Greening Blue Energy

Greening Blue Energy: Iden Greening Blue Energy: Iden fying and managing the biodiversity risks and opportuni es of oﬀ shore renewable energy Edited by Dan Wilhelmsson et al.

fying and managing the biodiversity risks and opportuni

es of o

ﬀ

INTERNATIONAL UNION shore renewable energy FOR CONSERVATION OF NATURE

WORLD HEADQUARTERS Rue Mauverney 28 1196 Gland, Switzerland [email protected] Tel +41 22 999 00 01 Fax +41 22 999 0002 www.iucn.org

COUVERTURE_IRL.indd 1 28.04.2010 09:35:41 The designation of geographical entities in this book, and the presentation of the material, do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of IUCN, E.ON, or SIDA concerning the legal status of any country, territory, or area, or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. The views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect those of IUCN, E.ON, or SIDA. This publication has been made possible by funding from E.ON and SIDA. Statements and conclusions are not necessarily based on consensus, but rather reflect the median views of the authors. Published by: IUCN, Gland, Switzerland. Copyright: © 2010 Interna onal Union for Conserva on of Nature and Natural Resources Reproduc on of this publica on for educa onal or other non-commercial purposes is authorized without prior wri en permission from the copyright holder provided the source is fully acknowledged. Reproduc on of this publica on for resale or other commercial purposes is prohibited without prior wri en permission of the copyright holder.

Cita on: Wilhelmsson, D., Malm, T., Thompson, R., Tchou, J., Sarantakos, G., McCormick, N., Luitjens, S., Gullström, M., Pa erson Edwards, J.K., Amir, O. and Dubi, A. (eds.) (2010). Greening Blue Energy: Iden fying and managing the biodiversity risks and opportuni es of oﬀ shore renewable energy. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN. 102pp. Cita on of individual chapters: Wilhelmsson, D., Langhamer, O. and Tchou, J. (2010). ‘Brief on Wave, Tidal and Current Power’. In: D. Wilhelmsson, et al. (eds.) Greening Blue Energy: Iden fying and managing the biodiversity risks and opportuni es of oﬀ shore renewable energy, pp. 5-7. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN.

ISBN: 978-2-8317-1241-3

Design and layout by: James Oliver, IUCN Printed by: SwissPrinters IRL Front cover photo credits: Top le : albatross over the Paciﬁ c Ocean © Imène Meliane/IUCN. Middle le : Service vessel at Nysted wind farm in Denmark © Gunnar Britse. Lower le : Loggerhead turtle © Mito Paz. Main photo: Oﬀ shore wind farm © E.ON Climate & Renewables. Back cover photo credit: Fishing vessel leaving Lillgrund Wind Farm in Sweden; photo: © Ma hias Rust.

Available from: IUCN (Interna onal Union for Conserva on of Nature) Rue Mauverney 28, 1196 Gland Switzerland Telephone +41 22 999 0217; Fax +41 22 999 0025 email: [email protected] website: h p://www.iucn.org/marine

COUVERTURE_IRL.indd 2 28.04.2010 09:35:25 Greening Blue Energy: Iden fying and managing the biodiversity risks and opportuni es of oﬀ shore renewable energy Edited by Dan Wilhelmsson et al.

iucn-eon-sida_ored_270410Gb_IRL.indd *1 28.04.2010 08:23:57 iucn-eon-sida_ored_270410Gb_IRL.indd *2 28.04.2010 08:23:58 Greening Blue Energy: Iden fying and managing the biodiversity risks and opportuni es of oﬀ shore renewable energy Edited by Dan Wilhelmsson et al.

Authors: Dan Wilhelmsson1,2, Torleif Malm3, Richard Thompson4, Jeremy Tchou5, Georgios Sarantakos1, Nadine McCormick1, Sabrina Luitjens6, Martin Gullström2, J.K.Patterson Edwards7, Omar Amir8, Alfonse Dubi8

1. IUCN Global Marine Programme, Switzerland

2. Dept. of Zoology, Stockholm University, Sweden

3. Umeå Marine Research Centre, Umeå University, Sweden

4. Peninsular Research Institute for Marine Renewable Energy, University of Plymouth, UK

5. Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Stanford University, USA

6. E.ON Climate and Renewables, Düsseldorf, Germany

7. Suganthi Devadason Marine Research Institute, India

8. Institute for Marine Science, University of Dar es Salaam, Tanzania

iucn-eon-sida_ored_270410Gb_IRL.indd *3 03.05.2010 13:40:00 About the Organisa ons

IUCN

IUCN, Interna onal Union for Conserva on of Nature, helps the world ﬁ nd pragma c solu ons to our most pressing environment and development challenges.

IUCN works on biodiversity, climate change, energy, human livelihoods and greening the world economy by suppor ng scien ﬁ c research, managing ﬁ eld projects all over the world, and bringing governments, NGOs, the UN and companies together to develop policy, laws and best prac ce.

IUCN is the world’s oldest and largest global environmental organiza on, with more than 1,000 government and NGO members and almost 11,000 volunteer experts in some 160 countries. IUCN’s work is supported by over 1,000 staﬀ in 60 oﬃ ces and hundreds of partners in public, NGO and private sectors around the world.

h p://www.iucn.org

E.ON Climate and Renewables

With €82 billion in sales and roughly 88,000 employees, E.ON is one of the world’s largest investor-owned energy companies. E.ON Climate & Renewables is the division responsible for E.ON Groups renewable energy por olio and carbon sourcing business worldwide and E.ON is inves ng €8 Billion for 2007 -2011 in renewable energy genera on and carbon abatement project to signiﬁ cantly grow its business. For more informa on: h p://www.eon.com/renewables

Swedish Interna onal Development Coopera on Agency

Swedish Interna onal Development Coopera on Agency (Sida) is the Swedish agency for development coopera on. The overall goal of Swedish development coopera on is to contribute to making it possible for poor people to improve their living condi ons, and Sida includes environmentally sustainable development as one of the key goals in its ac vi es in the developing world.

iucn-eon-sida_ored_270410Gb_IRL.indd *4 28.04.2010 08:23:58 Table of Contents

Tables, Figures and Boxes...... vi 4 Impacts of oﬀ shore wind farms on the marine environment Acknowledgements...... vii 4.1 Impact summary table...... 13 Execu ve Summary...... ix 4.2 Managing impacts across the project life cycle...... 16 1 Introduc on 4.2.1 Planning...... 16 1.1 Background...... 1 4.2.2 Construc on...... 16 1.2 Aim of the guidance document...... 1 4.2.3 Opera on and maintenance...... 19 1.3 Target audience...... 2 4.2.4 Decommissioning...... 23 1.4 How to use this document...... 2 4.3 Residual impacts...... 25 1.5 Glossary of key terms and acronyms...... 3 4.4 Cumula ve impacts and synergies...... 25 2 Overview of oﬀ shore wind energy 4.5 Interac ons with other marine users...... 26 2.1 Trends...... 5 5 Conclusions and recommenda ons 2.2 Policy drivers...... 6 5.1 Strategic and Governance issues...... 27 2.3 Research status...... 7 5.2 Areas of uncertainty and points to address...... 27 3 Impact assessment 5.3 Improving use of impact assessments...... 27 3.1 Assessing impacts – the bigger picture...... 9 5.4 Final conclusions...... 28 3.2 Environmental assessment tools...... 9 6 Addi onal resources...... 29 3.3 Legal context...... 10 Annexe 1 Research on Impacts...... 31 3.3.1 European legisla on...... 10 Annexe 2 Legisla on...... 61 3.3.2 World Bank requirements...... 11 Annexe 3 Brief on Wave, Tidal and Current Power (Wilhelmsson, D., 3.3.3 Guidance from government and industry...... 11 Langhamer, O. & Tchou, J.)...... 67 References...... 77

Iden fying and managing biodiversity risks and opportuni es of oﬀ shore renewable energy - GREENING BLUE ENERGY v

iucn-eon-sida_ored_270410Gb_IRL.indd *5 28.04.2010 08:23:58 Tables, Figures and Boxes

TABLES Table 1: Top 5 countries wind capacity (Interna onal Energy Agency, 2009)...... 5 Table 2: Oﬀ shore wind farms in opera on around the world (adapted from EWEA (2009))...... 6 Table 3: Key environmental issues of oﬀ shore wind energy...... 14 Table A3-1: Es mated energy poten al for wave and dal technologies...... 67

FIGURES Figure 1: Mi ga on hierarchy ...... 9 Figure 2: Main diff erences between SEA and EIA (William, et al., 2005)...... 10 Figure 3: Project lifecycle...... 16 Figure 4: Off shore founda on op ons...... 17 Figure 5: A summary of stages within an SEA (based on EC Direc ve 2001/42/EC)...... 25 Figure A1-1: Wind turbines, even without scour protec on (e.g. boulders), can aggregate fi sh...... 35 Figure A1-2: Schema c overview of some theore cal factors infl uencing wildlife, and radii of impact, during opera on of off shore wind turbines..... 43 Figure A1-3: Schema c overview of suggested radii within which avoidance could be ini ated by diff erent species during construc on (monopiles) of off shore wind turbines ...... 45 Figure A3-1: Wave power density (kW/m) of wave front in diff erent parts of the world (adapted from Langhamer, 2009b)...... 68 Figure A3-2: Example of wave converter based on the Overtopping System (OTS) principle, the Wave Dragon...... 69 Figure A3-3: Example of wave converter based on the Oscilla ng Water Column (OWC) principle, the Limpet Plant (Wavegen)...... 69 Figure A3-4: Example of a wave ac vated body, the Pelamis...... 70 Figure A3-5: Example of a wave ac vated body, the point absorber (Seabased Ltd)...... 71 Figure A3-6: An edible/brown crab (Cancer pagurus) taking shelter on a wave energy founda on...... 72 Figure A3-7: Deployment of a wave energy founda on that has been perforated with holes to inves gate how it may enhance abundance of fi sh and crustaceans (Langhamer & Wilhelmsson, 2009)...... 73

BOXES Box 1: Founda on types ...... 17 Box 2: Aquaculture ...... 26 Box 3: Synergies with wind and wave power park ...... 26

vi GREENING BLUE ENERGY - Iden fying and managing biodiversity risks and opportuni es of oﬀ shore renewable energy

iucn-eon-sida_ored_270410Gb_IRL.indd *6 28.04.2010 08:23:58 Acknowledgements

The IUCN Global Marine Programme and the authors wish to express their gra tude to the following researchers for providing valuable comments and inputs on Annexe 1 (Research on impacts; Review of the impacts of oﬀ shore wind energy on the marine environment) and on an early dra of Chapters 1-6:

Ph.L Mathias Andersson, Stockholm University, Sweden (on noise impacts on ﬁ sh).

Dr Andrew Gill, Cranﬁ eld University, UK.

Dr Stephen Jay, Sheﬃ eld Hallam University, UK.

Ph.L Åsa Romson, Stockholm University, Sweden (on legal and regulatory issues).

Dr Henrik Skov, DHI Water & Environment, Denmark (on marine mammals and birds, including text contribu ons).

We are also grateful to the par cipants in the ‘Stakeholder Mee ng’ held at IUCN Headquarters in Gland, Switzerland in October 2009, for their dedica on in providing valuable inputs, including wri en comments from Glória Rodrigues (EWEA) and Hans-Ulrich Rösner (WWF Germany), for the prepara on of this document.

We also appreciated the con nuous support of Ma hias Hansch, James Oliver, Carl Gustaf Lundin, Frank Plümacher and Francis Vorhies throughout the project, as well as the editorial work of Louise Johnson.

We also thank E.ON Climate and Renewables, Düsseldorf, Germany, and the Swedish Interna onal Development Coopera on Agency for their ﬁ nancial support.

Iden fying and managing biodiversity risks and opportuni es of oﬀ shore renewable energy - GREENING BLUE ENERGY vii

iucn-eon-sida_ored_270410Gb_IRL.indd *7 28.04.2010 08:23:58 iucn-eon-sida_ored_270410Gb_IRL.indd *8 28.04.2010 08:23:58 Execu ve summary

In the rela vely rapid development of off shore renewable energy, the issue can be applied to reduce the risk to local biodiversity, including diff erence in of marine biodiversity is o en not fully considered. IUCN has undertaken ming, loca on, design of system, and the use of measures to temporarily a joint project with the mul na onal energy corpora on E.ON and the disperse aff ected species. Swedish Interna onal Development Coopera on Agency (SIDA) to improve the environmental performance of off shore renewable energy projects by Nevertheless, if off shore wind power development is well planned and co- developing guidance to support best prac ce and fully integrate biodiversity ordinated, the local subsurface marine environment could even benefi t from considera ons. wind farms in several ways. Trawling, for both fi sh and invertebrates, is one of the most severe threats to the marine environment, and is prohibited or limited The Greening Blue Energy project aims to facilitate well-balanced and science- inside wind farms. Furthermore, the founda ons of wind turbines, including the based discussions on the impacts on the marine environment from off shore boulders that are o en placed around them for scour protec on, will func on renewable energy developments. as so-called ar fi cial reefs, locally enhancing biomass for a number of species. It has, moreover, been suggested that surface-oriented off shore energy devices The guidance provides a synthesis of current knowledge on the poten al may func on as Fish Aggrega on Devices (FAD). biodiversity impacts of off shore wind energy on the marine environment. It is based on scien fi c evidence and experiences from off shore renewable energy All this shows that environmental impacts from off shore renewable energy development and other relevant sectors. The founda on of the document projects need to be assessed with a comprehensive approach. As the global is a review of more than 1000 reports and documents, at least 400 of which off shore wind energy industry further expands and con nues to mature, are peer-reviewed ar cles published in scien fi c journals, and results are companies and governments will benefi t from increased knowledge and presented in a jargon-free and balanced way. It aims to be user-friendly as experience. well as structured in a way to provide more detail for those that need it and ul mately to encourage improvements in the sustainability of the off shore Ongoing monitoring will be crucial in iden fying how successful previous renewable energy industry. Overall, the guidance promotes the considera on mi ga on strategies have been in avoiding or reducing impacts on the marine of science-based impact research, suitable for conduc ng, scoping and environment. Future decisions can integrate new fi ndings and mi gate evalua ng Strategic Environmental Assessments (SEAs) and Environmental new threats. By undertaking rigorous impact assessment and systema c Impact Assessments (EIAs), based on interna onal and na onal standards. environmental management, the industry will con nue to learn through the plan, do, check, act approach, and apply con nuous improvement to their Poten al impacts of off shore wind power development on the marine prac ces and procedures. Through marine spa al planning, cumula ve and environment include disturbance eff ects from noise, electromagne c fi elds, synergis c impacts can be be er managed, and impacts and opportuni es for changed hydrodynamic condi ons and water quality, and altered habitat all sea users taken into considera on. structure on benthic communi es, fi sh, mammals and birds. To date, evidence for nega ve impacts on the subsurface marine environment are strongest Planning and development decisions made at this stage of the development of for the construc on phase. However, long-term disturbance of local marine off shore wind energy will be se ng a precedent for future developments, both ecosystems during the opera onal phase cannot be excluded, and some bird in Europe and beyond, so it is impera ve that shortcomings in research and species may largely avoid the wind farm areas. Various mi ga on measures knowledge are addressed as a ma er of urgency.

Iden fying and managing biodiversity risks and opportuni es of oﬀ shore renewable energy - GREENING BLUE ENERGY ix

iucn-eon-sida_ored_270410Gb_IRL.indd ii 03.05.2010 13:40:00 iucn-eon-sida_ored_270410Gb_IRL.indd iii 28.04.2010 08:23:58 Introduc 1 Introduc on on

1.1 Background also tapped sustainably. As knowledge and experience builds with further development, the under- Increasing energy demands, and recogni on of the standing of poten al nega ve as well as posi ve eﬀ ects of a changing climate resul ng from fossil impacts will improve; in the interim, there is the fuel use, require a shi in the balance of energy urgent need to draw on current knowledge. This sources. document assists in addressing this situa on.

Off shore wind-power genera on capacity is an cipated to grow signifi cantly as the world makes 1.2 Aim of the guidance document unprecedented a empts to transi on to a lower carbon economy. The poten al for renewable IUCN has undertaken a joint project with the mul - energy to be sourced from the off shore wind envi- na onal energy corpora on E.ON and the Swedish ronment is only now being fully realised. Engineer- Interna onal Development Coopera on Agency ing solu ons now allow terrestrial concepts to be (SIDA) to improve the environmental performance reconsidered in a marine environment, an energy Robin Rigg off shore wind farm, UK. of off shore renewable energy projects by develop- territory previously considered the domain of off - Photo: E.ON Climate & Renewables ing guidance to support best prac ce biodiversity shore oil and gas. However, any type of energy considera ons. It is envisaged that the guidance will produc on will exert some impact on the local and also serve to inform the policy and prac ce of the global environment. In reducing the atmospheric environment in several aspects, including trawling conserva on community and governments. This is impacts from our energy sources, we must avoid exclusion and the crea on of hard bo om habitats, especially relevant for developing countries where replacing one set of signifi cant impacts with anoth- which could benefi t both local fi sheries and spe- capacity is lower but renewable energy infrastruc- er. cies conserva on. The renewable energy industry ture is increasingly promoted. is evolving rapidly and the understanding of poten- Whilst acknowledging that research into the al environmental consequences of such devel- The Greening Blue Energy project aims to facilitate impacts of the off shore renewable industry is s ll opments lags behind, and as a consequence the well-balanced and science-based discussions on in its infancy, it is widely regarded that the risk for debate about impacts can run ahead of the avail- impacts on the marine environment from off shore impacts on the marine environment may not be able evidence. Science-based evidence should be renewable energy developments. negligible and must be taken seriously. used to help guide marine impact avoidance and mi ga on, and where possible even enhance habi- The guidance provides a synthesis of the current Wind farms may also be benefi cial for the marine tats to ensure that this renewable energy source is knowledge status on the poten al impacts of off -

Iden fying and managing biodiversity risks and opportuni es of oﬀ shore renewable energy - GREENING BLUE ENERGY 1

iucn-eon-sida_ored_270410Gb_IRL.indd iv 28.04.2010 09:38:11 on shore wind energy on the marine environment for based on relevant na onal and interna onal stand- tors such as wave and dal, which are considered project developers and oﬀ shore wind farm opera- ards. in Annexe 3.

Introduc tors, using a model familiar to those considering impact assessment tools. The founda on for this The user-friendly summaries of environmental 1.3 Target audience overview is a review of more than 1000 reports and risks, as well as opportuni es, enable well-balanced documents, at least 400 of which are peer-reviewed science-based discussions and considera ons on This document is primarily aimed at off shore wind ar cles published in scien fi c journals. It encour- the impacts of off shore renewable energy instal- farm developers and operators for improvement of ages the considera on of the latest scien fi c-based la ons on the marine environment. The document the industry as a whole. However it is recognized impact research in conduc ng, scoping and evalu- is focused on off shore wind, where most informa- that other stakeholders may also be interested in a ng Strategic Environmental Assessments (SEAs) on and experience exists, but lessons can also be the fi ndings of the document, primarily authori es and Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs), adapted to other off shore renewable energy sec- involved in environmental assessment and permit- ng processes.

It is also hoped that this guidance document will be of use to countries that have not yet considered policies on oﬀ shore renewable energy, so they may be aware of and an cipate poten al environmental issues.

Other groups that may ﬁ nd the guidance in this document useful include concerned non-govern- mental organiza ons and advocacy groups, as well as other users of seascapes.

1.4 How to use this document

The main body of this guidance document is wri en in an easily accessible and understandable format. Sec on 2 provides an overview of the oﬀ shore wind energy sector, while sec on 3 guides the reader through the current status of oﬀ shore wind Lillgrund wind farm in Sweden. Photo: Jerker Lokrantz development, the current regulatory framework and exis ng guidance, and considera ons of other

2 GREENING BLUE ENERGY - Iden fying and managing biodiversity risks and opportuni es of oﬀ shore renewable energy

iucn-eon-sida_ored_270410Gb_IRL.indd v 28.04.2010 09:38:17 Introduc

marine users. General aspects of development, This document aims at providing generic guidance this document can only provide ini al guidance spa al planning and current research status are on environmental impacts of off shore wind farms. and therefore cannot replace comprehensive site on summarised. Poten al impacts on the marine Also, such issues cannot be addressed without specifi c impact assessments as well as eff ec ve environment typically associated with the considering associated economic, technical, stakeholder engagement. construc on, opera on and decommissioning of poli cal, legal and social values. In this regard, off shore wind farms are presented in sec on 4. Mi ga on measures are suggested, and a way forward in addressing areas of uncertainty and 1.5 Glossary of key terms and acronyms governance issues is presented in sec on 5. Assemblage A sub-set of a species popula on residing within a certain area. For those interested in more detail, a synthesis of Biodiversity Biological diversity, the variability among living organisms from all sources the most current research on impacts on the marine and the ecological complexes of which they are part: this includes diversity environment is presented in Annexe 1. The present within species, between species and of ecosystems. understanding of poten al impacts on receptors Benthos Organisms that live on the seabed, from the highest water mark to the and the receiving environment is highlighted, in deepest trenches. rela on to the extent of impacts. Further legisla ve Decommissioning A general term for a formal process to remove something from ac ve context is provided in Annexe 2, with links provided status. for further informa on. Moreover, a brief overview of technology development and poten al marine Environmental aspect Element of an organiza on’s ac vi es or products or services that can interact with the environment. environmental impacts of wave, dal and current power is provided in Annexe 3. EIA Environmental Impact Assessment. Environmental impact Any change to the environment, whether adverse or benefi cial, wholly or The document reviews exis ng knowledge and par ally resul ng from an organiza on’s environmental aspects. exper se on the marine environment as of Mi ga on Allevia on/lessening of impacts. December 2009. This document is printed in limited Onshore wind farms Wind farms located on land, whether on the beach or inland. numbers, and the publica on is meant to be used Off shore wind farms Wind farms located in the sea, which could be in shallow coastal waters or on-line, which allows the document to remain ‘live’ on a bank far out at sea. when signifi cant informa on becomes available in Life-cycle assessment Analysis of the overall environmental impact of a par cular economic this fast moving industry. ac vity. It is intended to present a generic framework for SEA Strategic environmental assessment. key issues to consider, and is illustrated by specifi c Spa al planning Refers to the methods used to infl uence the distribu on of people and examples where relevant. ac vi es in space of various scales, including e.g. urban planning, regional planning, environmental planning.

Iden fying and managing biodiversity risks and opportuni es of oﬀ shore renewable energy - GREENING BLUE ENERGY 3

iucn-eon-sida_ored_270410Gb_IRL.indd vi 03.05.2010 13:40:10 iucn-eon-sida_ored_270410Gb_IRL.indd vii 28.04.2010 09:38:21 2 Overview of off shore wind energy energy overview The following chapter gives a short overview on O ff Country USA Germany Spain China India shore wind the off shore wind energy sector and the current research status related to the marine environmental Capacity 25,170 MW 23,903 MW 16,754 MW 12,210 MW 9,045 MW impacts of off shore wind facili es.

Table 1: Top 5 countries wind capacity (Interna onal Energy Agency, 2009). 2.1 Trends

According to the Global Wind Energy Council, the total installed wind power capacity in 2009 repre- So far, off shore wind farms only represent 1.5 per wind power projects. Eff orts to combine economic sented 120,798 megawa s (MW) worldwide. More cent of the total installed wind capacity in 2009, development with environmental sustainability are than 80 countries around the world have installed primarily in Europe (see Table 2). also causing countries in East Africa to show grow- wind power. The United States recently overtook ing interest in off shore renewables, with a current Germany with the highest total installed capacity. Off shore wind farms supply only 0.3 per cent of focus on wave energy. China is also rapidly expanding its wind capacity, the European Union’s total electricity demand overtaking India. (see Table 1) today. However, according to the European Wind Exis ng wind farms typically contain between 2 Energy Associa on’s (EWEA) ‘Oceans of Opportu- and 80 turbines, but future farms may consist of Off shore wind farms are increasingly being pro- nity’ report, off shore wind could poten ally supply hundreds of turbines e.g. the London Array project moted as off shore winds are stronger and more between 12 and 16 per cent of the total EU elec- is planned to contain 341 turbines. The distance sustained than winds over land. Placing turbines tricity demand by 2030. This equates to more than between turbines commonly ranges between 500 in the sea allows larger devices to be constructed, 25,000 wind turbines, in wind farms covering up and 1000 metres, and wind farms can thus cover although the off shore environment is demanding to 20,000 square kilometres of the European con- many square kilometres. Presently, all commercial in terms of transport, logis cs and construc on nental shelf. Such large-scale wind genera on wind farms use turbines that are directly installed technologies. Moreover, studies indicate that there would eliminate more than 200 million tonnes of into the seabed, but fl oa ng alterna ves are under

is generally less public opposi on to off shore wind CO2 emissions every year. While North America development (see Box 1 (p. 17) for further infor- power compared with wind power development has no off shore wind farms currently in opera on, ma on). At present most wind farms are installed on land, although this will depend on the specifi c large projects are planned for the east coast of the in shallow water within the ‘20-20 fron er’: at loca on. United States and Lake Ontario in Canada. China maximum of 20 kilometres off the coast and in a and India are also preparing for large off shore maximum water depth of 20 metres. Beyond this

Iden fying and managing biodiversity risks and opportuni es of oﬀ shore renewable energy - GREENING BLUE ENERGY 5

iucn-eon-sida_ored_270410Gb_IRL.indd viii 03.05.2010 13:40:10 Na on Total capacity No. of oﬀ shore Number of (MW) wind farms turbines 2.2 Policy drivers 883 UK 12 287 Renewable energy op ons are increasingly being promoted in response to the global challenges Denmark 639 9 305 of climate change, deple ng indigenous energy resources, increasing fuel costs and the threat of Netherlands 247 4 130 energy-supply disrup ons. More than 75 countries around the world have policies in place for renew-

wind shore Sweden 164 5 75 able energy. For example, the European Union has

O ff overview energy a policy in place to reduce greenhouse gas emis- Germany 42 4 9 sions by 20 per cent, increase renewable energy provision to 20 per cent of primary demand, and Belgium 30 1 6 increase energy effi ciency by 20 per cent by 2020. Ireland 25 1 7 A cri cal factor in the successful development of wind energy is appropriate government support, Finland 24 1 8 o en involving feed-in tariff s, subsidies or tax breaks to promote cleaner forms of energy. Norway 2 1 1 In response to these policy trends and the need to Japan 1 1 2 diversify por olios, a large number of energy companies are looking to expand the supply of renew- TOTAL 2057 38 830 able energy.

Nevertheless, the European Commission (EC) has Table 2: Off shore wind farms in opera on around the world (adapted from EWEA (2009)) iden fi ed challenges that must be overcome for the further development of the off shore wind sector. The challenges include: fron er, the challenges around technology, mate- off the shore at 33 metres depth. In Italy, Japan and rial and human factors increase substan ally due Norway, countries that all lack broad con nental • Weaknesses in the overall framework; to the rough off shore environment. However, these shelves, fl oa ng wind power plants are being devel- are increasingly being overcome. For example the oped for placement at depth of 50-400 metres. • Industrial and technological challenges; off shore park alpha ventus is installed 45 kilometres

6 GREENING BLUE ENERGY - Iden fying and managing biodiversity risks and opportuni es of oﬀ shore renewable energy

iucn-eon-sida_ored_270410Gb_IRL.indd ix 28.04.2010 09:38:22 • Lack of integrated strategic planning;

• Lack of cross-border coordina on.

In their reports, the EC note a lack of knowledge energy overview and informa on sharing by authori es hampering O ﬀ shore wind the smooth applica on of EU environmental legisla on, and the technical challenges of bo lenecks and power balancing in the onshore electricity grid.

2.3 Research status

Although s ll in a nascent phase, oﬀ shore wind energy is currently the most developed oﬀ shore renewable energy technology compared to, for example, wave and dal power, and as such the associated environmental issues are be er documented.

Academic research on environmental and ecologi- Scroby Sands off shore wind park, UK. Photo: E.ON Climate & Renewables cal issues related to off shore wind development is being carried out primarily in Denmark, Germany, the UK and Sweden, partly in brackish environ- The opportunity to extrapolate from onshore wind cular combina on of disturbance factors (such as ments. Although the Danish Monitoring Programme farm research to the off shore environment is lim- construc on methods, shape, material, and noise). and other similar programmes have advanced the ited. The marine environment diff ers fundamen- Nevertheless, informa on on the nature of envi- overall research status substan ally, most research tally from terrestrial se ngs, not only in terms of ronmental disturbance and recovery processes, as programmes have only recently been ini ated, and the types of organisms likely to be aff ected, but well as mi ga on lessons, can be drawn from, for many contribu ons are limited to the development also in rela on to physical (e.g. sound distribu on) example, the oil and gas sector. of survey methods. Addi onally, the majority of and biological factors (e.g. regula on of food and studies and experiments have focussed on single- energy fl ow and dispersal of off spring). Further- species systems, and there is limited informa on more, off shore wind farms diff er from all other about the eff ects on whole ecosystems. marine-based engineering ventures in their scale of development, area of coverage, and their par-

Iden fying and managing biodiversity risks and opportuni es of oﬀ shore renewable energy - GREENING BLUE ENERGY 7

iucn-eon-sida_ored_270410Gb_IRL.indd x 28.04.2010 09:38:22 iucn-eon-sida_ored_270410Gb_IRL.indd xi 28.04.2010 09:38:25 3 Impact assessment

Reduc on of This sec on provides an overview of relevant total impact assessment concepts, tools and policies. nega ve impact on 3.1 Assessing impacts in a global biodiversity context (local)

When exploring the impacts of oﬀ shore wind energy produc on, it is important to consider local impacts in the context of broader, global impacts. Posi ve Assessment Impact Climate change is an increasing threat to biodiver- ac ons for sity. Energy generated from wind can achieve sub- biodiversity stan al avoidance of greenhouse gas emissions and (local and thus comba ng climate change. In addi on, toxic global) pollutants associated with for example the burning of fossil fuels, or the local environmental impacts of large hydropower developments, could be avoided Figure 1: Mi ga on hierarchy by developing wind power.

These global and local advantages must however based on a so-called ‘mi ga on hierarchy’ (see • Strategic Environmental Assessments (SEAs) – be balanced against the specifi c adverse eff ects off - Figure 1), for example, through avoiding sensi ve a tool that assesses associated environmental shore wind power may have on marine life. Mini- sites, mi ga ng impacts through clever design and impacts of plans and programmes (including mising detrimental impacts of off shore wind power compensa ng for residual impacts, or through off - mul ple projects) mainly undertaken by gov- on marine habitats and ecosystems is central in the sets (see sec on 4.3). ernment authori es. They are accompanied permi ng process, and, according to surveys in by an Environmental Management Plan and several countries, is also a key topic for local accep- require con nual monitoring. tance of wind farms. 3.2 Environmental assessment tools • Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs) It is essen al to seek to iden fy and minimise over- The main tools that are used to assess the environ- – used for individual projects by (a) a devel- all nega ve impacts on the marine environment. mental impacts of projects and programmes are: oper to take decisions on the project develop- Mi ga on of impacts can be done in many stages, ment based on the associated environmental

Iden fying and managing biodiversity risks and opportuni es of oﬀ shore renewable energy - GREENING BLUE ENERGY 9

iucn-eon-sida_ored_270410Gb_IRL.indd xii 04.05.2010 08:46:23 impacts, including mi ga on plans and on- see Annexe 2. trea es and standards, as well as na onal regula- going monitoring and (b) the authori es to ons and industry guidance have been developed. verify that the given project respects relevant At any loca on a suite of interna onal, addi onal environmental legisla on. 3.3 Legal context regional and na onal regula ons may be applicable, and each developer needs to seek advice per - Figure 2 presents a summary of the main diff er- To address the management of the environmen- nent to the country or countries within which their ences and complementari es between SEA and EIA. tal impacts of off shore wind power development, development will be located. For further informa on on specifi c requirements, a number of interna onal direc ves, conven ons, 3.3.1 European legisla on

The European Union (EU) EIA legisla on provides the minimum requirements that a Member State should demand from a developer during the life cycle of a project. The complete informa on required is also determined by the na onal law and conven ons to which the country has signed.

Impact Assessment The EU has several relevant legisla ons that relate to nature conserva on and the protec on of specifi c species and habitats (e.g. EU Habitats and Species Direc ve (92/43/EEC)) as well as EIA [Direc- ve 85/337/EEC] and SEA [Direc ve 2001/42/EC]. Addi onally, the implementation of the Marine Strategy Framework Direc ve [Direc ve 2008/56/ EC] is expected to facilitate the EIA process for off shore wind energy projects and other off shore renewable energy developments.

Further informa on is available in Annexe 2.

Figure 2: Main diﬀ erences between SEA and EIA (adapted from Eales, et al., 2003)

10 GREENING BLUE ENERGY - Iden fying and managing biodiversity risks and opportuni es of oﬀ shore renewable energy

iucn-eon-sida_ored_270410Gb_IRL.indd xiii 03.05.2010 13:40:16 3.3.2 World Bank requirements 3.3.3 Guidance from government and industry The World Bank Group (WBG) and the Interna onal Finance Corpora on (IFC) provide a set of guide- While this guidance document presents informa- lines to be followed to access fi nancial resources on on the latest scien fi c informa on related to for large-scale projects. According to the WBG/IFC impacts on the marine environment of off shore guidelines, an EIA for an off shore wind farm project wind energy development, other guidance mate- is required to list and describe all signifi cant envi- rials that have been developed by government or ronmental impacts, including those that are: industry bodies should also be considered when seeking broader informa on on wind farms and • Unavoidable and irreversible; their environmental impacts. Specifi c informa on on environmental impact assessment processes • Posi ve and nega ve; and monitoring methods are provided in a number Assessment Impact of other documents. Examples include: • Direct and indirect; • Nature Conserva on Guidelines on Off shore • Long-term and short-term and; Wind Farm Development – DEFRA 2005

• Cumula ve. • OSPAR Guidance on Environmental Consider- a on for Oﬀ shore Wind Farm Development – WBG/IFC also requires an analysis of possible alter- OSPAR 2008 na ve investment or policy op ons. This should include strategies in terms of environmental costs • Best Prac ce Guidelines for the Irish Wind and beneﬁ ts, coupled with a mi ga on plan. Rec- Energy Industry – IWEA 2008 ommenda ons and guidance on the necessary stages that should be followed to meet the require- • EU Dra Guidelines on Wind Energy Develop- ments for both assessments are provided by WBG/ ment and EU Nature Conserva on Require- IFC. ments – EU Commission (in prep.)

WBG/IFC further speciﬁ es that oﬀ shore renewable energy projects should include a plan for Environ- mental Management and Training, Environmental Monitoring and Public Consulta on ac ons.

Iden fying and managing biodiversity risks and opportuni es of oﬀ shore renewable energy - GREENING BLUE ENERGY 11

iucn-eon-sida_ored_270410Gb_IRL.indd xiv 28.04.2010 09:38:26 iucn-eon-sida_ored_270410Gb_IRL.indd xv 28.04.2010 09:38:26 4 Impacts of oﬀ shore wind farms on the marine environment

This sec on provides a summary of marine environ- as depend on technology and founda on type Es mated degree of severity (-) or benefi t (+) of mental issues that are currently discussed by stake- used. Es ma ons are notably limited to eff ects of impacts for species assemblages within the wind holders in rela on to off shore wind developments. single wind farms (see Annexe 1, sec ons 11 and farm area are categorised as: 12, for further elabora on on ecosystem responses A brief account of poten al impacts from off shore and variability among species and locali es). Also, Small: Should not infl uence or have only wind energy projects on the marine environment acceptable levels of disturbances will depend on small impacts on size or structure of that require special a en on is provided in sec on the local/regional conserva on status of species or assemblage. 4.2, along with suggested management op ons. habitats in ques on. Statements and conclusions Moderate: Impacts could moderately infl uence For more details, Annexe 1 off ers a review of trends are not necessarily based on consensus, but rather species assemblages, generally or for and status in current research; these will evolve as aim to refl ect the median views of the authors. par cular species. research and experience develops further. Large: Impacts could signifi cantly infl uence KEY size or structure of species assemblages, generally or for 4.1 Impact summary table The following criteria were set by the authors to par cular species. assess the impacts: A scien fi c review of the poten al impacts of off - Certainty shore wind farms on the marine environment was Temporal Marine impacts conducted during 2009 as part of this project. Table 1 = Literature consists of scien fi cally founded 3 summarises the results of this review, present- Short term: Through construc on phase. specula ons. ing the poten al risks and benefi ts iden fi ed for Long term: Through opera onal phase. key environmental issues related to off shore wind Permanent: Impacts persist beyond the 2 = Research is in its infancy and inconclusive. power development. opera onal and decommissioning phases. 3 = Available literature provides a fair basis for • Limita ons and species and system assessments. considera ons Spa al 4 = Available literature provides a good basis for The analysis treats animal groups as represen ng a Very local: Within 10 metres from wind turbine assessments. cross sec on of species. Large data gaps exist, how- Local: 10-100 metres from wind turbine ever, and eff ects are species- and season-specifi c. Broad: 100-1,000 metres from wind turbine 5 = Evidence base is rela vely solid. Systems and ecological responses may also diff er Very broad: > 1,000 metres from wind turbine signifi cantly between regions and locali es, as well

Iden fying and managing biodiversity risks and opportuni es of oﬀ shore renewable energy - GREENING BLUE ENERGY 13

iucn-eon-sida_ored_270410Gb_IRL.indd xvi 03.05.2010 13:40:18 Table 3: Key environmental issues of oﬀ shore wind energy Key environmental issues Level of Es mated scale of impact Discussed certainty in sec on in n.a. = Not assessed for Annexe 1 predic ons/ es mates Spa al Temporal Es mated degree of severity (-) or beneﬁ t (1 low to (+) of impacts for species assemblages within the wind farm area 5 high)

FISH Injuries from sound pulses (construc on) 3 Local n.a. Small (-) 7.1

Displacement/habitat loss (construc on) 3 Very broad Short term (-) see 4.2.2 7.3

Sediment dispersion (construc on) 4 Broad Short term Small (-) 4

Disturbance from opera onal noise 4 Very local Long term Small (-) 7.6

Trawling exclusion 5 Broad Long term Large (+) see 4.2.3 3.3

Ar ﬁ cial reef eﬀ ects 3 Local Long term Moderate (+) see 4.2.3 3.3

Electromagne c fi elds 2 Local (but see Long term Small (-) (but note level of certainty and see 8.1 migra ng fi sh) migra ng fi sh) Collisions with turbines 2 n.a. n.a. Small (-) 3.4

Noise masking bioacous cs 2 Local Long term Small (-) (but note level of certainty) 7.9

MARINE Injuries from sound pulses (construc on) 3 Local n.a. Small (-) but see 4.2.2 7.1 MAMMALS Displacement/habitat loss (construc on) 3 Very broad Short term (-) see 4.2.2 7.2

Displacement, disturbance (opera on) 3 Very local Long term Small (-) 7.7

Habitat enhancement 1 Broad Long term Small (+) (but note level of certainty) 3.3

Migra on barriers 2 n.a. Long term Small (-) (but note level of certainty and extra 7.9 cau on for whales), and see 4.2.3 Collisions with turbines 2 n.a. n.a. Small (-) 3.4

Noise masking bioacous cs 2 Local Long term Small (-) (but note level of certainty) 7.9

14 GREENING BLUE ENERGY - Iden fying and managing biodiversity risks and opportuni es of oﬀ shore renewable energy

iucn-eon-sida_ored_270410Gb_IRL.indd xvii 28.04.2010 09:38:26 Key environmental issues Level of Es mated scale of impact Discussed in certainty sec on in n.a. = Not assessed for Annexe 1 predic ons/ es mates Spa al Temporal Es mated degree of severity (-) or beneﬁ t (1 low to (+) of impacts for species assemblages within the wind farm area 5 high)

BIRDS Displacement/habitat loss (construc on) 5 Very broad Short term (-) see 4.2.2 9.3 Displacement/habitat loss for seabirds 4 Very broad Long term (-) see 4.2.3 9.3 (i.e. sea ducks and divers) (opera on) Migra on barriers (opera on) 3 n.a. Long term 1. Small (-) 9.2 1. long distance migrators 2. Moderate (-) 2. daily commuters see 4.2.3 Collisions with turbines 3 n.a. Long term Small (-) but see 4.2.3 9.1 BENTHOS Sediment dispersion (construc on) 3 Broad Short term Small (-) 4 Acous c disturbance (construc on) 2 Local Short term Small (-) (but note level of certainty) 7.4 Changes in community structure directly 4 Local Long term Small to Moderate (-) see 4.2.3 3.1 & 5 due to turbines Electromagne c ﬁ elds 2 Very local Long term Small (-) (but note level of certainty) 8.2 Anoxia created 4 Very local Long term Small (-) 5 Habitat enhancement (not considering 4 Very local Long term n.a. 3.1 trawling exclusion) Entry point for invasive species 2 Very broad Long term n.a. 3.2 Eﬀ ects of trawling exclusion 5 Broad Long term Large (+) see 4.2.3 3.1 HYDROLOGY Deple on of phytoplankton 4 Local Long term Small (-) 5 Upwelling or downwelling at the 1 Local Long term Small (+/-) (but note level of certainty) 5 perimeter of wind farm Toxic substances 4 Local n.a. Small (-) 6 Oil spills (e.g. ship accidents) - n.a. n.a. (-) see 4.2.3 SEA Displacement/habitat loss (construc on) 2 Very broad Short term (-) see 4.2.2 7.1 & 7.8 TURTLES Displacement/habitat loss (opera on) 2 Very local Long term Small (-) (but note level of certainty) see 7.8 4.2.3

Iden fying and managing biodiversity risks and opportuni es of oﬀ shore renewable energy - GREENING BLUE ENERGY 15

iucn-eon-sida_ored_270410Gb_IRL.indd xviii 28.04.2010 09:38:26 4.2 Managing impacts across the project life cycle

This sec on outlines the environmental issues that, based on the review presented in Annexe 1, call for special a en on. Pointers are provided where further informa on can be found within Annexe 1. Figure 3: Project life cycle The impacts and poten al entry points for reducing the impacts will vary depending on what stage of the project lifecycle the development is opera ng • Design of appropriate mi ga on measures. 4.2.2 Construc on within (see Figure 3). For the purpose of simpliﬁ ca- on, this guidance is broken down into 4 sec ons, In the prospec ng, planning and permi ng pro- Main ac vi es: oriented on the project development phases. cesses, turbine type, installa on methodology (e.g. piling, seabed prepara ons) and appropriate • Site prepara on, dredging and levelling; mi ga on measures, need to be taken into care- 4.2.1 Planning ful considera on. Decisions made at the planning • Piling/installa on of founda on; stage have implica ons for the remainder of the Main ac vi es, e.g. life cycle stages. Signiﬁ cant impacts can be avoid- • Cabling; ed at the planning stage, minimising the need for • Site selec on/prospec ng; poten ally costly mi ga on measures later in the • Transport (shipping) and project cycle. Most issues that cannot be mi gated • Planning; through the design can be addressed at the early • Transport (air). stage of spa al planning and by including conser-

Marine impacts • Design, e.g. turbine type and installa on va on priori es into seascape management plans. Main disturbance factors: method (see Box 1: Founda on types) and Further, poten al impacts of seismic shoo ng considera on of removal op ons (see sec on during the prospec ng phase need to be taken into • Noise; 4.2.4 on Decommissioning); considera on. • Seabed disrup on and • Licensing/permi ng (including EIA). The considera on of alterna ves is fundamental, • Increased ac vity (e.g. boat traﬃ c). and a compara ve assessment undertaken of those op ons deemed feasible;

16 GREENING BLUE ENERGY - Iden fying and managing biodiversity risks and opportuni es of oﬀ shore renewable energy

iucn-eon-sida_ored_270410Gb_IRL.indd xix 03.05.2010 13:40:18 Marine impacts

on on. 28.04.2010 09:38:26 could orms are ng turbines oa keep posi keep fl orms are in op- ons. In depths of ng systems will likely re- orms will likely oa fl ng pla orms oa fl shore wind farms transit to g- ff ng turbines and pla fi onal founda ng turbine technologies may be ons, the seabed to on available. shore ff - Floa Designs are being adapted from the oil ng and Pla nues overleaf) on. Floa Grav- right: to or turbines placed on pla of 50 metres or more, depths of 50 metres place conven or more, they are predicted to be 70 metres the sole op (con commercially available by 2020. Depth - As o era assembled onshore (reduced construc (reduced be assembled onshore advantages. has certain this technology costs), Use - and gas sector, but currently no commercial projects using to anchored due the random Engineering is complicated act on that (wind and waves) of forces nature the turbines. But, as Floa Design ons – the

gravity founda gravity

under development, the are orm on op ng. © C. Wilhelmsson. stabi- Figure 4). Figure available. on technologies Jacket ons the sub- piling re- see in the alpha From le ons. From for suitable ons are types on types ons used ng founda depths of 45 metres to on connected founda erent to connected founda shore monopiles, tripod and more complex and thus complex more oa fl diff Off piles being researched ( being researched normally four-legged and of normally four-legged 1: Founda ons are depths (30-60 metres). on of the turbine tower. demonstrates the four main types of o the four demonstrates is usually not a problem, - Erosion tripods, the founda ce construc test- is currently of Scotland coast

or are like Other approaches and monopiles. tripod/jacket or bucket commercially viable are commercially Currently Box areThere on ity, Monopile, Tripod, Floa Monopile, Tripod, ity, Figure 4: Figure founda wind power ure ons are are and jacket - Tripod 5 MW turbines in - For steel by three to Compared oor. ﬂ two the East

more expensive. more sec merged founda la a stable founda jacket using a jacketed structure. using a jacketed Depth Prepara with in areas but, as with monopiles, usage is not possible due to boulders large water greater quirements. lised sea oﬀ ing Tripod and Jacket founda and Jacket Tripod Design oil pla Beatrice the Also, project. ventus are and jacket Use - Tripod

be to expected few the next on and are less ons, monopiles ons (e.g. seabed ons form common the most oor prepara pile, extension of the tower, pile, extension gravity founda gravity - Monopiles can only be used c seabed condi ﬁ are on used. They on - A steel ble to erosion. much lighter, more resilient and can resilient more much lighter, driven 10-20 metres beneath the seabed. beneath 10-20 metres is driven to Compared are placed in deeper waters. Use - Monopiles are of founda Monopile founda Design years. Depth - Can be used in water depths of up to approximately. 30 metres, Prepara for developments dominate under speci not dominated by large boulders) but then do not require seaﬂ suscep

er pos- waters on and care a ons require shallow the site. in use today (e.g. in use today normally built in in on has started seabed by their own ons are 30 metres depths is 30 metres the oor prepara fl ons erosion around the around erosion prevent - Gravity founda - Gravity to Secured on the second most common type a common most the second to restricted - Generally to be taken Gravity founda - Gravity must Thornton Bank, Bel- in Thornton depths of 20 metres in up to gium. Usage but construc (<5 metres), amount of sea amount fair monopiles. Depth with depth. increase sible; but costs Prepara base. to and transported dry docks Use in Denmark), Rødsand Lillgrund in Sweden, and are are The structures weight. Gravity founda Gravity Design - iucn-eon-sida_ored_270410Gb_IRL.indd xx ISSUES THAT REQUIRE SPECIAL ATTENTION popula ons congregate during key life stages Founda on Types (con nued) should be avoided during construc on (and Threat: Piling noise/construc on ac vi es decommissioning e.g. spring and early summer Floa ng and Pla orms is the main reproduc ve season for many The construc on phase of wind farms will inevita- species in temperate regions). Prepara on – Assembled onshore, and are fi xed bly generate noise from seabed prepara on (e.g. to the seabed with large anchors (e.g. ‘embedded levelling, which could include the use of explo- • To avoid injuries from acute sound pulses, the anchors’). sives), installa on of founda ons and boat traffi c. use of ‘pingers’ to scare away porpoises and In par cular, pile driving for monopiles, tripod and dolphins before construc on ac vi es start has jacket founda ons causes acute noise disturbance. been suggested and has also been used during Suc on Bucket founda ons Subsequent eff ects depend on a number of factors, off shore wind farm construc on. such as seabed topography and composi on, diam- Design - The suc on or bucket founda on is a concept used in the oil and gas industry where a eter of the piles, ambient sound and the marine • A standard approach is to gradually increase bucket founda on is pressed to the seabed and species under considera on. the strength of the pile-driving hammer to suc on is generated to keep it in place. give mammals, larger fi sh and sea turtles a Generally, noise impacts should be temporary. chance to move from the area before maximum Use - Informa on on this technology is currently However, noise generated during piling may kill or sound genera on levels are reached. It should limited. injure fi sh, mammals and sea turtles, or cause them be noted, however, that this method is not to abandon an area tens of kilometres from the uncontroversial as it may lead to gradual Depth – Not assessed construc on site. Species reloca on could severely habitua on and even a rac on to the ini ally aff ect spawning and nursery habitats if appropriate weak sounds. Prepara on – No need for pile driving, and is less complex than jacket/tripod. This type seems seasonal prohibi ons are not used. Sea turtles may most suitable in clay and sandy seabeds, as fi rmer be par cularly sensi ve to even temporary habitat • Another method is to surround the pile driving substrates require larger pressure diff erences. losses, as they seem highly infl exible in their spa al area with a curtain of bubbles or wrap the

Marine impacts distribu on pa erns. piles in sound dampening material. Bubble protec on can reduce the sound volume by Annexe 1 – see sec ons 7.1-7.4 for more details 3-5 dB, i.e. half of the sound intensity, but the method is dependent on weak currents. Mi ga on op ons

• Habitat use and migra on pa erns of sensi ve species need to be considered in terms of ming of construc on of wind farms. Seasons when sensi ve species of vulnerable

18 GREENING BLUE ENERGY - Iden fying and managing biodiversity risks and opportuni es of oﬀ shore renewable energy

iucn-eon-sida_ored_270410Gb_IRL.indd xxi 03.05.2010 13:40:29 favourable environment for long-lived rather than opportunis c species will be generated. This will benefi t biodiversity of benthic species, with poten- al spill-over eff ects to adjacent areas. ‘No take zones’ could posi vely aff ect fi sh stocks, provided the fi sh spend a suffi cient me within the area and, do not avoid the area for example due to noise or other forms of disturbance within the wind farm. Another prerequisite for posi ve eff ects on fi sh stocks is that the reproduc ve behaviour or feeding effi ciency of fi sh inside the wind farm is not signifi - cantly disturbed.

Enhancement op ons

• In addi on to the safety zones around wind farms, the ‘no take zone’ could be expanded to further enhance the benefi ts for marine Construc on of Utgrunden Wind Farm in Sweden. Photo: Gunnar Britse organisms and their habitats. Marine impacts 4.2.3 Opera on and maintenance • Maintenance ac vi es. • Wind farms could also be strategically located to protect certain marine resources, provided Main ac vi es: disturbance eff ects of construc on and ISSUES THAT REQUIRE SPECIAL ATTENTION opera on of the wind farms do not outweigh or • Opera on of wind turbines. neutralise the advantages of trawling exclusion. Opportunity: Trawling exclusion e.g. maintenance, such as repairs, change of oil in Annexe 1 – see sec ons 3.1 and 3.3 for more details transformer sta ons, re-pain ng and sand-blas ng. Trawling, which is probably one of the most severe threats to the benthic environment, is prohibited Main disturbance factors: or restricted inside off shore wind farms, and areas that encompass several square kilometres will • Physical presence of the turbines; resemble ‘no take zones’. Hence, for areas that were previously trawled, there will be less physical • Noise and disturbance on benthic communi es and a more

Iden fying and managing biodiversity risks and opportuni es of oﬀ shore renewable energy - GREENING BLUE ENERGY 19

iucn-eon-sida_ored_270410Gb_IRL.indd xxii 28.04.2010 09:38:33 tected from exploita on or favourable habitat is Mi ga on op ons provided for them. • Important habitats for feeding and breeding Annexe 1 – see sec ons 3.1-3.3 for more details should be avoided. However, in many cases, these habitats are not yet suffi ciently iden fi ed. Enhancement op ons • By building in waters deeper than 20 metres • To mi gate seabed erosion around turbine or avoiding areas with high biomass, benthic founda ons due to water movement, boulders feeding grounds for seabirds could be spared. or gravel are placed on the seabed. The scour protec on extends from the base of turbine • For example, an area can be considered to a distance of about 5-10 metres from each turbine. Alterna vely, synthe c fronds (scour mats), facilita ng sedimenta on, are laid around the founda ons. These elements, as well as the turbines as such, can be specially Fishing vessel leaving Lillgrund Wind Farm in designed to enhance the habitat for selected Sweden. Photo: Ma as Rust species. • To enhance, where desired, the extent of ar fi cial reef patches, and the connec vity between Opportunity: Habitat enhancement them, addi onal reef patches could be created in a larger area within the off shore wind farm. Wind turbines and scour protec on structures can serve as habitat for fi sh and invertebrate assem- Threat: Habitat loss for sea ducks and divers

Marine impacts blages. Habitat enhancement could compensate for loss of biologically important areas elsewhere, It has been shown that some seabird species (e.g. in line with indica ons in the EU Marine Strategy divers and sea ducks) avoid wind farm areas not Framework Direc ve (MSFD, 2008/56/EC). The sig- only during construc on but also during opera on. nifi cance of habitat enhancement through off shore The severity of eff ects on local bird assemblages energy development will depend on the scale and largely depend on whether the birds fi nd alterna- Wind turbine in the Kalmar Strait, providing area under considera on, but for most species it ve habitats or not. habitat for blue mussels (My lus trossulus) will probably be negligible at regional scales. Likely and two spo ed gobies (Gobiusculus fl aves- excep ons to this may occur when heavily-fi shed, Annexe 1 – see sec on 9.3 for more details cens). Photo: Dan Wilhelmsson. habitat-limited and/or vulnerable species are pro-

20 GREENING BLUE ENERGY - Iden fying and managing biodiversity risks and opportuni es of oﬀ shore renewable energy

iucn-eon-sida_ored_270410Gb_IRL.indd xxiii 03.05.2010 13:40:33 important for a species if more than 1 per cent of a popula on resides within it or uses it, according to commonly applied criteria from the Ramsar Conven on. Detailed species sensi vity indexes for impacts of oﬀ shore wind farms on seabirds are available.

Threat: Migra on barriers for birds, sea turtles and whales

Several bird species avoid wind farm areas during migra on. Studies have shown numbers of eiders and geese fl ying through off shore wind farm areas to decrease 4-5 mes a er construc on. However, the energe c losses during migra on due to barrier eff ects and through avoidance of single wind farms seem trivial. Energe c costs have only been proposed to be measurable for species commu ng daily within a region, for instance between foraging Cul va on of blue mussels. (see Box 2, p. 26) Photo: Tony Holm, Azote

grounds and roos ng or nest sites. In these cases Marine impacts wind farms could cause fragmenta on of coherent ecological units for the birds. Impacts of sound dis- Mi ga on op ons • Migra on pa erns of sea turtles need to be turbance from wind farms on long-distance com- thoroughly considered. munica on and naviga on among mammals, such • Diurnal migra on pathways between res ng as whales during migra on, is largely unknown. Sea and feeding areas for vulnerable bird species Threat: Bird collisions turtles are threatened worldwide and may be dis- should be avoided. turbed by the low frequency sound from turbines. It has been broadly suggested that collision risks at They show strong fi delity to migra on routes, which • If there are risks of overlap, several kilometres off shore wind turbines would cause minimal mor- may make them more suscep ble to disturbance. wide alterna ve migra on corridors should be tality within popula ons. There are s ll consider- kept open between wind farms. able research gaps, however, and a recent off shore Annexe 1 – see sec ons 9.2 (birds) and 7.7, 7.8 and wind farm study, for example, indicated that the 7.9 (other species) for more details • Corridors could also be provided inside wind majority of collisions occur a few days per year, farms, as birds have been shown to use the when bird naviga on is hampered by bad weather, corridors when fl ying through such areas. which weakens predic ons.

Iden fying and managing biodiversity risks and opportuni es of oﬀ shore renewable energy - GREENING BLUE ENERGY 21

iucn-eon-sida_ored_270410Gb_IRL.indd xxiv 28.04.2010 09:38:41 Annexe 1 – see sec on 9.1 for more details to the structure. Filtra on by the large numbers of Annexe 1 – see sec ons 4 and 5 for more details blue mussels on the turbines could, according to Mi ga on op ons one study, deplete phytoplankton and, as a result, Threat: Naviga onal hazards/oil spills cause lower biomass of fi lter feeding animals on • To minimise collision risk, placement of wind the seabed up to 20 metres from a turbine. These The increase in number of industrial facili es in farms in important migra on corridors should impacts should only be of signifi cance in protected coastal and off shore waters as a result of off shore be avoided. habitats where vulnerable species are present or renewable energy development may amplify navi- • The alignment of turbines could be where the scale of the development is substan al. ga onal hazards for ships, par cularly where wind reconsidered, and turbines could be made Wind farms also provide hard substrata (including farms claim areas of deeper water greater than 20 more visible for birds. shallow sec ons) to areas otherwise o en domi- metres in depth. This increases the risks of oil spills nated by sedimentary seabed and thus change the and other types of marine pollu on. A wind turbine • Illumina on could also be adjusted to a level dispersal pa erns and distribu on of reef dwelling for example could rip the side of a vessel and cause that maintains vessel naviga on safety, but species. an oil spill. It is also possible that the wind turbine reduces the poten al a rac on of birds.

Threat: Seabed changes

Deployment of wind turbines and scour protec- on will result in approximately 1-3 per cent direct loss of seabed within the farm area, with each installa on claiming up to 450 square metres. The abundance of ﬁ sh and crabs is likely to increase as a result of the physical structures added, and as a consequence densi es of benthic prey can decrease

Marine impacts in proximity to wind turbines. The suggested radius of infl uence on biomass of prey and macroalgae around an ar fi cial reef ranges between 15 and 100 metres. The entrapment and deposi on of organic ma er, including material that originates from fi sh and invertebrates on and around an ar fi cial reef, can infl uence benthic communi es up to 40 metres away and cause localised changes in composi on of macro-invertebrate assemblages as well as changes in physicochemical and other parameters adjacent Utgrunden Wind Farm, Sweden. Photo: Gunnar Britse

22 GREENING BLUE ENERGY - Iden fying and managing biodiversity risks and opportuni es of oﬀ shore renewable energy

iucn-eon-sida_ored_270410Gb_IRL.indd xxv 28.04.2010 09:38:56 rotor and generator, weighing up to 400 tonnes, could fall on a ship, though this can be prevented through the technical design of a turbine such as at the alpha ventus site. Environmental risk evalua- ons taking the impacts of diﬀ erent types of founda ons on ship hulls into considera on have ranked collisions with jacket and tripod construc ons as the most severe, while a collision with a monopile may cause less damage to the environment. The collision risk for each individual case is a product of a number of factors, such as ship traﬃ c, distance to naviga onal routes, wind, current and weather condi ons.

Mi ga on op ons

• The collision risk could be decreased through appropriate security measures.

Seals at Utgrunden Wind Farm. Photo: Gunnar Britse Marine impacts • The latest genera on of ships are constructed with double-hulls, which decrease risks of environmental impacts substan ally in the case of a collision, but single hulled ships are s ll 4.2.4 Decommissioning Op on 1: Complete removal used extensively. Given that the life span of an average off shore wind If a wind farm is completely removed, so are the • Follow relevant guidelines. For example, the farm is es mated to be 25 years, li le evidence associated disturbance eff ects. However, some Mari me and Coastguard Agency in the UK has been collated on the issue of decommission- problems of sediment re-suspension may occur, provides guidelines for addressing naviga onal ing. However, experiences from the oil and gas especially if the cables have been buried, conse- impacts of all types of wind power installa ons, sector can be adapted for off shore wind farms. In quently disturbing any sensi ve habitats. In addi- including safety measures. a manner similar to oil rigs, decommissioned wind on, habitats that may have been created and turbines could be disassembled and recycled or, dis- developed over a number of years, in many cases carded to landfi ll, or be recondi oned and reused. cons tu ng islands of comparably undisturbed Turbines could also be par ally removed or toppled. hard substrata in regions otherwise dominated by deeper so bo oms, would be disturbed. Further, if

Iden fying and managing biodiversity risks and opportuni es of oﬀ shore renewable energy - GREENING BLUE ENERGY 23

iucn-eon-sida_ored_270410Gb_IRL.indd xxvi 28.04.2010 09:38:58 a wind farm has eff ec vely protected an area from the destruc ve eff ects of fi shing this protec on is likely to disappear with the farm.

Future technologies may provide be er alterna- ves, but current experience from oil rig decommissioning favours explosives and cu ng. Explosives would kill most animals in the zone nearest to each turbine, and ﬁ sh with swim bladders would be most severely impacted. Considering the large numbers of turbines and the area they cover, impacts could be substan al if this technique is used.

Although the presump on at the outset is for complete removal of all turbines, the decommissioning of the subsurface parts of wind turbines may in many cases become ques oned.

Op on 2: Leave structures in place, including toppling

Another op on for decommissioning is to leave the subsurface structures in place. Toppled turbines would not emit noise or have any moving parts.

Marine impacts If not removed, the installa ons would eﬀ ec vely be permanent due to very slow degrada on rates for carbon steel. Any habitats that have been created and any habitat disturbances from the physical presence of the turbines would then be maintained.

Op on 3: Con nual upgrades

Dissimilar to oil and gas, wind resources are renewable, and so it may be decided that the wind farm Service vessel at Nysted wind farm in Denmark. Photo: Gunnar Britse

24 GREENING BLUE ENERGY - Iden fying and managing biodiversity risks and opportuni es of oﬀ shore renewable energy

iucn-eon-sida_ored_270410Gb_IRL.indd xxvii 03.05.2010 13:41:23 should remain in opera on, with con nuous main- • Although restric ng fi shing ac vity within an • The combined impacts of a single wind power tenance and upgrading where necessary. Both posi- area may be benefi cial to the marine environ- project against the background of exis ng an- ve and nega ve impacts on the marine environment in the wind farm, there could s ll be re- thropogenic pressures, such as pollu on, ship ment of the opera on of the turbines would then sidual biological and social impacts as fi shing traffi c, sand and gravel extrac on. be maintained. may be displaced to other areas. • The consequences of several wind farms in an In conclusion, decisions on the fate of the wind tur- Project developers are now increasingly considering area or region, in terms of e.g. migra on barri- bines should inevitably be made on a case-by-case ways to try and address, or compensate, for their ers and habitat loss and fragmenta on. basis. residual impacts. Biodiversity off sets are one way to ensure that a net loss to biodiversity from the Off shore wind farms aff ect habitats over a broad project development is avoided and that a net gain seascape where the combined eff ects may be more 4.3 Residual impacts may result overall. pronounced than the sum of the impacts of individual turbines and farms. Though o en required Although the off shore wind-farm developer may Off sets need to be quan fi able and an cipated bio- in EIA legisla on, EIAs rarely address the cumula- work through the mi ga on hierarchy (see Figure diversity losses predicted and balanced against pre- ve eff ects of exis ng ac vi es or other planned 1) and iden fy, avoid and minimise impacts from dicted gains with respect to species composi on, developments, including strategic aims for off shore a par cular development, residual impacts will habitat structure, ecosystem func on and people’s wind power. To improve this, criteria and meth- s ll remain. These may or may not be signifi cant, use of biodiversity. The Business and Biodiversity ods for assessing cumula ve eff ects need to be depending on the sensi vity of the area and spe- Off set Programme (BBOP) is currently consider- designed and standardised at appropriate temporal

cies. Residual impacts may include (but not be ing many of these aspects in rela on to real world and spa al scales. SEAs should also address cumu- Marine impacts restricted to): case studies, and is working with key developers la ve eff ects and synergies should be addressed at to design and implement biodiversity off set proj- a scale appropriate to the plan/policy/programme. • The loss of habitat within physical footprint of ects for their opera onal sites (h p://bbop.forest- turbine/founda on/scour protec on and in trends.org/index.php). Figure 5 below illustrates the process for assessing nearby areas. impacts of wind power developments on marine species, which should incorporate ecological links • Enforced changes to species assemblages 4.4 Cumula ve impacts and synergies between species and cumula ve eff ects of several through the physical presence of the turbine wind farms in an area/region. and resul ng impacts on predator/prey balance. Cumula ve impacts can be assessed on two levels:

• Noise and electromagne c ﬁ elds may s ll eﬀ ect some species behavioural changes, despite any mi ga on ac ons taken to lessen these impacts. Figure 5: A summary of stages within an SEA (based on EC Direc ve 2001/42/EC)

Iden fying and managing biodiversity risks and opportuni es of oﬀ shore renewable energy - GREENING BLUE ENERGY 25

iucn-eon-sida_ored_270410Gb_IRL.indd xxviii 28.04.2010 09:39:02 To es mate regional impacts, for example, seafl oor maps and models of popula on connec vity need Box 2: Aquaculture to be developed. The ecological consequences (e.g. growth, survivorship, reproduc on) for organisms Aquaculture of fi sh, mussels for human consump on is predicted to increase considerably in posi vely or nega vely aff ected by wind farms, as the next few decades. Cul va on of mussels has also been tested for produc on of animal well as any poten al cascading eff ects need to be protein and fer lisers, and for recycling of nutrients in eutrophicated water bodies. Wind farm inves gated and monitored throughout the opera- developments may off er unique opportuni es to exploit areas further off shore. Solid wind onal dura on, in order to gain a more comprehen- turbine founda ons could provide anchoring for aquaculture installa ons in areas that are sive picture of disturbance eff ects. not suitable for conven onal techniques. It has, also, been shown that blue mussels from open ocean sites may have signifi cantly less parasite infesta ons than at inshore sites, which 4.5 Interac ons with other marine in theory could enhance survival and growth. users Aquaculture installa ons off shore may also benefi t from lower levels of pollu on from urban The impacts of off shore wind farms should not be and agricultural runoff . Blue mussels, growing on the turbines themselves, providing benefi cial considered in isola on of other concerned users of condi ons for se lement and growth of fi lter feeding organisms (see Annexe 1, sec on 3.1.), a marine environment. Through an eff ec ve con- could also be harvested if cost-eff ec ve techniques are developed. Mussels from oil pla orms have been harvested for human consump on in Southern California Bight. Provided that this sulta on as part of an impact assessment process, reduces the density of aquaculture ventures nearshore, and that related environmental prob- poten al threats can be iden fi ed, and opportuni- lems are not simply transferred to sensi ve pris ne habitats off shore, this op on could off er es could be be er managed. The below indicates environmental mi ga on for the aquaculture sector. examples of threats and opportuni es presented by off shore wind farms. Sectors to consider include (but are not limited to): • Fisheries;

Marine impacts • Aquaculture (see Box 2); Box 3: Synergies with wind and wave power parks • Shipping; The viability of a combined wave and wind energy park is currently being tested in Denmark. • Leisure and tourism and Wind and wave power installa ons could share founda ons, electricity transmission routes and maintenance costs, with associated reduc on in overall disturbance of the marine envi- • Other oﬀ shore renewable energy sectors (see ronment. Wind and wave power may have complementary periods of op mal performance Box 3). and so combining the output from both could provide a more con nuous electricity supply, with less need for back up energy sources.

26 GREENING BLUE ENERGY - Iden fying and managing biodiversity risks and opportuni es of oﬀ shore renewable energy

iucn-eon-sida_ored_270410Gb_IRL.indd xxix 28.04.2010 09:39:02 5 Conclusions and recommenda ons 5.1 Strategic and Governance issues nated at central level. achieving consensus among stakeholders on areas to be considered for exploita on could thus be Ocean resources are limited; therefore comprehen- Spa al planning should be fully u lised. As impacts facilitated, and the development of mi ga ng con- sive integrated approaches are essen al to manage from off shore wind farm construc on may extend struc on methods and other measures to protect human ac vi es. Large-scale off shore renewable several kilometres from the development area, for the marine environment could also be enhanced. energy developments cons tute a rela vely new example, appropriate safety/buff er zones should challenge for integrated coastal management be applied in the spa al planning process, avoiding It will, however, take several years for new moni- strategies and marine spa al planning. Wind farm biodiversity hotspots and vulnerable habitats. toring programmes to provide a comprehensive development within territorial waters should there- overview of environmental risks and opportuni- fore be incorporated within Integrated Coastal Zone es. Cau on is further advised when, for example, Management (ICZM) and spa al planning instru- 5.2 Areas of uncertainty and points applying research or data generated in temperate ments, where applicable. to address regions to other regions such as the tropics, as there are major diff erences in regula ng factors, Coordina on of conserva on measures (e.g. Natura Substan al knowledge gaps and uncertain es s ll species and habitats at diff erent la tudes. Uncer- 2000 designa on) and wind power development exist in this area, and these hamper the eff ec ve tainty about predic ng consequences also increas- should be facilitated through enhanced informa- assessment of impacts and the issuing of some es with the scale of wind farm development, in on exchange among authori es. The rela vely construc on and opera onal permits. For exam- terms of both the size and number of installa ons. rapid rate of development for wind power could ple, there is a considerable paucity of ecological otherwise forestall the o en complex processes baseline data, which limits EIAs and monitoring of research, evalua on and designa on of marine programmes. If a precau onary approach is not 5.3 Improving use of impact protected areas. As wind farms exclude trawling, applied, this could also jeopardise habitats, species assessments both spa al planning and nature protec on may, on and ecosystems, including those of high conserva- the other hand and under certain circumstances, on interest. The number of targeted biological Some EIA standards request up to two complete benefit from combining conserva on measures and environmental surveys in rela on to off shore successive years of data before construc on of with off shore wind farm development. energy development is, nevertheless, increasing. wind farms can be approved. These meframes Conclusions Con nued and enhanced monitoring of carefully must, however, be seen as a result of a pragma c Impacts on mammals and fi sh during construc on selected environmental (both bio c and abio c) approach, as they are generally not suffi cient to ac vi es (e.g. piling) largely depend on the avail- parameters during construc on and opera on of fully understand the ecological eff ects for each site ability of suitable alterna ve habitats. Thus, to off shore renewable energy farms will in me gen- in ques on, including seasonal and inter-annual minimise cumula ve eff ects of concurrent develop- erate more reliable data on both the adverse and variability at both ecosystem and species levels. ment ac vi es, both the ming and areas for con- poten ally posi ve eff ects of off shore wind power Furthermore, the Before-A er-Control-Impact struc on by diff erent developers need to be coordi- development. The opportunity for iden fying and (BACI) impact studies, a standard approach in EIAs,

Iden fying and managing biodiversity risks and opportuni es of oﬀ shore renewable energy - GREENING BLUE ENERGY 27

iucn-eon-sida_ored_270410Gb_IRL.indd xxx 28.04.2010 09:39:02 would benefi t from including sampling of appropri- Appropriate assessments of cumula ve eff ects 5.4 Final conclusions ate distance related eff ects to a larger degree. should be supported by data provided at SEA level. Informa on on environmental requirements for As the global off shore wind energy industry further The exis ng baseline data available for a marine comple on of SEAs for construc on at sea is, how- expands and con nues to mature, companies and area strongly infl uences the quality of the EIA, ever, s ll too minimal. governments will benefi t from increased knowl- which should be taken into account during the site edge and experience. selec on and permi ng processes. Appropriate baseline data on the state of the marine environment, distribu on of important and Ongoing monitoring will be crucial to iden fy how EIAs for off shore wind farms are performed at sensi ve species and habitats, and migra on routes successful previous mi ga on strategies have been varying scales, and at diff erent scopes and depths of birds, fi sh and mammals are generally very scarce in avoiding or reducing impacts on the marine envi- of studies. This has resulted from a lack of com- in rela on to the requirements for impact assess- ronment. Future decisions can integrate new fi nd- parable na onal standards, as well as diff ering ments. Research on species distribu on and abun- ings and mi gate new threats. Learning from other interpreta ons of EIA requirements by consen ng dance over annual cycles, popula on structures processes, other types of installa on (e.g. mul - authori es. To avoid arbitrary or non-precau onary and status, as well as the development of analy cal use sites in Japan) should not be overlooked. By approaches, solid scien fi cally based standards and tools for assessing ecosystem and cascading eff ects undertaking rigorous impact assessment and sys- threshold values for assessments of impacts should are therefore required. tema c environmental management, the industry be developed at na onal, and if possible also at will con nue to learn through the plan, do, check, regional levels. Addi onally, interna onal guide- Strategic research to develop species-specifi c sen- act approach and apply con nuous improvement lines and informa on exchange networks (such as si vity indices in rela on to off shore wind energy to their prac ces and procedures. Through marine EMODNET) should be established to minimise local development (currently only available for birds) in spa al planning, cumula ve and synergis c impacts and na onal obstacles to conduct and scope EIAs. diff erent life stages and in diff erent regions is also can be be er managed and impacts and opportuni- required. es for all sea users taken into considera on. The relevant criteria upon which impact prognoses are to be based should be clarifi ed. Popula on and More research on the eff ects of noise on diff erent Planning and development decisions made at this par cularly subpopula on eff ects on species are species, as well as the mechanism and cues under- stage of the development of off shore wind energy central in impact assessments and consen ng pro- lying avoidance behaviour by birds, is required for will be se ng a precedent for future developments, cesses. There are, however, generally no regional the development of appropriate mi ga on strate- both in Europe and beyond, so it is impera ve or na onal agreements on acceptable levels (i.e. gies where necessary. This is also the case in regard that shortcomings in research and knowledge are impact intensity) or scales (e.g. reference popula- to the impacts of electromagne c fi elds as barriers addressed as a ma er of urgency. ons to consider and biogeographic distribu on for migra ng fi sh. In addi on, the poten al benefi ts aff ected) of disturbance for species in ques on. of fi shery closures and the provision of ar fi cial Conclusions These weaknesses need to be addressed at na onal habitats as a by-product of wind farm development as well as transna onal levels. should be further explored.

28 GREENING BLUE ENERGY - Iden fying and managing biodiversity risks and opportuni es of oﬀ shore renewable energy

iucn-eon-sida_ored_270410Gb_IRL.indd xxxi 28.04.2010 09:39:02 6 Addi onal resources

While the Annexe 1 provides signiﬁ cant scien ﬁ c guidance, the below sec on is intended to provide references to the main resources referred to in the text above.

E.ON

Oﬀ shore fact book: h p://www.eon.com/de/unternehmen/23700.jsp

World Bank

In 2007, the World Bank Group (WBG) and the Interna onal Finance Corpora on (IFC) released a revised version of their Environmental, Health and Safety Guide- lines. These oﬀ er general and sector-speciﬁ c examples of ‘Good Interna onal Industry Prac ce’. The industry guidance for the Electric Power Transmission and Distri- bu on sector includes good prac ce on wind energy. These documents complement the Environmental Assessment Sourcebook released 10 years earlier by WBG.

Environmental, Health and Safety Guidelines: h p://www.ifc.org/ifcext/sustainability.nsf/Content/EHSGuidelines - see General EHS Guidelines (full document) and Industry Sector Guidelines subheadings Power/Wind Energy and Power/Electric Power Transmission and Distribu on

Environmental Assessment Sourcebook: h p://go.worldbank.org/LLF3CMS1I0

European Commission

EU environmental legisla on to off shore wind farm development such as Direc ves on: • The conserva on of wild birds: h p://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:1979:103:0001:005:EN:HTML • Natural habitats and of wild fauna and fl ora: h p://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:31992L0043:EN:HTML • EIA (the assessment of the eff ects of certain public and private projects on the environment ) [Direc ve 85/337/EEC]; • SEA (the assessment of the eff ects of certain plans and programmes on the environment ) [Direc ve 2001/42/EC].

European Wind Energy Associa on(EWEA): h p://www.ewea.org

EWEA (2009) Oceans of opportunity: h p://www.ewea.org/ﬁ leadmin/ewea_documents/documents/publica ons/reports/Oﬀ shore_Report_2009.pdf Addi Resources onal

Iden fying and managing biodiversity risks and opportuni es of oﬀ shore renewable energy - GREENING BLUE ENERGY 29

iucn-eon-sida_ored_270410Gb_IRL.indd xxxii 28.04.2010 09:39:02 iucn-eon-sida_ored_270410Gb_IRL.indd xxxiii 28.04.2010 09:39:02 Annexe 1 Research on impacts Review of the impacts of oﬀ shore wind energy on the marine environment

1 Introduc on...... 32 8 Electromagne c fi elds...... 51 2 Main types of sea areas likely to be used for off shore wind power...32 8.1. EMF and fi sh...... 51 3 Impacts of the addi on of hard bo om habitats...... 33 8.2. EMF and invertebrates...... 52 3.1 Sessile organisms...... 33 8.3. Mi ga on of EMF eff ects...... 53 3.2 Dispersal pa erns of hard bo om species...... 34 9 Impacts on birds...... 53 3.3 Fish and mammals...... 34 9.1. Collision risks...... 53 3.4 Collision risks for marine animals and fi sh...... 38 9.2. Migra on barriers...... 54 4 Sedimenta on and seabed disrup on during construc on...... 38 9.3. Habitat loss for seabirds...... 55 5 Impacts on hydrodynamics and changed nutrient transports...... 40 10 Aspects of decommissioning...... 57 6 Toxic substances...... 42 11 Ecosystem and seascape considera ons...... 57 7 Acous c disturbance...... 44 12 Variability across la tudes, regions and locali es...... 59 7.1 Construc on noise and injuries in vertebrates...... 44 13 Conclusions...... 59 7.2 Construc on noise and avoidance by marine mammals...... 44 7.3 Construc on noise and avoidance by fi sh...... 46 7.4 Construc on noise and invertebrates...... 47 7.5 Mi ga on of construc on noise eff ects...... 47 7.6 Opera onal noise and fi sh...... 47 7.7 Opera onal noise and marine mammals...... 49 7.8 Noise and avoidance by sea turtles...... 50 7.9 Masking of ambient sounds and bioacous cs...... 50

Iden fying and managing biodiversity risks and opportuni es of oﬀ shore renewable energy - GREENING BLUE ENERGY 31

iucn-eon-sida_ored_270410Gb_IRL.indd xxxiv 28.04.2010 09:39:02 1 Introduc on Temporal Certainty

• Short term: Through construc on phase. 1 = Literature consists of scien fi cally founded spec- A review of poten al nega ve and posi ve impacts ula ons. of Off shore Wind Farms (OWF) on the marine envi- • Long term: Through opera onal phase. ronment was conducted in 2009, and the results are 2 = Research is in its infancy and inconclusive. presented below. Statements and conclusions are • Permanent : Impacts persist beyond the not necessarily based on consensus, but rather aim opera onal and decommissioning phases. 3 = Available literature provides a fair basis for to refl ect the median views of the authors. assessments. Spa al The analysis treats animal groups as represen ng a 4 = Available literature provides a good basis for cross sec on of species. Large data gaps exist, how- • Very local: Within 10 m from wind turbines. assessments. ever, and impacts may also be species- and season- specifi c. Systems and ecological responses may also • Local : 10-100 m from wind turbine. 5 = Evidence base is rela vely solid. diff er signifi cantly between regions and locali es. Also, acceptable levels of disturbances will depend • Broad : 100-1,000 m from wind turbine. on the local/regional conserva on status of species or habitats in ques on. Most impacts treated in this • Very broad: > 1,000 m from wind turbine. 2 Main types of sea areas likely to be review are assessed on spa al, temporal scales, as used for off shore wind power well as in terms of the es mated degree of severity Es mated degree of severity (-) or benefi t (+) or benefi t for organisms within a wind farm area, of impacts for species assemblages within the Current technologies, including monopiles, tripods according to the legend below. wind farm area are categorised as: and gravity founda ons (see Box 1 in Chapter 4 of the main document) limit off shore, non-fl oa ng, Key: Temporal and spa al dimensions, as well as • Small : Should not infl uence or have small wind turbines to coastal areas not deeper than 30 the severity/benefi t of eff ects on species assem- impacts on size or structure of assemblage. metres, with some excep ons (e.g. Zhixin, et al., blages are noted in the text according to categories 2009). Seabeds consis ng of muddy sand, sand or as defi ned below (in bold italic text). Where appro- • Moderate : Impacts could moderately infl uence gravel beds with only sca ered boulders are pre- priate, conclusions provide ‘certainty’ scores, indi- species assemblages, generally or for par cular ferred for technical and economic reasons. Exploit- ca ng the level of certainty of understanding pro- species. ed areas are obviously exposed to strong wind vided by current research: forces. Thus, the substrate is frequently turned over • Large : Impacts could signifi cantly infl uence size during storms and communi es may be dominated or structure of species assemblages, generally by opportunis c algae and animal. or for par cular species. However, off shore banks that are technically suit-

32 GREENING BLUE ENERGY - Iden fying and managing biodiversity risks and opportuni es of oﬀ shore renewable energy

iucn-eon-sida_ored_270410Gb_IRL.indd xxxv 28.04.2010 09:39:02 able for wind power development can provide a tling stages and subsequent biological interac ons The structural complexity provided by mussel beds refuge for species that have been excluded by pol- (Keough, 1983; Rodriguez, et al., 1993; Santelices, promotes biodiversity of macro-invertebrates and lu on, eutrophica on and anthropogenic develop- 1990). However, in the longer term, the season of the waste material they produce can enhance the ment further inshore. Infaunal assemblages that submersion tends to have no signifi cant infl uence abundance of other species (e.g. Ragnarsson & are important sources of food for birds and fi sh usu- on the sessile community (e.g. Qvarfordt, et al., Raff aelli, 1999; Norling & Kautsky, 2007; Norling & ally dominate the seabed in these habitats, in both 2006; Langhamer, et al., 2009). Further, the posi- Kautsky, 2008). Mussels can also cause a shi from temperate and tropical regions. Such areas provide on of the structure in the water column may be a primary producer and grazer dominated food habitats for feeding, res ng, and may be especially more important than age or type of the substrate chain towards a detritus feeding community (Nor- important as nursery habitats for mammals and (Connell, 2000; Kno , et al., 2004; Perkol-Finkel, et ling & Kautsky, 2007; Norling & Kautsky, 2008). seabirds. al., 2006). From an opera onal perspec ve fouling of the wind Adjacent areas to wind farms may include a range of Typical ‘pier piling assemblages’ (Davis, et al., 1982), turbine tower is detrimental, adding to the weight habitats, such as rocky or coral reefs, sandy shores, dominated by fi lter feeding invertebrate generally and drag from water movement and it may also kelp forests, etc. Thus, the disturbance caused by develop on wind turbines. In post construc on sur- facilitate corrosion. An fouling paints are generally construc on and opera ons of the turbines may veys of wind turbines in Denmark Sweden, and UK not used on wind turbines. However, cleaning of the not be limited to the wind farm area itself, and risk two principal assemblages have been observed; turbines creates a periodic (every 2 years, approxi- assessments for a variety of habitats are necessary. either dominance by barnacles and blue mussels mately) disturbance/removal of assemblages. Stud- (My lus edulis), in true marine areas together with ies on wind power turbines, bridge pilings and predatory starfi sh, or dominance by anemones, buoys, however, suggest that the biomass of domi- 3 Impacts of the addi on of hard hydroids and solitary sea squirts (Dong Energy, et na ng organisms on these ver cally oriented struc- bo om habitats al., 2006; Linley, et al., 2007; Wilhelmsson & Malm, tures does not increase notably with me a er 1-2 2008; Maar, et al., 2009). Wind turbines may off er years of submergence (Qvarfordt, 2006; Wilhelms- 3.1 Sessile organisms a par cularly favourable substrate for blue mus- son & Malm, 2008; Langhamer, et al., 2009). This sels (Wilhelmsson, et al., 2006; Maar, et al., 2009). is a result of counterac on of colonisa on/growth Whenever a new material is submerged in the sea it Turbines can facilitate 10 mes higher biomass of by dislodgment of mussels due to gravity and wave will become colonised by marine organisms. Micro- blue mussels than on bridge pilings (Maar, et al., ac on, as well as to food and space limita ons. Sim- bial colonisa on occurs within hours and will be 2009). Each turbine may support 1-2 metric tonnes ilar eff ects could be expected in tropical water (e.g. followed over weeks to months by se lement of of mussels, and double the biomass of fi lter feeders Wilhelmsson, et al., 1998; Svane & Petersen, 2001). macrobiota (e.g. Svane & Petersen, 2001). The ini- in a wind farm area as a whole compared to before Unless repain ng is necessary, cleaning of turbines al phases of colonisa on are predominantly infl u- construc on (Maar, et al., 2009). The mussel matri- may therefore not be suffi ciently benefi cial to jus- enced by physical condi ons and are rela vely pre- ces on the turbines provide habitat and food for fy the costs and habitat disturbance involved. dictable (Wahl, 1989). The macrobio c assemblage small crustaceans, which in turn cons tute prey for that develops on a structure can be diffi cult to pre- fi sh and other predators (e.g. Zander, 1988; Norling Trawling, which is one of the most severe threats dict and is strongly infl uenced by availability of set- & Kautsky, 2008). to the marine environment (e.g. Thrush & Dayton,

Iden fying and managing biodiversity risks and opportuni es of oﬀ shore renewable energy - GREENING BLUE ENERGY 33

iucn-eon-sida_ored_270410Gb_IRL.indd xxxvi 28.04.2010 09:39:02 2002), including both fi sh and benthic assemblages, 3.2 Dispersal pa erns of hard bo om species among regions, depending on geography, hydrol- will be prohibited or limited inside wind farms. This ogy, exis ng ar fi cial structures (e.g. buoys, pier would cause less physical disturbance of benthic Wind turbines provide hard substrata in regions and pilings and coastal defence structures), seabed type communi es and more favourable environments at depths o en dominated by so bo om habitats. and species composi ons. As development of wind for long-lived species (Dayton, et al., 1995; Jen- Wind farms could thus fi ll in gaps between natural farms progresses, eff ects on dispersal pa erns of nings & Kaiser, 1998; Kaiser, et al., 2006; Tillin, et areas of hard substrata, and so change the biogeo- certain species within a region may be signifi cant. al., 2006). graphic distribu on of species within a region (Bul- The long-term eff ects on sessile species could be leri & Airoldi, 2005; Nielsen, 2009). Not only may very broad, but although there may be impacts, too Conclusions the distribu on of na ve reef species be aff ected li le informa on is available on overall impacts on by this. Based on studies on pier pilings and oil plat- benthic assemblages to make fi rm predic ons. The Par cularly on so bo om habitats, but to some forms, it has been suggested that large scale urbani- infl uence of the structures on connec vity and dis- extent also on hard bo om dominated areas, the sa on of coastal areas could provide entry points persal pa erns of marine organisms has not been addi on of hard substrata increases habitat hetero- and stepping-stones for alien rocky shore species established. Unpropor onally large assemblages of geneity and the biodiversity of sessile organisms. brought in as larvae by ballast water (Glasby & non-indigenous species on ar fi cial structures are, These long-term changes should be very local, and Connell, 1999; Connell, 2001; Airoldi, et al., 2005; nevertheless, rela vely well documented. limited to the turbines and the adjacent seabed. Bulleri & Airoldi, 2005; Page, et al., 2006; Glasby, Certainty: 2 The magnitude of these eff ects is not assessed here, et al., 2007; Villareal, 2007). Ar fi cial structures due to the fact that although the habitat altera ons have also been shown to be er cater for non-na ve will be localised to the turbines, total biomass of species than natural reefs by changing the com- 3.3 Fish, crustaceans and mammals species and diversity may increase notably for the pe ve interac ons (Fenner & Banks, 2004; Sam- area as a whole. Research on fouling communi es marco, et al., 2004; Bulleri & Airoldi, 2005; Glasby, Construc on and deployment of ar fi cial reefs on ar fi cial and natural hard substrata is rela vely et al., 2007). Three non-indigenous species have in coastal waters is prac ced worldwide with the well advanced, and the bases for general predic- been recorded on wind turbines in Denmark and intent to manage fi sheries, to protect and facili- ons are good, although variability among locali es Sweden (Dong Energy, et al., 2006; Brodin & Ander- tate the rehabilita on of certain habitats or water and environmental condi ons limits predictability. sson, 2009). Two of these species dominated their bodies, or to increase the recrea onal value of an Certainty: 4 respec ve sub-habitat. One of the species was also area (Ambrose, 1994; Brock, 1994; Guillén, et al., recorded as an exo c species in large densi es on 1994; Hueckel, et al., 1989; Milon, 1989; Picker- In the long term, trawling exclusion enhances abun- off shore oil pla orms off California and concerns ing, et al., 1998; Wilhelmsson, et al., 1998; Jensen, dance of several species within the whole wind were raised on how it may infl uence na ve amphi- 2002; Claudet & Pelle er, 2004; Seaman, 2007). The farm area (broad) and eff ects can be considered pod species (Page, et al., 2006). materials used range from specially designed con- large. Certainty: 5 crete- or steel units to scrap materials such as car Conclusions res, shipwrecks and train carriages (Baine, 2001). Although some studies have revealed no signifi cant The signifi cance of these eff ects would vary greatly eff ects of ar fi cial reefs on fi sh assemblages, accu-

34 GREENING BLUE ENERGY - Iden fying and managing biodiversity risks and opportuni es of oﬀ shore renewable energy

iucn-eon-sida_ored_270410Gb_IRL.indd xxxvii 28.04.2010 09:39:02 mulated evidence suggests that ar fi cial reefs generally hold higher fi sh densi es, biomass, and provide higher catch rates compared to surrounding so bo om areas, and in some cases also in rela on to adjacent natural reefs (e.g. Ambrose & Swarbrick, 1989; Beets, 1989; Bohnsack, et al., 1991; Bohnsack & Sutherland, 1985; De Mar ni, et al., 1989; Brock & Norris, 1989; Bohnsack, et al., 1994; Kim, et al., 1994; Pickering & Whitmarsh, 1996; Wilhelmsson, et al., 1998; Arena, et al., 2007). Reasons suggested for higher abundance and diversity of fi sh on and around ar fi cial reefs include enhanced protec- on and food availability, and the use of the structures by fi sh as reference points for spa al orienta- on (Bohnsack & Sutherland, 1985; Jessee, et al., 1985; Ambrose & Swarbrick, 1989; Bohnsack, 1989; Grove, et al., 1991).

Diff erent types of urban structures in the sea, constructed primarily for other purposes, such as oil Figure A1-1: Wind turbines, even without scour protec on (e.g. boulders), can aggregate fi sh. pla orms (Helvey, 2002; Love, et al., 1999; Rooker, Photo: Dan Wilhelmsson et al., 1997; Seaman, et al., 1989; Pon , et al., 2002), breakwaters (Stephens, et al., 1994), pier pilings and pontoons (Connell & Glasby, 1999; Rilov strate in the respec ve coastal areas, adding signif- tribu on pa erns around a single small wind tur- & Benayahu, 1998) also serve as habitats for dense icant amounts of habitat for rockfi shes and other bine, and reported higher abundance of cod and fi sh and invertebrate assemblages. These are o en species (Bohnsack, et al., 1991; Scarborough Bull & some pelagic species 50 metres from the turbine defi ned as ‘secondary ar fi cial reefs’ (e.g. Pickering, Kendall, 1994). compared to 200-800 metres away. However this et al., 1998). Surveys of oil rigs, for example, have pa ern was only noted while the turbine was not revealed higher growth rates, densi es, and larger Studies in Denmark and Sweden have shown that running. Se lement rates and abundance of lob- individuals of fi sh around these ar fi cial structures wind turbines and the associated scour protec- ster, a species that o en is habitat limited, could compared to surrounding natural seabeds (e.g. on can signifi cantly enhance local abundance of also increase around scour protec on boulders Nelson, 1985; Love, et al., 1999). Notably, oilrigs off bo om-dwelling fi sh and crabs (Figure A1-1; Figure (Pickering & Whitmarsh, 1996; Jensen, et al., 2000; Louisiana and in the Gulf of Mexico provide 90 per A1-2; e.g. Wilhelmsson, et al., 2006; Maar, et al., Wihelmsson, et al., 2009). cent and 15-28 per cent of the hard-bo om sub- 2009). Westerberg (1994), inves gated fi sh dis-

Iden fying and managing biodiversity risks and opportuni es of oﬀ shore renewable energy - GREENING BLUE ENERGY 35

iucn-eon-sida_ored_270410Gb_IRL.indd xxxviii 28.04.2010 09:39:02 Depth-related distribu on pa erns of fi sh and , 1991; Relini, et al., 1994). In ecological studies in tant areas elsewhere, in line with indica ons by the sessile biota are typical in shallow water habitats conjunc on with winds farms, it is o en presumed EU Marine Strategy Framework Direc ve (MSFD, (Gibson, 1969; Pedersén & Snoeijs, 2001; Pon , et that the sessile community is important for aggre- 2008/56/EC). Research has already shown that al., 2002). Ver cally oriented structures, such as ga on of fi sh (e.g. Dong Energy, et al., 2006). Some modifi ca on of engineered structures can infl uence wind turbines, provide a selec on of depths, which species are, however, likely to be a racted by the diversity and increase the abundance of commer- may cater for diff erent life stages and species of fi sh refuge provided by structure itself. cially exploited species (Langhamer & Wilhelmsson, (Molles, 1978; Aabel, et al., 1997; Rooker, et al., 2009; Mar ns, et al., 2010). Research is under way 1997; Rilov & Benayahu, 2002; Rauch, 2003). If not Results from preliminary studies in Denmark, Hol- to iden fy species-specifi c habitat preferences in buried, the physical presence of power cables could land, Japan and Sweden on fi sh abundance in a the design of off shore energy founda ons to op - also provide shelter for benthic fi sh, especially juve- wind farm area as a whole (i.e. not only consider- mise biomass of desired species. The confi gura on niles, according to both observa ons in wind farms ing aggrega ons around turbines) indicate either of scour protec ons is also likely to be important, (D.W, personal observa ons) and structured surveys increased species abundances (e.g. sand eels, cod, in terms of density of boulders and void space of pipelines (Nø estad, 1998). Evidence from stud- whi ng, sole), or no eff ects (Hvidt, et al., 2005; (Grove, et al., 1991; Kim, et al., 1994; Lan & Hsui, ies around oil rigs (Todd, et al., 2009) indicate that Dong Energy, et al., 2006; Naruse, et al., 2006; 2006). Frond mats may also func on as ar fi cial wind turbines may also a ract feeding porpoises, Nielsen, 2009; Musalears, 2009 and see Müller algae or sea grass beds, providing nursery areas for and this was also men oned as a possibility for both 2007 for references), although a decrease in lesser juvenile fi sh, and habitats for fi sh of high conserva- seals and porpoises by Avelung, et al. (2006) and weever (Echiichthys vipera) was indicated (Musale- on importance, such as pipefi shes and seahorses Frank (2006), provided that the opera onal noise ars, 2009). Most studies to date have aimed at (Linley, et al., 2007; Wilson & Elliot, 2009). does not deter these mammals (see sec on below). method development and/or are sta s cally weak (some can only be considered as observa ons), or For fi sh and crustacean species limited by the Unless opera onal noise deters fi sh, turbines are conducted at limited spa al and temporal scales amount of reef habitat for refuge, territory, food (par cularly the fl oa ng deep water turbines) are that cannot be generalised to eff ects of the ar fi cial and behavioural requirements, ar fi cial reefs may also likely to func on as ar fi cial reefs and/or Fish structures on fi sh abundance in the whole area (see augment total stock size (e.g. Bohnsack, 1989). For Aggrega on Devices for pelagic fi sh with increasing also Ehrich, et al., 2006). Improved and addi onal example, abundance of many coral reef fi shes are eff ects with depth, (Chou, 1997; Rey-Vale e, et al., monitoring eff orts are currently under way. limited by availability of shelter sites (Risk, 1972; 1999; Schröder, et al., 2006; Fayram & de Risi, 2007). Luckhurst & Luckhurst, 1978; Shulman, 1984), Many commercial fi sh species, such as cod and fl at- Acknowledging the poten al scale of off shore and many decapod stocks may be habitat lim- fi sh, are known to congregate around projec ng renewable energy development, there is an ited (Jensen, et al., 1994; Pickering & Whitmarsh, structures on seabed (Gregory & Andersson, 1997; increasing interest in ar cula ng the poten al posi- 1996; Sheehan, et al., 2008). Further, the amount Light & Jones, 1997; Stanley, et al., 2002; Tupper ve eff ects of the crea on of ar fi cial hard bo om of suitable habitat could be limi ng during certain & Rudd, 2002; Johnsson, et al., 2003; Cote, et al., habitats, as well of the limita ons of fi shing in the life stages, such the early benthic phase, mol ng, 2004). Even simple surface buoys are commonly wind power parks, for the benefi t of fi sheries man- or spawning, and these demographic bo lenecks used to aggregate fi sh and the radius of infl uence agement and conserva on. Habitat enhancement could be widened through provision of ar fi cial can be several hundred metres (Seaman & Sprague could compensate for losses of biologically impor- habitats (Werner & Gilliam, 1984; Wahle & Ste-

36 GREENING BLUE ENERGY - Iden fying and managing biodiversity risks and opportuni es of oﬀ shore renewable energy

iucn-eon-sida_ored_270410Gb_IRL.indd xxxix 28.04.2010 09:39:03 neck, 1991; Chojnacki, 2000; Jensen, 2002; Hunter off shore energy development will depend on scale stock or areas of signifi cance for spawning or nurs- & Sayer, 2009). However, for other species, or for and area in considera on. O en, cost-benefi t anal- ing, and thereby secure certain levels or stability of the same species in other regions, ar fi cial reefs yses of ar fi cial reef deployments are restricted to reproduc on (‘buff ering’) (e.g. Campos & Gamboa, may only redistribute fi sh biomass and produc on the site level, however, and the eventual benefi cial 1989; Beets & Hixon, 1994; Jensen, 2002). The size (Bohnsack, 1989). This is believed to be the case infl uence of ar fi cial reef projects on conserva on of the wind farms, and the cumula ve eff ects of par cularly for species ac ng below the carrying or fi shery management through enhanced bio- several wind farms in the same area (depending on capacity of the environment in terms of space or mass produc on may be minimal at regional scales connec vity between them (see sec on 11)), will food due to recruitment limita on, through high (Bohnsack, 1989; Polovina & Sakai 1989; Grossman, have an infl uence to this regard. The ecological per- fi shing or preda on mortality (e.g. Rong-Quen, et et al., 1997; see also Ehrich, et al., 2006 for discus- formance (e.g. growth, survivorship, reproduc on) al., 2003), or an extreme physical environment (e.g. sion on eff ects of wind farms). Likely excep ons of fi sh around wind turbines is, however, rela vely low salinity and temperature; Thorman & Wieder- may occur when heavily-fi shed and vulnerable spe- unknown to date. holm, 1986). cies are protected from exploita on on ar fi cial reefs, or when ar fi cial reefs are used for trawling Nevertheless, trawling, which is one of the most The importance of habitat enhancement through preven on in an area to protect a segment of a fi sh severe threats to the marine environment (e.g. Thrush & Dayton, 2002), including both fi sh and benthic assemblages, will be prohibited or limited inside wind farms. Areas that could encompass several square kilometres will in prac ce resemble ‘no take zones’ (Pitcher, et al., 1999; Wilson, et al.,1999). These areas will, in addi on, contain hundreds of ar fi cial reefs. Management strategies combining Marine Protected Areas and ar fi cial reef deployment are increasingly recognised (e.g. Pitcher, et al., 1999; Claudet & Pelle er, 2004). It has, further, been suggested that, as surface-oriented off shore energy devices (i.e. buoys, suppor ng structures) may func on as Fish Aggrega on Devices (FAD) for large predatory fi sh (for fl oa ng turbines e.g. tuna, dolphin fi sh), wind farms could provide management opportuni es for this fi shing sector (Fayram & de Risi, 2007).

A European lobster residing under an oﬀ shore energy founda on. Photo: Olivia Langhamer

Iden fying and managing biodiversity risks and opportuni es of oﬀ shore renewable energy - GREENING BLUE ENERGY 37

iucn-eon-sida_ored_270410Gb_IRL.indd xl 28.04.2010 09:39:03 Conclusions da ons, pose li le collision risk (e.g. Pelc & Fujita, 4 Sedimenta on and seabed 2002; Wilson, et al., 2007; Inger, et al., 2009). Li le disrup on during construc on According both to studies on wind turbines in oper- structured research on this has been conducted, a on and an extensive literature on ar fi cial reefs but the collected prac cal experience is large. These Deployment of wind turbines and scour protec- it is certain that the wind turbines and scour pro- risks are likely to be negligible at a popula on level. on will result in a 0.14-3 per cent direct loss of tec ons will func on as ar fi cial reefs for several the seabed within the wind farm area, with each species of fi sh. In most cases these local and long- Conclusions turbine claiming up to 450 square metres (Biocon- term eff ects on fi sh assemblages or stocks overall sult A/S, 2000a; Hvidt, et al., 2005; Wilson & Elliot, may be negligible, but under some circumstances If collisions occur, they are likely to be very rare 2009). Wind farm construc on and decommission- (see above) ar fi cial reefs deployed over large areas and have small impacts on an assemblage of fi sh or ing may have acute pulse eff ects since they will could have signifi cant eff ects. Es mated magnitude mammals as a whole. Certainty: 2 disturb and re-suspend par culate material from of these benefi cial eff ects is, thus, on average mod- the seabed. Concentra on of suspended par cles erate. The large variability in the response to dif- and radius of impact depend on a variety of factors, ferently designed ar fi cial reefs among fi sh species and regions/la tudes weakens our ability to make predic ons. Certainty: 3

Eﬀ ects of eventual habitat enhancement on marine mammals could be broad, considering the mobility of mammals, but should overall be small. Li le research on this is, however, available. Certainty: 1

Long-term, trawling exclusion enhances abundance of several species ﬁ sh within the whole wind farm area (broad), and eﬀ ects can be considered large. Certainty: 5

3.4 Collision risks for marine mammals and ﬁ sh

Concerns have been raised that mammals and ﬁ sh could collide with the wind turbines. Fixed, large, Various species of corals. Photo: SDRMI submerged structures, such as wind turbine foun-

38 GREENING BLUE ENERGY - Iden fying and managing biodiversity risks and opportuni es of oﬀ shore renewable energy

iucn-eon-sida_ored_270410Gb_IRL.indd xli 28.04.2010 09:39:13 such as the seabed substrate (e.g. grain size), hydro- respira on for example by clogging gills, as well as 2006), although sec ons could also be undermined dynamics and type of founda ons being installed. inhibi ng feeding, and this may par cularly be the by currents and subsequently hang freely above the Excava on ac vi es needed for gravity founda ons case for small species or vulnerable life stages such seabed (OE, 1999). On hard bo oms, the cables are likely to cause greater suspension of sediment as fi sh larvae (e.g. Auld & Schubel, 1978). Turbid- are anchored with stones or concrete. Similar to than other types of founda ons. This may result in ity may also cause temporary avoidance by fi sh deployment of gravity founda ons, the installa on localised smothering of the seabed (Wilding, 2006; (Westerberg, et al., 1996; Knudsen, et al., 2006). of cables implies a certain risk of re-suspension and Gill, 2005). The eff ects of smothering are likely to Recent studies related to the dredging for wind sedimenta on and direct elimina on of fauna and be more severe for organisms such as barnacles, turbine gravity founda ons iden fi ed no nega ve fl ora (Di Carlo & Kenworthy, 2008). When burying grazing and fi lter feeding molluscs, that live on hard eff ects on either juvenile or adult fi sh at a distance pipelines for example, 10-20 metres broad belts surfaces, as well as for reef building tube worms of 150 metres from the ac vi es (Hammar, et al., of seabed are directly aff ected by sedimenta on (i.e. Sabellaria spp.) (Menge, et al., 1994; Airoldi, 2008). Within the Danish Monitoring Program, only (Knudsen, et al., 2006), but a zone of 50 metres 1998; Balata, et al., 2007; Vaselli, et al., 2008), and localised and short-term sedimenta on impacts wide on each side can be aff ected by construc on also for corals, which have limited ability to toler- were reported on benthos during the installa on of ac vi es, such as cable laying and associated boat ate sediment (McClanahan & Obura, 1997; Gilm- gravity founda ons (Dong Energy, et al., 2006). Fur- ac vi es (Hiscock, et al., 2002). These results are, our, 1999). Seaweed communi es on hard bo oms ther, case-specifi c modelling of sediment distribu- however, not directly applicable to laying of cables in the temperate regions may respond to increased on and concentra ons in conjunc on with wind of smaller dimensions. Changes in species diversity sedimenta on with a shi in species composi on turbine installa on, including worst case scenarios may occur par cularly where large slow-growing from dominance of large foliose algae to fi lamen- (calcareous sediment), has suggested only local species such as reef building corals are replaced by tous turf algae (Balata, et al., 2007; Vaselli, et al., and short-term eff ects (e.g. Didrikas & Wijkmark, small short-lived opportunis c species. 2008). This change in vegeta on may nega vely 2009). The requirements for a certain degree of aff ect the recruitment other organisms, such as seabed stability for proper fi xa on of turbine foun- Wind power cables may rela vely soon resemble fi sh (Kaaria, et al., 1997; Stratoudakis, et al., 1998). da ons mean that construc on mainly takes place natural hard substrata with no or very localized So bo om species are also aff ected by increased in course sediments, which in turn results in short measurable impacts on the adjacent seabed (e.g. sedimenta on, but for example seagrass (Vermaat, periods of sediment dispersion and turbidity. Hiscock, et al., 2002; Malm, 2005; Dong Energy, et al., 1997) and mangrove systems (Ellison, 1998) 2006; Vize, et al., 2008). A number of studies of ani- have greater tolerance and rela vely large amounts Cables are either laid directly on the seabed (Kogan, mal-dominated so bo oms have shown no signifi - of material are required to cause adverse eff ects. et al., 2006) or, par cularly in areas with intensive cant long-term (> 2 years) impacts of cable plough- Generally, the disturbed areas will undergo a suc- fi shing and other human ac vi es, they are buried ing or other dredging ac vi es (OE, 1999; Andrule- cession star ng with opportunis c species gradu- (by dredging or ploughing) about 1 metre deep into wicz, et al., 2001; Lewis, et al., 2003). In some cases ally replaced by secondary species towards a recov- the seabed (e.g. Vize, et al., 2008). Depending on it may, however, take several decades before the ery of the seabed assemblages (Grassle & Sanders, seabed structure, cables may naturally become biomass and species composi on on the surround- 1973). completely buried within a few years; experiences ing seabed returns to pre-construc on condi ons from the oil and gas sector show that pipelines are (Mateo, et al., 1997; Di Carlo & Kenworthy, 2008). When par cles are suspended, they may also aff ect buried in 5-15 years (OE, 1999; Knudsen, et al., Deep cold seabeds may take up to 10 years to

Iden fying and managing biodiversity risks and opportuni es of oﬀ shore renewable energy - GREENING BLUE ENERGY 39

iucn-eon-sida_ored_270410Gb_IRL.indd xlii 28.04.2010 09:39:14 recover (Knudsen, et al., 2006). In extreme cases ty: 3. Careless si ng of turbines could aff ect threat- ing sediments up to 25 metres from the structure where water movement is large, re-coloniza on of ened species with narrow distribu on ranges, but itself (Wallingford, 2005). These changes in sedi- the larger species could be prevented completely, generally impacts on benthic species assemblages ment characteris cs infl uence the associated infau- and erosion may even cause gaps in for example in the area as a whole would be short-term and nal and benthic communi es (Mar n, et al., 2005; seagrass meadows (Whi ield, et al., 2002). small. Schröder, et al., 2006) and nutrient regenera on (Danovaro, et al., 1999; Maar, et al., 2009) around When seabeds are disturbed, damages of a seri- the structures. The extent of erosion by scour can ous nature may, however, only arise in cases where be reduced by the introduc on of rock armour or cables are drawn across habitats that include 5 Impacts on hydrodynamics and anchored polypropylene fronds (1–1.5 metres in threatened or habitat forming (e.g. coral, seagrass) changed nutrient transports length) to stabilise sediment, although these addi- species (e.g. Duarte, et al., 1997; Marba, et al., ons will also have eff ects on the marine life (see 1996). Cables could increase the temperature of Wind power structures will aff ect water fl ow, and sec on 3.3). the surrounding water and seabed. The only study this will be cri cal to marine organisms since it that to the authors´ knowledge dealt in depth with infl uences larval recruitment, sedimenta on, the The infl uence of sheer stress on the transport this issue, es mated the increase in temperature availability of food and oxygen and the removal of of sediment and the subsequent eff ects on sedi- of the sediment above a buried cable to be insig- waste (Breitburg, et al., 1995; Snelgrove & Butman, ment characteris cs and the associated benthic nifi cant; approximately 0.2 oC, and the increase in 1994; Ze ler & Pollehne, 2006). Recent results from community, especially organisms living within the seawater temperature would only be 0.000006 oC analy cal modelling suggested that wind wakes cre- sediment, are well described (Ong & Krishnan, (BERR, 2008). However, cumula ve eff ects of sub- ated by large wind farms could generate signifi cant 1995; Joschko, et al., 2004; Schröder, et al., 2006). stan al numbers of turbines, and localised eff ects up-welling or down-welling veloci es in the vicin- Also, where water movement is slowed there will of much greater eleva on of temperature in sedi- ity of farms even at quite moderate wind speeds be increased deposi on of suspended material. ments surrounding cables need to be evaluated. (Broström, 2008). This could aff ect nutrient trans- The entrapment and deposi on of organic ma er, port and the local ecosystem as a whole. However, including material that originates from fi sh and ses- Conclusions no fi eld observa ons confi rming the model have sile organisms on and around an ar fi cial reef, can yet been reported. provide a source of food for the benthic community Although re-suspension of par culate material can up to 40 metres away and cause localised changes be broad and increase mortality of fi sh, larvae and The opera onal phase is likely to have chronic in composi on and produc on of macro-inver- eggs, eff ects are short-term, and should in most eff ects on the nature of sub dal sediments. Most tebrate assemblages as well as chemico-physical cases cause small impacts on whole fi sh assemblag- wind-turbine developments are in shallow water parameters adjacent (up to ~ 1 metre) to the struc- es. Research on sensi vity of fi sh, including larvae with predominantly mobile seabeds. There may be ture (e.g. Bray, et al., 1981; Kellison & Sedberry, and eggs, to sediment loads and sediment dispersal localised erosion of unconsolidated material due to 1998; Schröder, et al., 2006; Wilding, 2006; Maar, is rela vely advanced. Certainty: 4. scour around the toe of the structure; in some loca- et al., 2009). Around a research pla orm aiming ons this can be extensive resul ng in depressions to mimic condi ons around wind turbines, eff ects Impacts on invertebrates are less studied. Certain- several metres deep around the base and infl uenc- on the benthic species assemblages were noted 15

40 GREENING BLUE ENERGY - Iden fying and managing biodiversity risks and opportuni es of oﬀ shore renewable energy

iucn-eon-sida_ored_270410Gb_IRL.indd xliii 28.04.2010 09:39:14 metres from the structure (Schröder, et al., 2006). However, in the monitoring program at Horns Rev in Denmark no distance related eﬀ ects on sediment dwelling animals (infauna) were discerned within the wind farm area as a whole (Dong Energy, et al., 2006). Modelling in the same program suggested that the changes in current velocity within 5 metres from the founda on would be less than 15 per cent, and 1.5-2 per cent between founda ons.

Concerns have been raised regarding the eff ects that the entrapment and deposi on of organic ma er may have in strongly stra fi ed water bodies, where anoxic condi ons already prevail. Field observa ons have confi rmed that localized anerobic condi ons may occur around the feet of the turbines (M.H. Andersson, personal communica on 2009). Other poten al impacts include ammonium excre on by Boat traffi c around off shore wind farm. Photo: E.ON Climate & Renewables the mussels, which could increase growth rates of phytoplankton and fi lamentous algae (Kautsky & Wallen nus, 1980; Norling & Kautsky, 2008; Maar, 2008; Maar, et al., 2009). As shown around oil- water movements, and forage mainly in the neigh- et al., 2009). This has also has been indicated in rigs, at larger scales (e.g. Love, et al., 1999), new bouring habitats (Ambrose & Anderson, 1990; Kurz, fi eld observa ons (Malm, 2005; Maar, et al., 2009). mussel beds can form around wind turbines, as a 1995; Einbinder, et al., 2006). Densi es of benthic Moreover, fi ltra on by the large numbers of mus- consequence of dislodgement of mussels from the prey items have, in some of studies, been shown sels on the turbines could deplete phytoplankton structures. These beds create hot spots of biologi- to decrease with proximity to these ar fi cial reefs and, as a result, cause lower biomass of fi ltra ng cal ac vity, and can fundamentally alter the natu- due to increased preda on (Davis, et al., 1982; Kurz, animals on the seabed, including mussels, up to 20 ral so bo om assemblage (Norling & Kautsky, 1995; Jordan, et al., 2005). The suggested radii of metres from a turbine (Maar, et al., 2009). 2008; Maar, et al., 2009). So far these changes in infl uence on biomass of prey and macroalgae macrofauna and fl ora composi on have only been around an ar fi cial reef range between 15 and 100 The biomass of fi lter feeding animals, such as blue observed within a few metres from each turbine metres. This probably depends on visibility and the mussels and barnacles, is higher on the seabed (Wilhelmsson, et al., 2006). levels of risk for the fi sh as they move away from around turbines compared with reference areas, the shelter of the ar fi cial reef (Davis, et al., 1982; while the biomass of macroalgae, par cularly spe- Many species of fi sh and crustaceans use ar fi - Kurz, 1995; Einbinder, et al., 2006). Low biomass cies of red algae, is lower (Wilhelmsson & Malm, cial reefs primarily as a refuge from predators and of common prey species has been recorded on the

Iden fying and managing biodiversity risks and opportuni es of oﬀ shore renewable energy - GREENING BLUE ENERGY 41

iucn-eon-sida_ored_270410Gb_IRL.indd xliv 28.04.2010 09:39:14 seabed around wind turbines, which could be a nutrients, as well as increased preda on on ben- should be even lower. There is, however, a legacy result of increased preda on pressure from fi sh and thic organisms, are long-term but should be local, of our past history of contaminants in many coastal crustaceans associated with the turbines (Maar, et i.e. within a few metres up to 100 metres from a areas adjacent to industrial estuaries and coast. al., 2009). In many areas, enhanced biomass pro- turbine, and very local for poten al anoxic condi- The largest risks of nega ve environmental impacts duc on of prey species on and around the turbines, ons. Careless si ng of turbines could, however, from pollu on will most probably arise while dredg- may be cancelled out by this increase in preda on aff ect threatened species with narrow distribu on ing sediments containing pollutants (Nendza, 2002), pressure. For example, it has been es mated that, ranges, but overall, the degree of severity of eff ects and although these eff ects are likely to be local and/ unless blue mussels and other prey were produced may on average range between small and moder- or temporary, cau on is needed when construc ng on and around the turbines, shore crabs, shrimps ate. Accumulated evidence from related research many turbines over a longer me. In rela on to a and fi sh associated with turbines in the Nystedt areas is comparably strong, and a few studies have specifi c off shore wind farm project the es mated wind farm would have needed food resources been conducted in wind farms, but the dynamics of release of metals and organic substances would equivalent to what is provided in a larger area than preda on eff ects are unclear. Certainty: 4 lead to increased concentra ons of less than 10 the whole wind farm area itself (Maar, et al., 2009). per cent of background levels. It has, nevertheless, 6 Toxic substances been pointed out that copper contamina on of Conclusions fi lter-feeding organisms on the seabed adjacent to According to interna onal exper se (e.g. GESAMP), the turbines, as well as of plankton, may occur (DHI, The long-term infl uences of poten al up- or down- the only cons tuent chemicals of signifi cant danger 1999; Bio/consult, 2000b). Maintenance sandblast- welling at the perimeter of a wind farm may be in the marine environment are mercury, n and ing and pain ng could release several cubic metres measurable in the area as a whole, although eff ects cadmium, primarily due to their bioavailability, and of paint and sand unless this is removed or excluded on species or ecosystem func ons should be local poten al to accumulate in the food chain. These from the water (Bio/consult, 2000b). Further, when and small. No fi eld observa ons confi rming the metals are reportedly not released during construc- changing oil in transformer sta ons, release of ser- model have yet been reported, and studies on on and opera on of wind farms. An foulants typi- vice-aged oil needs to be avoided. poten al impacts on biota within wind farms are cally release toxic chemicals, but use is largely regu- scarce. Certainty: 1 lated towards licensed protec ve coa ngs that are Conclusions low- or non-toxic. For example some wind turbines Changed hydrodynamics around turbines in opera- are painted with glass fl ake reinforced polyester Serious pollu on does not seem likely, and if pol- on are likely to have long-term eff ects on the coa ngs with no biocide ac vity, and an foulants lu on would occur eff ects on bio c assemblages nature of sub dal sediments and thus the assem- are typically not used. should be local and overall eff ects thus small, pro- blage structure of benthic organisms, but those vided that there are no large oil spills when serving will be local, limited to the surroundings of each Measurements of trace metals, vola le solids, transformer sta ons. The risk of s rring up polluted turbine. Altered water fl ows by ar fi cial reefs and copper, zinc and hydrocarbons have shown no seabeds and variability in construc on methods other structures, and the infl uences on adjacent anomalies in mussels, crabs and fi sh around oil among developers bring in some uncertainty, but seabeds are rela vely well studied. Measurable pla orms in the California Bight (Schroeder & Love, research and informa on base is otherwise good. eff ects of altered transports of organic material and 2004). The risks of pollu on from wind turbines Certainty: 4

42 GREENING BLUE ENERGY - Iden fying and managing biodiversity risks and opportuni es of oﬀ shore renewable energy

iucn-eon-sida_ored_270410Gb_IRL.indd xlv 28.04.2010 09:39:23 Legend: Green and red concentric rings indicate posi ve and nega ve inﬂ uences respec vely on species abundance.

5 metres radius: Ar fi cial reef eff ects with enhanced biomass of blue mussels, decapods (e.g. crabs and lobsters) and bo om dwelling fi sh (Wilhelmsson, et al., 2006; Wilhelmsson & Malm, 2008; Maar, et al., 2009).

20 metres radius: Deple on of phytoplankton by high densi- es of fi ltra ng organisms (i.e. mussels) on and around the turbine could adversely aff ect growth of fi ltrators on the seabed (e.g. Maar, et al., 2009).

40 metres radius: Input of organic material from organisms associated with the turbines, as well as entrapment of material by the turbines, could enrich the seabed and enhance the abundances of deposit-feeding organisms, and in turn increase the abundance of predators on these (e.g. Kellison & Figure A1-2. Schema c overview of some theore cal factors inﬂ uencing wildlife, and radii of Sedberry, 1998; Bray, et al., 1981; Maar, et impact, during opera on of oﬀ shore wind turbines. © C. Wilhelmsson al., 2009).

100 metres radius: 400 metres radius: 600 metres radius: Preda on by fi sh and crabs associated with An ar fi cial reef (here turbine and scour protec- Diving seabirds have been shown to avoid turbines the turbines could nega vely aff ect the on) can enhance abundances of pelagic fi sh at a larger distance than this (e.g. Stewart, et al., abundances of prey species (Davis, et al., species, and a ract fl a ishes to the reef, within 2007; Larsen & Guilleme e, 2007). 1982; Kurz, 1995; Jordan, et al., 2005). this radius (e.g. Grove, et al., 1991; Fayram & De Risi, 2007).

Iden fying and managing biodiversity risks and opportuni es of oﬀ shore renewable energy - GREENING BLUE ENERGY 43

iucn-eon-sida_ored_270410Gb_IRL.indd xlvi 28.04.2010 09:39:23 7 Acous c disturbance not pressure, and their responses to subsea noise Conclusions and vibra on are poorly known (Thomsen, et al., 7.1 Construc on noise and injuries on 2006). Although hearing impairments could occur within vertebrates a larger radius, any mortality due to acute sound Mammals may suff er hearing impairment, such as pulses is local. Par cularly mammals, but also most There has been a drama c increase in anthropo- changes in hearing thresholds (e.g. Frank, 2006; large/mobile fi sh, will not reside in close proxim- genic underwater noise in coastal areas during the Madsen, et al., 2006) when exposed to piling noise ity to pile driving, and impacts of any injuries on a last few decades (Samuel, et al., 2005; Tougaard, et (1.5 MW, 228dB 1 μPa) at close range. Both Tempo- species assemblage should be small (Figure A1-3), al., 2009). Hearing and processing of sound diff er rary Threshold Shi (TTS) and Permanent Thresh- provided mi ga on measures are taken (see 4.5). radically among species (e.g. Thomsen, et al., 2006; old Shi (PTS) represent changes in the ability of Temporal scale of impact is not assessed here as, Kastelein, et al., 2007), and the nature and detec- an animal to hear, usually at a par cular frequency, although the construc on is temporary, hearing on level of wind turbine construc on noise, includ- with the diff erence that TTS is recoverable a er impairment can be permanent. There are a number ing e.g. boat traffi c, pile driving, seismic surveys, is hours or days and PTS is not. Impairment through of focused studies on impacts of sound, and these largely unexplored. Generally, though, construc on TTS or PTS of a marine animal’s ability to hear can indicate that eff ects can vary greatly among spe- of founda ons and the laying of cables can gener- poten ally have quite adverse eff ects on its ability cies. Certainty: 3. However, no studies are avail- ate considerable acute noise (Peak 260 dB re: 1 μPa to communicate, to hear predators and to engage able showing the extent of TTS and PTS for diff erent and Peak 178 dB re: 1 μPa respec vely) and could in other important ac vi es. Both TTS and PTS are applica ons of mi ga on measures. More studies damage the acous c apparatus of organisms within triggered by the level and dura on of the received are clearly needed to op mise the management of 100 metres (Enger, 1981; McCauley, et al., 2003; Gill, signal. Sound can poten ally have a range of non- the exposure of marine mammals and fi sh to under- 2005; Madsen, et al., 2006). Piling generates a very auditory eff ects such as damaging non-auditory s- water noise during construc on. loud sound of wide bandwidth (Hardyniec & Skeen, sues, including trauma c brain injury/neurotrauma. 2005). The highest energies occur in the lower fre- Recently, Southall, et al. (2007) proposed sound quencies of 20 Hz to 1 kHz (Greene & Moore, 1995). exposure criteria for cetaceans and pinnipeds com- 7.2 Construc on noise and avoidance by Close to the piling site this noise could cause serious posed both of peak pressures and sound exposure marine mammals injury or even death to fi sh, marine mammals and levels which are an expression for the total energy sea turtles (Hardyniec & Skeen, 2005; Nowacek, et of a sound wave. These values are currently dis- Eff ects on animal behaviour can extend far beyond al., 2007; Snyder & Kaiser, 2009). For example piling cussed within the scien fi c community as they the farm area, and pile driving may cause behav- during construc on of a bridge killed fi sh within a are based on very limited data sets with respect ioural changes in seals, dolphins, and porpoises 50 metres radius. Experimental work has, on the to noise induced injury and behavioural response more than 20 kilometres away (Edren, et al., 2004; other hand, shown several fi sh species (including in marine mammals. Mammals and also most fi sh, Tougaard, et al., 2008; Tougaard, et al., 2009; David trout) to be unaff ected 10 metres away from the are, however, likely to move away from areas of pile 2006; Madsen, et al., 2006; Brandt, et al., 2009; driving of 0.7 metres diameter piles (see Snyder & driving (Figure A1-3; Engås, et al., 1996; Popper, et Tougaard, et al., 2009). Hearing thresholds for Kaiser, 2009 for references). Other species of fi sh al., 2004). seals and porpoises have been iden fi ed within the are predominantly sensi ve for par cle mo on and MINOS Programme (Frank, 2006). During wind farm

44 GREENING BLUE ENERGY - Iden fying and managing biodiversity risks and opportuni es of oﬀ shore renewable energy

iucn-eon-sida_ored_270410Gb_IRL.indd xlvii 28.04.2010 09:39:26 construc on at Nysted wind farm in Danish part of the Bal c Sea, harbour porpoises (Phocoena phocoena) abandoned the area (with eff ects noted 15 kilometres away), but at Horns Rev wind farm in the Danish part of the North Sea where monopiles were erected, porpoises largely returned within a few hours a er pile driving (Henriksen, et al., 2003; Carstensen, et al., 2006; Tougaard, et al., 2009; Dong Energy, et al., 2006). The Danish monitoring Program (Dong Energy, et al., 2006) concluded that the construc on phase as a whole only had weak eff ects on porpoises, while piling had dis nct but short lived eff ects. However, scaring devices (pingers) were used in conjunc on with the pile driving. The acous c ac vi es of porpoises increased within the wind farm between pile driving ac vi es within a construc on period (Tougaard, et al., 2004; Tou- gaard, et al., 2005). It was suggested that this could be linked to exploratory behaviour by the porpoises. Ship traffi c during construc on seems so far to have only minor eff ects on abundance and acous c ac vity of porpoises (Frank, 2006). For seals, studies around wind farms to date have shown no large- scale displacement during construc on, although Figure A1-3. Schema c overview of suggested radii within which avoidance could be some infl uence on seal density at a haul out site ini ated by diff erent species during construc on (monopiles) of off shore wind turbines. was indicated in direct associa on with pile driving © C. Wilhelmsson (Tougaard, et al., 2003; Dong Energy, et al., 2006). Seals crossed the wind farm area during construc- Data sources: on (Tougard, et al., 2003). It was concluded that the construc on phase had no or marginal eff ects Up to 2000 metres radius: Avoidance by salmonoids (Nedwell & Howell, 2003) on the seals. Baseline data on habitat use before Up to 5500 metres radius: Avoidance by cod (Nedwell & Howell, 2003) the construc on took place is however rela vely weak. It should be noted that any species reloca on Up to 10 000 metres radius: Avoidance by porpoises (Dong Energy, et al., 2006) could severely aff ect spawning and nursery habitats

Iden fying and managing biodiversity risks and opportuni es of oﬀ shore renewable energy - GREENING BLUE ENERGY 45

iucn-eon-sida_ored_270410Gb_IRL.indd xlviii 28.04.2010 09:39:27 if appropriate seasonal prohibi ons are not used also depends on the life cycle stage, species (highly coral reefs, could cause considerable damage to (e.g. spring and early summer is the main reproduc- variable) and body size (Nedwell & Howell, 2003; the fi sh community, due to limited opportuni es ve season for many species in temperate regions). Wahlberg & Westerberg, 2005; Thomsen, et al., for some species to relocate (Sale, 1977). It should 2006; Kastelein, et al., 2007). Studies on juvenile be noted that any species reloca on could severely Conclusions fi sh and larvae exposed to seismic shoo ng and aff ect spawning and nursery habitats if appropriate explosions showed an impact on survival in these seasonal prohibi ons are not used (e.g. spring and Displacement and behavioural changes of marine groups, although these results cannot be directly early summer is the main reproduc ve season for mammals can be very broad, but seem to be translated into possible eff ects of pile driving due to many species in temperate regions). short -term, unless the wind farm is very large and the diff erence between the sound sources (Popper require several years for construc on. Baseline & Has ngs, 2009). However, juvenile fi sh and larvae Conclusions data for the targeted studies are weak, however, would probably have less opportunity to escape and studies on impacts of other ac vi es on marine than larger and more mobile or pelagic species Displacement of fi sh can be very broad, but should mammals need to be used with cau on. Note that, (Engås, et al., 1996). Salmon and cod, for example, be short-term, and severity of impacts for local as for the other issues treated, this is based on the may hear and avoid the piling area within a radius fi sh assemblages should generally be small. This is construc on of single wind farm. In case of con- of 2 and 0.6-5.5 kilometres respec vely (Nedwell & provided that the wind farm is not very large and struc on ac vi es at mul ple wind farms cumula- Howell, 2003 and see Müller, 2007 for references). requires several years for construc on. Note that, ve impacts could poten ally take place aff ec ng as for the other issues treated, this is based on the subpopula ons and movements across large areas. Many bo om-dwelling fi sh lack swim bladders and construc on of single wind farm. If the construc- Also during installa on of single wind farms, repro- are thus less sensi ve to sound pressure, but they on of several wind farms succeeds each other in duc ve periods could be disturbed which could are as suscep ble as other fi sh to the high levels of the same region eff ects will be longer term. Sensi- have impacts on subpopula ons. Certainty: 3 par cle mo on generated by pile driving (Sigray, et ve reproduc ve periods could be disturbed and in al., 2009). Although the eff ects on bo om-dwelling some cases this could have impacts on assemblages fi sh species are probably signifi cant during piling, and subpopula ons. Few fi eld studies have been 7.3 Construc on noise and avoidance by fi sh high abundance of small-bodied demersal fi sh was conducted. Parallels could with cau on, however, recorded near wind turbines in the southern Bal c be drawn from inves ga ons of impacts of other Sub-lethal eff ects on fi sh caused by pile driving, Sea two years a er the pile driving was completed ac vi es on fi sh, as well as a number a empts mainly behavioural changes, are poorly studied (Wilhelmsson, et al., 2006). Fish have also been to theore cally predict avoidance behaviour of (Popper & Has ngs, 2009), although experimental shown to return to an area within a few days a er air fi sh in conjunc on with wind farm construc on. and theore cal es mates are available for some gun use ceases (e.g. Slo e, et al., 2004; Engås, et al., Certainty: 3 species. Nedwell and Howell (2003), for instance, 1996). These results and other studies on responses suggested that a certain level of sound pressure to disturbance show that the re-coloniza on of fi sh above hearing thresholds would cause avoidance a er pile driving may be rapid. It is, however, rea- by cod and salmon. These es mates have, howev- sonable to assume that pile driving in the vicinity er, not been sa sfactorily validated. The response of more spa ally limited habitats, such as tropical

46 GREENING BLUE ENERGY - Iden fying and managing biodiversity risks and opportuni es of oﬀ shore renewable energy

iucn-eon-sida_ored_270410Gb_IRL.indd xlix 28.04.2010 09:39:30 7.4 Construc on noise and invertebrates 7.5 Mi ga on of construc on noise eff ects 2004; Dong energy, et al., 2006). It should be noted, however, that this method is controversial as it may The eff ects of sounds from e.g. seismic shoo ng, For marine species avoiding the area under con- lead to gradual habitua on and even a rac on to pile driving and opera on of wind farms on inver- struc on, this inevitably results in loss of habitat, the ini ally week sounds (Compton, et al., 2008). tebrates are unknown (Moriyasu, et al., 2004). which could include feeding, spawning, nursing and Another method is to surround the pile driving Invertebrates cons tute a diverse array of animal res ng (migra ng species) grounds. In the prospect- area with a curtain of bubbles or wrap the piles in groups, and generalisa ons about eff ects need ing, planning and permi ng processes, key spe- sound damping material, although the implementa- to be done with par cular cau on. Even within a cies, key life cycle stages and seasonal habitat use, on of the former is limited, as it is dependent on single class of crustacean such as the Malacostra- as well as approaches (e.g. mi ga on measures) weak currents. Such bubble protec on can reduce cans (e.g. crabs, lobsters, shrimps, krill) signifi cant used, need to be taken into careful considera on the sound volume by 3-5 dB, i.e. half of the sound diff erences in tolerance to loud and/or low frequen- (Anderson, 1990; David, 2006). To mi gate adverse intensity (Würsig, et al., 2000). A bubble curtain cy sounds have been observed, with responses eff ects, construc on ac vi es can be med with signifi cantly reduced mortality of caged bluegill varying from no measurable reac on to increased regard to the seasonal behaviour of key marine (Lepomis macrochirus) during demoli on work on mortality and reduc ons in growth and reproduc- organisms using the area. For instance, for tem- the Mississippi River (Keevin, et al., 1997). Scaring on rates (Lagardère, 1982; Moriyasu, et al., 2004). perate species, reproduc on generally takes place devices (seals) and pingers (porpoises) have been Some molluscs such as abalones (Halio s corrugata during spring and summer, and the abundance of used to clear the vicinity of pile driving ac vi es and H. fulgens) have also proved to be sensi ve to juveniles then increases near shore. It has, also, from marine mammals (Frank, 2006). See Nehls, et acute noises, while others, such as oysters (Ostrea been noted that in many areas the highest ambient al. (2007) for details on sound mi ga on measures. edulis), are very tolerant (Moriyasu, et al., 2004). noise environment occurs during the winter (tem- The diversity of invertebrates is large and thus perate areas, US DIMMS, 2007). Construc on ac v- poten al responses may vary greatly, and li le is i es during winter me may therefore cause less 7.6 Opera onal noise and fi sh known about the poten al eff ects on diff ering life disturbance impacts. This unfortunately concurs cycle stages. with the most unfeasible (technically and logis cal- During opera on, vibra ons in the tower of the ly) and unsafe period for sea work. Also, by devel- wind turbine generated by the gearbox mesh and Conclusions oping fl oa ng wind turbines for shallow areas, the the generator cause underwater noise with fre- size of piles used for anchoring of turbines could quencies in the range of 1–400 Hz and of 80–110 It is reasonable to assume that the impacts of noise be signifi cantly reduced (Henderson, et al., 2004). dB re: 1μPa, and this is likely to increase as a func- on invertebrates during construc on will be local. on of the number of turbines (e.g. Nedwell & and thus have small eff ects on assemblages as a Several methods are used to reduce the damage Howell, 2003). In the frequency range above 1000 whole. Li le research on this is, however, available. caused by noise from pile driving. A standard Hz emi ed noise is generally not higher than ambi- Certainty: 2 approach is to gradually increase the strength of ent noise. The towers have a large contact surface the pile-driving hammer to give mammals and with the water that transmits sound eff ec vely. larger fi sh a chance to escape the most danger- The tower will also transmit vibra ons to the sea ous area (Joint Nature Conserva on Commi ee, fl oor but this eff ect is in most cases highly local

Iden fying and managing biodiversity risks and opportuni es of oﬀ shore renewable energy - GREENING BLUE ENERGY 47

iucn-eon-sida_ored_270410Gb_IRL.indd l 28.04.2010 09:39:30 and therefore considered of minor importance. accelera on created by wind turbines should not turbine noise, however, showed increased respira- Airborne noise from the blade ps is eff ec vely aff ect fi sh beyond 1 metre from the turbines, and on in fl a ish (Wikström & Granmo, 2008). refl ected away from the water surface and is unlike- cod (Gadus morhua), perch (Perca fl uvia lis), fl at- ly to signifi cantly add to the underwater noise level fi sh (Pleuronec dae) and salmonoids (Salmonidae) Fish are likely to become acclima sed to the rela- (Ingemansson, 2003). would not sense the induced par cle accelera on vely con nuous opera onal noise, as shown in at a distance of 10 metres from a turbine (Sigray, many harbour areas and in associa on with other Es mates of how far fi sh can detect a wind turbine et al., 2009). These studies were, however, limited human ac vi es (e.g. boat traffi c, breathing divers vary from a few hundred metres to 50-60 kilome- to frequencies below 20 Hz. Only decimetres from (e.g. Schwartz, 1985; Wahlberg & Westerberg, tres, depending on environmental condi ons and a wind turbine, the par cle velocity measured was 2005)). Results from a series of aquarium experi- species (Nedwell & Howell, 2003; Wahlberg & West- 3.5 mes lower than what is suggested to cause ments, suggest that cod and plaice (Pleuronectes erberg, 2005; Thomsen, et al., 2006). The spread of escape responses by roach (Ru lus ru lus). Experi- platessa) may be disturbed by wind turbine noise, noise, including both sound pressure and par cle ments (although with considerable limita ons) and but not to the level that they would permanently mo on, in the water depends largely on the type theore cal es mates have, further, suggested that leave a preferred habitat (Müller, 2007). However, of wind turbine, local hydrography and geological it is not likely that turbot (Pse a maxima), fl oun- measurements at one wind turbine anchored in condi ons, depth, the ambient noise level caused der (Pse a fl esus), roach, perch, and brown trout bedrock, which provides less damping than so by both natural and anthropogenic sources, and (Salmo tru a) would avoid wind turbines, even at bo oms, showed considerable noise levels that weather condi ons (Nedwell & Howell, 2003; Wahl- close range (Engell-Sørensen, 2002; Båhmstedt, could cause disturbance to fi sh (Linley, et al., 2007). berg & Westerberg, 2005; Madsen, et al., 2006; et al., 2009). On the other hand, the use of sound Sigray, et al., 2009). Since it is very complicated to projectors, producing high levels (0.003-0.01 m/s-2) Conclusions model noise distribu on around wind power plants and low frequent (<20 Hz) par cle accelera on, in a par cular area, scien sts recommend that levels that equal what has been measured up to There is no evidence of fi sh avoiding wind farms in noise measurements are obtained in each area that 10 metres from wind turbines in Kalmar Strait in opera on (see also sec on 7.3), and based on cur- is being considered for development (e.g. Wahlberg Sweden, has shown to be successful in scaring rent knowledge, any impacts should be very local. & Westerberg, 2005). away cyprinids, eel (Anguilla anguilla) and juvenile Although in the long term, the severity of impacts salmon from water inlets of power plants in lakes on fi sh assemblages as a whole is considered small. Noise from wind turbines in opera on is low in fre- and rivers (Knudsen, et al., 1994; Sand, et al., 2000; There are limita ons in survey design and scale of quency and intensity, and direct physical damage Sonny, et al., 2006). the studies. However, several fi eld studies on the to mammals and fi sh near the plants is highly subject have been conducted. Parallels can also, unlikely (Wahlberg & Westerberg, 2005; Madsen, Experimental work has shown no behavioural or with cau on, be drawn from well-inves gated et al., 2006). A review suggested that poten al physiological (e.g. stress hormone levels) responses impacts of other disturbance factors on fi sh. avoidance behaviour of fi sh due to sound pressure of fi sh to opera onal noise, equal to that recorded Certainty: 4 would only occur within four metres of the tur- 80 metres from turbines (Båmstedt, et al., 2009). bine (Wahlberg & Westerberg, 2005). According to Results were, however, limited to frequencies measurements by Sigray, et al. (2009), the par cle below 30 Hz. Laboratory tests with simulated wind

48 GREENING BLUE ENERGY - Iden fying and managing biodiversity risks and opportuni es of oﬀ shore renewable energy

iucn-eon-sida_ored_270410Gb_IRL.indd li 28.04.2010 09:39:30 7.7 Opera onal noise and marine mammals

Es mates for the distance at which porpoises detect the sound from wind turbines range between 10-100 metres (Koschinski, et al., 2003; Thomsen, et al., 2006; Tougaard, et al., 2009), while seals may detect wind turbines 360-10,000 metres away (Koschinski, et al., 2003; Thomsen, et al., 2006; Tougaard, et al., 2009). Madsen and colleagues (2006) es mated that the known noise levels and spectral proper es from turbines in opera on are likely to have small or minimal impacts on shallow water marine mammals i.e. the harbour porpoise, the bo lenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus), the northern right whale (Eubalaena glacialis), and the harbour seal (Phoca vitulina) especially considering the already prevailing man-made sources of underwater noise. Green turtle. Photo: Jerker Tamelander, IUCN

Porpoises and seals have been shown to react to to preconstruc on levels shortly a er the installa- the construc on (Musalears, 2009) simulated sound from 2 MW wind turbines, but ons were fi nalised (Dong Energy, et al., 2006). At they did not display fear behaviour (Koschinski, et the Nysted wind farm in the southern Bal c Sea, Several whale species (e.g. beluga whale (Delphin- al., 2003). Acous c signals increased in intensity, on the other hand, the abundance of porpoises apterus leucas), killer whale (Orcinus orca), hump- which could be an exploratory behaviour. Tougaard, had not reached pre-construc on levels two years back whale (Megaptera novaengliae)) have notably et al. (2009) expected no behavioural responses a er construc on (e.g. Dong Energy, et al., 2006). displayed behavioural and avoidance responses to of seals and porpoises to occur apart from in the It was speculated that the Nysted area may not be low frequency sounds from anthropogenic ac vi- immediate vicinity of turbines, and studies by important enough for the porpoises to remain in es, such as oil and gas explora on and boat traf- Tougaard and colleagues (2003) and the Danish the area and withstand the disturbance. Baseline fi c (see Samuel, et al., 2005 for references). While Monitoring Program (Dong Energy, et al., 2006) data is, however, not suffi cient to fi rmly a ribute habitat use pa erns for whales may not generally suggested no eff ects on seals and porpoises of the this distribu on change neither to the presence of overlap with the rela vely shallow areas used for wind farm in opera on at Horns Reef in Denmark. the wind farm nor to the produc on noise. Prelimi- wind farms (apart from fl oa ng turbines), noise dis- Boat traffi c during maintenance seemed to have nary results from the Dutch monitoring programme turbance might s ll impact behaviour, including the only small eff ects on porpoises (Tougaard, et al., at the off shore wind farm Egmond aan Zee suggest migra on pa erns, of these species. 2004). At Horns Rev, porpoise abundance returned a signifi cant increase in porpoise abundance a er

Iden fying and managing biodiversity risks and opportuni es of oﬀ shore renewable energy - GREENING BLUE ENERGY 49

iucn-eon-sida_ored_270410Gb_IRL.indd lii 28.04.2010 09:39:30 Conclusions reproduce in coastal areas with ambient sounds 7.9 Masking of ambient sounds and levels similar to those around wind farms (Samuel, bioacous cs From studies of wind farms to date, there is no et al., 2005). However, sea turtles have strong fi del- evidence of marine mammals avoiding wind farms ity to their foraging and nes ng areas, and to their A wide range of marine species including mammals, during opera on due to noise, and any long-term migratory routes, and may be infl exible in seeking fi sh and crustaceans use sound to fi nd their prey, to avoidance behaviour of porpoises and seals should alterna ve loca ons when these are disturbed or communicate with each other (which is o en linked be very local. Hence, based on current knowledge, blocked (Morreale, et al., 1996; Avens, et al., 2003). to reproduc on), to avoid predators and to navi- impacts on whole assemblages of porpoises, dol- gate (see e.g. Richardson, et al., 1995; Wahlberg phins and seals are considered small. Although Conclusions & Westerberg, 2005). The opera onal noise from there are limita ons in survey design, several fi eld wind turbines is not considered suffi cient to mask studies and reviews on the subject have been con- Very broad-scale displacement of sea turtles is communica on of seals and porpoises (Madsen, et ducted. Certainty: 3. One should be extra cau ous likely in the short term during construc on ac vi- al., 2006; Tougaard, et al., 2009). For fi sh however, with regard to whales, however, as impacts of es, but out of the reproduc on seasons overall it is not known whether wind farms could mask bio- sounds on migra on are not understood (see also impacts on subpopula ons/assemblages should be acous cs, and what implica ons this could have on conclusions in 7.9). rela vely small. The displacement could, however, their ecological fi tness and reproduc on (Amoser overlap with periods for beaching and egg laying, & Ladich, 2005; Wahlberg & Westerberg 2005). hatching and nursery periods, which could aff ect Low frequency sounds from the turbines may, for 7.8 Noise and avoidance by sea turtles reproduc on success. Certainty: 2 example, overlap with the ma ng calls of gadoids (i.e. cod and haddock) with poten al consequences The hearing range of sea turtles is confi ned to low It is not likely that sea turtles would avoid the wind for community dynamics (Wahlberg & Westerberg, frequent sounds (below 1kW, highest sensi vity farms during opera on, considering their presence 2005). between 200 and 700 Hz, Ridgeway, et al., 1969; in other urbanised areas. If avoidance would occur, Bartol, et al., 1999), which coincides with the fre- it should be very local, and impacts would thus Conclusions quencies at which most noise occurs during opera- be small. If they would avoid larger areas, on the on of wind farms. Experiments have shown that other hand, there could be serious consequences Impacts on fi sh and mammal assemblages as a low frequency sounds (25-750 Hz, 1.5-120 dB) if construc on takes place in or seaward to areas whole of eventual local masking of bioacous cs can cause startle responses, as well as changes in important for reproduc on. No (or very few) stud- should, although long-term, generally be small. swimming pa erns and orienta on, among sea ies or es ma ons regarding impacts on sea turtles There may be excep ons for isolated spawning turtles (i.e. loggerhead sea turtle Care a care a, of off shore wind power development have been popula ons if a fi sh species is par cularly sensi ve O´Hara & Wilcox, 1990 and see Samuel, et al., 2005 conducted. Although relevant literature is scarce, to this kind of disturbance. Li le research is avail- for references). Although, li le is known on how parallels can be drawn from some solid studies on able, though, and no studies have es mated what these results translate to impacts on the biology impacts of other ac vi es. Certainty: 2 long-term consequences any impacts could have. and ecology of sea turtles (Samuel, et al., 2005). It Certainty: 2 is worth no ng that sea turtles remain, forage and

50 GREENING BLUE ENERGY - Iden fying and managing biodiversity risks and opportuni es of oﬀ shore renewable energy

iucn-eon-sida_ored_270410Gb_IRL.indd liii 28.04.2010 09:39:31 Impacts of sound disturbance from wind farms only a few tens of metres from the cable and 0.5 wind power cables at a distance of more than 300 on long distance communica on and naviga on metres away for DC cables (Elsam Engineering & metres. Recent large-scale experiments, a empt- among mammals, such as whales during migra- Energi-E2, 2005; Gill, et al., 2005; VRD, 2009). At the ing to mimic condi ons in a wind farm, showed on, is largely unknown (Certainty 2). If likely at all, same me, many electrosensi ve species, includ- EMF-related behavioural responses among elasmo- impact on assemblages of porpoises, dolphins and ing fi sh and migra ng whales and sea turtles, may branches, including a rac on to the EMF sources, seals may generally be small, with special cau on sense the induced varia ons in the fi eld at much but with high variability among individuals (Gill & for whales migra ng long distances. larger distances than that (e.g. Walker, et al., 2002; Taylor, 2001; Gill, et al., 2009). Whether impacts are Walker, et al., 2003; VRD, 2009). The risks for EMF posi ve or nega ve for the fi sh has not yet been to cause behavioural changes and pose migra on suffi ciently addressed in research to date, and this 8 Electromagne c fi elds (EMF) barriers should, thus, be considered in research is s ll unclear (Gill, et al., 2009). Earlier experi- eff orts and risk assessments. The following sec ons ments showed that lesser spo ed dogfi sh (now The electricity generated by an off shore wind farm are limited to fi sh and invertebrates. called small spo ed catshark, S. canicula) were may be transmi ed to the onshore network through repelled by a certain strength of induced electric 50 Hz (EU) and 60 Hz (USA) high voltage alternat- fi elds, while a racted to weaker levels (Gill & Taylor, ing current (AC) or direct current (DC) cables. 8.1 EMF and fi sh 2001). There are, also, examples of sharks that have These cables will emit EMF (electromagne c fi elds a acked power cables as the EMF has triggered or electric and magne c fi elds). The electric fi eld Li le is known about the infl uence of electromag- their feeding behaviour (Marra, 1989). generated by the power transmission through the ne c fi elds around cables on fi sh behaviour (Gill, et cable is shielded within the cable (AC cable), while al., 2005; Öhman, et al., 2007). The most sensi ve EMF may aff ect migra on behaviour in tunas, salmo- a magne c fi eld is measurable around cables. The fi sh species are elasmobranches (sharks and rays), nids and eels (Walker, 1984; Formicki, et al., 2004), rota onal magne c fi elds created around industry common eels and electric fi shes, which use weak although the importance of geomagne c cues for standard AC cables induce an electric fi eld in the electrical currents for orienta on (induced electric their naviga on is unclear (Walker, et al., 2003; environment. Electric fi elds are, also, induced by fi eld in rela on to the geomagne c fi eld) and/or Lohman, et al., 2008). In experiments where mag- marine organisms and water (‘conductors’) moving prey loca on (Kalmijn, 2000; Klimley, 1993; Gill, et nets, disturbing geomagne c cues, were a ached through the magne c fi eld (VRD, 2009). A number al., 2005; Meyer, et al., 2005; Peters, et al., 2007; to migra ng salmon, no eff ects were shown (West- of factors may infl uence the distribu on of the Gill, et al., 2009). Behavioural thresholds in rela on erberg, et al., 2007; Yano, et al., 1997). Salmonids EMF in the water, such as voltage, electric current, to EMF for a number of electrosensi ve species is were not aff ected by a cable between Sweden and cable design, if AC (used for wind farms today; VRD, provided by Peters and colleagues (2007). Poland, according to a study by Westerberg and 2009) or DC is transmi ed, and the salinity of the colleagues (2007). Tracking studies on European water. It is diffi cult to model how the fi elds will be A number of studies have suggested that fi sh eel (Anguilla anguilla), mostly in rela on to wind distributed at a par cular wind farm. It is, however, behaviour could be aff ected by rela vely weak EMF farms, have shown that the eels were delayed by es mated that the EMF from an AC cable, of typical (see review by Öhman, et al., 2007). Modelling by the cables by 30-40 minutes or slightly changed capacity for connec ng a large wind farm with the Gill, et al. (2009) suggested that many electrosen- their course, but that the cables did not obstruct grid on land, diff ers li le from background levels si ve species should be able to detect EMF from migra on overall (Westerberg & Lagenfelt, 2006;

Iden fying and managing biodiversity risks and opportuni es of oﬀ shore renewable energy - GREENING BLUE ENERGY 51

iucn-eon-sida_ored_270410Gb_IRL.indd liv 28.04.2010 09:39:31 Westerberg, et al., 2007; Lagenfelt I. oral presenta- dent fi sh assemblages should be small. There are indicate that they may at least in part use geomag- on at Vindval Seminar, Stockholm, November 22, considerable uncertain es, when it comes to dif- ne c cues for naviga on (Ugolini & Pezzani, 1994; 2009). In addi on, the results were not isolated to ferent life stages of fi sh, barrier eff ects of EMF for Boles & Lohman, 2003). The survival and physiol- EMFs, and it was speculated that the physical pres- electrosensi ve migra ng fi sh, and long-term eco- ogy of some species of prawns, crabs, starfi sh, ence of the cables could be more important. logical eff ects of altered feeding behaviours of elas- marine worms, and blue mussels have been exam- mobranches in areas with high densi es of cables. ined in rela on to EMF levels corresponding to the Surveys in Denmark indicated some eff ects of cables Certainty: 2 intensity on the surface of ordinary sub-marine DC on migra on through and within the wind farms by cables in the Bal c Sea (Bochert & Ze ler, 2004). No European eel, Atlan c cod and fl ounder, but the signifi cant eff ects were observed for any of these survey design was not suffi cient to link these eff ects 8.2 EMF and invertebrates a er three months. Further, a visual survey of ben- fi rmly to EMF (Dong Energy, et al., 2006). thic communi es along and on a wind power cable, Li le has been done to describe electromagne c revealed no abnormali es in assemblage structure The density of cables on the bo om close to urban recep on among invertebrates (Bullock, 1999), (Malm, 2005). areas is currently rela vely low, and poten al although experiments with lobsters and isopods problems are restricted to some migratory species depending on geomagne c cues for naviga on. In an off shore wind farm a comparably dense network of cables is created, which could deter sensi ve species such as elasmobranches and cause nega- ve eff ects on benthic assemblages throughout the farm (Gill & Kimber, 2005). Cables could alterna- vely a ract electrosensi ve species into the wind farm areas, where they would gain protec on from trawling (Gill, 2005). As for research on many other eff ects of off shore wind farms, behavioural ecology s ll dominate this fi eld, however, and the ecological or popula on eff ects of submarine power cables and EMF are yet poorly understood.

Conclusions

No signifi cant eff ects of EMF have been established to date. Although long-term, eventual eff ects on fi sh should be local, and overall impacts on resi- Black pped reef shark. Photo: Dan Wilhelmsson

52 GREENING BLUE ENERGY - Iden fying and managing biodiversity risks and opportuni es of oﬀ shore renewable energy

iucn-eon-sida_ored_270410Gb_IRL.indd lv 28.04.2010 09:39:31 Conclusions 9 Impacts on birds Although monitoring at the established off shore wind farms have only partly involved combined Poten al long-term impacts on sessile organisms 9.1 Collision risks visual and radar-based observa ons of behavioural are likely to be localised (very local) and small. The responses of migra ng birds to the structures, number of studies addressing invertebrate toler- The interac on between birds and wind turbines experiences of species-specifi c responses have ance to EMF is quite limited, but the scale of impact is the most thoroughly inves gated environmen- been gathered. Least is known about the collision can be es mated on a rela vely solid basis. Cer- tal concern rela ng to wind power. Early consid- risks exposed on the largest component of long- tainty: 2 era ons included the extent of bird collisions with distance migra on: the migra on of passerines. the turbines and subsequent eff ects on popula on Many studies on collisions on land have reported 8.3 Mi ga on of EMF eff ects dynamics and migra on (Winkelman, 1985; Ivanov that passerines are being killed in larger numbers & Sedunova, 1993; Gill, et al., 1996; Richardson, than other birds. Hüppop, et al. (2006) reported the It is commonly recommended that cables should 1998; Langston & Pullan, 2003; Desholm & Kahlert, same from the Fino off shore research pla orm in be buried 1 metre into the seabed to minimize 2005; Kunz, et al., 2007). Including both on- and the German Bight with several hundred passerines eff ects. Burial, however, only increases the distance off shore facili es, es mated rates of mortality for being killed during isolated events. S ll, it’s impor- between the cable and electrosensi ve fi sh (Gill, et diff erent bird species range from 0.01 to 23 mor- tant to recall that passerines outnumber other al., 2005). The sediment layer itself does not infl u- tali es per turbine per year (Drewi & Langston, terrestrial bird species on migra on by at least an ence the size of EMF (Gill, et al., 2009; VRD, 2009). 2005), with an average across bird species of 1.7 order of magnitude, and hence the rela ve impact The burial of cables would, moreover, need to be collisions per turbine per year according to an may not be highest for passerines. In fact, the expe- weighed against the disturbance caused by the ongoing scien fi c synthesis (M. Green, personal rience from land-based wind farms point at larger dredging and ploughing ac vi es, including the communica on on synthesis in progress 2009). species as the most sensi ve to collision. Frequent risk of re-suspending pollutants (see sec on 6). The Raptors seem to be more sensi ve than other spe- collisions, however, have been reported from only transmission system can, further, be constructed cies according to studies of land based wind tur- a few exposed sites with high migra on densi es so that magne c fi elds are reduced or to some bines (e.g. de Lucas, et al., 2008), and the average (e.g. at passes, straits and peninsulas) and large extent cancel out each other (see Gill, et al., 2009; collision rate for raptors was es mated to 0.3 per numbers of, for example, soaring resident raptors. VRD, 2009), although the costs involved makes this turbine per year (M. Green, personal communica- In such worst-case scenarios like the Altamont Pass unlikely to become a standard approach. on on synthesis in progress, 2009). For raptors and Smöla wind farms (Erickson, et al., 2001; Dahl, around onshore wind farms, fatality does not seem 2008), mortality rates of raptors as a direct result of to be dependent on the number of birds, but varies collisions with the rotor blades are rela vely high with species-specifi c fl ight behaviour, weather and in comparison with the size of the aff ected popula- topography (Langston & Pullan, 2003). It is impor- ons. There is an almost complete lack of experi- tant to note that both collision rates and impacts ence regarding the behavioural responses of large of increased mortality on popula ons vary greatly birds on long-distance migra on, such as raptors with species (e.g. Fox, et al., 2006; Desholm, 2009). and cranes, around off shore wind farms, as wind farms have not yet been erected in migra on corri-

Iden fying and managing biodiversity risks and opportuni es of oﬀ shore renewable energy - GREENING BLUE ENERGY 53

iucn-eon-sida_ored_270410Gb_IRL.indd lvi 28.04.2010 09:39:40 dors for these species groups. A worst case scenario farm was considered negligible (Dong Energy, et 9.2 Migra on barriers off shore would be a situa on in which raptors were al., 2006). For the 250 bird species migra ng across being a racted to an off shore wind farm along a the German Mari me area, it has been es mated Several bird species avoid wind farms during migra- major migra on corridor. that increases up 0.5-5 per cent (depending on spe- on (e.g. Pe ersson, 2005; Masden, et al., 2009; cies) of the adult mortality would cause no eff ects Muselears, 2009). Although monitoring at the A recent off shore wind farm related study in Ger- at popula on scale (see Hüpopp, et al., 2006 for established off shore wind farms have only partly many, indicated that the majority of collisions might references). Modelling tools for diff erent scenarios involved combined visual and radar-based observa- take place during a couple of days each year, when and turbine types are available (Garthe & Hüppop, ons of behavioural responses of migra ng birds migratory birds are hampered by bad weather 2004; see Hüppop, et al., 2006 for references, Desh- to the structures experiences of species-specifi c (Hüppop, et al., 2006). The commonly applied radar olm, 2009). responses have been gathered. Least is known surveys that cover only parts of the migra on sea- about the barrier eff ects exposed on the landbirds, sons, and for which quality decreases with certain In rela on to local movements of birds consider- including large species like raptors and cranes, weather condi ons, distance and size of birds, may a ons should be focused on staging birds. The local whereas due to the Danish demonstra on proj- thus have underes mated the collision risks for movements undertaken by waterbirds and seabirds ects a large amount of informa on is available on birds passing through wind farms (Hüppop, et al., in staging areas may be a ributed to current dri , the behavioural responses of migra ng waterbirds 2006). The fl ight al tude of migra ng birds is usu- movements between sites in response to prey to off shore wind farms (Dong Energy, et al., 2006). ally lower off shore than on the coast and inland aggrega on and between sites of diff erent func- Waterbirds reacted to the wind farms at Horns Rev (Krüger & Garthe, 2001; Hüppop, et al., 2004), lim- onal role. No fi eld studies have yet inves gated 1 and Nysted wind farms at distances of 5 kilome- i ng the applica on of data that are collected on the frequency of local movements in their staging tres from the turbines, and generally defl ected at land (Hüppop, et al., 2006). For many seabirds, the and wintering areas, and hence the risk of collision the wind farm at a distance of 3 kilometres (Peters- fl ight al tude ranges within 0-50 metres (Dierschke for these birds cannot be assessed. en, et al., 2006). Within a range of 1-2 kilometres & Daniels, 2003) and e.g. most common eiders may more than 50 per cent of the birds heading for the fl y at al tudes lower than 20 metres (Larsen & Guil- Conclusions wind farm avoided passing within it. At the Rønland leme e, 2007), well below the rotors of wind tur- off shore wind farm 4.5 per cent of all waterbird bines. Nocturnal migrants may, on the other hand, Most studies indicate small impacts of bird colli- fl ocks entered a zone of 100 metres from the wind be a racted to illuminated wind turbines (e.g. sions on assemblages as a whole for most species farm (Durinck & Skov, 2006). At the Utgrunden wind Montevecchi, 2006 and see Hüppop, et al., 2006 studied and the few areas considered, although farm in Kalmar Strait low-fl ying fl ocks of eiders were for references but see Dong Energy, et al., 2006). any eff ects would be long-term. The temporal and rarely seen to pass within 500 metres of the wind However, for example common eiders seem to keep methodological limita ons in most studies and vari- turbines during day me, and avoidance behaviour a longer distance from turbines at night compared ability among species call for further clarifi ca on was observed, with some birds altering direc on to in daylight (see Desholm, 2009 for references). though. Certainty: 3 3-4 kilometres before reaching the Utgrunden wind For common eiders passing Nysted wind farm, it farm to fl y around it (Pe erson, 2005). was predicted that 0.02 per cent (45 birds) would collide each year and impact of this single wind For long-distance migra ons, the energe c losses

54 GREENING BLUE ENERGY - Iden fying and managing biodiversity risks and opportuni es of oﬀ shore renewable energy

iucn-eon-sida_ored_270410Gb_IRL.indd lvii 28.04.2010 09:39:40 due to migra on barrier eﬀ ects through avoidance of single wind farms seem trivial, especially considering the impacts of other factors, such as wind condi ons and visibility, although there may be poten al cumula ve eﬀ ects of several wind farms in a region (e.g. Pe erson, 2005; Masden, et al., 2009). Energe c costs due to single wind farms are only likely to be measurable for species commu ng daily within a region, for instance between foraging grounds and roos ng or nest sites (e.g. Masden, et al., 2009). In these cases wind farms could cause fragmenta on of coherent ecological units for the birds (e.g. Fox, et al., 2006; Hüpopp, et al., 2006; Stewart, et al., 2007).

Conclusions Aggrega on of sea birds off the Azores. Photo: Sarah Gotheil The poten al impacts on long distance migra ng birds are considered to be small, but for daily com- birds to wind farms are highly variable, both as a The intensive boat traffi c around farms during con- mu ng birds, long-term habitat fragmenta on and func on of specifi c disturbance s muli and site- struc on poses a problem for some species of sea- extended routes could have moderate eff ects on specifi c characteris cs. In addi on, adapta ons to birds such as divers (Gavia spp.), common scoter assemblages. Several published studies and es ma- the turbines and rotor blades are observed, which (Melani a nigra) and long tailed duck (Clangula ons exist. Certainty: 3 make accurate assessment of the scale of habitat hyemalis) (Tucker & Evans, 1997). Studies suggest displacement rather diffi cult, especially over the that the species that are aff ected by boat traffi c long term (Petersen, et al., 2006). A further compli- will also be aff ected by the opera on of the wind 9.3 Habitat loss for seabirds ca on is the fact that habitat displacement impacts farms (Dierschke, et al., 2006). From the published as documented during the monitoring programmes monitoring reports a pa ern emerges in which spe- Habitat loss for seabirds may take place both as of exis ng wind farms may not have taken (natural) cies with off shore habitats display stronger reac- a func on of behavioural responses (habitat dis- changes in food supply into considera on. Despite ons to wind farms than species with more coastal placement) and due to impacts from the wind farm these uncertain es, habitat displacement is gener- habitats (Petersen, et al., 2006; PMSS, 2007; Gill, et construc on and opera on on the available food ally regarded as the main source of impact on birds al., 2008). Among the seaducks the more marine supply of the birds. The evidence gathered from from off shore wind farms. common scoter and long-tailed duck have a higher exis ng monitoring programmes at off shore wind poten al for habitat displacement than the more farms indicate that specifi c responses of water- coastal eider.

Iden fying and managing biodiversity risks and opportuni es of oﬀ shore renewable energy - GREENING BLUE ENERGY 55

iucn-eon-sida_ored_270410Gb_IRL.indd lviii 28.04.2010 09:39:40 Studies performed at exis ng wind farms, primarily generally avoid fl ying over land, the wind turbines communi es (Hamilton, 2000; Vaitkus & Bubinas, in Denmark and Sweden, show that common sco- could be interpreted by the birds as patches of land, 2001). The most numerous bird species in temper- ters avoided the wind farms during res ng and win- which could cause avoidance of the area as whole. ate areas relevant for off shore wind power in north- tering periods (Guilleme e & Larsen, 2002; Larsen western Europe and eastern North America, are & Guilleme e, 2007; Pe erson, 2005; Petersen, Species occurring widespread close to human common Eider (Somateria mollissima), long tailed 2005; Dong Energy, et al., 2006; but see Musalears, developments, like gulls, seem generally not dis- duck (Clangula hyemalis), Common Scoter, (Mela- 2009). At the Nysted wind farm in southern Den- turbed by wind farms. Cormorants, gulls, and terns, ni a nigra) and Velvet Scoter (Melani a fusca) mark the abundance of eider duck decreased by have been observed to use wind turbines as rest- (Milne & Campbell, 1973; Goudie & Ankney, 1986; more than 80 per cent immediately a er the instal- ing sites between dives, and local increases of some Brager, et al., 1995; Reinert & Mello, 1995; Merkel, la on of the turbines (Kahlert, et al., 2004; Desholm species within wind farm areas have been shown et al., 2002). In addi on, other equally sensi ve but & Kahlert, 2005). (e.g. Petersen, et al., 2004; Dong Energy, et al., less abundant species such as divers may be found 2006; Fox, et al., 2006; Musalears, 2009). It has also in the same areas. Avoidance by signifi cant numbers of several species been suggested that locally enhanced abundance of of diving birds has been noted 2 kilometres from a bivalves and fi sh around wind turbines could enrich Detailed species sensi vity indexes for impacts of wind farm (Dong Energy, et al., 2006), and numbers feeding grounds for e.g. cormorants, gulls, and sea off shore wind farms on seabirds are available (e.g. of diving birds have been recorded to decrease by ducks, although eff ects on popula ons of this are Garthe & Hüppop, 2004; Bright, et al., 2008). 55 per cent even at a distance of 2-4 kilometres likely to be minimal (Dong Energy, et al., 2006; Fox, from a farm (Petersen, et al., 2004). Available lit- et al., 2006). Conclusions erature indicates that sensi vity and impacts may increase with size of bird fl ocks (Stewart, et al., Off shore wind farms have grown in number and The risk of very broad habitat loss for sea birds (at 2007). Baseline data on temporal varia ons is o en size. It has been suggested that habitat fragmenta- least, or most, for sea ducks and divers) in a wind weak however (Fox, et al., 2006; Stewart, et al., on for birds and poten al ecological eff ects, such farm area during both construc on (short term) 2007). Despite the documented reduc ons in den- as trophic cascades as a consequence of this may and opera on (long term) calls for special a en- si es of some of these species following construc- become an important issue (West & Caldow, 2005). on in planning and development of off shore wind on of off shore wind farms it should be pointed For example, several bird species u lise temperate power. The severity of eff ects on local bird assem- out that the reported numbers displaced so far are ice-free areas, such as off shore banks, for wintering blages largely depends on whether the birds fi nd rela vely small in comparison to total popula on and migrate to northern boreal or arc c areas for alterna ve habitats or not. Evidence base from levels, and hence bear no signifi cance to the overall breeding during the spring (McLaren & McLaren, targeted studies is comparably strong, although popula ons. Moreover, it is not clear what charac- 1982). Furthermore, there is strong evidence that understanding of longer term avoidance of areas is teris cs of wind farms caused this avoidance behav- the supply of invertebrates limits the abundance of not established. During construc on: Certainty: 5; iour. For common eiders, it has been shown that bird popula ons and determines the distribu on of During opera on: Certainty: 4 neither noise nor movement of the blades were the the fl ocks (Sto & Olson, 1973; Guilleme e, et al., primary causes (Giulleme e & Larsen, 2002; Larsen 1992; Smaal, et al., 2001), and popula ons of ducks & Guilleme e, 2007). To speculate, as sea ducks can subsequently infl uence the structure of benthic

56 GREENING BLUE ENERGY - Iden fying and managing biodiversity risks and opportuni es of oﬀ shore renewable energy

iucn-eon-sida_ored_270410Gb_IRL.indd lix 28.04.2010 09:39:44 10 Aspects of decommissioning (Jacobsen, et al., 1999). For buried pipelines it has cies and habitats on larger scales (see eff orts for been es mated that it will take 1200-4400 years off shore wind farms by e.g. Nunneri, et al., 2008; The life span of an average off shore wind farm has for a complete natural breakdown (DNV, 1999). Buckhard, et al., 2009 and Punt, et al., 2009 and ref- been es mated to be 25 years. Turbines could, simi- However, habitats that may have been created and erences therein). larly to oilrigs, be disassembled and recycled, dis- developed over a number of years, in many cases carded to landfi ll, or be recondi oned and reused. cons tu ng islands of comparably undisturbed The scien fi c discipline landscape ecology focuses Turbines could also be par ally removed or toppled. hard substrata in regions otherwise dominated by on how spa al pa erns and ecological processes For wind energy the resource harvested is obviously deeper so bo oms, would be disturbed. In addi- are related in a mul tude of landscape scales renewable, and so it may be decided that the wind on, if a wind farm has eff ec vely protected an (Troell, 1939; Turner, et al., 2001; Wu & Hobbs, farm should remain in opera on, with con nuous area from the destruc ve eff ects of fi shing this pro- 2007), and an important aspect to consider is the maintenance and upgrading. tec on is likely to disappear with the farm. Interest- geographical posi on of a habitat (or other ecologi- ingly, it has been argued that the poten al for oil- cal unit). Coastal seascapes are typically spa ally If the farm is completely removed, some problems rigs to cons tute Essen al Fish Habitats should be heterogeneous areas, which are aff ected by anthro- of sediment re-suspension may occur, especially considered in the environmental review processes pogenic ac vi es such as fi sheries and agriculture. if the cables have been buried. As a consequence before decommissioning (Helvey, 2002). It is rea- Off shore wind power development is an example sensi ve habitats may again be disturbed. Future sonable to conclude that decisions on the fate of of how human ac vi es are changing the coastal technologies may provide be er alterna ves but the wind turbines will inevitably have to be made environment and poten ally their ecology within current experience from oilrig decommissioning on a case-by-case basis. landscape mosaics. Species distribu on within the favours explosives and cu ng. Explosives would landscape, which is commonly determined by the kill most animals in the zone nearest to each tur- ability of species to move or disperse among habi- bine, and fi sh with swim bladders would be most tats, might be aff ected as well as metapopula on severely impacted. Considering the large numbers 11 Ecosystem and seascape dynamics and source-sink rela onships. of turbines and the areas they cover, impacts could considera ons be substan al, and the decommissioning of the For instance, most fi sh and invertebrates that are subsurface parts of wind turbines may thus in many An area can be considered important for a species associated with wind farms do not reside there for cases become ques oned. See for example Gill, et if 1 per cent of a popula on resides within it or uses their en re life history. Diff erent life stages (egg, al., 2005 for further reading. it, according to commonly applied criteria from the larvae, juvenile and adult) could inhabit other Ramsar Conven on (Atkinson-Willes, 1972). How- depths and environments, and assemblages within When the wind turbines are removed, so are poten- ever, research and surveys focusing on single spe- wind farms are usually only sub-sets of popula- al disturbance eff ects, although toppled turbines cies, habitats or ecosystems services do not off er ons. Habitat destruc on and fragmenta on of would not emit noise or have any moving parts. If a thorough base for assessment of the eff ects of coherent ecological units (habitat loss and isola- not removed, the installa ons would be perma- wind power development. To be er understand on, for example seabirds in sec on 9.3), or the nent; degrada on of carbon steel, for example, species-landscape interac ons it is important to poten al of new hard bo om habitats to connect is 0.1 millimetres per year in oxygen rich waters consider the ecological dynamic of mul ple spe- diff erent areas (see sec on 3.2), could thus have

Iden fying and managing biodiversity risks and opportuni es of oﬀ shore renewable energy - GREENING BLUE ENERGY 57

iucn-eon-sida_ored_270410Gb_IRL.indd lx 28.04.2010 09:39:44 eff ects on biodiversity as well as on single spe- understand how the provision of ecosystem ser- are divided into regular cells, each with a specifi c cies (in terms of distribu on pa erns, behaviour, vices is aff ected by one or several wind farms in a a ribute digital value, and subsequently u lized as reproduc on, growth and survival). The degree to region (Nunneri, et al., 2008). Furthermore, with input to mathema c equa on models. For applica- which such eff ects occur depends on connec vity the focus on large-scale pa erns and processes on in the chosen GIS program (e.g. ArcGIS) all eco- (e.g. distance between patches, metapopula on using an ecosystem or a seascape as focal unit, logical parameters are put in a dynamic predic ve dynamics, source/sink rela onships) and landscape spa al variability, landscape complexity and tem- model where the suitability of a locality is analysed confi gura on (e.g. Hanski, et al., 1995; Eriksson & poral dynamics need to be integrated and analysed (quan ta vely and qualita vely). The proposed GIS Ehrlén, 2001; Mouquet & Loreau, 2003). Conse- across scales. To achieve such quite complex analy- model should be useful to simulate future scenario quently, a wind farm development should consider ses, the most suitable tools would be Geographical dynamics of biophysical characteris cs and ecologi- future scenarios of how landscape connec vity, Informa on Systems (GIS), spa al sta s cs, remote cal pa erns. If possible, the model should also take i.e. ‘the degree to which the landscape facilitates sensing techniques and Global Posi oning Systems into account unexpected large-scale processes such or impedes movement among resource patches’ (GPS) (Turner, et al., 2001; Farina, 2006). as poten al future environmental changes/events (Taylor, et al., 1993) might change a er such dis- (e.g. elevated temperature, increased runoff and/ turbance events. For improved assessments of the Using empirical informa on of temporal (seasonal or altera ons in nutrient input). infl uences of wind farm developments, greater and interannual) and spa al variability in the distri- understanding of the biological and physical con- bu on and movement of organisms as well as the In order to turn GIS modelling into fi rm implemen- nec vity processes within habitats and popula ons distribu on and fragmenta on of coastal habitats a ta on recommenda ons, informa on of the afore- is thus needed. conceptual GIS model could be created. men oned ecological parameters will be stored as diff erent layers and used in the analyzing pro- Cumula ve eff ects of several wind farms in an area Examples of parameters could be: cess. All components are included in the model as need to be thoroughly considered. Assessments of con nuous data, put as layers upon each other in • Relevant daily movement/migra on and possible impacts of proposed off shore wind farms maps, and analyzed by automated selec on proce- ontogene c migra on of fi sh; in coastal regions of Germany indicate that 2-16 dures, e.g. stepwise regression and cross-valida on per cent of na onal sea bird popula ons could be • Distance from fi sh spawning sites; techniques. To evaluate suitable loca ons for wind aff ected, depending on the species (Dierschke, et farms within a certain area a graded scale, based • Larval dispersal/supply/connec vity; al., 2006). Another study suggested that in a worst on risk of environmental disturbances, can be used. case scenario, where 18 wind farms are construct- • Daily and seasonal migra on of birds and This approach does not only promote due precau- ed simultaneously in the German North Sea, 39 per onary approaches, but may also facilitate more • Cetacean behaviour focusing on foraging, cent of the harbour poises in the region could show cost- and me-eff ec ve applica on, consen ng and nursery and areas used for reproduc on. behavioural responses to this (Gilles, et al., 2009). permi ng processes for off shore wind power projects. When baseline studies are conducted (according to Such a model would typically be conducted using e.g. EIA and SEA requirements), ecological integrity raster GIS modelling on generalized and con nuous and ecological risks should be assessed in order to spa al data where geographic spaces of interest

58 GREENING BLUE ENERGY - Iden fying and managing biodiversity risks and opportuni es of oﬀ shore renewable energy

iucn-eon-sida_ored_270410Gb_IRL.indd lxi 28.04.2010 09:39:44 12 Variability across la tudes, habitats is likely to increase, benefi ng fi lter feeding periods of me, and could also adversely aff ect regions and locali es ing animals such as mussels and plank vorous sensi ve benthic species and habitats. Although feeding fi sh (Wilhelmsson, et al., 2006). impacts o en seem to be short-term or spa ally Variability, not only between groups of organisms limited, the acceptable levels of disturbance will but also among related species, makes predic ons Depth is a key structuring factor in the marine envi- ul mately depend on the local/regional conserva- of impacts of off shore wind farms on marine ecol- ronment (e.g. Pedersén & Snoeijs, 2001; Pon , et on status and sensi vity of the species or habitat ogy and the marine environment diffi cult. Apart al., 2002). Li oral species, par cularly on rocky in ques on. from the obvious varia on in species composi- shores, as well as sub dal species are typically on between regions, general fi ndings from one confi ned to specifi c depths defi ned by the physical On the other hand, if off shore wind power devel- geographic area may not be applicable to another and biological characteris cs of the habitat, such opment is well planned and co-ordinated the local since regional ecological and environmental fac- as light and wave condi ons, temperature, and subsurface marine environment could even benefi t tors strongly infl uence the ecological performance compe on for space and other resources (Gibson, from wind farms in several aspects. (e.g. trawling of marine organisms (Bohnsack, et al., 1991; Baine, 1969; Bohnsack, et al., 1991). In par cular for tran- exclusion and habitat enhancement for many spe- 2001). Major regulatory factors on fi sh communi- sient fi sh species, the depth at which turbines are cies). es, for example, diff er at larger geographic scales situated may also be the most important factor for (e.g. Bohnsack, et al., 1991). Trophic interac ons, the magnitude of fi sh aggrega on eff ects (Moffi t, Knowledge on the various disturbance eff ects on mobility and spa al use of marine biota also vary et al., 1989). Salinity also aff ects the assemblages the marine environment for off shore wind power along la tudinal gradients (e.g. Floeter, et al., 2004; present in the area (e.g. Mann, 1991). La tudinal, is increasingly substan ated due to the realisa on Laurel & Bradbury, 2009). regional, and local factors, thus, infl uence species, of several long-term monitoring programmes along habitats and their sensi vity to wind farm develop- with targeted studies and experiments. However, At regional and local levels, bio-geographic and ment. most programmes were only recently ini ated and oceanographic factors infl uence the marine ecolog- many research contribu ons are limited to method ical se ngs. Available habitats and the connec vity development. Addi onally, the majority of studies between them are of key importance. For instance, and experiments are limited to single species sys- the extent and type of colonisa on of turbines will 13 Conclusions tems, and there is li le elabora on at ecosystem depend on the proximity and connec vity (includ- scale. Furthermore, Environmental Impact Assess- ing current pa erns) to exis ng hard habitats that To date, wind farm related research and monitor- ments do not regularly address addi ve environ- could supply larvae and propagules (Cummins, ing, along with related research, indicates that the mental eff ects of exis ng ac vi es or other planned 1994; Svane & Petersen, 2001). The diversity of largest poten al impacts of off shore wind power developments, including strategic aims for off shore shallow water fi shes associated with the turbines development take place during the construc on wind power. To improve this, criteria and meth- is also likely to decrease with distance from the phase. Disturbance from noise and seabed dis- ods for assessing cumula ve eff ects need to be shore (e.g. Molles, 1978; Gladfelther, et al., 1980; rup on during the construc on phase could lead designed and standardised at appropriate temporal Cummins, 1994). With increasing exposure to wave to loss of feeding, spawning and nursery grounds and spa al scales ac on, delivery of rates of plankton to the turbine for e.g. fi sh, marine mammals, and birds for vary-

Iden fying and managing biodiversity risks and opportuni es of oﬀ shore renewable energy - GREENING BLUE ENERGY 59

iucn-eon-sida_ored_270410Gb_IRL.indd lxii 28.04.2010 09:39:44 Through con nued and enhanced monitoring of carefully selected environmental (bio c and abi- o c) and species-specifi c parameters during construc on and opera on of off shore energy farms, adverse and posi ve impacts could more reliably be recognised. This would facilitate the process of iden fying and achieve concurrence on areas to be considered for off shore wind power, as well as advance the development of methods and mi gat- ing measures for the benefi t of the marine environment.

60 GREENING BLUE ENERGY - Iden fying and managing biodiversity risks and opportuni es of oﬀ shore renewable energy

iucn-eon-sida_ored_270410Gb_IRL.indd lxiii 28.04.2010 09:39:44 Annexe 2 Legisla on

Contents 1 EIA...... 62 2 SEA...... 63 3 Marine Strategy Framework Direc ve...... 65 4 Other regional and global regula ons...... 66

Iden fying and managing biodiversity risks and opportuni es of oﬀ shore renewable energy - GREENING BLUE ENERGY 61

iucn-eon-sida_ored_270410Gb_IRL.indd lxiv 28.04.2010 09:39:44 1 Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA)

Direc ve 85/337/EEC (EIA, amended by terms of its: • water Direc ves 97/11/EC, 2003/35/EC and 2009/31/EC ) • physical characteris cs • air

According to Direc ve 85/337/EEC of the • land-use requirements • clima c factors European Commission on the assessment of the eff ects of certain public and private • characteris cs of the produc on • material assets, including architectural projects on the environment, wind energy processes and archaeological heritage, produc on projects do not require an EIA by default. The Member States determine • expected residues and emissions • landscape and through: • alterna ves • the inter-rela onship between the • A case-by-case examina on, or above factors • signifi cant perceived threats to the • Thresholds or criteria set by the environment and For those project impacts that exert direct Member State; or indirect, secondary, cumula ve, short, • a mi ga on plan. medium or long-term, permanent or tem- whether the project shall be made subject porary, posi ve or nega ve eff ects should to an assessment. Areas that might be aff ected by the pro- be described as well. posed project, are iden fi ed by the direc- An excep on to this may the use of under- ve as the minimum threshold. These water high voltage electricity transmis- include: sion cables, but this will be the case only if it involves ‘Construc on of overhead elec- • popula on trical power lines with a voltage of 220 kV or more and a length of more than 15 • fauna kilometres’ that would therefore require an EIA. • fl ora

An EIA should describe the project in • soil

62 GREENING BLUE ENERGY - Iden fying and managing biodiversity risks and opportuni es of oﬀ shore renewable energy

iucn-eon-sida_ored_270410Gb_IRL.indd lxv 28.04.2010 09:39:44 2 Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) - Part 1

Direc ve 2001/42/EC (SEA)

According to the Direc ve 2001/42/EC, the na onal or interna onal plans and programmes with likely signiﬁ cant environmental impacts e.g. oﬀ shore wind energy development shall be subject to an SEA.

An SEA should include the descrip on of the main objec ves of the plan or programme, the current state of the environment and the ‘business as usual’ scenario. It should explain: • The likely signifi cantly aff ected environmental aspects • The current environmental situa on (characteris cs and problems) • The likely signifi cant eff ects • The mi ga on plans • The alterna ves and • The monitoring plan.

The minimum threshold of the eﬀ ects that should be considered is the same as that applied in an EU EIA and is obtained by adding the biodiversity and human health impacts. Addi onally, the synergis c eﬀ ect should be reported but not the indirect impacts.

The stages of an SEA include: Screening (Direc ve 2001/42/EC, Ar cle 3) 1. An outline of the contents, main objec ves of the plan or pro- The Member State, in consulta on with the environmental authori- gramme and rela onship with other relevant plans and programmes; es, makes a decision on whether SEA is required. The decision should be reasoned and published. Please no ce that wind energy 2. The relevant aspects of the current state of the environment and produc on projects are listed in Annexe II and underwater high volt- the likely evolu on thereof without implementa on of the plan or age electricity transmission cable in Annexe I programme;

Environmental Studies (Direc ve 2001/42/EC, Ar cle 5 and Annexe 3. The environmental characteris cs of areas likely to be signiﬁ cantly I) aﬀ ected; The Member State carries out studies to collect and prepare the environmental informa on required by the Direc ve 2001/42/EC, An- 4. Any exis ng environmental problems which are relevant to the nexe I: plan or programme including, in par cular, those rela ng to any areas

Iden fying and managing biodiversity risks and opportuni es of oﬀ shore renewable energy - GREENING BLUE ENERGY 63

iucn-eon-sida_ored_270410Gb_IRL.indd lxvi 28.04.2010 09:39:44 2 Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) - Part 2

of a par cular environmental importance, such as areas designated ent review of the adequacy of the environmental informa on pursuant to Direc ves 79/409/EEC and 92/43/EEC; before it is considered by the competent authority. In other Member States the competent authority is responsible for deter- 5. The environmental protec on objec ves, established at inter- mining whether the Informa on is adequate. na onal, Community or Member State level, which are relevant to the plan or programme and the way those objec ves and any Consulta on environmental considera ons have been taken into account during (Direc ve 2001/42/EC, Ar cle 6 and 7) its prepara on; The environmental informa on must be made available to authori es with environmental responsibili es and the public 6. The likely signifi cant eff ects on the environment, including on aff ected or likely to be aff ected as well as to relevant NGOs. They issues such as biodiversity, popula on, human health, fauna, fl ora, must be given an opportunity to comment on the dra plan or soil, water, air, clima c factors, material assets, cultural heritage programme and its environmental eff ects before a decision is including architectural and archaeological heritage, landscape and made on the adop on of the plan or programme or its submis- the interrela onship between the above factors; sion to the legisla ve procedure. If transboundary eff ects are likely to be signifi cant other aff ected Member States must be 7. The measures envisaged to prevent, reduce and as fully as pos- consulted. sible off set any signifi cant adverse eff ects on the environment of implemen ng the plan or programme; Decision (Direc ve 2001/42/EC, Ar cle 8) 8. An outline of the reasons for selec ng the alterna ves dealt with, The environmental report and the consultants’ opinion must be and a descrip on of how the assessment was undertaken including taken into account before the adop on of the plan or pro- any diffi cul es (such as technical defi ciencies or lack of know-how) gramme or its submission to the legisla ve procedure. encountered in compiling the required informa on; Submission 9. A descrip on of the measures envisaged concerning monitoring The Member State adopts the plan or programme or submit it to in accordance with Ar cle 10; the legisla ve procedure.

10. A non-technical summary of the informa on provided under the Monitoring above headings. (Direc ve 2001/42/EC, Ar cle 10) The Member State monitors the signiﬁ cant environmental ef- Review fects of the implementa on of the plan or programme. In some Member States there is a formal requirement for independ-

64 GREENING BLUE ENERGY - Iden fying and managing biodiversity risks and opportuni es of oﬀ shore renewable energy

iucn-eon-sida_ored_270410Gb_IRL.indd lxvii 28.04.2010 09:39:44 3 Marine Strategy Framework Direc ve

The Marine Strategy Framework Direc ve covers the ‘[establish- • Fish, mammals and rep les ment of] a framework for community ac on in the ﬁ eld of marine environmental policy’ and is addressed to the Member States. • Seabirds This direc ve requires the submission of an assessment of: • Other species as well as non-indigenous and exo c species • The ini al environmental status of marine regions (Ar cle 8) It is a requirement that biodiversity impacts on these species • The determina on of good environmental status (Ar cle 9 and should be described in both an EIA or an SEA. Annexe I) Good environmental status, as described in this direc ve, is con- • The establishment of targets (Ar cle 10), and of ngent on respec ng exis ng EU legisla on, such as:

• Monitoring programmes (Ar cle 11) • The EU direc ve on the conserva on of wild birds (Direc ve 79/409/EEC) • The conserva on of natural habitats and wild fauna and fl ora The informa on reported by the Member States, namely char- (Direc ve 92/43/EEC), and acteris cs, pressures and impacts (Annexe III), as well as the guidelines for monitoring programmes (Annexe V) and the type • The regional and interna onal sea and wildlife protec on of measures (Annexe VI), could facilitate the process and help re- conven ons, such as: duce the cost to Developers of environmental impact assessments • OSPAR for off shore renewable energy development projects. • MAP and BSC It should be noted that in the biological features sec on of • Bonn, Bern and Helsinki (HELCOM) Annexe III, the fauna and fl ora described in seabed and water column habitats include: • Ramsar • AEWA • Phytoplankton and zooplankton • Eurobats • Marine algae and bo om fauna • ASCOBANS and ACCOBAMS conven ons.

Iden fying and managing biodiversity risks and opportuni es of oﬀ shore renewable energy - GREENING BLUE ENERGY 65

iucn-eon-sida_ored_270410Gb_IRL.indd lxviii 28.04.2010 09:39:44 4 Other regional and global regula ons

Examples of regional and global regula on that will applicability to oﬀ shore wind-farms include:

• London Conven on (dredging, including sediment dumping) • OSPAR Conven on (1992/1999) • Ramsar Conven on (1971) • The Bonn Conven on (1979) • ACOBANS (1992) • The conven on on Environmental Impact Assessment in a Transboundary Context (1971) • The European Bird Direc ve 79/409/EEG (Special Protec on Areas (SPAs), 1979) • The European Habitat Direc ve • EU Natura 2000 • United Na on’s Law of Seas

66 GREENING BLUE ENERGY - Iden fying and managing biodiversity risks and opportuni es of oﬀ shore renewable energy

iucn-eon-sida_ored_270410Gb_IRL.indd lxix 28.04.2010 09:39:44 Annexe 3 Brief on Wave, Tidal and Current Power

Dan Wilhelmsson1,2, Olivia Langhamer3, Jeremy Tchou4

1. Division of Ecology, Department of Zoology, Stockholm University, Sweden, 2. IUCN Global Marine Programme, Switzerland 3. Swedish Centre for Renewable Electric Energy Conversion, Division for Electricity, Ångström Laboratory, Uppsala University. 4. Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Stanford University, USA

Introduc on mental eff ect these systems may have. Wave and USA. Es mates for poten al energy, in par cular dal projects are already being developed in sev- wave energy, indicate enormous untapped sources Since the ocean covers 71 per cent of the Earth’s eral countries including Argen na, Australia, Cana- that can be used to meet global energy demand (Ta- surface and thus holds enormous energy poten al da, China, Denmark, Germany, India, Ireland, Italy, ble A3-1). (e.g Figure A3-1), it is natural to consider possibili- Japan, the Netherlands, Norway, the Philippines, es for off shore renewable energy development. Portugal, Sri Lanka, Sweden, Taiwan, the UK and the Numerous technologies that use off shore loca ons to generate electricity have been developed or are in the research phase. These technologies include Table A3-1: Es mated energy poten al for wave and dal technologies harnessing energy from the ocean such as wind, waves, des, currents, and thermal and salinity gradients. Marine biomass as well as off shore solar Technology Theore cal Es mated Global % of Global Electricity Demand energy are also being considered. A signifi cant expan- Energy Poten al (TWh) (1) (2) sion of all aforemen oned technologies is expected Tidal 300+ 2 % in the future as countries strive to balance economic development with sustainability ini a ves. Wave 8,000-80,000 42-421 %

While oﬀ shore wind power is treated in the main (1) Energy poten al is taken from the IEA-OES, Annual Report 2007. document and Annexe 1, this report focuses on (2) Es mated global electricity produc on was taken from the CIA World Factbook for 2007 and was wave, and marine dal and current energy, and approximately 19,000 TWh. brieﬂ y describes some of the poten al environ-

Iden fying and managing biodiversity risks and opportuni es of oﬀ shore renewable energy - GREENING BLUE ENERGY 67

iucn-eon-sida_ored_270410Gb_IRL.indd lxx 03.05.2010 13:42:24 creates electricity through the bending of joints in a long cylindrical device (IEA, 2007). Another example is the point absorber (Figure A3-5; Leijon, et al., 2008) that has a rela ve small structure in comparison to the wave length. Technologies to harvest energy from waves are s ll in ini al phases, and future technology could be radically diﬀ erent compared to pilot projects in development today. OWC devices would generally be located along the shoreline, while OTS and wave ac vated body systems will generally be located in waters with depths of 20-200 metres (e.g. Langhamer, et al., 2009a).

Marine and dal current energy

Tidal energy takes advantage of the displacement Figure A3-1: Wave power density (kW/m) of wave front in diff erent parts of the world of water around the world due primarily to the (Adapted from Langhamer, 2009b) gravita onal pull of the moon. Only certain areas in the world have large dal displacements because dal strength is determined by local geography Wave energy shore wave energy converter constructed a er the (Bhuyan, 2008). Loca ons such as the Bay of Fundy OTS principle (Figure A3-2). OWC is based on a low- can experience dal ranges of up to 17 metres Wave energy directly harnesses the kine c energy in pressure air turbine that is partly submerged and (NASA, 2009). The easiest method of harves ng waves and converts it to electricity (Bhuyan, 2008). open below the water surface, so that an oscillat- dal energy is through a dam that allows water in Presently, the development of wave energy harvest- ing water pillar can pump air through a turbine. The during high des and releases that water through ing systems centre on three main principles; Over- Limpet plant is an example of a full-scale shoreline a turbine during low des (so called dal barrage topping systems (OTS), Oscilla ng Water Column OWC device (Figure A3-3). Wave ac vated bodies systems). There are three dal barrage systems in systems (OWC), and wave ac vated bodies. OTS systems are moored to the seabed and fl oat on top opera on today. The largest is located in La Rance, channel waves towards an elevated ramp. Behind of the ocean’s surface. As the device bobs or pitch- France and is rated at 240 MW. The other two sys- the ramp, a large basin that is above seawater level es, it converts mechanical energy from its move- tems are in Annapolis Royal, Canada and Kislaya collects the directed water and leads it back via ment into electricity. The Pelamis Project (Figure Guba, Russia (IEA, 2007). Other technologies under hydro-turbines. The Wave Dragon is a fl oa ng off - A3-4) is an example of a pitching generator that development to harness dal energy include dal

68 GREENING BLUE ENERGY - Iden fying and managing biodiversity risks and opportuni es of oﬀ shore renewable energy

iucn-eon-sida_ored_270410Gb_IRL.indd lxxi 28.04.2010 09:39:45 fences that stretch across a channel with dal currents and have ver cal axis turbines, through which the dal water is forced to pass, and dal turbines, which are solitary units that resemble underwater wind turbines.

Marine current energy diﬀ ers from dal energy in that it takes advantage of the global ocean currents, generated primarily by the thermohaline circula on (one part of the thermohaline circula on is the Gulf Stream). Ocean currents provide steady sources of kine c energy, which can be harvested by underwater turbine devices, similar to dal turbines. Cur- rent energy is s ll in the research phase, and the Figure A3-2: Example of wave converter based on the Overtopping System (OTS) exact dimensions of structures are s ll unspeciﬁ ed. principle, the Wave Dragon. Likely sites for dal and marine current turbines are expected to be in depths between 20 to 80 metres (DTI, 2003).

Poten al impacts on the marine environment

First, it is worth no ng that dal barrage systems have similar environmental impacts as tradi onal dams and can lead to signiﬁ cant habitat changes, sedimenta on, marine migra on problems, and changes in estuarine water ﬂ ow (Pelc & Fujita, 2002; Clark, 2006; Fraenkel, 2006). In the case of La Range, the aqua c ecosystem was disturbed due Figure A3-3. Example of wave converter based on the Oscilla ng Water Column (OWC) to the complete closure of the estuary during con- principle, the Limpet Plant (Wavegen). struc on (Frau, 1993). During opera on, biological produc on was higher in the La Range basin than

Iden fying and managing biodiversity risks and opportuni es of oﬀ shore renewable energy - GREENING BLUE ENERGY 69

iucn-eon-sida_ored_270410Gb_IRL.indd lxxii 03.05.2010 13:42:26 As for off shore wind power, concerns at the moment centre on habitat disturbance, noise and electromagne c fi elds, as well as dangers from spinning blades and other moving parts. These eff ects could be amplifi ed around vulnerable loca ons such as estuaries.

A empts to predict the impacts of WTC on the marine environment are growing in number (EIAs, scien fi c reviews). However, very few studies have, naturally, collected primary data on poten al impacts (but see Langhamer, et al., 2009; Langham- er & Wilhelmsson, 2007; Langhamer & Wilhelms- son, 2009; Langhamer, 2009 for wave power). Many of the fi ndings outlined in the review on off shore wind power and the marine environment presented in Annexe 1, will be directly relevant to WTC genera- Figure A3-4: Example of a wave ac vated body, the Pelamis. on. The readers are thus referred to relevant sec- ons in Annexe 1 for further details on the nature and magnitude of poten al impacts.

in comparable estuaries (Frau, 1993). Worldwide, are discussed in brief below. In this paper, the col- During installa on of WTC devices, drilling and however, there are only a handful of sites suitable lec on name WTC will herea er be used for wave placement, cable laying, as well as boat traffi c can for dal barrages (Pontes & Falcão, 2001), and this power, and marine and dal current power. cause acute sound pulses and give raise to sedi- report does not a empt to evaluate the poten al ment plumes (see Annexe 1, sec ons 4 and 7). The eff ects of these technologies. Es mated environmental impacts from WTC are noise levels associated with WTC devices in opera- highly site- and device-specifi c (Cruz, 2008). The on may be low compared to ambient noise, apart Marine dal fences and dal and current turbines type of WTC that will dominate the market and from stochas c mechanical sound pulses (Shields, (herea er referred to as marine dal and cur- be developed for large scale commercial use is et al., 2009; The Ångström Laboratory, personal rent energy), as well as wave energy devices, are s ll uncertain, and no full scale WTC park is yet in communica on, 2009). However, the knowledge believed to cause fewer environmental impacts place. Environmental concerns related to WTC will base is weak, and research is needed on the poten- than dal barrages (e.g. Pelc & Fujita, 2002); how- become be er defi ned as the systems are designed al impact of noise emissions on marine organ- ever, their poten al impact is spread out over larger and implemented. isms that inhabit or migrate through the area. (see areas. The nature and magnitude of these impacts Annexe 1, sec on 7 for more details)

70 GREENING BLUE ENERGY - Iden fying and managing biodiversity risks and opportuni es of oﬀ shore renewable energy

iucn-eon-sida_ored_270410Gb_IRL.indd lxxiii 03.05.2010 13:42:33 Cables transmi ng power between WTC devices al., 2005; Gill, et al., 2009), but further research is structures are rare (Gill, 2005). For wave power, it and to the mainland may have an eff ect on marine needed to inves gate how, for example, the rela- appears unlikely that installa ons would result in organisms, such as migratory fi sh, elasmobranches, vely dense networks of cables within WTC parks large numbers of collision fatali es of marine organ- crustaceans and marine mammals that use mag- may aff ect naviga on and foraging by electrosen- isms. However, fi sh and mammals may be harmed ne c fi elds for naviga on or fi nding prey (Kalmijn, si ve species. (see Annexe 1, sec on 8 for more colliding with or entangling in mooring chains 2000; Gill, et al., 2005; Öhman, et al., 2007; Gill, et details) (Wilson, et al., 2007). Some concerns that dal al., 2009). No signifi cant eff ects on marine organ- fences and turbines blocking channels may harm isms from exposure to electromagne c fi elds have Studies on collision risks between marine organ- or hamper migra on by wild life have, on the other been established (Bochert & Ze ler, 2004; Gill et isms, such as mammals and fi sh, and submerged hand, been raised (e.g. Pelc & Fujita, 2002; Inger, et al., 2009). It is not certain that the slow moving turbines cause any impacts, as no eff ects on either fi sh or water movement were recorded in conjunc- on with a prototype built by Nova Energy, in the St. Lawrence Seaway (Blue Energy Canada, 2001).

To decrease collision fatali es and barrier eff ects on fi sh, developers could construct systems where the space between the caisson wall and rotor foil is large enough for fi sh to pass through (e.g. Pelc & Fujita, 2002). Turbines could also be geared for low veloci es (25-50 rounds per minute) which would keep the fi sh fatali es to a minimum (see Pelc & Fujita, 2002). It has been suggested that larger animals, such as marine mammals, could be kept away from the rotors through fences (Pelc & Fujita, 2002), but this may, on the other hand, cause barrier eff ects in narrow channels. The use of sonar sensors to shut the system down when mammals approach the devices has also been men oned as an op on (Pelc & Fujita, 2002).

Above water, WTC devices have few moving parts, Figure A3-5: Example of a wave ac vated body, the point absorber (Seabased Ltd). © C. and have rela vely low proﬁ les, which should Wilhelmsson. decrease the risk of fatal bird collisions (see sec on

Iden fying and managing biodiversity risks and opportuni es of oﬀ shore renewable energy - GREENING BLUE ENERGY 71

iucn-eon-sida_ored_270410Gb_IRL.indd lxxiv 28.04.2010 09:39:56 9.1 in Annexe 1). Obstruc on lights (Montevecchi, As for off shore wind power (see Annexe 1, sec- that has been under development on the Swedish 2006, and see Cruz, 2008 for references), as well as ons 3 and 4), the construc on of WTC devices will west coast since 2005 (Langhamer & Wilhelmsson, congrega ons of fi sh (see below), may, however, increase the amount of hard substrate in coastal 2007; Leijon, et al., 2008). Within the environmen- a ract seabirds and thereby increase the risk of environments and may thus posi vely aff ect abun- tal research package associated with the project, injuries due to collision. Impacts of WTC parks on dance of several taxa (Langhamer & Wilhelmsson, the poten als for low cost modifi ca ons to the the behaviour and migra on of seabirds cannot be 2009; Figure A3-6). Results from studies on foun- design of the founda ons in order to encourage the ruled out (see Annexe 1. sec ons 9.2 and 9.3). Fur- da ons of wave energy converters confi rmed that colonisa on of fi sh and shellfi sh are of par cular ther, the physical footprint of OWC devices (Figure the structures are rapidly colonised by epifauna, interest. The current research primarily targets spe- A3-3) placed in the li oral zone could in some cases fi sh, and crustaceans, with increasing diversity over cies that are habitat limited, and seeks to augment cause direct habitat loss for birds residing on the me (Langhamer & Wilhelmsson, 2007; Langhamer local stocks where desired (e.g. Langhamer & Wil- shores. & Wilhelmsson, 2009; Langhamer, et al., 2009b). helmsson, 2009; Figure A3-7). On the other hand, One current case study is the wave power park the research has shown that increased abundance of predators (i.e. edible crab Cancer pagurus) may have adverse eff ects on local numbers of certain species. Further, WTC parks will provide hard substrata in regions and at depths o en dominated by so bo om habitats, and could fi ll in gaps between natural areas of hard substrata, changing the biogeographic distribu on of rocky bo om species within a region (Bulleri & Airoldi, 2005; Nielsen, et al., 2009). (see Annexe 1 and sec ons 3, for more issues related to the addi on of ar fi cial hard substrata)

WTC devices on the water surface (i.e. for wave power) may act as Fish Aggrega on Devices (FAD) and a ract both juvenile and adult fi sh (Kingsford, 1993; Castro, et al., 2002; Fayram & de Risi, 2007). S ll, the func ons and area of infl uence from diff erent types of FADs remain unclear and require further inves ga on (Dempster & Taquet, 2004). Figure A3-6: An edible/brown crab (Cancer pagurus) taking shelter on a wave energy founda on. Photo: O. Langhamer. Pelc and Fujita (2002) raised concerns about the poten al for fl oa ng devices to reduce water

72 GREENING BLUE ENERGY - Iden fying and managing biodiversity risks and opportuni es of oﬀ shore renewable energy

iucn-eon-sida_ored_270410Gb_IRL.indd lxxv 28.04.2010 09:39:59 mixing causing detrimental eff ects on food supply (Wilhelmsson, et al., 2006; Langhamer & Wilhelms- the surface and are only anchored to the seabed for benthic organism. However, WTC devices will son, 2009; Maar, et al., 2009). WTC parks may also (Figure A3-3 and Figure A3-4), or have compara- usually be subjected to fouling where sessile mus- increase inorganic sedimenta on rates in the area bly small founda ons (Figure A3-5), will have less sels o en dominate (Wilhelmsson & Malm, 2008; by altering the hydrodynamics (see Annexe 1, sec- impact on the seabed than wind turbines. A study Langhamer, 2009a; Langhamer, et al., 2009b). WTC on 5). However, even slight currents in the area by Langhamer (in press) suggests that the impacts devices may, thus, rather enhance benthic produc- are likely to minimise these impacts (see e.g. Cruz, of wave power on the seabed in the area as a whole vity within the areas, through the deposi on of 2008 for references). are minimal. Shoreline devices, such as OWC (Figure organic material, such as faecal ma er, and live and A3-3), may have greater short-term impacts than dead organisms origina ng from the WTC device In par cular wave power devices, which fl oat on those deployed off shore, as the former may require excava on of the coastline (Cruz, 2008).

Damping of waves by large arrays of wave energy converters may reduce erosion on the shoreline. However, most devices will be placed more than 1-2 kilometres from the shoreline, and the sheltering eﬀ ect of wave energy devices is probably negligible in most cases (Pelc & Fujita, 2002; Cruz, 2008 and Ångström Laboratory, personal communica on, 2009).

It should be emphasised again that primary data is to date only available from studies in conjunc on with small scale pilot wave energy projects using e.g. point absorbers (Figure A3-5). Future wave parks may claim sizable areas (tens of square kilometres), and cumula ve eﬀ ects of large numbers of wave energy converters need to be thoroughly considered.

Figure A3-7: Deployment of a wave energy founda on that has been perforated with holes to inves gate how it may enhance abundance of ﬁ sh and crustaceans (Langhamer & Wilhelmsson, 2009). Photo: O. Langhamer.

Iden fying and managing biodiversity risks and opportuni es of oﬀ shore renewable energy - GREENING BLUE ENERGY 73

iucn-eon-sida_ored_270410Gb_IRL.indd lxxvi 28.04.2010 09:40:00 References (Annexe 3)

Bochert, R. and Ze ler, M.L. (2004). Long-Term exposure of several marine benthic Frau, J.P. (1993). Tidal Energy : Promising Projects La Rance, a successful industrial scale animals to sta c magne c ﬁ elds. Bioelectromagne cs. 25: 498-502. experiment, IEEE Transac ons on Energy Conversion, Vol. 8, No. 3, September 1993.

Bhuyan, G. (2008). Harnessing the Power of the Oceans, Interna onal Energy Gill, A. B. (2005). Oﬀ shore renewable energy: ecological implica ons of genera ng Agency, July 2008. electricity in the coastal zone. Journal of Applied Ecology 42: 605-615.

Blue Energy Canada (2001) online h p://www.blueenergy.com/index2.html. Gill, A. B., Gloyne-Philips, I., Neal, K. J. and Kimber, J. A. (2005). COWRIE 1.5 Electromag- ne c fi eld review. Cranfi eld University, Silsoe, UK. Bulleri, F. and Airoldi, L. (2005). Ar fi cial marine structures facilitate the spread of a non-indigenous green alga, Codium fragile ssp tomentosoides, in the north Adria c Gill, A.B., Huang, Y., Gloyne-Philips, I., Metcalfe, J., Quayle, V., Spencer, J. and Wear- Sea. Journal of Applied Ecology 42: 1063-1072. mouth, V. (2009). COWRIE 2.0 Electromagne c Fields (EMF) Phase 2: EMF sensi ve fi sh response to EM emissions from sub-sea electricity cables of the type used by the off - Castro, J.J., San ago, J.A. and Santana-Ortega, A.T. (2002). A general theory on fi sh shore renewable energy industry. Collabora ve Off shore Windfarm Research, London, aggrega on to fl oa ng object: An alterna ve to the mee ng point hypothesis. U.K. 128 pages Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries 11: 255-277. Inger, R., A rill, M.J., Bearshop, S., Broderick, A.C., Grecian, W.J., Hodgson, D.J., Mills, Clark, N.A. (2006). Tidal barrages and birds. Ibis 148: 152-157. C., Sheehan, E., Votler, S.C., Wi , M.J. and Godley, B.J. Marine renewable energy: poten al benefi ts to biodiversity? An urgent call for research. Journal of Applied Ecol- Dempster, T. and Taquet, M. (2004). Fish aggrega on device (FAD) research: gaps in ogy 46: 1145-1153. current knowledge and future direc ons for ecological studies. Reviews in Fish Biol- ogy and Fisheries 14: 21-42. IEA (Interna onal Energy Agency) (2007). Annual Report. Ocean Energy Systems

Cruz, J. (2008). Ocean wave energy; current status and future perspec ves. Springer- Kalmijn, A. J. (2000). Detec on and processing of electromagne c and near-fi eld acous- Verlag Berlin Heidelberg. ISBN 978-3-540-74894-6. c signals in elasmobranch fi shes. Philosophical Transac ons of the Royal Society of London Series B-Biological Sciences 355: 1135-1141. DTI (Department of Trade and Industry), Department of Enterprise, Trade and Invest- ment; and Northern Ireland Electricity (2003). The Poten al for the use of Marine Kingsford, M. J. (1993). Bio c and abio c structure in the pelagic environment: impor- Current Energy in Northern Ireland, 30 June 2003 (available online, h p://www. tance to small fi sh. Bulle n of Marine Science 53: 393-415. de ni.gov.uk/cgi-bin/moreu l?u lid=41&site=5&u l=2&fold=&, 2005-08-29). Langhamer, O. (2009a). Coloniza on of blue mussels (My lus edulis) on off shore wave Fayram, A.H. and de Risi, A. (2007). The poten al compa bility of off shore wind power installa ons in: Columbus, F., (Eds.). Biofouling: Types, Impacts and An -fouling. power and fi sheries: An example using bluefi n tuna in the Adria c Sea. Ocean and New York, Nova Science Publisher (in press). Coastal Management 50: 597-605. Langhamer, O. (2009b). Wave energy conversion and the marine environment; coloni- Fraenkel, P.L. (2006). Tidal current energy technologies. Ibis 148: 145-151. sa on pa erns and habitat dynamics. Disserta on, Uppsala University. ISBN 978-91- 554-7581-9.

74 GREENING BLUE ENERGY - Iden fying and managing biodiversity risks and opportuni es of oﬀ shore renewable energy

iucn-eon-sida_ored_270410Gb_IRL.indd lxxvii 28.04.2010 09:40:05 Langhamer, O., Haikonen, K. and Sundberg, J. (2009a). Wave power – sustainable Öhman, M.C., Sigray, P. and Westerberg, H. (2007). Off shore windmills and the eff ects energy or environmentally costly? A review with special emphasis on linear wave of electromagne c fi elds on fi sh. Ambio 36: 630-633. Pelc, R. and Fujita, R.M. 2002. energy converters. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews (in press) Renewable energy from the ocean. Marine Policy 26: 471-479.

Langhamer, O. and Wilhelmsson, D. (2007). Wave power devices as ar fi cial reefs. Pro- Pontes, M.T. and Falcão, A. (2001). Ocean energies; resources and u lisa on. World ceedings of the 7th European Wave and Tidal Energy Conference, September 11-13, Energy Council 18th Congress, Buenos Aires, October 2001. 2007, Porto, Portugal. Shields, M.A., Dillon, L.J., Woolf, D.K. and Ford, A.T. (2009). Strategic priori es for Langhamer, O. and Wilhelmsson, D. (2009). Colonisa on of fi sh and crabs of wave assessing ecological impacts of marine renewable energy devices in the Penthland energy founda ons and the eff ects of manufactured holes - a fi eld experiment. Marine Firth (Scotland, UK). Marine Policy 33: 635-642. Environmental Research 68, 151-157. Wilhelmsson, D. and Malm, T. (2008). Fouling assemblages on off shore wind power Langhamer, O., Wilhelmsson, D. and Engström, J. (2009b). Ar fi cial reef eff ect and foul- plants and adjacent substrata. Estuarine Coastal and Shelf Science 79: 459-466. ing impacts on off shore wave power founda ons and buoys - a pilot study. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 82: 426-432. Wilhelmsson, D., Malm, T. and Öhman, M.C. (2006). The infl uence of off shore wind- power on demersal fi sh. ICES Journal of Marine Science. 63: 775-784 Langhamer, O. Eff ects of wave energy converters on the surrounding so -bo om macrofauna (west coast of Sweden). Marine Environmental Research, In Press, Corrected Wilson, B., Ba y, R.S., Daunt, F. and Carter, C. (2007). Collision risks between marine Proof, Available online 22 January 2010 renewable energy devices and mammals, fi sh and diving birds. The Sco sh Execu ve, Oban, Scotland. 110 pages Leijon, M., Boström, C., Danielsson, D., Gustafsson, S., Haikonen, K., Langhamer, O., Strömstedt, E., Stålberg, M., Sundberg, J., Svensson,O., Turberg, S. and Waters, R. (2009). Wave energy from the North Sea: Experiences from the Lysekil Research Site. Survey in Geophysics 29: 221-240.

Maar, M., Bolding, K., Petersen, K.J., Hansen, L.S.J. and Timmermann, K. (2009). Local eﬀ ects of blue mussels around turbine founda ons in an ecosystem model of Nysted oﬀ -shore wind farm, Denmark. Journal of Sea Research. 63:159-174.

Montevecchi, W.A. (2006). Infl uences of ar fi cial light on marine birds. In: Rich, C. and Longcore, T. (eds) Ecological Consequences of ar fi cial night ligh ng. Island Press, Washington D.C. : 94-113.

NASA (2009). High and Low Tides in the Bay of Fundy, Earth Observatory, Na onal Aeronau cs and Space Administra on, h p://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view. php?id=6650, accessed 4/20/09

Nielsen, T.G. (2009). Sustainable resource u lisa on of marine habitats for wind farms- a summary report. Project report. Grant: DSF-2104-05-0028. 16 pages

den fying and managing biodiversity risks and opportuni es of oﬀ shore renewable energy - GREENING BLUE ENERGY 75

iucn-eon-sida_ored_270410Gb_IRL.indd lxxviii 28.04.2010 09:40:05 iucn-eon-sida_ored_270410Gb_IRL.indd lxxix 28.04.2010 09:40:05 References

Aabel, J.P., Cripps, S.J., Jensen, A.C. and Picken, G. (1997). Crea ng ar fi cial reefs from Atkinson-Willes, G.L. (1972). The interna onal wildfowl censuses as a basis for decommissioned pla orms in the North Sea: review of knowledge and proposed pro- wetland evalua on and hun ng ra onaliza on. In: Carp E (ed) Proceedings of the gram of research. Volume 2: main report. Rogaland Research, Stavanger, Norway. 129 Interna onal Conference of Wetland and Waterfowl, Ramsar. Page 87-119. pages Auld, A.H. and Schubel, J.R. (1978). Eff ects of suspended sediment on fi sh eggs and Airoldi, L. (1998). Roles of disturbance sediment stress and substratum reten on on larvae: A laboratory assessment. Estuarine, Coastal, and Shelf Science 6:153-164. spa al dominance in algal turf. Ecology 79:2759-2770. Avelung, D., Kierspel, A.M., Liebsch, N., Muller, G. and Wilson, R. (2006). Distribu on Airoldi, L., Bacchiocchi, F., Cagliola, C., Bulleri, F. and Abbia , M. (2005). Impact of rec- of harbour seals in the German bight in rela on to off shore wind power plants. In: rea onal harves ng on assemblages in ar fi cial rocky habitats. Marine Ecology Progress Köller J, Köppel J and Peters W (eds) Off shore wind energy: Research on environmen- Series. 299:55-66. tal impacts. Springer, Berlin-Heidelberg. Page 65-75.

Ambrose, R.F. (1994). Mi ga ng the eff ects of a coastal power plant on a kelp forest Avens, L., Braun-McNeill, J., Epperly, S. and Lohman, K.J. (2003). Site fi delity and hom- community; ra onale and requirements for an ar fi cial reef. Bulle n of Marine Science. ing behaviour in juvenile sea turtles (Care a care a) Marine Biology. 143:211-220. 55:694-708. Baine, M. (2001). Ar fi cial reefs. A review of their design, applica on, management Ambrose, R.F. and Anderson, T.W. (1990). Infl uence of an ar fi cial reef on the surround- and performance. Ocean & Coastal Management. 44:241-259. ing infaunal community. Marine Biology. 190:41-52. Balata, D., Piazzi, L. and Benede -Cecchi, L. (2007). Sediment disturbance and loss of Ambrose, R.F. and Swarbrick, S.L. (1989). Comparison of fi sh assemblages on ar fi - beta diversity on sub dal rocky reefs. Ecology. 88:2455-2461. cial and natural reefs off the coast of southern California. Bulle n of Marine Science. 44:718-733. Bartol, S.M., Musick, J.A. and Lenhardt, M.L. (1999). Auditory evoked poten als of the loggerhead sea turtle. Copeia. 3:836-840. Amoser, S. and Ladich, F.L. (2005). Are hearing sensi vi es of freshwater fi sh adapted to the ambient noise in their habitats? Journal of Experimental Biology. 208:3533-3542. Beets, J. (1989). Experimental evalua on of fi sh recruitment to combina ons of fi sh aggrega ng devices and benthic ar fi cial reefs. Bulle n of Marine Science. 44:973- Anderson, J.J. (1990). Assessment of the risk of pile driving to juvenile fi sh. Deep Foun- 983. da ons Ins tute. Sea le, Washington. 11 pages Beets, J. and Hixon, A.H. (1994). Distribu on, persistence, and growth of groupers Andrulewicz, E., Napierska, D. and Otremba, Z. (2001). The environmental eff ects of (Pisces; Serranidae) on ar fi cial reef and natural patch reefs in the Virgin Islands. Bul- the installa on and func oning of the submarine SwePol Link HVDC transmission line: le n of Marine Science. 55:973-983. a case study of the Polish Marine Area of the Bal c Sea. Stockholm, Sweden. Page 337- 345. BERR (2008). Review of cabling techniques and environmental eff ects applicable to the off shore wind farm industry, Department for Business Enterprise & Regulatory Arena, P.T., Jordan, L.K.B. and Speiler, R.E. (2007). Fish assemblages on sunken vessels Reform and natural reefs in southeast Florida, USA. Hydrobiologia 580:157-171.

den fying and managing biodiversity risks and opportuni es of oﬀ shore renewable energy - GREENING BLUE ENERGY 77

iucn-eon-sida_ored_270410Gb_IRL.indd lxxx 28.04.2010 09:40:05 Bio/consult A/S. (2000a). Horns Rev Off shore Wind Farm Environmental Impact. Bright, J., Langston, R., Bullman, R., Evans R., Gardner, S. and Pearce-Higgins, J. (2008). Assessment of Sea Bo om and Marine Biology. 43 pages Map of bird sensi vi es to wind farms in Scotland: A tool to aid planning and conserva on. Biological Conserva on. 141:2342-2356. Bio/consult A/S. (2000b). Horns Rev Off shore Wind Farm Environmental Impact. Assessment on water quality. 24 pages Brock, R.E. (1994). Beyond fi sheries enhancement: ar fi cial reefs and ecotourism. Bul- le n of Marine Science 55: 1181-1188. Bochert, R. and Ze ler, M.L. (2004). Long-Term exposure of several marine benthic animals to sta c magne c fi elds. Bioelectromagne cs. 25:498-502. Brock, R.E. and Norris, J.E. (1989). An analysis of the effi ciency of four ar fi cial reef designs in tropical waters. Bulle n of Marine Science. 44:934-941. Bohnsack, J.A. (1989). Are high densi es of fi shes on ar fi cial reefs the result of habitat limita on or behavioural preference? Bulle n of Marine Science. 44:934- Brodin, Y. and Andersson, H.M. (2009). The marine splash midge Telmatogon japoni- 941. cus (Diptera; Chironomidae) - extreme and alien? Biological Invasions. 11: 1311-1317

Bohnsack, J.A., Harper, D.E., McClellan, D.B. and Hulsbeck, M. (1994). Eff ects of reef Broström, G. (2008). On the infl uence of large wind farms on the upper ocean circula- size on colonisa on and assemblage structure of fi shes at ar fi cial reefs off south- on. Journal of Marine Systems. 74:585-591. eastern Florida, U.S.A. Bulle n of Marine Science. 55:796-823. Buckhard, B., Opitz, S., Lenhart, H., Ahrendt, K., Garthe, S., Mendel, B. and Windhorst, Bohnsack, J.A., Johnson, D.L. and Ambrose, R.F. (1991). Ecology of ar fi cial reef W. (2009). Ecosystem based modelling and indica on of ecological integrity in the habitats and fi shes. In: Seaman W. and Sprague L.M. (eds) Ar fi cial habitats for ma- German North Sea. Case study off shore wind parks. Ecological Indicators. in press. rine and freshwater fi sheries. Academic Press Inc, San Diego, California. Page 61-84. Bulleri, F. and Airoldi, L. (2005). Ar fi cial marine structures facilitate the spread of a Bohnsack, J.A. and Sutherland, D.L. (1985). Ar fi cial reef research - a review with non-indigenous green alga, Codium fragile ssp tomentosoides, in the north Adria c recommenda ons for future priori es. Bulle n of Marine Science. 37:11-39. Sea. Journal of Applied Ecology. 42:1063-1072.

Boles, L.C. and Lohmann, K.J. (2003). True naviga on and magne c maps in spiny Bullock, T.H. (1999). The future of research on electrorecep on and electro communi- lobsters. Nature. 421:60-63. ca on. The Journal of Experimental Biology. 202:1455-1458.

Brager, S., Meissner, J. and Thiel, M. (1995). Temporal and spa al abundance of Båmstedt, U., Larsson, S., Stenman, Å. Magnhagen, C. and Sigray, P. (2009). Eff ekter wintering Common Eider Somateria mollissima, Long-Tailed Duck Clangula hyema- av underva enljud från havsbaserade vindkra verk på fi sk från Bo niska viken. The lis, and Common Scoter Melani a nigra in shallow-water areas of the southwestern Swedish Environmental Protec on Agency. Stockholm, Sweden. 34 pages Bal c Sea. Ornis Fennica. 72:19-28. Campos, J.A. and Gamboa, C. (1989). An ar fi cial re-reef in a tropical marine system: Brandt, M., Diederichs, J. and Nehls, G. (2009). Harbour porpoise responses to pile a management tool. Bulle n of Marine Science. 44:757- 766. driving at the Horns Rev II off shore wind farm in the Danish North Sea. BioConsult SH, Husum, Germany. 70 pages Carstensen, J., Henriksen, O.D. and Teilmann, J. (2006). Impacts of off shore wind farm construc on on harbour porpoises: acous c monitoring of echoloca on ac vity using Bray, R.N., Miller, A.C. and Geesay, G.G. (1981). The fi sh connec on: A trophic link porpoise detectors (T-PODs). Marine Ecology Progress Series. 321:295-308. between planktonic and rocky reef communi es? Science 214:204-205. Chojnacki, J.C. (2000). Environmental eff ects of ar fi cial reefs in the southern Bal c Breitburg, D.L., Palmer, M.A. and Loher, T. (1995). Larval distribu ons and the spa- (Pomeranian Bay). In: Jensen A.C., Collins K.J. and Lockwood A.P.M.L. (eds) Ar fi cial al pa erns of se lement of an oyster reef fi sh - responses to fl ow and structure. reefs in European Seas. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands Marine Ecology Progress Series 125:45-60. Page 307-317.

78 GREENING BLUE ENERGY - Iden fying and managing biodiversity risks and opportuni es of oﬀ shore renewable energy

iucn-eon-sida_ored_270410Gb_IRL.indd lxxxi 28.04.2010 09:40:05 Chou, L.M. (1997). Ar fi cial reefs of Southeast Asia - Do they enhance or degrade the Dayton, P.K., Thrush, S.F., Agardy, M.T. and Hofman, R.J. (1995). Environmental eff ects marine environment? Environmental Monitoring and Assessment. 44:45-52. of marine fi shing. Aqua c Conserva on Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems. 5:205- 232. Claudet, J. and Pelle er, D. (2004). Marine protected areas and ar fi cal reefs: Review of the interac ons between management and science. Aqua c Living Resources. de Lucas, M., Janss, G.F.E., Whi ield, D.P. and Ferrer, M. (2008). Collision fatality of 17:129-138. raptors in wind farms does not depend on raptor abundance. Journal of Applied Ecol- ogy. 45:1695-1703. Compton, R., Goodwin, L., Handy, R. and Abbo , V. (2008). A cri cal examina on of worldwide guidelines for minimising the disturbance to marine mammals during De Mar ni, E.E., Roberts, D.A. and Todd, W.A. (1989). Contras ng pa erns of fi sh den- seismic surveys. Marine Policy. 32:255-262. sity and abundance at an ar fi cial rock reef and cobble-bo om kelp forest. Bulle n of Marine Science. 44:881-892. Connell, S.D. and Glasby, T.M. (1999). Do urban structures infl uence local abundance and diversity of sub dal epibiota? A case study from Sydney Harbour, Australia. Ma- Desholm, M. (2009). Avian sensi vity to mortaility: Priori sing migratory bird species rine Environmental Research 47: 373-387. at proposed wind farms. Journal of Environmental Management. 90:2672-2679.

Connell, S.D. (2000). Floa ng pontoons create novel habitats for sub dal epibiota. Desholm, M. and Kahlert, J. (2005). Avian collision risk at an oﬀ shore wind farm. Biol- Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology. 247:183-194. ogy Le ers. 1:296-298.

Connell, S.D. (2001). Urban structures as marine habitats: an experimental compari- DHI (1999). Horns Rev wind power plant environmental impact assessment of hydrog- son of the composi on and abundance of sub dal epibiota among pilings, pontoons raphy. 50 pages and rocky reefs. Marine Environmental Research. 52:115-125. Di Carlo, G. and Kenworthy, W.J. (2008). Evalua on of aboveground and belowground Cote, D., Moulton, S., Frampton, P.C.B., Scruton, D., A. and McKinley, R.S. (2004). biomass recovery in physically disturbed seagrass beds. Oecologia. 158:285-298. Habitat use and early winter movements by juvenile Atlan c cod in a coastal area of Newfoundland. Journal of Fish Biology. 64:665-679. Didrikas, T. and Wijkmark N. (2009). (In Swedish) Möjliga eff ekter på fi sk vid anläggn- ing och dri av vindkra park på Storgrundet. Aquabiota Notes 2009:2 Cummins, S.L. (1994). Colonisa on of a nearshore ar fi cial reef at Boca Raton (Palm Beach County) Florida. Bulle n of Marine Science. 37:151-156. Dierschke, V. and Daniels, J.P. (2003). Zur fl ughöhe ziehender See-, Küsten- und Greifvögel im Seegebiet um Helgoland. Corax 19:35-41. Dahl, E. L. (2008). Do wind power developments aff ect breeding biology in white- tailed sea eagle (Haliaeetus albicilla)? Master´s thesis, Norwegian University for sci- Dierschke, V., Garthe, S. and Mendel, B. (2006). Possible confl ict between off shore ence and technology. Trondheim. 32 pages. wind farms and seabirds in the German sectors of North Sea and Bal c Sea. In: Köller, J., Köppel, J. and Peters, W. (eds) Off shore wind energy: Research on environmental Danovaro, R., Gambi, C., Mazzola, A. and Mirto, S. (1999). Infl uence of ar fi cial reefs impacts. Springer, Berlin, Germany. Page 121-143. on the surrounding infauna: analysis of meiofauna. 7th Interna onal Conference on Ar fi cial Reefs and related Aqua c Habitats. San Remo, Italy. Page 356-362. DNV (Den Norske Veritas). (1999). Leaving Ekofi sk1-pipelines in place. Disintegra on hypothesis and impact assessment. DNV Report 98-4040 David, J.A. (2006). Likely sensi vity of bo lenose dolphins to pile-driving noise. Water and Environment Journal. 20:48-54. Dong Energy, Va enfall, Danish Energy Authority and The Danish Forest & Nature Agency (2006). Danish Off shore Wind- Key Environmental Issues. ISBN: 87-7844-625- Davis, N., Van Blaricom, G.R. and Dayton, P.K. (1982). Man-Made Structures on 0. 142 pages Marine-Sediments - Eff ects on Adjacent Benthic Communi es. Marine Biology. 70:295-303.

den fying and managing biodiversity risks and opportuni es of oﬀ shore renewable energy - GREENING BLUE ENERGY 79

iucn-eon-sida_ored_270410Gb_IRL.indd lxxxii 28.04.2010 09:40:05 Drewi , A.L. and Langston, R.H.W. (2005). Assessing the impacts of wind farms on Engås, A., Lokkeborg, S., Ona, E. and Soldal, A.V. (1996). Eﬀ ects of seismic shoo ng on birds. Ibis. 48: 29-42. local abundance and catch rates of cod (Gadus morhua) and haddock (Melanogram- mus aegleﬁ nus). Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aqua c Sciences. 53:2238-2249. Duarte, C.M., Terrados, J., Agawin, N.S.R., Fortes, M.D., Bach, S. and Kenworthy W.J. (1997). Resonse of a mixed Phillippine seagreass meadow to experimental burial. Eriksson, O. and Ehrlén, J. (2001). Dispersal limita on and patch occupancy in forest Marine Ecology Progress Series. 147:285-294. herbs. Ecology 81:1667-1674.

Durinck, J. and Skov, H. (2006). (In Danish) Undersøgelser af kollisionsrisiko for Erickson, W.P., Johnson, G.D., Strickland, M.D., Young, D.P., Jr, Sernka, K.J. and Good, vandfugle ved Rønland Havvindmøllepark. DHI. 54 pages. R.E. (2001). Avian Collisions with Wind Turbines: A Summary of Exis ng Studies and Comparisons to Other Sources of Avian Collision Mortality in the United States. Eales, R., Smith, S., Twigger-Ross, C., Sheate, W., Özdemiroglu, E., Fry C. and Tom- Resource Document. 67 S. Washington, DC: Na onal Wind Coordina ng Commi ee linson, P. (2003). Integrated Appraisal Methods - R&D Technical Report E2-044/TR. (NWCC). Environment Agency. Bristol, UK. 134 pages. Farina, A. (2006). Principles and methods in landscape ecology: Towards a science of Edren, S.M.E., Teilman, J., Dietz, R. and Carstensen, J. (2004). Eff ects from the con- the landscape, Vol 3. Springer, New York. 414 pages struc on of Nysted Off shore Wind Farmon Seals in Rodsand Seal Sanctuary based on remote video monitoring. Na onal Environmental Research Ins tute. Roskilde, Fayram, A.H. and de Risi, A. (2007). The poten al compa bility of off shore wind Denmark. 33 pages. power and fi sheries: An example using bluefi n tuna in the Adria c Sea. Ocean & Coastal Management. 50:597-605. Ehrich, S., Kloppman, M.H.F., Sell, A.F. and Bö cher, U. (2006). Distribu on and assemblages of fi sh species in the German waters of North and Bal c Seas and Fenner, D. and Banks, K. (2004). Orange cup coral Tubastrea coccinea invades Florida poten al impact of wind parks. In: Köller, J., Köppel, J. and Peters, W. (eds) Off shore and the Flower Garden Banks, Northwestern Gulf of Mexico. Coral Reefs. 23:505-707. wind energy: Research on environmental impacts. Springer, Berlin, Germany. Page 149-180. Floeter, S.R., Ferreira, C.E.L., Dominici-Arosemena, A. and Zalmon, I.R. (2004). La tudinal gradients in Atlan c reef fi sh communi es: trophic strcture and spa al use pat- Einbinder, S., Perelberg, A., Ben-Shaprut, O., Foucart, M.H. and Shashar, N. (2006). terns. Journal of Fish Biology. 64:1680-1699. Eff ects of ar fi cial reefs on fi sh grazing in their vicinity: Evidence from algae presenta on experiments. Marine Environmental Research. 61:110-119. Formicki, K., Sadowski, M., Tanski, A., Korzelecka-Orkisz, A. and Winnicki, A. (2004). Behaviour of trout (Salmo tru a L.) larvae and fry in a constant magne c fi eld. Journal Ellison, J.C. (1998). Impacts of sediment burial on mangroves. Marine Pollu on Bul- of Applied Ichthyology. 20:290-294. le n. 37:420-426. Fox, A.D., Desholm, M., Kahlert, J., Christensen, T.K. and Petersen, I.K. (2006). Informa- Elsam Engineering and ENERGI E2 (2005). Review report 2004. The Danish off shore on needs to support environmental impact assessment of the eff ects of European wind farm demonstra on project: Horns Rev and Nysted Off shore wind farms. En- marine off shore wind farms on birds. Ibis. 148:129-144. vironmental impact assessment and monitoring. København, Frederica, Denmark. 135 pages Frank, B. (2006). Research on marine mammals: Summary and discussion of research results. In: Köller, J., Köppel, J. and Peters, W. (eds) Off shore wind energy: Research on Engell-Sørensen, K. and Skyt, P.H. (2000). Evalua on of the eff ect of sediment spill environmental impacts. Springer, Berlin-Heidelberg. Page 77-86. form off shore wind farm construc on on marine fi sh. Bio/consult as, Åbyhøj, Den- mark. 18 pages Garthe, S. and Hüppop, O. (2004). Scaling possible adverse eff ects of marine wind farms on seabirds: developing and applying a vulnerability index. Journal of Applied Enger, P.S. (1981). Frequency discrimina on in teleosts - central or peripheral? In: Ecology. 41:724-734. Tavolga, W.M., Popper, A.N. and Fay, R.R. (eds) Hearing and sound communica on in fi shes. Springer Verlag, New York. Page 243-255. Gibson, R.N. (1969). The biology and behaviour of li oral fi sh. Oceanography and Marine Biology Annual Review. 7:367-410.

80 GREENING BLUE ENERGY - Iden fying and managing biodiversity risks and opportuni es of oﬀ shore renewable energy

iucn-eon-sida_ored_270410Gb_IRL.indd lxxxiii 28.04.2010 09:40:05 Gill, A.B. (2005). Off shore renewable energy: ecological implica ons of genera ng Glasby, T.M., Connell, S.D., Holloway, M.G. and Hewi , C.L. (2007). Nonindigenous electricity in the coastal zone. Journal of Applied Ecology. 42:605-615. biota on ar fi cial structures: could habitat crea on facilitate biological invasions? Marine Biology. 151: 887-895. Gill, A.B., Gloyne-Phillips, I., Neal, K.J. and Kimber, J.A. (2005). COWRIE 1.5 electromagne c fi elds review: The poten al eff ects of electromagne c fi elds generated by Goudie, R.I. and Ankney, C.D. (1986). Body size, ac vity budgets, and diets of sea sub-sea power cables associated with off shore wind farm developments on electri- ducks wintering in Newfoundland. Ecology. 67:1475-1482. cally and magne cally sensi ve marine organisms - a review. Collabora ve Off shore Windfarm Research, London, U.K. 128 pages Grassle, J.F. and Sanders, H.L. (1973). Life histories and the role of disturbance. Deep- Sea Research. 20: 643-659. Gill, A.B. and Taylor, H. (2001). The poten al eff ects of electromagne c fi elds generated by cabling between off shore wind turbines upon Elasmobranch Fishes. Country- Greene, C.R. and Moore, S.E. (1995). Man-made noise. In: Richardson, W.J., Greene, side Council for Wales, Gwynedd, Wales. 128 pages C.R., Malme, C.I. and Thomson, D.H. (eds) Marine mammals and noise. Academic Press, San Diego, California. Page 101-158. Gill, A.B., Huang, Y., Gloyne-Philips, I., Metcalfe, J., Quayle, V., Spencer, J. and Wear- mouth, V. (2009). COWRIE 2.0 Electromagne c Fields (EMF) Phase 2: EMF sensi ve Gregory, R.S. and Anderson, J.T. (1997). Substrate selec on and use of protec ve fi sh response to EM emissions from sub-sea electricity cables of the type used by cover by juvenile cod Gadus morhua in inshore waters of Newfoundland. Marine Ecol- the off shore renewable energy industry. Collabora ve Off shore Windfarm Research, ogy Progress Series. 146:9-20. London, U.K. 128 pages Grossman, G.D., Jones, G.P. and Seaman, W.J. (1997). Do ar fi cial reefs increase fi sh Gill, A.B. and Kimber, A.A. (2005). The poten al for coopera ve management of elas- produc on? A review of exis ng data. Fisheries. 22:17-23. mobranchs and off shore renewable energy development in UK waters. Journal of the Marine Biological Associa on of the United Kingdom. 85:1075-1081. Grove, R.S., Sonu, C.J. and Nakamura, M. (1991). Design and engineering of manufactured habitats for fi sheries enhancement. In: Seaman, W. and Sprague, L.M. (eds) Gill, J.P., Townsley, M. and Mudge, G.P. (1996). Review of the impacts of wind farms Ar fi cial habitats for marine and freshwater fi sheries. Academic Press Inc., San Diego, and other aerial structures on birds. Sco sh Natural Heritage, Edinburgh, Scotland. California. Page 109-149. 74 pages Guilleme e, M. and Larsen, J.K. (2002). Postdevelopment experiments to detect Gill, J.P., Sales, D., Pinder, S. and Salazar, R. (2008). Dra Ken sh Flats wind farm fi h anthropogenic disturbances: The case of sea ducks and wind parks. Ecological Applica- ornithological monitoring report. ESS 2008. ons. 12:868-877.

Gilles, A., Scheidat, M. and Siebert, U. (2009). Seasonal distribu on of harbour Guilleme e, M., Ydenberg, R.C. and Himmelman, J.H. (1992). The role of energy porpoises and possible interference of oﬀ shore wind farms in the German North Sea. intake rate in prey and habitat selec on of common eiders Somateria mollissima in Marine Ecology Progress Series. 383:295-307. winter: a risk-sensi ve interpreta on. Journal of Animal Ecology. 61:599-610.

Gilmour, J. (1999). Experimental inves ga on into the eﬀ ects of suspended sediment Guillén, J.E., Ramos, A.A., Mar nez, L.S. and Sanchez-Lizaso, J.L. (1994). An trawling on fer lisa on, larval survival and se lement in a sclerac nian coral. Marine Biology. reefs and the protec on of Posidonia oceanica (L.) Delile meadows in the western 135:451-462. Mediterranian Sea: demand and aims. Bulle n of Marine Science. 55:645-650.

Gladfelter, W.B., Ogden, J.C. and Gladfelter, E.H. (1980). Similarity and diversity among Hamilton, D.J. (2000). Direct and indirect eff ects of preda on by common eiders and coral reef fi sh communi es: a comparison between tropical western Atlan c (Virgin abio c disturbance in an inter dal community. Ecological Monographs. 70:21-43. Islands) and tropical central Pacifi c (Marshall Islands) patch reefs. Ecology. 61:1156- 1168. Hammar, L., Andersson, S. and Rosenberg, R. (2008). (In Swedish) Miljömässig op- mering av fundament för havsbaserad vindkra . The Swedish Environmental Protec- Glasby, T.M. and Connell, S.D. (1999). Urban structures as marine habitats. Ambio. on Agency, Stockholm, Sweden. 105 pages 28(7):595-598.

den fying and managing biodiversity risks and opportuni es of oﬀ shore renewable energy - GREENING BLUE ENERGY 81

iucn-eon-sida_ored_270410Gb_IRL.indd lxxxiv 28.04.2010 09:40:05 Hanski, I., Pöyry, J., Kuussaari, M. and Pakkala, T. (1995). Mul ple equilibria in meta- Ingemansson Technology AB (2003). Utgrunden off shore wind farm- measurements popula on dynamics. Nature. 377:618-621. of underwater noise. Report 11-00329-03012700. Ingemansson Technology A/S, Gothenburg. 30 pages Hardyniec, S. and Skeen, S. (2005). Pile driving and barotrauma eff ects. Journal of the Transporta on Research Board. 1941:184-190. Inger, R., A rill, M.J., Bearshop, S., Broderick, A.C., Grecian, W.J., Hodgson, D.J., Mills, C., Sheehan, E., Votler, S.C., Wi , M.J. and Godley, B.J. (2009). Marine renewable Helvey, M. (2002). Are southern California oil and gas pla orms essen al fi sh habi- energy: poten al benefi ts to biodiversity? An urgent call for research. . Journal of Ap- tat? ICES Journal of Marine Science. 59:266-271. plied Ecology. in press.

Henderson, A.R., Zaaijer, M., Bulder, B., Pierik, J., Huijsmans, R., van Hees, M., Ivanov, K.P. and Sedunova, E.V. (1993). Ac on of wind-power plants (Wpp) on ornitho- Snijders, E., Wijnants, G.H. and Wolf, M.J. (2004). Floa ng windfarms for shallow fauna. Russian Journal of Ecology. 24:315-320. off shore sites. In: Chung JS, Izumiyama. K., Sayed, M. and Hong, S.W. (eds). Interna- onal Society of Off shore and Polar Engineers, Toulon, France. Page 120-127. Jacobsen, M., Egelund, L., Hovdan, H. and Aabel, J.P. (1999). (In Norwegian) Nedbry- tning av rørledningar over d. Ministry of petroleum and energy, Oslo, Norway. 65 Henriksen, O.D., Teilman, J. and Carstensen, J. (2003). Eff ects of the Nysted Off shore pages Wind Farm construc on in harbour porpoises: The 2002 annual status report for the acous c T-POD monitoring programme. Na onal Environmental Research Ins - Jennings, S. and Kaiser, M.J. (1998). The eff ects of fi shing on marine ecosystems. tute, Roskilde, Denmark. 45 pages Advances in Marine Biology. 34:201-352.

Hiscock, K., Tyler-Walters, H. and Jones, H. (2002). High level Environmental Screen- Jensen, A. (2002). Ar fi cial reefs of Europe: perspec ve and future. ICES Journal of ing study for off shore wind farm developments - Marine habitats and species Marine Science. 59:3-13. project. Report from the Marine Biological Associa on to The Department of Trade and Industry New & Renewable Energy Programme. Marine Biological Associa on, Jensen, A., Collins, K.J., Free, E.K. and Bannister, C.A. (1994). Lobster (Homarus gam- Plymouth, UK. 162 pages marus) movement on an ar fi cial reef: the poten al use of ar fi cial reefs for stock enhancement. Crustaceana. 67:198-212. Hueckel, G.J., Buckley, R.M. and Benson, B.L. (1989). Mi ga ng rocky habitat loss using ar fi cial reefs. Bulle n of Marine Science. 44:913-922. Jensen, A.C., Wickins, J.A. and Bannister, R.C.A. (2000). The poten al use of ar fi cial reefs to enhance lobster habitat. In: Jensen, A.C., Collins, K.J. and Lockwood, A.P. (eds) Hunter, W.R. and Sayer, M.D.J. (2009). The compara ve eff ects of habitat complex- Ar fi cial reefs in European Seas. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The Nether- ity on faunal assemblages of northern temperate ar fi cial and natural reefs. ICES lands. Page 379-401. Journal of Marine Science. 66:691-698. Jessee, W.N., Carpenter, A.L. and Carter, J.W. (1985). Distribu on pa erns and density Hvidt, C.B., Brunner, L. and Knudsen, F.R. (2005). Hydroacous c monitoring of fi sh es mates of fi shes on a Southern California ar fi cial reef with comparisons to natural communi es in off shore wind farms. Annual Report 2004, Horns Rev Off shore Wind kelp-reef habitats. Bulle n of Marine Science. 37:214-226. Farm. Elsam Engineering A/S, Frederica, Denmark. 33 pages Johnson, S.W., Murphy, M.L. and Csepp, D.J. (2003). Distribu on, habitat, and behav- Hüpopp, O., Dierschke, J., Exo, K.-M., Fredrich, E. and Hill, R. (2006). Bird migra on ior or rockfi shes, Sebastes spp., in nearshore waters of southeastern Alaska: observa- and off shore wind turbines. In: Köller, J., Köppel, J. and Peters, W. (eds) Off shore ons from a remotely operated vehicle. Environmental Biology of Fishes. 66:259-270. wind energy: Research on environmental impacts.. Springer, Berlin-Heidelberg. Page 91-116. Joint Nature Conserva on Commi ee (2004). Guidelines for Minimising Acous c Dis- turbance to Marine Mammals from Acous c Surveys, Aberdeen, Scotland. 10 pages Hüpopp, O., Dierschke, J. and Wendelin, H. (2004). Zugvögel und Off shore-Wind- kra anlagen: Konfl ikte und Lösungen. Berichte zum Vogelschutz. 41:127-218. Jordan, L.K.B., Gilliam, D.S. and Spieler, R.E. (2005). Reef fi sh assemblage structure aff ected by small-scale spacing and size varia ons of ar fi cial patch reefs. Journal of Marine Biology and Ecology. 326:170-186.

82 GREENING BLUE ENERGY - Iden fying and managing biodiversity risks and opportuni es of oﬀ shore renewable energy

iucn-eon-sida_ored_270410Gb_IRL.indd lxxxv 28.04.2010 09:40:05 Joschko, T., Orejas, C., Schröder, A. and Knust, R. (2004). (In German) Dokumenta- Kno , N.A., Underwood, A.J., Chapman, M.G. and Glasby, T.M. (2004). Epibiota on on der Ansiedlungsprozesse an künstlichen Hartsubstraten in der Nordsee. DEWI ver cal and on horizontal surfaces on natural reefs and on ar fi cial reefs. Journal of Magazin 25:43-45. the Marine Biological Associa on of the UK. 84: 1117-1130. Knudsen, F.R., Enger. P.S. and Sand, O. (1994). Avoidance response to infrasound in Kaaria, J., Rajasilta, M., Kurkilah , M. and Soikkeli, M. (1997). Spawning bed selec on downstreaming migra ng Atlan c salmon smolt. Journal of Fish biology. 45:227-233. by the Bal c herring (Clupea harengus membras) in the Archipelago of SW Finland. ICES Journal of Marine Science. 54:917-923 Knudsen, S, Solberg, S., Wathne, B.M., Høgåsen, T., Magnusson, J., Tollefsen, K.E., Aar- restad, P.A., Reitan, O., Stebel, K. and Walker , S.E. (Regional consequence descrip on, Kahlert, J., Petersen, I.K., Fox, A.D., Desholm, M. and Clausager I. (2004). Inves ga- Norway)- North Sea (2006). (In Norwegian) Oppdatering av regional konsekvensu- ons of birds during construc on and opera on of Nysted off shore wind farm at Rød- tredning for petroliumvirksmhet i Nordsjøen , Sammens llningsrapport. ISBN: 82-425- sand. Annual status report 2003. Na onal Environmental Research Ins tute, Rønde, 1809-2. 110 pages Denmark. 82 pages Kogan, I., Paull, C.K., Kuhnz, L.A., Burton, E.J., Von Thun, S., Greene, H.G. and Barry, Kaiser, M.J., Clark, K.R., Hinz, H., Austen, M.C.V., Somerfi eld, P.J. and Karakassis, I. J.P. (2006). ATOC/Pioneer Seamount cable a er 8 years on the seafl oor: Observa ons, (2006). Global analysis and recovery of benthic biota to fi shing. Marine Ecology environmental impact. Con nental Shelf Research. 26:771-787. Progress Series. 311:1-14. Koschinsky, S., Culik, B.M., Henriksen, O.D., Tregenza, N., Ellis, G., Jansen, C. and Kalmijn, A.J. (2000). Detec on and processing of electromagne c and near-fi eld Kathe, G. (2003). Behavioural reac ons of free-ranging porpoises and seals to the acous c signals in elasmobranch fi shes. Philosophical Transac ons of the Royal Soci- noise of simulated 2 MW windpower generator. Marine Ecology Progress Series. ety B: Biological Sciences 355:1135-1141. 265:263-273.

Kastelein, R.A., van der Heul, S., van der Veen, J., Verboom, W.C., Jennings, N., de Krüger, T. and Garthe, S. (2001). Flight al tudes of coastal seabirds in rela on to wind Haan, D. and Reijnders, P.J.H. (2007). Eff ects of acous c alarms, designed to reduce direc on and speed. Atlan c Seabirds. 3:203-216. small cetacean bycatch in gillnet fi sheries, on the behaviour of North Sea fi sh species in a large tank. Marine Environmental Research. 64:160-180. Kunz, T.H., Arne , E.B., Cooper, B.M., Erickson, W.P., Larkin, R.P., Mabee, T., Morrison, M.L., Strickland, M.D. and Szewclak, J.M. (2007). Assessing impacts of wind energy Kautsky, N. and Wallen nus, I. (1980). Nutrient release from a Bal c My lus - Red Al- development on nocturnally ac ve birds and bats: A guidance document. A Journal of gal community and its role In benthic and pelagic produc vity. Ophelia, Supplement. Wildlife Management. 71:2449-2486 1:17-30. Kurz, R.C. (1995). Predator-prey interac ons between gray triggerfi sh (Balistes capr- Keevin, T.M., Hempen, G.L. and Schaeff er, D.J. (1997). Use of a bubble curtain to re- iscus gmelin) and a guild of sand dollars around ar fi cal reefs in the northeastern duce fi sh mortality during explosive demoli on of Locks and Dam 26, Mississippi River Gulf-of-Mexico. Bulle n of Marine Science. 56:150-160. Twenty-third Annual Conference on Explosives and Blas ng Technique. Las Vegas, Nevada. Page 197-206. Lagardère, J.P. (1982). Eff ects of noise on growth and reproduc on of Crangon crangon in rearing tanks. Marine Biology. 71:177-185. Kellison, T.G. and Sedberry, G.R. (1998). The eff ects of ar fi cial reef ver cal profi le and hole diameter on fi shes off South Carolina. Bulle n of Marine Science. 62:763-780. Lan, C.-H. and Hsui, C.-Y. (2006). The development of ar fi cial reef ecosystem: Model- ling, simula on and applica on. Simula on Modelling Prac ce and Theory. 14:663- Keough, M.J. (1983). Pa erns of recruitment of sessile invertebrates in two sub dal 675. habitats. . Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology. 66:213-245. Langhamer, O. and Wilhelmsson, D. (2009). Colonisa on of fi sh and crabs of wave Kim, C.G., Lee, J.W. and Park, J.S. (1994). Ar fi cial reef designs for Korean coastal energy founda ons and the eff ects of manufactured holes- a fi eld experiment. Marine waters. Bulle n of Marine Science. 55:858-866. Environmental Research. 68:151-157.

Klimley, A.P. (1993). Highly direc onal swimming by scalloped hammerhead sharks, Sphyrna lewini, and subsurface irradiance, temperature, bathymetry, and geomagne c ﬁ eld. Marine Biology. 117:1-22. den fying and managing biodiversity risks and opportuni es of oﬀ shore renewable energy - GREENING BLUE ENERGY 83

iucn-eon-sida_ored_270410Gb_IRL.indd lxxxvi 28.04.2010 09:40:05 Langhamer, O., Wilhelmsson, D. and Engström, J. (2009). Ar fi cial reef eff ect and Malm T. (2005). (In Swedish) Kra verkskonstruk oner i havet- en metod för a lokalt fouling impacts on off shore wave power founda ons andbuoys - a pilot study. öka den biologiska mångfalden i Östersjön? Report to the STEM Program. 12 pp. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science. in press. Mann, K.H. (1991). Organisms and ecosystems. In: Barnes, R.S.K. and Mann, K.H. (eds) Langston, R.H.W. and Pullan, J.D. (2003). Windfarms and birds: an analysis of the Fundamentals of aqua c ecology. Blackwell Science, Oxford, U.K. Page 3-26. eff ects of windfarms on birds, and guidance on environmental criteria and site selec on issues. Council of Europe Strasbourg, France. 58 pages Marba, N., Duarte, C.M., Cebrian, J., Enriques, S., Gallegos, M.E., Oleson, B. and Sand-Jensen, K. (1996). Growth and popula on dynamics of Posidoria oceanica on the Larsen, J.K. and Guilleme e, M. (2007). Eff ects of wind turbines on fl ight behaviour Spanish Mediterraneancoast: elucida ng seagrrass decline. Marine Ecology Progress of wintering common eiders: implica ons for habitat use and collision risk. Journal Series. 137:203-213. of Applied Ecology. 44:516-522. Marra, L.J. (1989). Sharkbite on the SL submarine lightwave cable system: Laurel, B.J. and Bradbury, I.R. (2009). Big concerns with high la tude marine history,causes and resolu on. IEEE Journal of Oceanic Engineering. 14:230-237. protected areas (MPAs): trends in connec vity and MPA size. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aqua c Sciences. 63:2603-2607 Mar n, D., Bertasi, F., Colangelo, M.A., de Vries, M., Frost, M., Hawkins, S.J., Macpher- son, E., Moschella, P.S., Sa a, M.P., Thompson, R.C. and Ceccherelli, V.U. (2005). Eco- Lewis, L.J., Davenport, J. and Kelly, T.C. (2003). A study of the impact of a pipeline logical impact of coastal defence structures on sediment and mobile fauna Evalua ng construc on on estuarine benthic invertebrate communi es. Part 2. Recoloniza on and forecas ng consequences of unavoidable modifi ca ons of na ve habitats. Coastal by benthic invertebrates a er 1 year and response of estuarine birds. Estuarine, Engineering. 52:1027-1051. Coastal and Shelf Science. 57:201-208 Mar ns, G.M., Thompson, R.C., Neto, A.I., Hawkins, S.J. and Jenkins, S.R. (2010). Light, P.R. and Jones, G.P. (1997). Habitat preference in newly se led coral trout Enhancing stocks of the exploited limpet Patella candei dÓrbigny via modifi ca ons in (Plectropomus leopardus, Serranidae). Coral Reefs. 16:117-126 coastal engineering. Biological Conserva on. 143: 203-211.

Linley, E.A.S., Wilding, T.A., Black, K., Hawkins, A.J.S. and Mangi, S. (2007). Review of Masden, E.A., Haydon, D.T., Fox, A.D., Furness, A.D., Bullman, R. and Desholm, M. the eﬀ ects of oﬀ shore windfarm structures and their poten al for enhancment and (2009). Barriers to movement: impacts of wind farms on migra ng birds. ICES Journal mi ga on. Department of Trade and Industry, London, U.K. 132 pages of Marine Science. 66:746-753.

Lohmann, K.J., Lohmann, C.M.F. and Endres, C.S. (2008). The sensory ecology of Mateo, M.A., Romero, J., Perez, M., Li ler, M.M. and Li ler, D.S. (1997). Dynamics of ocean naviga on. The Journal of Experimental Biology. 211:1719-1728. millenary organic deposits resul ng from the growth of the Mediterranean seagrass Posidonia oceanica. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science. 44:103-110. Love, M.S., Caselle, J.E. and Snook, L. (1999). Fish assemblages on mussel mounds surrounding seven oil pla orms in the Santa Barbara Channel and Santa Maria McCauley, R.D., Fewtrell, J. and Popper, A.N. (2003). High intensity anthropogenic Basin. Bulle n of Marine Science. 65:497-513. sound damages ﬁ sh ears. Journal of Acous c Society in America. 113:638-641.

Luckhurst, B.E. and Luckhurst, K. (1978). Analysis of the inﬂ uence of substrate vari- McClanahan, T.R. and Oburab, D. (1997). Sedimenta on eﬀ ects on shallow coral com- ables on coral reef communi es. Marine Biology. 49:317-323. muni es Kenya. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology. 209:103-122.

Maar, M., Bolding, K., Petersen, K.J., Hansen, L.S.J. and Timmermann, K. (2009). McLaren, P.L. and McLaren, M.A. (1982). Waterfowl popula ons in eastern Lancaster Local eff ects of blue mussels around turbine founda ons in an ecosystem model of Sound and western Baffi n-Bay. Arc c. 35:149-157. Nysted off -shore wind farm, Denmark. Journal of Sea Research. 63:159-174. Menge, B.A., Berlow, E.L., Balche e, C.A., Navarrete, S.A. and Yamada, S.B. (1994). Madsen, P.T., Wahlberg, M., Tougaard J., Lucke K. and Tyack P. (2006). Wind turbine The keystone species concept :Varia on in interac on strength in a rocky inter dal underwater noise and marine mammals: implica ons of current knowledge and habitat. Ecological Monographs. 64:249-286. data needs. Marine Ecology Progress Series. 309:279-295.

84 GREENING BLUE ENERGY - Iden fying and managing biodiversity risks and opportuni es of oﬀ shore renewable energy

iucn-eon-sida_ored_270410Gb_IRL.indd lxxxvii 28.04.2010 09:40:05 Merkel, F.R., Mosbech, A., Boertmann, D. and Grøndahl, L. (2002). Winter seabird Nedwell, J. and Howell, D. (2003). Assessment of sub-sea acous c noise and vibra on distribu on and abundance off south-western Greenland 1999. Polar Research. from off shore wind turbines and its impact on marine wildlife: ini al measurements 21:17-36. of underwater noise during construc on of off shore windfarms, and comparison with background noise. Collabora ve Off shore Windfarm Research, London, U.K. 68 pages Meyer, C.G., Holland, K.N. and Papastama ou, Y.P. (2005). Sharks can detect changes in the geomagne c fi eld. Journal of the Royal Society Interface. 2:129-130 Nehls, G., Betke, K., Eckelmann, S. and Ros, M. (2007). Assessment and costs of poten al engineering solu ons for the mi ga on of the impacts of underwater noise Milne, H. and Campbell, L.H. (1973). Wintering Sea-ducks off the East Coast of Scot- arising from the construc on of off shore windfarms. Collabora ve Off shore Windfarm land. Bird Study. 20:153-172. Research, London, U.K. 72 pages

Milon, J.W. (1989). Ar fi cial marine habitat characteris cs and par cipa on behavior Nelson, R.S. (1985). Growth of the gray triggerfi sh, Balistes capriscus, on exploratory by sport anglers and divers. Bulle n of Marine Science. 44:853-862. oil drilling pla orms and natural reef areas in the northwestern Gulf of Mexico (Ab- stract). Bulle n of Marine Science. 37: 399. Moffi t, R.B., Parrish, F.A. and Polovina, J.J. (1989). Community structure, biomass and produc vity of deepwater ar fi cial reefs in Hawaii. Bulle n of Marine Science. Nendza, M. (2002). Inventory of marine biotest methods for the evalua on of 44:616-630. dredged material and sediments. Chemosphere. 48:865-883.

Molles, M.C. (1978). Fish species diversity on model and natural reef patches: experi- Nielsen, T.G. (2009). Sustainable resource u lisa on of marine habitats for wind mental insular biogeography. Ecological Monographs. 48:289-305. farms- a summary report. Project report. Grant: DSF-2104-05-0028. 16 pages

Montevecchi, W.A. (2006). Infl uences of ar fi cial light on marine birds. In: Rich, C. Norling, P. and Kautsky, N. (2007). Structural and func onal eff ects of My lus edulis and Longcore, T. (eds) Ecological Consequences of ar fi cial night ligh ng. Island Press, on diversity of associated species and ecosystem func oning. Marine Ecology Washington D.C. Page 94-113. Progress Series. 351:163-175.

Moriyasu, M., Allain, R., Benhalima, K. and Claytor, R. (2004). Eﬀ ects of seismic and Norling, P. and Kautsky, N. (2008). Patches o the mussel My lus sp. are islands of marine noise on invertebrates: A literature review. Canadian Science Advisory Secre- high biodiversity in sub dal sediment habitats in the Bal c Sea. Aqua c Biology. 4:75- tariat, O awa, Canada. 47 pages 87.

Morreale, S.J., Standorra, E.A., Spo la, J.R. and Paladino, F.V. (1996). Migra on cor- Nowacek, D.P., Thorne, L.H., Johnston, D.W. and Tyack, P.L. (2007). Responses of ceta- ridors for sea turtles. Nature. 384:319-320. ceans to anthropogenic noise. Mammal Review. 37:81-115.

Mouquet, N. and Loreau, M. (2003). Community pa erns in source-sink metacommu- Nunneri, C., Lenhart, H.J., Burkhard, B. and Windhorst, W. (2008). Ecological risk as ni es. American Naturalist. 162:544-557. a tool for evalua ng the eff ects of off shore wind farm construc on in the North Sea. Regional Environmental Change. 8:31-43. Musalears, N. (2009). The environmental monitoring program at the off shore wind farm Egmond aan Zee. Proceedings of the European Wind Energy Conference, Stock- Nø estad, J. (1998). (In Norwegian) Fiskeforekomster langs rørledninger i Nordsjøen. holm, September 14-16, 2009. 10 pages Olje- og Energidepartementet, Oslo, Norway. 29 pages

Müller, C. (2007). Behavioural reac ons of cod (Gadus morhua) and plaice (Pleu- OE (Olje- og Energidepartmentet) (1999). (In Norwegian) Disponering av utrangerte ronectes platessa) to sound resembling off shore wind turbine noise. PhD Thesis. rørledninger og kabler på norsk kon nentalsokkel. 47 pages Humboldt University, Berlin, Germany. 214 pages O’Hara, J. and Wilcox, J.R. (1990). Avoidance responses of loggerhead turtles, Care a Naruse, E., Miyoshi, M. and Sumida, K. (2006). Evalua on on the infl uence that off - care a, to Low Frequency Sound. Copeia. 2:564-567. shore wind power genera on facili es give to underwater creatures - an example in Setana Port. Coastal Ins tute of Technology. Tokyo, Japan. 6 pages

den fying and managing biodiversity risks and opportuni es of oﬀ shore renewable energy - GREENING BLUE ENERGY 85

iucn-eon-sida_ored_270410Gb_IRL.indd lxxxviii 28.04.2010 09:40:05 Öhman, M.C., Sigray, P. and Westerberg, H. (2007). Off shore windmills and the ef- Pickering, H. and Whitmarsh, D. (1996). Ar fi cial reefs and fi sheries exploita on. A fects of electromagne c fi elds on fi sh. Ambio 36:630-633. review of the “a rac on versus produc on” debate the infl uence of design and its signifi cance for policy. Fisheries Research. 31:39-59. Ong, B. and Krishnan, S. (1995). Changes in the macrobenthos community of a sand fl at a er erosion. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science. 40:21-33. Pickering, H., Whitmarsh, D. and Jensen, A. (1998). Ar fi cial reefs as a tool to aid rehabilita on of coastal ecosystems. Inves ga ng the poten al. Inves ga ng the Page , H.M., Dugan, J.E., Culver, C.S. and Hoesterey, J.C. (2006). Exo c invertebrate Poten al. Marine Pollu on Bulle n. 37:505-514. species on off shore oil pla orms. Marine Ecology Progress Series. 325:101-107. Pitcher, T.J., Buchary, E.A. and Hu on, T. (1999). Forecas ng the benefi ts of no-take Pedersen, M. and Snoeijs, P. (2001). Pa erns of macroalgal diversity, community human-made reefs using spa al ecosystem simula on. ICES Journal of Marine Sci- composi on and long-term changes along the Swedish west coast. Hydrobiologia. ence. 59:17-26. 459:83-102. PMSS. (2007). Annual FEPA Monitoring Report (2005-6). March 2007. North Hoyle Pelc, R. and Fujita, R.M. (2002). Renewable energy from the ocean. Marine Policy. Off shore Wind Farm. PMSS. 26: 471-479. Polovina, J.J. and Sakai, I. (1989). Impacts of ar fi cial reefs on fi shery produc on in Perkol-Finkel, S., Shashar, N. and Benayahu, Y. (2006). Can ar fi cial reef mimic natu- Shimaaki, Japan. Bulle n of Marine Science. 44:997-1003. ral reef communi es? The roles of structural features and age. Marine Environmen- tal Research. 61: 121-135. Pon , M., Abbia , M. and Ceccherelli, V.U. (2002). Drilling pla orms as ar fi cial reefs: distribu on of macrobenthic assemblages of the “Paguro” wreck (northern Adria c Peters, R.C., Lonneke, B.M., Bretschneider, E. and Bretschneider, F. (2007). On the Sea). ICES Journal of Marine Science. 59:316-323. electrodetec on threshold of aqua c vertebrates with ampullary or mucous gland electroreceptor organs. Biological Reviews. 82:361-373. Popper, A.N., Fewtrell, J., Smith, M.E. and McCauley, R.D. (2004). Anthropogenic sound: Eff ects on the behavior and physiology of fi shes. Marine Technology Society Petersen, I.K., Clausager, I. and Christensen, T.K. (2004). Bird numbers and distribu- Journal. 37:35-40. on in the Horns Rev off shore wind farm area. Annual status report 2003. NERI Report commissioned by Elsam Engineering A/S. 37 pages Popper, N.A. and Has ngs, C.M. (2009). The eff ects of human-generated sound on fi sh. Integra ve Zoology. 4:43-52. Petersen, I.K. (2005). Bird numbers and distribu on in the Horns Rev off shore wind farms area. Annual status report 2004. Na onal Environmental Research Ins tute, Punt, M.J., R.A., G., van Lerland, E.C. and Stel, J.H. (2009). Spa al planning of off shore Roskilde, Denmark. 38 pages wind farms: a windfall to marine environmental planning? Ecological Economics. 69:93-103. Petersen, I.K., Christensen, T.K., Kahlert, J., Desholm, M. and Fox, A.D. (2006). Final results of bird studies at the off shore wind farms at Nysted and Horns Rev, Den- Qvarfordt, S., Kautsky, H. and Malm, T. (2006). Development of fouling communi es mark. Report request. Commissioned by DONG energy and Va enfall A/S. Na onal on ver cal structures in the Bal c Sea. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science. 67:618- Environmental Research Ins tute. Ministry of the Environment, Denmark. 164 628. pages Ragnarsson, S.A. and Raff aelli, D. (1999). Eff ects of the mussel My lus edulis L. on the Pe ersson, J. (2005). (In Swedish) Havsbaserade vindkra verks inverkan på fågel- invertebrate fauna of sediments. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology. livet i södra Kalmarsund. En slutrapport baserad på studier 1999-2003, University of 241:31-43. Lund, Lund, Sweden. 128 pages Rauch, T.J. (2003). Equilibrial blenniiid assemblages on off shore petroleum pla orms. Pe ersson, J. (2005). The impact of off shore wind farms on bird life in southern Environmental Biology of Fishes. 68:301-305. Kalmar Sound, Sweden. Report requested by Swedish Energy Authority. ISBN 91- 631-6878-2. 28 pages

86 GREENING BLUE ENERGY - Iden fying and managing biodiversity risks and opportuni es of oﬀ shore renewable energy

iucn-eon-sida_ored_270410Gb_IRL.indd lxxxix 28.04.2010 09:40:05 Reinert, S.E. and Mello, M.J. (1995). Avian community structure and habitat use in a Sale, P.F. (1977). Maintenance of high diversity in coral reef ﬁ sh communi es. Ameri- southern New England estuary. Wetlands. 15:9-19. can Naturalist. 111:337-359.

Relini, M., Relini, O.L. and Relini G. (1994). An off shore buoy as a FAD in the Mediter- Sammarco, P.W., Atchison, A.D. and Boland, G.S. (2004). Expansion of coral communi- ranean. Bulle n of Marine Science. 55: 1099-1105. es within the Northern Gulf of Mexico via off shore oil and gas pla orms. Marine Ecology Progress Series. 280:129-143. Rey-Vale e, H., Cillaurren, E. and David, G. (1999). Évalua on pluridisciplinaire de la durabilité des pêcheries ar sanales autour des disposi fs de concentra on de pois- Samuel, Y., Morreale, S.J., Clark, C.W., Greene, C.H. and Richmond, M.E. (2005). sons. Gauthier-Villars/Edi ons Elsevier. Fort-de-France, Mar nique. Page 241-252. Underwater, low frequency noise in a coastal sea turtle habitat. Journal of Acous cal Society of America. 117:1465-1472. Richardson, W.J. (1998). Bird migra on and wind turbines: Migra on ming, fl ight behavior, and collision risk. Na onal Avian - Wind Power Planning Mee ng III, San Diego, Santelices, B. (1990). Pa erns of reproduc on, dispersal and recruitment in sea- California, Page 132-140. weeds. Oceanography and Marine Biology Annual Review 28:177-276

Richardson, W.J., Greene, C.R., Malme, C.I., Thomson, D.H., Moore, S. and Wursig, B. Scarborough-Bull, A. and Kendall, J.J. (1994). An indica on of the process: Off shore (1995). Marine mammals and noise. Academic Press, London, U.K. 576 pages pla orms as ar fi cial reefs in the Gulf of Mexico. Bulle n of Marine Science. 55:1086- 1098. Ridgeway, S.W., Wever, E.G., McCormick, J.G., Palin, J. and Anderson, J.H. (1969). Hear- ing in the giant sea turtle, Chelonia mydas. Psychology. 64:884-890. Schroeder, D.M. and Love, M.S. (2004). Ecological and poli cal issues surrounding decommissioning of off shore oil facili es in the Southern California Bight. Ocean and Rilov, G. and Benayahu, Y. (1998). Ver cal ar fi cial structures as an alterna ve habitat Coastal Management. 47:21-48. for coral reef fi shes in disturbed environments. Marine Environmental Research 45:431-451. Schröder, A., Orejas, C. and Joschko, T. (2006). Benthos in the vicinity of piles: FINO 1 (North Sea). In J. Köller, J. Köppel, W. Peters (Eds.), Off shore Wind Energy; Research Rilov, G. and Benayahu, Y. (2002). Rehabilita on of coral reef-fi sh communi es: The on Environmental Impacts, Springer, Berlin-Heidelberg. ISBN 3.540-34676-7. Page importance of ar fi cial-reef relief to recruitment rates. Bulle n of Marine Science. 183-200 70:185-197. Schwartz, A.L. (1985). The behaviour of fi shes in their acous c environment. - Envi- Risk, M.J. (1972). Fish diversity on a coral reef in the Virgin Islands. Atoll Research Bul- ronmental Biology of Fish 13(1):3-15. le n. 153:1-6. Seaman, W. (2007). Ar fi cial habitats and the restora on of degraded marine ecosys- Rodriguez, S.R., Ojeda, F.P. and Inestrosa, N.C. (1993). Se lement of benthic marine tems and fi sheries. Hydrobiologia. 580:143-155. invertebrates. Marine Ecology Progress Series. 97:193-207. Seaman, W. and Sprague, L.M. (1991). Ar fi cial habitat prac ces in aqua c systems. Rong-Quen, J., Yu-Hsing, L., Ching-Yi, C., Min-Chang, W., Gwo-Shyh, S., Hong-Cheng, L. In: Seaman, W. and Sprague, L. (eds) Ar fi cial habitats for marine and freshwater and Kwang-Tsao, S. (2003). Eff ects of pile size of ar fi cial reefs on the standing stock fi sheries. Academic Press, Inc., San Diego, California, Page 1-27. of fi shes. Fisheries Research. 63:327-337. Seaman W., Lindberg, W.J., Gilbert, C.R. and Frazer, T.K. (1989). Fish habitat provided Rooker, J.R., Dokken, Q.R., Pa engill, C.V. and Holt, G.J. (1997). Fish assemblages on by obsolete petrolium pla orms off Southern Florida. Bulle n of Marine Science. ar fi cial and natural reefs in the Flower Garden Banks Na onal Marine Sanctuary, 44:1014-1022. USA. Coral Reefs. 16:83-92. Sheehan, E.V., Hompson, R.C., Coleman, R.A. and A rill, M.J. (2008). Posi ve feedback Sand, O., Enger, P.S., Karlsen, H.E., Knudsen, F. and Kvernstuen, T. (2000). Avoidance fi shery: Popula on consequences of “crab- ling” on the green crab Carcinus maenas. response to infrasound in downstreaming migra ng Europeans silver eels. Environ- Journal of Sea Research. 60:303-309. mental Biology of Fishes. 57:327-336.

den fying and managing biodiversity risks and opportuni es of oﬀ shore renewable energy - GREENING BLUE ENERGY 87

iucn-eon-sida_ored_270410Gb_IRL.indd xc 28.04.2010 09:40:05 Shulman, M.J. (1984). Resource limita on and recruitment pa erns in a coral reef Stratoudakis, Y., Gallego, A. and Morrison, J.A. (1998). Spa al distribu on of develop- fi sh assemblage. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology. 74:85-109. mental egg ages within a herring Clupea harengus spawning ground. Marine Ecology Progress Series. 174:27-32. Sigray, P., Andersson, M. and Fristedt, T. (2009). (In Swedish) Par kelrörelser i va en vid e vindkra verk; akus sk störning på fi sk. Swedish Nature Protec on Agency, Svane, I. and Petersen, J.K. (2001). On the problems of epibioses fouling and ar fi cial Stockholm, Sweden. reefs a review. Marine Ecology 22:169-188.

Slo e, A., Hansen, K., Dalen and Ona, E. (2004). Acous c mapping of pelagic fi sh Taylor, P.D., Fahrig, L., Henein, K. and Merriam, G. (1993). Connec vity is a vital ele- distribu on and abundance in relea on to a seismic shoo ng area off the Norwei- ment of landscape structure. Oikos. 68:571-573. gian west coast. Fisheries Research. 67:143-150 Thomsen, F., Lüdemann, K., Kafemann, R. and Piper, W. (2006). Eff ects of off shore Smaal, A., Craeymeersch, J. and Kamermans, P. (2001). Is food shortage the cause of wind farm noise on marine mammals and fi sh. Collabora ve Off shore Windfarm Eider Duck mortality? Shellfi sh and crab abundance in the Dutch Wadden Sea 1994 Research, London, U.K. 62 pages - 1999. Wadden Sea Newsle er. 1:35-38. Thorman, S. and Wiederholm, A.-M. (1986). Food, habitat and me niches in a coastal Snelgrove, P.V.R. and Butman, C.A. (1994). Animal sediment rela onships revisited - fi sh species assemblage in a brackish water bay in the Bothnian Sea, Sweden. Journal cause versus eff ect. Oceanography and Marine Biology Annual Review. 32:111-177. of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology. 95:67-86.

Snyder, B. and Kaiser, J.M. (2009). Ecological and economic cost-benefi t analysis of Thrush, S.F. and Dayton, P.K. (2002). Disturbance to marine benthic habitats by trawl- off shore wind energy. Renewable Energy 34: 1567-1578. ing and dredging: Implica ons for marine biodiversity. Annual Review of Ecology and Systema cs. 33:449-473. Sonny, O., Knudsen, F.R., Enger, P.S., Kvernstruen, T. and Sand, O. (2006). Reac- ons of cyprenids to infrasound in a lake and at hte cooling water inlet of a nuclear Tillin, H.M., Hiddink, J.G., Jennings, S. and Kaiser, M.J. (2006). Chronic bo om trawling power plant. Journal of Fish Biology. 69:735-748. alters the func onal composi on of benthic invertebrate communi es on a sea-basin scale. Marine Ecology Progress Series. 318:31-45. Southall, B.L., Bowles, A.E., Ellison, W.T., Finneran, J.J., Gentry, R.L., Greene, C.R., Kastak, D., Ke en, D.R., Miller, J.H., Nach gall, P.E., Richardson, W.J., Thomas, J.A. Todd, V.L.G., Pearse, W.D., Tregenza, N.C., Lepper, P.A. and Todd, I.B. (2009). Diel and Tyack, P.L. (2007): Marine Mammal Noise Exposure Criteria: Ini al Scien fi c echoloca on ac vity of harbour porpoises (Phocoena phocoena) around North sea Recommenda ons. Aqua c Mammals. 33: 411-522. gas installa ons. ICES Journal of Marine Science. 66:734-745.

Stanley, R.D., Kieser, R. and Hajirakar, M. (2002). Three-dimensional visualisa on Tougaard, J., Carstensen, J., Henriksen, O.D., Teilmann, J. and Hansen, R.J. (2004). of a widow rockﬁ sh (Sebastes entomelas) shoal over interpolated bathymetry. ICES Harbour porpoises on Horns Reef - Eﬀ ects of the Horns reef wind farm. Annual Status Journal of Marine Science. 59: 151-155 Report 2003. Na onal Environmental Research Ins tute, Roskilde, Denmark. 23 pages

Stephens, J.S., Morris, P.A., Pondella, D.J., Koonce, T.A. and Jordan, G.A. (1994). Tougaard, J., Carstensen, J., Wisz, S.M., Teilmann, J., Bech, I.N., Skov, H. and Henriksen, Overview of the dynamics of an urban ar fi cial reef fi sh assemblage at King Harbor, O.D. (2005). Harbour porpoises on Horns Reef - Eff ects of the Horns reef wind farm: California, USA,1974-1991: A recruitment driven system. Bulle n of Marine Science. Annual Status Report. Na onal Environmental Research Ins tute, Roskilde, Denmark. 55:1224-1239. 71 pages

Stewart, G.B., Pullin, A.S. and Coles, C.F. (2007). Poor evidence-base for assessment Tougaard, J., Ebbesen, I., Tougaard, S., Jensen, T. and Teilmann, J. (2003). Satellite of windfarm impacts on birds. Environmental Conserva on. 34:1-11. tracking of harbour seals on Horns Reef. Use of the Horns Reef wind farm area and the North Sea. Na onal Environmental Research Ins tute, Roskilde, Denmark. 43 Sto , R.S. and Olson, D.P. (1973). Food-habitat rela onship of Sea Ducks on New pages Hampshire coastline. Ecology. 54:996-1007.

88 GREENING BLUE ENERGY - Iden fying and managing biodiversity risks and opportuni es of oﬀ shore renewable energy

iucn-eon-sida_ored_270410Gb_IRL.indd xci 28.04.2010 09:40:06 Tougaard, J., Henriksen, O.D. and Miller, L.A. (2009). Underwater noise from three Vize, S., Adni , C., Staniland, R., Everard, J., Sleigh, A., Cappell, R., McNulty, S., Budd, off shore wind turbines: es ma on of impact zones for harbor porpoises and harbor M., Bonnon, I. and Carey, J. (2008). Review of cabling techniques and environmental seals. Journal of the Acous c Society of America. 125:3766-3773. eff ects applicable to the off shore wind farm industry. Department for Business Enter- prise & Regulatory Reform, London, U.K. 164 pages Tougaard, J., Madsen, P.T. and Wahlberg, M. (2008). Underwater noise from construc- on and opera on of off shore wind farms. Bioacous cs. 17:143-146. Wahl, M. (1989). Marine epibiosis. I. Fouling and an fouling: Some basic aspects. Marine Ecology Progress Series. 58:175-198. Troell, C. (1939). (In German) Lu bildplan und ökologische Bodenforschung. Zeitschri der Gesellscha für Erdkunde 7/8:241-298 Wahlberg, M. and Westerberg, H. (2005). Hearing in fi sh and their reac ons to sounds from off shore wind farms. Marine Ecology Progress Series. 288:295-309. Tucker G.M. and Evans M.I. (1997). Habitats for birds in Europe. A Conserva on Strat- egy for the Wider Environment. BirdLife Conserva on Series. BirdLife Interna onal, Wahle, R.A. and Steneck, R.S. (1991). Recruitment habitats and nursery grounds of Cambridge. ISBN 1-56098-448-1. 464 pages the American lobster Homarus americanus: a demographic bo leneck? Marine Ecol- ogy Progress Series. 69:231-243. Tupper, M. and Rudd, M.A. (2002). Species-specifi c impacts of a small marine reserve on reef fi sh produc on and fi shing produc vity in the Turks and Caicos Islands. Envi- Walker, M.M. (1984). A candidate magne c sense organ in the yellowfi n tuna, Thun- ronmental Conserva on 29:484-492 nus albacares. Science. 224:751-753.

Turner, M.G., Gardner, R.H. and O’Neill, R.V. (2001). Landscape ecology in theory and Walker, M.M., Dennis, T.E. and Kirschvink, J.L. (2002). The magne c sense and its use prac ce. Springer-Verlag, New York. 401 pages in long-distance naviga on by animals. Current Opinion in Neurobiology. 12:735-744.

Ugolini, A. and Pezzani, A. (1994). Magne c compass and learning of the Y-axis (sea Walker, M.M., Diebel, C.E. and Kirschvink, J.L. (2003). Detec on and use of the earths land) direc on in the marine isopod Idotea bal ca basteri. Animal Behavior. 50:295- magne c ﬁ eld by aqua c vertebrates. In: Collin, S.P. and Marshall, J.N. (eds) Sensory 300 processing in aqua c environments. Springer-Verlag, New York. Page 53-74.

US DIMM (US Department of the Interior, Mineral Management Service). (2007). Wallingford, H.R. (2005). Wind farm impacts on seabed processes. Report no. EX Programma c Environmental Impact Statement for Alterna ve Energy Development 5207. Report to Seafi sh. 18 pages plus appendices and Produc on and Alternate Use of Facili es on the Outer Con nental Shelf: Final Environmental Impact Statement: 4-36. Werner, E. and Gilliam, J. (1984). The ontogene c niche and species interac ons in size-structured popula ons. Annual Review of Ecology and Systema cs. 15:393-425. Vaitkus, G. and Bubinas, A. (2001). Modelling of sea duck spa al distribu on in rela- on to food resources in Lithuanian off shore waters under the gradient of winter West, A.D. and Caldow, R.W.G. (2005). The development and use of individuals-based clima c condi ons. Acta Zoologica Lituanica. 11:288-301. models to predict the eff ects of habitat loss and disturbance on waders and waterfowl. Ibis. 148:158-168. Vaselli, S., Bertocci, I., Maggi, E. and Benede -Cecchi, L. (2008). Eff ects of mean intensity and temporal variance of sediment scouring events on assemblages of rocky Westerberg, H. (1994). (In Swedish) Fiskeriundersökningar vid havsbaserat vind- shores. Marine Ecology Progress Series. 364:57-66. kra verk 1990-1993- Fiskeriverket. Utredningskontoret Jönköping, Rapport 5.

Vermaat, J.E., Agawin, N.S.R., Fortes, M.D., Uri, J.S., Duarte, C.M., Marbà, N., Enríquez, Westerberg, H., P. Rönnbäck and H. Frimansson. (1996). Eﬀ ects of suspended sedi- S. and van Vierssen, W. (1997). The capacity of seagrasses to survive increased turbid- ments on cod egg and larvae and on the behavior of adult herring and cod. ICES CM ity and silta on: the signiﬁ cance of growth form and light use. Ambio. 26:499-504. 1996/E:26. 13 pages

Villareal, T.A., Hanson, S., Qualia, S., Jester, E.L.E., Granade, H.R. and Dickey, R.W. Westerberg, H. and Lagenfelt, I. (2006). (In Swedish) Vindkra ens eﬀ ekt på ålvan- (2007). Petroleum produc on pla orms as sites for the expansion of ciguatera in the dring- en studie för etablering. Swedish Nature Protec on Agency, Stockholm, Swe- northwestern Gulf of Mexico. Harmful Algae. 6:253-259. den. ISBN 91-620-5569-0. 22 pages

den fying and managing biodiversity risks and opportuni es of oﬀ shore renewable energy - GREENING BLUE ENERGY 89

iucn-eon-sida_ored_270410Gb_IRL.indd xcii 28.04.2010 09:40:06 Westerberg, H., Lagenfelt, I., Andersson, I., Wahlberg, M. and Sparrevik, E. (2007). VRD (Va enfall Research and Development AB). (2009). Impact of electromagne c (In Swedish) Inverkan på fi sk och fi ske av SwePol Link - Fiskundersökningar 1999 – fi elds (EMF) from sub-sea power cables on marine organisms- the current state of 2006, Swedish Fisheries Agency 2007.106 pages. knowledge. Internal report U09:168. 37 pages plus annex.

Whi ield, P.E., Kenworthy, W.J., Hammerstrom, K.K. and Fonseca, M.S. (2002). The Wu, J. and Hobbs, R. (2007). Key topics in landscape ecology. Cambridge University role of storms in the expansion of disturbances ini ated by motor vessels on sub- Press, Cambridge, U.K. 316 pages tropical seagrass-coral banks. Journal of Coastal Research. 37:86-99. Würsig, B., Greene, C.R. and Jeff erson, T.A. (2000). Development of an air bubble cur- Wikström, A. and Granmo, Å. (2008). (In Swedish) En studie om hur bo enlevande tain to reduce underwater noise of percussive piling. Marine Environmental Research. fauna påverkas av ljud från vindkra ll havs. Swedish Nature Protec on Agency, 49:79-93. Stockholm, Sweden. 99 pages Yano, A., Ogura, M., Sato, A., Sakaki, Y., Shimizu, Y., Baba, N. and Nagasawa, K. (1997). Wilding, T.A. (2006). The benthic impacts of the Loch Linnhe ar fi cial reef. Hydro- Eff ect of modifi ed magne c fi eld on the ocean migra on of maturing chum salmon, biologia. 555:345-353 Oncorhynchus keta. Marine Biology. 129:523-530.

Wilhelmsson, D., Lundin C.G. and Malm, T. (2009). Greening Blue Energy; managing Zander, C.D. (1988). On the importance of small-sized fi sh in Bal c ecosystems. Seevo- environmental risks and opportuni es of off shore wind energy. Proceedings Paper, gel, Ahrensburg. 9: 51-55. European off shore Wind Associa on Conference, Stockholm, 14-16. Sept., 2009. 9 pages Ze ler, M.L. and Pollehne, F. (2006). The impact of wind energy construc ons on benthic growth pa erns in the Western Bal c. In: Köller J, Köppel JandPeters W (eds) Wilhelmsson, D. and Malm, T. (2008). Fouling assemblages on off shore wind power Off shore Wind Energy; Research on Environmental Impacts. Springer, Berlin, Ger- plants and adjacent substrata. Estuarine Coastal and Shelf Science. 79:459-466. many. Page 201-221.

Wilhelmsson, D., Malm, T. and Öhman, M.C. (2006). The infl uence of off shore wind- Zhixin, W., Chuanwen, J., Qian, A. and Chengmin, W. (2009). The key technology of power on demersal fi sh. ICES Journal of Marine Science. 63:775-784 off shore wind farm and its new development in China. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews. 13:216-222. Wilhelmsson, D., Öhman, M.C., Ståhl, H. and Shlesinger, Y. (1998). Ar fi cial reefs and dive tourism in Eilat, Israel. Ambio. 27:764-766.

Wilson, B., Ba y, R.S., Daunt, F. and Carter, C. (2007). Collision risks between marine renewable energy devices and mammals, ﬁ sh and diving birds. The Sco sh Execu- ve, Oban, Scotland. 110 pages

Wilson, C.J. and Ellio , M. (2009). The Habitat-crea on poten al of oﬀ shore wind farms. Wind Energy. 12:203-212.

Wilson, K.D.P., Leung, A.W.Y. and Kennish, R. (1999). Restora on of Hong Kong ﬁ sheries through deployment of ar ﬁ cial reefs in marine protected areas. ICES Journal of Marine Science. 59:157-163.

Winkelman, J.E. (1985). Impact of medium-sized wind turbines on birds - A survey on ﬂ ight behavior, vic ms, and disturbance. Netherlands Journal of Agricultural Science. 33:75-78.

90 GREENING BLUE ENERGY - Iden fying and managing biodiversity risks and opportuni es of oﬀ shore renewable energy

iucn-eon-sida_ored_270410Gb_IRL.indd xciii 28.04.2010 09:40:06 The designation of geographical entities in this book, and the presentation of the material, do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of IUCN, E.ON, or SIDA concerning the legal status of any country, territory, or area, or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. The views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect those of IUCN, E.ON, or SIDA. This publication has been made possible by funding from E.ON and SIDA. Statements and conclusions are not necessarily based on consensus, but rather reflect the median views of the authors. Published by: IUCN, Gland, Switzerland. Copyright: © 2010 Interna onal Union for Conserva on of Nature and Natural Resources Reproduc on of this publica on for educa onal or other non-commercial purposes is authorized without prior wri en permission from the copyright holder provided the source is fully acknowledged. Reproduc on of this publica on for resale or other commercial purposes is prohibited without prior wri en permission of the copyright holder.

ISBN: 978-2-8317-1241-3

COUVERTURE_IRL.indd 2 28.04.2010 09:35:25 Greening Blue Energy: Iden Greening Blue Energy: Iden fying and managing the biodiversity risks and opportuni es of oﬀ shore renewable energy Edited by Dan Wilhelmsson et al.

fying and managing the biodiversity risks and opportuni

es of o

ﬀ

INTERNATIONAL UNION shore renewable energy FOR CONSERVATION OF NATURE

WORLD HEADQUARTERS Rue Mauverney 28 1196 Gland, Switzerland [email protected] Tel +41 22 999 00 01 Fax +41 22 999 0002 www.iucn.org

COUVERTURE_IRL.indd 1 28.04.2010 09:35:41