Offshore: potential effects

• Author: Directorate-General for Environment (European Commission)
• Pages: 93-125

Guidance on Wind Energy Developments and EU Nature Legislation 93

Guidance on Wind Energy Developm ents and EU Nature Legislation

93

6. OFFSHORE: POTENTIAL EFFECTS

6.1 Introduction

This chapter reviews the main types of impacts that offshore windenergy developments could have on habitats

and species protected under the Habitats and Birds Directives. The scopeof the two Directivesis clarified in

Chapter 2.2.1, while the concept of assessing significance is explained in Chapter 3.1.

The purpose of this chapter is to provide developers, NGOs, consultants and competent national authorities

with an overview of the potential impacts ondifferent groups of EU-protected habitats and species. These

potential impactsshould be considered when developing or reviewing an offshore wind energyplan or project.

However, as the identification of likely significant effects is always case specific, the real impact of a wind

energy development on protected species and habitats will be highly variable.

Effects from offshore wind energydevelopments may arise in one or more of the five mainphases of wind

energy development:

•pre-construction (e.g. meteorological investigations, exploratory studies intosediment stability, and seabed

preparation);

•construction (e.g. transport of material by vessels and construction of monopile110 foundations; turbines;

grid connection cables; fixed/floating turbines; etc. );

•operation (including maintenance);

•‘repowering’ (changing the number, type and/or configuration of turbines in an existing wind farm);

•decommissioning (removing the wind farm or individual turbines).

When assessing the significance ofeffects, it is important to bear in mind that they may arise from the entire

project footprint(including any associated infrastructure, such as grid cables),and may even arise from the

onshore aspects of offshore projects (e.g. arrangements for landfall and onshore transmission).

The effects on habitats and species may be temporary or permanent. They may result from activities within or

outside the boundaries of a Natura 2000 site. Formobile species, the impacts m ay potentially affect individuals

well away from theassociated Natura 2000 sites, such asmarine mammals or seabirds foraging at large

distances from the breeding colony. Significant ef fects may arise from the plan or project alone, and may occur

at different times during the project’slifecycle. Plans and projects acting in combination may produce

cumulative effects. These effects will beof growing importance, as offshore wind energy is projected to grow

to meet renewable energy targets.

In the next subchapters, the main types of impacts are described for the major ‘receptor’groups111. An overview

is given inTable 6-1. In some instances, an impact may be positive, e.g. the creation of a new habitat or reef

effects (see Box 6-1).

Box 6-1: The reef effect of offshore wind-farm foundations

The reef effect is one of the possible effects of offshore wind-farm foundations on marine biodiversity. It is particularly

significant in

marine areas without rocky soils such as large parts of the North Sea. Underwater constructions may function

as artificial reefs, andthe foundations may be colonised by a range of organisms. Althoughthere is evidence that wind

-

farm structures are associated with greaterdiversity of benthic organisms (Lindeboom et al.,

2011) and increased

densities of commercially significantfish (Reubens et al.,

2013), this may also alter the characteristics of local species

composition and biological structure (Petersen & Malm, 2006). This potentially positive effect for marine biodiversity

110There are different types of wind turbine foundations. Most frequently, monopiles are used; these are quite simple

structures, made up of a thick steel cylinder that is anchored directly to the sea bed.Other foundation types are a.o.

jacket pin piles –foundations with a lattice framework that feature three or four sea bed anchoring points – or gravity

foundations.

111 Key receptor groups such as seabirds, marine mammals and marine habitatswhich potentially experience an impact

of the offshore wind energy developments

94Guidance on Wind Energy Developments and EU Nature Legislation

should be taken into account when considering options for decommissioning. Fowler et al.(2018) highlight the potential

negative effects, including to groups such as marine mammals, of full removal of structures from the marine environment

(as currently required in line with OSPAR Decision 98/3; Jørgensen, 2012). Partial removal of these

structures can have

the potential advantage of providing a continued

reef habitat. However, the potential biological communities that could

be established on the wind-farm structures should be carefully assessed in relation to the

conservation objectives of the

site, including their effects on protected species and habitats, not least through the potential introduction of invasive ali

en

species that could be established on newly built structures.

Table 6-1 Overview of potential types of impacts onmajor offshore receptor groups

Receptor

Potential impacts of offshore wind energy developments

Habitats

Marinehabitat loss

Marinehabitat disturbance and degradation

Smothering from suspended sediments falling out of suspension

Creation of new marine habitats

Changes to physical processes from the presence of new structures

Contaminant release or mobilisation of historic contaminants

Fish

Electromagnetic fields

Underwater noise disturbance

Reef effects

Birds

Habitat loss and degradation

Disturbance and displacement

Collision

Barrier effect

Indirect effects

Attraction (e.g. roosting opportunities)

Marine mammals

Habitat loss and degradation

Noise disturbance and displacement (pile-driving noise and

noise from

shipping/helicopters)

Acoustic impairment (injuries from underwater noise)

Communication masking

Collision with vessels

Barrier effect

Reduction of fishing pressure (no fishing zones)

Water quality changes (contaminants + marine waste)

Electromagnetic field effects on navigation

Indirect effects

Reef effect

Bats

Disturbance and displacement

Collision

Barrier effect

Barotrauma

Loss/ shifting of flight corridors and roost sites

Indirect effects

Other species

Noise disturbance and displacement

Electromagnetic fields

Heat effects

Creation of new habitats

Water quality changes (contaminants + marine waste)

Indirect effects

Compared to onshore wind energy, there are clearly differences in the nature of some activities associated

with offshore wind energy development. These differences include the use of vessels to access sites and

certain impact mechanisms which are unique to the aquatic environment such as underwater noise. However,

the principles underpinning the mitigation measures for onshore wind alsoapply to offshore wind. These

principles are outlined in the bullet points below.

•The ‘mitigation hierarchy’ applies, which meansthat measuresto avoid negative effects in the first place

must be considered and implemented before measuresto reduce negative effects. It is also good practice

to apply these measures at the source before considering measures for the receptor.

Guidance on Wind Energy Developments and EU Nature Legislation 95

ntial

•The best way to minimise negative effectson EU-protected habitats and species is to locate projects away

from vulnerable habitats and species (a practice known as ‘macro-siting’). This can best be achieved

through strategic planning at administrative, regional, national or even international level, in particular

through the maritime spatial plans drawn up under the Maritime Spatial Planning Directive 112.

•Transboundary effects are very relevant in offshore wind energy, not only due to cumulative effects (e.g.

on bird migration) but also becausemany wind farms are located close to the borders of the European

Economic Zones (EEZ) of other Member States (or even cross-border projects in the future). According to

the ESPOO Convention and the Protocol on Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA Protocol, Kyiv

(Jendroska et al., 2003113)), the parties of the Convention are obliged to inform each other of transboundary

effects and to take transboundary effects into account in their planning. Cooperation between the Member

States and with countries outside the EU is also required when developing maritime spatial plans.

•Monitoring is not in itself a mitigation measure, but itis necessary to validate whet her measures to avoid or

reduce significant effects are effective.

•Mitigation measures must not be confused with compensatory measures, which are intended to

compensate for damage that may be caused by a plan or project. Compensatory measures can only be

considered in relation to the criteria set out inArticle 6(4) of the Habitats Directive.

6.2 Habitats

6.2.1 Introduction

Ten habitat types (or habitat-type complexes) listed in Annex I of the Habitats Directiveare treated as marine

habitats for reporting purposes, and two of these are considered as priority habitat types (marked with *):

•sandbanks which are slightly covered by sea water all the time [1110]

•Posidonia beds (Posidonion oceanicae) * [1120]

•estuaries [1130]

•mudflats and sandflats uncovered at low tide [1140]

•coastal lagoons* [1150]

•large shallow inlets and bays [1160]

•reefs [1170]

•submarine structures made by leaking gas [1180]

•Boreal Baltic narrow inlets [1650]

•submerged or partly submerged caves [8330].

The above habitat types include coastal habitats, habitats of shallow seas, and habitats of deeper offshore

waters (European Commission, 2013). Because offshore wind energydevelopments require access to the

land (‘landfall’) onshore habitats also need to be considered when assessing offshore projects (see Chapter

5.2). Baseline data to support an appropriate assessment should be collected using the best available

methods. Examples of baseline-survey methods are summarised in Box 6-2.

Box 6-2 Baseline survey for benthic habitats

Surveys are likely to be required to delineate Annex I habitat areas within the footprint of wind energydevelopments and

within a delineatedbufferzone. Detailed guidance on survey methods are sometimesavailable at national level114

.

Surveys for Annex I habitats could be part ofa wider characterisation survey for thepurposesof an environmental impact

112Directive 2014/89/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 July 2014 establishing a framework for

maritime spatial planning; OJ L 257, 28.8.2014, pp. 135–145.

113 Jendroska, Jerzy & Stec, Stephen. (2003). The Kyiv Protocol on strategic environmental assessment. 33. 105-110.

114See for example: ‘Standard Investigation of the Impacts of Offshore Wind Turbines on the Marine Environment (StUK

4)’: https://www.bsh.de/DE/PUBLIKATIONEN/_Anlagen/Downloads/Offshore/Standards/Standard-Investigation-impacts-

offshore-wind-turbines-marine-environment_en.pdf?__blob=publicationFile&v=6and ‘Marine Monitoring Handbook’:

http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/page-2430#download.