandandWales.HMSO.
D-6

AReviewofMarineEnvironmentalConsiderationsAssociatedwithConcreteGravity
BaseFoundationsinOffshoreWindDevelopments:
AppendixE

Appendix E Overview of the Dredging Process and its Potential


Environmental Effects

Thissectionpresentstherangeofpotentialenvironmentalimpactsassociatedwithdredgingofthe
seabed.Asthedredgingprocessrequiredforpreparationoftheseabedpriortoemplacementof
GBFsisidenticaltothatundertakenwhenextractingmarineaggregate,technicalreportsrelatedto
theeffectofmarineaggregatedredginghavebeenusedtoprovidethebasisforthissection.

The Dredging Process

Dredgingoftheseabedisundertakenusingeitheroftwomainmethods;trailerdredgingorstatic
dredging.Adescriptionofthetwomethodsisprovidedbelow.

Trailer dredging

Duringtrailerdredging,thevesseldredgeswhilsttraversingovertheareaofseabedfromwhere
removalofsedimentisrequired.Uponreachingthedredgingarea,thecrewofthevesseldeploys
thedredgepipewhichisloweredtotheseabed.Powerfulpumpsareusedtodrawsedimentand
wateruptothevesselwherethemixtureisdischargedintothedredgershopper.Following
dischargeintothehopper,thecoarsesedimentsettlesoutofthesediment/watermixtureandis
retainedinthehopper.Waterandunwantedfinesedimentleavesthehopperviaspillwaysandis
returnedtothesea.Duringtheloadingprocessthehoppergraduallyfillswithsedimentuntilthe
vesselshopperreachescapacity.Atthispointthedredgepipeisretrievedandthevesseltransitsto
itsdischargelocation.Dischargeoftheloadtolandisachievedbyavarietyofmethodsincluding
grabs,dragbucketsandbucketwheels,orsomevesselshavethefacilitytodischargetheloadatsea
throughdoorsinthehull.

Static dredging

Duringstaticdredging,thevesselloadswhilstanchoredoverthedredginglocation.Uponreaching
thedredgingarea,thevesselanchorsandlowersitsdredgepipetotheseabed.Aswithtrailer
dredging,powerfulpumpsarethenusedtosucksedimentandwaterupfromtheseabed.The
sediment/watermixtureisdischargedintothehopperofthevesselfollowingwhichretentionof
coarsesedimentandrejectionofunwantedmaterialisachievedasdescribedfortrailerdredging.
Followingloading,dischargeoccursinthesamewayasfortrailerdredging.

The Physical Effects of Seabed Dredging

Inpreparingthisoverviewthefollowingtechnicalstudiesandresourceshavebeenused:

ALSFmonographseries(http://CEFAS.defra.gov.uk/alsf/downloads/monographseries
2011.aspx)
ThamesEstuaryMarineAggregateRegionalEnvironmentalAssessment(MAREA)(ERMLtd,
2010)
E-1

AReviewofMarineEnvironmentalConsiderationsAssociatedwithConcreteGravity
BaseFoundationsinOffshoreWindDevelopments:
AppendixE
TheMAREAreporthighlightednineeffectsofseabeddredging,whichhavethepotentialtoimpact
themarineenvironment.

Thephysicaleffectsofseabeddredgingactivitiesaresummarisedas:

Seabedremoval
Vesseldisplacement
Noiseandvibration
Suspendedsediments
Finesanddispersion
Bathymetricchanges
Waveschanges
Tidalcurrentchanges
Sedimentflux(proxyforsedimenterosionandaccretion)

Thephysicaleffectsofdredginglistedabovemaysubsequentlycausearangeofimpactsonphysical,
biologicalandsocioeconomicreceptors.Moredetailregardingthepotentialimpactofdredgingare
providedbelow.

The Potential Impacts of Seabed Dredging


Dredgingcausesdirect,indirectandcumulativeimpactsinthemarineenvironment.Anoverviewof
thepotentialdirect,indirectandcumulativeimpactsofdredgingispresentedbelow.

Impacts on the physical environment


Seabeddredgingcanpotentiallycausechangesinthephysicalenvironment,directlythroughthe
removalofseabedsediments,andindirectly,throughchangesinwaves,tidalcurrentsand
suspendedsedimentconcentrations.

Direct physical impacts


Removalofsurfacelayersofsedimentfromtheseabedistheprimarydirectimpactonthephysical
environmentresultingfromdredging.Thephysicalcharacteristicsoftheseabed(topographyand
sedimentparticlesize)andthebathymetry(waterdepth)arealtered.Thedredgingmethod
determinestheextentoftopographicalandbathymetricalchanges:
Staticdredgingcreatesdeeper(510m)depressionsintheseabed,overtimethesedepressions
maycoalescetoformanirregularseabedtopography;
Trailerhoppersuctiondredgingcreatesshallowfurrowsthatcanextendforseveralkilometresin
length.Generallythesedepressionsare23mwideandinitiallyonlyaround0.5mdeeppotentially
uptoapproximately3m.

Suchimpactsareconfinedtotheareafromwhichsedimentisremovedbythedraghead.

Indirect physical impacts


Seabeddredginghasthepotentialtoindirectlyimpactthephysicalenvironmentinavarietyofways
including:
changingoflocalwaveconditions
reductionoftheshelteringeffectsofoffshoresandbanks
exacerbationofbeachdrawdownprocesses
changestotidalcurrents
alterationofsedimenttransportpathways
E-2

AReviewofMarineEnvironmentalConsiderationsAssociatedwithConcreteGravity
BaseFoundationsinOffshoreWindDevelopments:
AppendixE
Theremovalofsedimentfromtheseabedhasthepotentialtoaffectthehydrodynamicand
sedimentaryregimesbothwithinandsurroundingthedredgesiteandfurtherafielde.g.atadjacent
coastlines.

Effects to marine ecology from marine aggregate extraction on the seabed

Dredgingwillresultinimpactsonseabedhabitatsandtheanimalcommunitiesthatusethem.
Seabedfaunacanbeaffectedbydirectimpacts,whensedimentisremovedfromthedredgesite,
andalsobyindirectimpactsrelatedtosedimentdepositionandtransportaroundthedredgesite.

Physical loss
Marineaggregateextractiondirectlyremovesthesurfacelayeroftheseabed,whichhasadirect
impactonthebenthiccommunitieswithinthedredgingarea,includingtheremovalofinfaunaand
epifauna.Physicallossofhabitatduringextractionoperationscouldalsoresultfromthesettlement
ofsuspendedparticlesmobilisedduringdredging,includingfinesedimentsreleasedduring
screening.Thedepositionofthesefinesedimentscanlocallychangethenatureofthesurface
substratum,makingitfinerandpotentiallyalteringthebenthiccommunitieswherethesechanges
occur.Also,finesedimentssettlingontotheseabedcan(subjecttoprevailingenvironmental
conditions)betransportedonorneartheseabedfurtherawayfromthedredgingareabytidal
currentsandwaves,extendingthepotentialareaofseabed/communitychangesandpotential
smotheringofsessilebenthiccommunitiesbeyondtheboundariesofadredgingarea.

Physical damage
Physicaldamagecanmanifestitselfinmanyways.Inassociationwithmarineaggregateextraction
operationsthemainpressuresareabrasion(fromthedraghead)andchanges(increases)to
suspendedsedimentloads(concentrations).High(increased)suspendedsedimentloadswouldbe
unlikelytoaffectthecommunitiesinthe(assessment)areaastheyareevolvedtoexistinhigh
turbiditywaters.However,sedimentplumescanelevatesuspendedsedimentconcentrations(SSC)
abovenaturalbackgroundloads,especiallythoseassociatedwithcalmweatherperiods.Thereare
variablesthatmayresultinimpacts,e.g.cumulativeeffectsofseveralplumesaddingtogether.Also
thetemporalscaleofdredgingmayhaveanadditiveeffecte.g.SSCincreasemayonlybeinorderof
tensmg/lelevationabovebackgroundlevelsbutifthisoccurseveryweektheneffectivelythe
operationismimickingasignificantincreaseineffectssimilartostormevents.Thereforecareis
neededwhenassessingplumeeffectsaswhilstSSCincreasemaybeminimalthescaleof
(cumulative)effectmayreachanecologicaltippingpoint.

Impacts on Marine Ecology


Theseabedsupportsahighlydiverserangeofanimalsincludinginvertebratessuchassponges,
anemones,crabs,shellfish,molluscsandburrowingwormsandlargerspeciessuchasfish,birdsand
marinemammals(whales,dolphinsandseals).

Aggregatedredginghasthepotentialtoimpactthemarineecologydirectlyvia:
Removalofmaterialfromtheseabed
Thecreationofsedimentplumes

Theremovalofseabeddepositshasimpactsonseabedhabitats,benthicorganismsandfishspecies
throughtheremovalofhabitatsandchangesinseabedtopography.ResearchbyNewelletal.,
(1998)identifiedthatthereisa3070%reductioninspeciesdiversity,a4095%reductioninthe
E-3

AReviewofMarineEnvironmentalConsiderationsAssociatedwithConcreteGravity
BaseFoundationsinOffshoreWindDevelopments:
AppendixE
numberofindividualsandasimilarreductioninbiomassofbenthiccommunitiesunderthepathof
thedragheadindredgeareasasbenthicspeciesareunabletoescapeentrainment.

Theremovalofseabeddepositscanalsoentrainfishandfisheggsandlarvaeandentraineggsfrom
fishthatusetheseabedforspawning(e.g.herring,sandeelsandblackbream).Sandandgravel
habitatsareimportantspawninggroundsforseveralfishspecies.

Sedimentplumesinthewatercolumncreatedbyoutwashandscreeningcandirectlyimpactthe
marineecologyintwoways:
reducedwaterclarity(turbidity)researchhasshowncanleadtoshorttermavoidanceofthe
workingareabysomeanimals.
increasedsedimentconcentrationcanleadtoareductionintherespirationandfeeding
efficiencyofbenthicorganisms.Increasedsedimentcanblockorgansasanimalshaveto
filteramuchgreaterproportionoforganicfrominorganicparticles,potentiallyreducing
feedingefficiency

Sedimentplumescanalsoindirectlyimpactanimalsthroughthedepositionofsediment.Deposition
ofsuspendedsedimentshastwoimpactsontheseabed.Animalslivinginorontheseabedcanbe
immediatelysmotheredandburied;whilethehabitatchangefromcoarsesedimentstofinersands
altersthecharacteroftheassociatedbenthiccommunity.

Impacts on the Historic environment

Themarineenvironmentcontainsahugewealthofhistoricandculturallyimportantassets.Dredging
oftheseabedhasledtotherecoveryofnumerousimportantarchaeologicalremainsthatmay
otherwisehavenotbeendiscovered.Thishasexpandedtheavailableknowledgebaseofthemarine
historicresource.

Direct Impacts on the Historic environment


Directdamagetoheritageresourcesfromthedragheadandthelossofartefactsandheritage
resourcesthroughentrainmentalongsidetheremovedsedimentarethemainimpactsfrom
dredgingtothehistoricenvironment.

Indirect Impacts on the Historic environment


Changesinthephysicalenvironment,throughbathymetricandsedimenttransportpathways
alterationcanleadtosedimentscouranddepositionaroundanhistoricartefactorsite.Thiscan
alterthedegradationrates,andpotentiallyremoveorrelocatearchaeologicalremains.However,
depositionofsedimentoverasiteorartefactmayofferprotectiontotheremains,whichcouldbe
consideredapositiveeffectofdredging.

Impacts to other marine users

Themainimpactarisingfromseabeddredgingonothermarineusersistemporaryexclusionfrom
theareabeingdredged.Thiscouldimpactcommercialfisheries,shippingandrecreationalusers.

E-4

AReviewofMarineEnvironmentalConsiderationsAssociatedwithConcreteGravity
BaseFoundationsinOffshoreWindDevelopments:
AppendixE

The Extent of the Physical Effects of Marine Aggregate Extraction

Forthepurposesofthisdocument,availableliteratureregardingthenatureandextentofimpacts
arisingfrommarineaggregateextractionhasbeenreviewed.Inadditiontothedirecteffectsonthe
seabedthatresultfromthepassageofthedredgegear(draghead),severaldistinctsecondary
impactzonesaredetectablearoundadredginglocation.Theeffectsofdredgingaresummarisedin
FigureE.1.

FigureE.1:Directandindirectimpactsofdredgingonthemarineenvironment(fromTillinetal,2011)

Severalstudiesofmarineaggregatedredgingactivities(EMULtd,2010;ERMLtd,2010;Hilletal.,
2011;HRWallingford,2010a,2010b,2010c,2010d;Tillinetal.,2011)indicatethatzonesof
secondaryimpactaredetectablearoundthedirectimpactareawhereremovalofsedimenthas
occurred.Theliteraturecitedindicatesthatimmediatelysurroundingthedirectimpactzone,azone
ofsmotheringexistsresultingfromdepositionofplumesedimentdischargedfromthevessel.
Aroundthissmotheringzone,azoneofsedimentbedformsmaydevelopifsedimentdeposition
occursinlargeenoughvolumes(e.g.ifdredgingoccursforextendedperiodsoriflargevolumesof
sedimentaredredged).Beyondthebedformzone,azoneofdispersedsedimentmaydevelopasfine
sedimentistransportedbytidalcurrentsawayfromthedredgingarea.

Bibliography

EMULtd,2010.SouthCoastMarineAggregateRegionalEnvironmentalAssessmentVolume1&2.
ReportNo.J/1/06/1165.

ERMLtd,2010.MarineAggregateRegionalEnvironmentalAssessmentofTheOuterThamesEstuary
(MAREA).PreparedfortheThamesEstuaryDredgingAssociation(TEDA).347pp.

Hill,J.M,Marzialetti,SandPearce,B.,2011.RecoveryofSeabedResourcesFollowingMarine
AggregateExtraction.MarineALSFScienceMonographSeriesNo.2.MEPF10/P148.(EditedbyR.C.
Newell&J.Measures).44pp.ISBN:9780907545453.

HRWallingford.,2010a.SouthCoastDredgingAssociationMAREA:WaveStudyTechnicalNote
DDR432304.

HRWallingford.,2010b.SouthCoastDredgingAssociationMAREA:TidalFlowsandSediment
TransportStudyTechnicalNoteDDR432305.
E-5

AReviewofMarineEnvironmentalConsiderationsAssociatedwithConcreteGravity
BaseFoundationsinOffshoreWindDevelopments:
AppendixE

HRWallingford.,2010d.AReviewofWaves,Tides,SedimentTransportandPlumeDispersion
ImpactsfromAggregateDredgingto2013,SouthCoastRegion.ReportforHaskoningUKLtd.Report
No.EX6301.88pp.

Newell,R.C,Seiderer,L.JandHitchcock,D.R.,1998.Theimpactofdredgingworksincoastalwaters:
areviewofthesensitivitytodisturbanceandsubsequentrecoveryofbiologicalresourcesonthesea
bed.OceanographyandMarineBiology:anAnnualReview,36:127178.

Tillin,H.M,Houghton,A.J,Saunders,J.EandHull,S.C.,2011.DirectandIndirectImpactsofMarine
AggregateDredging.MarineALSFScienceMonographSeriesNo.1.MEPF10/P144.(EditedbyR.C.
Newell&J.Measures).41pp.ISBN:9780907545439.

E-6

AReviewofMarineEnvironmentalConsiderationsAssociatedwithConcreteGravityBase
FoundationsinOffshoreWindDevelopments:
AppendixF

Appendix F Nature Conservation Habitats and Species


Thereareseverallistsofmarinehabitatsandspeciesofnatureconservationimportance.This
appendixliststhehabitatsandspeciesthatthelifecycleofaConcreteGravityBaseFoundationsin
themarineenvironmentislikelytointeractwith.
Nostatementsregardingsensitivityofreceptorhabitatsorspeciesorthelikelysignificanceofany
exposuresorvulnerabilitiesismade.SensitivityinformationcanbesourcedfromthestandardEIA
toolkit,suchastheMarineLifeInformationNetwork(MarLIN,www.marlin.ac.uk)andtheGenus
TraitHandbook(http://www.genustraithandbook.org.uk/).Referenceshouldalsobemadetosite
specificdesignation,classificationandmanagementadvicepublishedbytheStatutoryNature
ConservationAgencies(SNCAs)suchasSiteAssessmentDocumentsandRegulation33(2)and
Regulation35(3)ConservationObjectivesandAdviceonOperationspackages.
TherelevantSNCAsare:

TheEnvironmentAgencyforNorthernIreland(EANI)withremitforNorthernIrishwaters
outto12nauticalmiles;
TheCountrysideCouncilforWales(CCW)withremitforWelshwatersoutto12nm;
NaturalEngland(NE)withremitforEnglishwatersoutto12nm;
ScottishNaturalHeritage(SNH)withremitforScottishwatersoutto12nm;and
TheJointNatureConservationCommittee(JNCC)withremitforallUKwatersbeyond12
nmouttotheContinentalShelf.

AscitedinSection7.7ofthemainreport,therearenumerousdomesticandinternationallegislation
thatdetailsconservationandprotectionmeasuresformarinehabitatsandspecies.Thefollowingare
subdividedbythemostrelevantlegislationforConcreteGravityBaseFoundationsassociatedwith
deploymentaspartofRound3inUKwaters.OnlyhabitatsandspecieslikelytointeractwithCGBFs
orworksassociatedwiththeirlifecycleinthemarineenvironmentarelistedi.e.thesearenot
completelistsofallmarinehabitatsandspecieslistedundertherelevantlegislation.
Habitats Directive
Annex I Habitats
(Fromhttp://jncc.defra.gov.uk/page1523;http://www.ukmarinesac.org.uk/ms1_2.htm)
UKmarinehabitatslistedinAnnexIoftheHabitatsDirectivewhoseconservationrequiresthe
designationofSpecialAreasofConservation
EUCode

1110

Sandbankswhichareslightlycoveredbyseawaterallthetime

1130

Estuaries

F-1

AReviewofMarineEnvironmentalConsiderationsAssociatedwithConcreteGravityBase
FoundationsinOffshoreWindDevelopments:
AppendixF

1140

Mudflatsandsandflatsnotcoveredbyseawateratlowtide

1160

Largeshallowinletsandbays

1170

Reefs

1180

Submarinestructuresmadebyleakinggases

1180

Submarinestructuresmadebyleakinggases

Annex II Species
(Fromhttp://jncc.defra.gov.uk/page1523)
UKmarinespecieslistedinAnnexIIoftheHabitatsDirectivewhoseconservationrequiresthe
designationofSpecialAreasofConservation
EUCode

1095

Petromyzonmarinus

Sealamprey

1099

Lampetrafluviatilis

Riverlamprey

1102

Alosaalosa

Allisshad

1103

Alosafallax

Twaiteshad

1106

Salmosalar

Atlanticsalmon

1349

Tursiopstruncatus

Bottlenosedolphin

1351

Phocoenaphocoena

Harbourporpoise

1364

Halichoerusgrypus

Greyseal

1365

Phocavitulina

Commonseal

Annex IV Species
(Fromhttp://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2010/490/schedule/2/made)

F-2

AReviewofMarineEnvironmentalConsiderationsAssociatedwithConcreteGravityBase
FoundationsinOffshoreWindDevelopments:
AppendixF

Note:therearenomarineflora(seagrasses)orseaweedslistedonAnnexIVoftheHabitats
Directiveonlymarinefauna.
UKmarineEuropeanprotectedspecieslistedinAnnexIVoftheHabitatsDirectivewhose
conservationrequirestheprotectionofspeciesfrominjuryanddisturbance
Cetacea

Dolphins,porpoisesandwhales(allspecies)

Carettacaretta

MarineturtlesLoggerheadturtle

Cheloniamydas

MarineturtlesGreenturtle

Lepidochelyskempii

MarineturtlesKempsRidleyturtle

Eretmochelysimbricata

MarineturtlesHawksbillseaturtle

Dermochelyscoriacea

MarineturtlesLeatherbackturtle

Birds Directive
Annex I species
TherearenumerousbirdspecieslistedforconservationundertheBirdsDirective.Seabirdsand
estuarine/coastalbirdspeciesfallintotwolists:

Annex1speciesoftheBirdsDirective;and
RegularlyoccurringmigratorybirdsaroundtheUKnotonAnnex1oftheBirdsDirective.

SpecificallyforinteractionswithCGBFsthenseabirdsincludinggrebes,divers,gulls,seaducks,auks,
cormorantsandshags,shearwatersandpetrels,gannetsandskuaswillneedtobeconsideredwhere
theirrangesoverlapthewindarray.
GiventhelimitedlikelihoodofeffectsfromRound3deployedCGBFsreachingthecoast,thenitis
unlikelythatspeciesofduck,geese,swansandwaderswillneedtobeconsideredasinteractingwith
thesefoundationstructures.
FulllistsofbirdspeciesprotectedundertheBirdsDirectivecanbefoundat
http://www.ukmarinesac.org.uk/ms1_2.htmandhttp://eur
lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2010:020:0007:0025:EN:PDF

Ramsar sites
TheConventiononWetlandsofInternationalImportanceiscalledtheRamsarConventionandisan
intergovernmentaltreatythatprovidestheframeworkfornationalactionandinternational
cooperationfortheconservationandwiseuseofwetlandsandtheirresources.Ramsarsitessupport
F-3

AReviewofMarineEnvironmentalConsiderationsAssociatedwithConcreteGravityBase
FoundationsinOffshoreWindDevelopments:
AppendixF

birdspeciesandintheUKareusuallyunderpinnedbySitesofSpecialScientificInterestand
designatedwithSPAs.AllRamsarsiteswithseabirdfeaturesaredesignatedatthecoast.Considering
thelimitedlikelihoodofCGBFrelatedeffectsfromRound3interactingwiththecoastthenthesites
arenotexaminedindetailinthisreport.Qualifyingspeciesthatmaybeoffshoreforagingandwhich
caninteractwiththefoundationsaregenerallyconsideredthroughtheauspicesoftheBirdsand
HabitatsDirectiveintheUK.
Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009
TheprovisionsundertheMarineandCoastalAct2009fortheimplementationofMarine
ConservationZones(MCZs)citeslistsofhabitatsandspeciesthatareregardedrare,scarceor
representativeandforwhichprotectionthroughanationalMarineProtectedArea(MPA)networkis
appropriate.ThesuiteofrecommendedMCZsinEnglishwatershasbeensubmittedtoDefrafor
reviewwitharequirementtodesignatebytheendof2012.
WhilstRound3zonesandrecommendedMCZsarenotcoincidentalitisprudenttoconsiderthe
qualifyingfeaturesaspotentiallypartofCGBFsinstallationuntilsuchtimethattheMPAnetworkis
deemedsufficientandecologicallycoherent.
TherearetwolistsofhabitatsandoneofspeciesthatarenationallyimportantandforMCZsmaybe
designated.Thereare:

Broadscalehabitats;
HabitatFeaturesofConservationImportance;and
SpeciesFeaturesofConservationImportance.

ThefulllistsofhabitatsandspeciesarelistedintheEcologicalNetworkGuidancewhichislocatedat:
(http://www.naturalengland.org.uk/Images/100608_ENG_v10_tcm617607.pdf).
BroadscalehabitatsandHabitatFOCI(thosecolouredorangeareunlikelytointeractwithCGBFsas
partofRound3projects).
Bluemusselbeds
Coldwatercoralreefs
Coralgardens
Deepseaspongeaggregations
Estuarinerockyhabitats
Fileshellbeds
Fragilespongeandanthozoancommunitiesonsubtidalrockyhabitats
Honeycombwormreefs
Horsemusselbeds
Intertidalunderbouldercommunities
Littoralchalkcommunities
Maerlbeds
Mudhabitatsindeepwater
Nativeoysterbeds
Peatandclayexposures

F-4

AReviewofMarineEnvironmentalConsiderationsAssociatedwithConcreteGravityBase
FoundationsinOffshoreWindDevelopments:
AppendixF

Rosswormreefs
Seapenandburrowingmegafaunacommunities
Seagrassbeds
Shelteredmuddygravels
Subtidalchalk
Subtidalsandsandgravels
Tidesweptchannels

SpeciesFOCI(thosecolouredorangeareunlikelytointeractwithCGBFsaspartofRound3projects).
ScientificName

Commonname

Gitanopsisbispinosa
Cruoriacruoriaeformis
Phymatolithoncalcareum
Lithothamnioncorallioides
Gobiuscouchi
Caecumarmoricum
Anguillaanguilla
Atrinapectinata
Gobiuscobitis
Pollicipespollicipes
Grateloupiamontagnei
Haliclystusauricula
Gammarusinsensibilis
Armandiacirrhosa
Tenelliaadspersa
Hippocampusguttulatus
Lucernariopsiscampanulata
Lucernariopsiscruxmelitensis
Ostreaedulis
Arcticaislandica
Padinapavonica
Eunicellaverrucosa
Amphianthusdohrnii
Paludinellalittorina
Hippocampushippocampus
Osmeruseperlanus
Palinuruselephas
Nematostellavectensis
Leptopsammiapruvoti
Alkmariaromijni
Victorellapavida
Rajaundulata

Amphipodshrimp
Burgundymaerlpaintweed
Commonmaerl
Coralmaerl
Couch'sgoby
Defolinslagoonsnail
Europeaneel
Fanmussel
Giantgoby
Gooseneckbarnacle
Grateloup'slittlelobedweed
Kaleidoscopejellyfish
Lagoonsandshrimp
Lagoonsandworm
Lagoonseaslug
Longsnoutedseahorse
Stalkedjellyfish
StJohnsjellyfish
Nativeoyster
Oceanquahog
Peacock'stail
Pinkseafan
Seafananemone
Seasnail
Shortsnoutedseahorse
Smelt
Spinylobster
Starletseaanemone
SunsetCupCoral
Tentacledlagoonworm
Tremblingseamat
Undulateray

F-5

AReviewofMarineEnvironmentalConsiderationsAssociatedwithConcreteGravityBase
FoundationsinOffshoreWindDevelopments:
AppendixF

The Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the NorthEast Atlantic
knownastheOSPARConvention.
OSPARhasestablishedalistofthreatenedand/ordecliningspeciesandhabitatsintheNorthEast
Atlantic.ThelistprovidesanoverviewofthebiodiversityinneedofprotectionintheNorthEast
AtlanticandisbeingusedbytheOSPARCommissiontoguidethesettingprioritiesforfurtherwork
ontheconservationandprotectionofmarinebiodiversityunderAnnexVoftheOSPARConvention.
SomeofthehabitatsandspeciesofthelisthavethepotentialtointeractwithCGBFsinRound3
installationsandwillwarrantconsiderationinanyprojectspecificEIA.

Marine Strategy Framework Directive


TheMarineStrategyFrameworkDirective(ECDirective2008/56)isaEuropeanUnionDirective
whichcommitsEuropeanUnionmemberstatestoachieveGoodEnvironmentalStatus(GES)by
2020acrossEuropesmarineenvironment.
UKGovernmentiscurrentlyconductedapublicconsultationonthevariousdeliveryscenariosand
costsforthe11descriptorsofGoodEnvironmentalStatus(GES).Themostrelevantinformation
includinglistsofnotablehabitatsandindicatorspeciescanbefoundat:
http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/marine/msfd/
The UK Biodiversity Action Plan
InformationregardingUKBBAPmarinehabitatsandspeciescanbefoundat:
http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/default.aspx?page=5155
Thefollowinghabitatsandspeciesareonthemarinelist.Thosecolourcodedinorangeareunlikely
toinhabitareaswhereCGBFsmaybeemplacedaspartofRound3projects.
Taxon

alga

bird

ScientificName

Commonname

Anotrichiumbarbatum
Ascophyllumnodosumecadmackaii
Cruoriacruoriaeformis
Dermocorynusmontagnei
Lithothamnioncorallioides
Padinapavonica
Phymatolithoncalcareum
Aythyamarila
Gaviaarctica
Larusargentatussubsp.argenteus
Melanittanigra
Puffinusmauretanicus
Sternadougallii

BeardedRedSeaweed
WigWrackorSealochEggWrack
Burgundymaerlpaintweed

CoralMarl
Peacockstail
CommonMarl
GreaterScaup
BlackthroatedDiver
HerringGull
CommonScoter
BalearicShearwater
RoseateTern

F-6

AReviewofMarineEnvironmentalConsiderationsAssociatedwithConcreteGravityBase
FoundationsinOffshoreWindDevelopments:
AppendixF

bonyfish

cnidarian

Taxon
crustacean

mollusc
cetacean

Ammodytesmarinus
Aphanopuscarbo
Clupeaharengus
Coryphaenoidesrupestris
Gadusmorhua
Hippocampusguttulatus
Hippocampushippocampus
Hippoglossushippoglossus
Hoplostethusatlanticus
Lophiuspiscatorius
Merlangiusmerlangus
Merlucciusmerluccius
Micromesistiuspoutassou
Molvadypterygia
Molvamolva
Pleuronectesplatessa
Reinhardtiushippoglossoides
Scomberscombrus
Soleasolea
Thunnusthynnus
Trachurustrachurus
Amphianthusdohrnii
Arachnanthussarsi
Edwardsiatimida
Eunicellaverrucosa
Funiculinaquadrangularis
Haliclystusauricula
Leptopsammiapruvoti
Lucernariopsiscampanulata
Lucernariopsiscruxmelitensis
Pachycerianthusmultiplicatus
Pachycordylenavis
Swiftiapallida

LesserSandeel
BlackScabbardfish
Herring
RoundnoseGrenadier
Cod
LongsnoutedSeahorse
ShortsnoutedSeahorse
AtlanticHalibut
OrangeRoughy
SeaMonkfish
Whiting
EuropeanHake
BlueWhiting
BlueLing
Ling
Plaice
GreenlandHalibut
Mackerel
Sole
BluefinTuna
HorseMackerel
SeafanAnemone
ScarceTubedwellingAnemone
TimidBurrowingAnemone
PinkSeafan
TallSeaPen
Kaleidoscopejellyfish
SunsetCupCoral
Stalkedjellyfish
StJohnsjellyfish
FireworksAnemone
BrackishHydroid
NorthernSeaFan

ScientificName

Commonname

Arrhisphyllonyx
Mitellapollicipes
Palinuruselephas
Atrinafragilis
Ostreaedulis
Tenelliaadspersa
Balaenopteraacutorostrata

GooseneckBarnacle
Crayfish,CrawfishorSpinyLobster
FanMussel
NativeOyster
LagoonSeaSlug
MinkeWhale
F-7

AReviewofMarineEnvironmentalConsiderationsAssociatedwithConcreteGravityBase
FoundationsinOffshoreWindDevelopments:
AppendixF

Balaenopteraborealis
Balaenopteramusculus
Balaenopteraphysalus
Delphinusdelphis
Eubalaenaglacialis
Globicephalamelas
Grampusgriseus
Lagenorhynchusacutus
Lagenorhynchusalbirostris
Megapteranovaeangliae
Mesoplodonbidens
Mesoplodonmirus
Orcinusorca
Phocavitulina
Phocoenaphocoena
Physetercatodon
Stenellacoeruleoalba
Tursiopstruncatus
Ziphiuscavirostris
Centrophorusgranulosus
Centrophorussquamosus
Centroscymnuscoelolepsis
Cetorhinusmaximus
Dalatiaslicha
Dipturusbatis
Galeorhinusgaleus
Isurusoxyrinchus
Lamnanasus
Leucorajacircularis
Prionaceglauca
Rajaundulata
Rostrorajaalba
Squalusacanthias
Squatinasquatina

SeiWhale
BlueWhale
FinWhale
CommonDolphin
NorthernRightWhale
LongfinnedPilotWhale
Risso'sDolphin
AtlanticWhitesidedDolphin
WhitebeakedDolphin
HumpbackWhale
Sowerby'sBeakedWhale
True'sBeakedWhale
KillerWhale
CommonSeal
HarbourPorpoise
SpermWhale
StripedDolphin
BottlenosedDolphin
Cuvier'sBeakedWhale
GulperShark
LeafscraperShark
PortugueseDogfish
BaskingShark
KitefinShark
CommonSkate
TopeShark
ShortfinMako
PorbeagleShark
SandyRay
BlueShark
UndulateRay
WhiteorBottlenosedSkate
SpinyDogfish
AngelShark

Taxon

ScientificName

Commonname

tunicate

Styelagelatinosa
Carettacaretta
Dermochelyscoriacea

LochGoilSeaSquirt
LoggerheadTurtle
LeatherbackTurtle

shark/skate/ray

turtle

UKBAPBroadHabitat

UKBAPPriorityHabitat
F-8

AReviewofMarineEnvironmentalConsiderationsAssociatedwithConcreteGravityBase
FoundationsinOffshoreWindDevelopments:
AppendixF

SupralittoralRock
SupralittoralSediment

LittoralRock

LittoralSediment

SublittoralRock

SublittoralSediment

MaritimeCliffandSlopes
CoastalVegetatedShingle
CoastalSandDunes
IntertidalChalk
IntertidalUnderboulderCommunities
Sabellariaalveolatareefs
CoastalSaltmarsh
IntertidalMudflats
SeagrassBeds
ShelteredMuddyGravels
PeatandClayExposures
SubtidalChalk
TideSweptChannels
FragileSpongeandAnthozoanCommunitiesonSubtidalRocky
Habitats
EstuarineRockyHabitats
SeamountCommunities
CarbonateMounds
ColdwaterCoralReefs
DeepSeaSpongeCommunities
SabellariaspinulosaReefs
SubtidalSandsandGravels
HorseMusselBeds
MudHabitatsinDeepWater
FileShellBeds
MaerlBeds
SerpulidReefs
BlueMusselBedsonSediment
SalineLagoons

F-9

AReviewofMarineEnvironmentalConsiderationsAssociatedwithConcreteGravityBase
FoundationsinOffshoreWindDevelopments:
AppendixF

Pageleftblank

F-10

AReviewofMarineEnvironmentalConsiderationsAssociatedwithConcreteGravityBase
FoundationsinOffshoreWindDevelopments:
AppendixG

Appendix G Contacts
Key contacts
Marine Management Organisation
MarineManagementOrganisation
LancasterHouse
HampshireCourt
NewcastleuponTyne
NE47YH

Tel:03001231032
Fax:01913762681
Email:info@marinemanagement.org.uk

The Planning Inspectorate


ThePlanningInspectorate
TempleQuayHouse
TempleQuay
Bristol
BS16PN

Tel:03034445000
Email:enquiries@infrastructure.gsi.gov.uk

Regulatory Advisors Group


Cadw
Cadw
WelshGovernment
PlasCarew
Unit5/7CefnCoed
ParcNantgarw
Cardiff
CF157QQ

Tel:01443336000
Fax:01443336001
Email:cadw@wales.gsi.gov.uk

G-1

AReviewofMarineEnvironmentalConsiderationsAssociatedwithConcreteGravityBase
FoundationsinOffshoreWindDevelopments:
AppendixG

Centre for Environment, Fisheries & Aquaculture Science (Cefas)


RegulatoryAssessmentTeam
CentreforEnvironment,Fisheries&AquacultureScience
PakefieldRoad
Lowestoft
Suffolk
NR330HT

Tel:01502562244
Fax:01502513865
Countryside Council for Wales
TheCountrysideCouncilforWales
MaesyFfynnon
FforddPenrhos
Bangor
Gwynnedd
LL572DW

Tel:01248385500

English Heritage
EnglishHeritage
EastgateCourt
195205HighStreet
Guildford
GU13EH

Tel:01483252000

Historic Scotland
HistoricScotland
LongmoreHouse
SalisburyPlace
Edinburgh
EH91SH

Tel:01316688600

G-2

AReviewofMarineEnvironmentalConsiderationsAssociatedwithConcreteGravityBase
FoundationsinOffshoreWindDevelopments:
AppendixG

Joint Nature Conservation Committee


JointNatureConservationCommittee
DunnetHouse
7ThistlePlace
Aberdeen
AB101UZ

Tel:01224655704
Natural England
NaturalEngland
3rdFloor
TouthillClose
CityRoad
Peterborough
PE11UA

Tel:08456003078
Email:enquiries@naturalengland.org.uk

Northern Ireland Environment Agency


NorthernIrelandEnvironmentAgency
KlondykeBuilding
CromacAvenue
GasworksBusinessPark
LowerOrmeauRoad
Belfast
BT72JA

Tel:08453020008
Fax:02890569264
Email:nieainfo@doeni.gov.uk

Scottish National Heritage


ScottishNationalHeritage
Battleby
Redgorton
Perth
PH13EW

Tel:01738444177
Fax:01738458611
Email:marinerenewables@snh.gov.uk

G-3

AReviewofMarineEnvironmentalConsiderationsAssociatedwithConcreteGravityBase
FoundationsinOffshoreWindDevelopments:
AppendixG

Fisheries
ForenquiriesregardingcommercialfisheriespleasecontactthemainMMOofficeinthefirst
instance.
ForenquiriesregardingdispensationforfisheriessurveyspleasecontactthemainMMOofficeinthe
firstinstance.

Local MMO Offices:


Seehttp://www.marinemanagement.org.uk/contacts/local.htmforcontactdetails.

Association of Sea Fisheries Committees


AssociationofSeaFisheriesCommittees
6AshmeadowRd
Arnside
ViaCarnforth
Lancashire
LA50AE

Tel:01524761616

National Federation of Fishermens Organisations


NationalFederationofFishermensOrganisations
MarsdenRoad
FishDocks
Grimsby
SouthHumberside
DN313SG

Tel:01472352141
email:nffo@org.uk

Navigation
English Heritage Archive (formally the National Monuments Record Centre)
EnglishHeritageArchive
TheEngineHouse
FireFlyAvenue
Swindon
SN22EH

Tel:01793414700
Fax:01793414444
Email:archive@englishheritage.org.uk

G-4

AReviewofMarineEnvironmentalConsiderationsAssociatedwithConcreteGravityBase
FoundationsinOffshoreWindDevelopments:
AppendixG

Maritime and Coastguard Agency


MaritimeandCoastguardAgency
Hydrography,MeteorologyandPortsBranch
SpringPlace
105CommercialRoad
Southampton
SO151EG

Tel:02380329138
Fax:02380329204
NERC Sea Mammal Research Unit (SMRU)
NERCSeaMammalResearchUnit(SMRU)
UniversityofStAndrews
Fife
KY168LB

Tel:01334462630

RSPB
RSPB
TheLodge
Sandy
Bedfordshire
SG192DL

Tel:01767683355

UK Cable Protection Committee


UKCableProtectionCommittee
Level3CommunicationsLimited
Level3House
PrescotStreet
London
E18HG

Tel:02079542575

G-5

AReviewofMarineEnvironmentalConsiderationsAssociatedwithConcreteGravityBase
FoundationsinOffshoreWindDevelopments:
AppendixG

Pageleftblank

G-6

AReviewofMarineEnvironmentalConsiderationsAssociatedwithConcreteGravityBase
FoundationsinOffshoreWindDevelopments.

Endpage

MarineSpaceLtdinconjunctionwith
ABPmerandFjordrfor
TheConcreteCentre

07/09/2012
Version1.0