3.3.6.    Inter-array Cables

80. Inter-array cables carry the electrical current produced by the wind turbines to an offshore substation. A small number of wind turbines will typically be grouped together on the same cable ‘string’ connecting those wind turbines to the substation, and multiple cable ‘strings’ will connect back to each offshore substation.
81. The inter-array cables will be buried where possible and protected with a hard-protective layer (such as rock or concrete mattresses) where burial is not achievable, for example where crossing pre-existing cables, pipelines or exposed bedrock. If cable protection is required, the protection measure will be dependent on several factors such as seabed conditions, seabed sedimentology and the physical processes. The cable installation methodology and potential cable protection measures will be finalised at the final design stage (post-application).
82. The maximum design scenario for inter-array cables is presented in Table 3.6   Open ▸ .

Table 3.6:  Design Envelope for Inter-array Cables

3.3.7.    Offshore Transmission Infrastructure

Offshore Export Cables

83. Offshore export cables are used for the transfer of power from the offshore substations to the point of landfall. The offshore export cables will have a maximum total length of 1,072 km, comprised of up to twelve cables. Each of these offshore export cables will be installed in a trench of up to 2 m wide with a burial depth of between 0.5 m and 3 m per cable. There is the potential for seabed preparation to be required prior to cable installation, with methods such as jet trencher, mechanical trencher or grapnel currently being considered.
84. Although an ECC has been identified, the exact locations of the offshore export cables are yet to be determined and will be based upon geophysical and geotechnical survey information, which will also support the decision on requirements for any additional cable protection. Flexibility is required in the location, depth of burial and protection measures for the offshore export cables to ensure physical and technical constraints, changes in available technology and project economics can be accommodated within the final design.
85. Likewise, SSER is currently considering the feasibility of two landfall locations: Skateraw and Thorntonloch. One will be selected. The installation of the export cables through the intertidal zone at the Skateraw or Thorntonloch landfalls will depend on pre-construction confirmation of ground conditions however one of the following methods of installation will be implemented and the HRA will consider both:

• trenchless installation: installation of the offshore export cable via trenchless installation methods such as Horizontal Directional Drilling (HDD) or Direct Pipe®; or
• open cut trench: this method involves the excavation of a trench on the shore via earth moving equipment. The cable is then pulled ashore into the trench and the trench is backfilled and then re-instated.
  86. If the cables at landfall are installed using a trenchless technique, designed in measures will avoid exposure.
  87. The maximum design scenario for the offshore transmission infrastructure is described in Table 3.7   Open ▸ .

Table 3.7:  Design Envelope for Offshore Export Cables

3.4. Offshore Construction Programme

88. The maximum duration of the offshore construction phase of the Proposed Development is up to four years in line with the general construction series outlined below:

1. pre-construction surveys and activities (including unexploded ordnance (UXO) clearance, geophysical and geotechnical surveys);
2. foundation installation;
3. OSP topside installation/commissioning;
4. inter-array cable installation
5. offshore export cable installation; and
6. wind turbine installation/commissioning.
   89. The offshore construction phase will be supported by various vessels including jack-up or floating Heavy Lift Vessels (HLVs), support vessels, cable lay vessels, pre-lay survey vessels, Remotely Operated Vehicles (ROVs) deployment vessels, rock installation vessels, service and commissioning support vessels, and guard vessels.
   90. Wind turbines, foundation structures and offshore platform structures will be transported from the pre-assembly harbour where sub-assemblies (nacelle, rotor blades and towers) will be loaded onto an installation vessel or support vessel. At the installation location, the wind turbine tower will be erected first, followed by the nacelle and blades. The blades may be installed one at a time or may be pre-assembled. Following installation of the wind turbine and connection to the necessary cabling, a process of testing and commissioning will be undertaken.

3.5. Operation and Maintenance Phase

91. Operations and maintenance works will be conducted from either a Service Operations Vessel (SOV), helicopter, drones or Crew Transfer Vessel (CTV) for routine operations and maintenance works, as well as heavy lift vessels and/or jack-up vessels for infrequent major maintenance campaigns. The details of estimated annual and total operations and maintenance activities will be detailed within the Design Envelope of the Offshore EIAR and the RIAA.

3.6. Decommissioning Phase

92. Under Section 105 of the Energy Act 2004 (as amended), developers of offshore renewable energy projects are required to prepare a decommissioning programme for approval by Scottish Minsters. A Section 105 notice is issued to developers by the regulator after consent or marine licence has been issued for the given development. Developers are then required to submit a detailed plan for the decommissioning works, including anticipated costs and financial securities. The plan will consider good industry practice, guidance and legislation relating to decommissioning at that time. The plan will be consulted on by an approved set of stakeholders and will be publicly available. MS-LOT will further consult on the plan, the costs and financial securities prior to seeking ministerial approval.

4. Identification of European Sites and Features

93. This section provides a list of European sites (including Ramsar Sites), and their features, for which there is the potential for connectivity with the Proposed Development, using the criteria outlined in Table 2.1   Open ▸ , and therefore those which should be taken forward for consideration of LSE in section 5.
94. Each of the following receptor groups are considered in turn:

• Annex I habitats (subtidal and coastal up to MHWS): section 4.1;
• Annex II diadromous fish species: section 4.2;
• Annex II marine mammals: section 4.3; and
• Annex I marine and intertidal ornithological features: section 4.4.

4.1. Sites Designated for Annex I Habitats

95. The following section details the results of the stepwise process to identify the European sites with relevant Annex I habitats (offshore and coastal) to be taken forward for detailed determination of LSE based on the methodology and criteria outlined in section 2.4 and Table 2.1   Open ▸ .
96. The approach adopted for this LSE screening report focusses on the Annex I benthic habitat qualifying interest features for which there is considered to be a potential for impact as a result of the Proposed Development. Whilst pathways to individual features are identified, the consideration for the HRA is acknowledged to be for the integrity of the European site as a whole.

4.1.2.    Initial Identification of Sites

Criterion 1

97. Criterion 1 for the identification of European or Ramsar sites to be taken forward for consideration of LSE considers those sites which overlap with the boundaries of the Proposed Development. As there are no European sites with relevant qualifying Annex I habitats, up to MHWS, which overlap with the Proposed Development, no sites are screened in for further consideration on the basis of this criterion.

Criterion 2

98. Criterion 2 considers European or Ramsar sites with qualifying mobile features/species whose range (e.g. foraging, migratory, overwintering, breeding or natural habitat range) overlaps with the Proposed Development. There are no European sites which meet this criterion for Annex I benthic habitats and so no sites are screened in for further consideration on this basis.

Criterion 3

99. Criterion 3 considers European or Ramsar sites and/or qualifying interest features which are located within the potential ZOI of impacts associated with the Proposed Development. There is the potential for indirect effects to sites designated for Annex I habitats as a result of impacts associated with increased suspended sediment concentrations (SSC) arising from construction activities or from changes to the hydrodynamic regime as a result of the presence of offshore infrastructure associated with the Proposed Development. The extent of these impacts is considered likely to extend beyond the boundaries of the Proposed Development.
100. The ZOI for such indirect effects is typically defined from the outputs of physical processes modelling to determine, for example, the fate of sediments resuspended during the construction process. Physical processes modelling will be undertaken for the Proposed Development to inform the EIA and RIAA; however this has not been carried out at LSE Screening stage. Therefore, a buffer of one mean tidal excursion has been used to inform this area, which applies a reasonable and suitable level of precaution. One mean tidal excursion in the vicinity of the Proposed Development equates to approximately 6.5 km, as derived from the Atlas of UK Marine Renewable Energy Resources (ABPmer, 2008). For the purposes of LSE screening, a precautionary approach has been adopted and this buffer has been increased to 20 km. This buffer is considered to be sufficiently precautionary to capture all sites likely to be in the ZOI from indirect effects associated with construction activities. On the basis of this criterion, a single site, the Berwickshire and North Northumberland SAC, is identified and screened in for consideration of LSE in section 5.

4.1.3.    Summary of Initial Screening of Sites for Annex I Habitats

101. The initial screening process has identified a single European site, the Berwickshire and North Northumberland SAC (see Table 4.1   Open ▸ and Figure 4.1), to be taken forward for determination of LSE in section 5.2 of this report. The Natura 2000 standard data forms[6] for all sites are provided in Appendix 1.
102. Effects on benthic habitats from activities within the Proposed Development array area across all phases are screened out on the basis of the distance of the Proposed Development array area from the site (30.1 km). Effects are only likely to arise from works along the proposed offshore ECC.

Table 4.1:  European Sites Designated for Annex I habitats (Subtidal and Coastal) Taken Forward for Determination of LSE

Figure 41:  Location of European Sites Designated for Annex I Habitats to be Taken Forward for Determination of LSE

4.2. Sites Designated for Annex II Diadromous Fish

103. The following sections detail the results of the stepwise process to identify the European sites with relevant Annex II diadromous fish species to be taken forward for detailed determination of LSE based on the methodology and criteria outlined in section 2.4 and Table 2.1   Open ▸ .
104. The approach adopted for this LSE screening report focusses on the Annex II diadromous fish qualifying interest features for which there is considered to be a potential for impact as a result of the Proposed Development. Whilst pathways to individual features are identified, the consideration for the HRA is acknowledged to be for the integrity of the European site as a whole.

4.2.2.    Initial Identification of Sites

Criterion 1

105. Criterion 1 considers European or Ramsar sites which overlap with the boundaries of the Proposed Development. As there are no European sites with Annex II diadromous fish species as qualifying features which overlap with the Proposed Development, no sites are screened in for further consideration for diadromous fish on the basis of this criterion.
106. Criterion 2
107. Criterion 2 considers European or Ramsar sites with qualifying mobile features/species whose range (e.g. foraging, migratory, overwintering, breeding or natural habitat range) overlaps with the Proposed Development.
108. There is the potential for activities associated with the construction, operation and maintenance and decommissioning of the Proposed Development to result in impacts on Annex II diadromous fish species at a distance from the European sites for which they are qualifying interest features on the basis that these species are mobile and utilise both freshwater and marine environments throughout their life cycles. A precautionary approach to the identification of relevant sites has been adopted in order to capture all sites with the potential for connectivity with the Proposed Development, and in particular to consider the potential for disruption to migration (i.e. barriers to migration) of Atlantic salmon to/from natal rivers. On this basis, all SACs for Atlantic salmon located south of Fraserburgh and the Moray Firth have been screened in and all sites north of this, and within the Moray Firth itself, have been screened out. With respect to Atlantic salmon smolts, this is considered to be appropriate on the basis that recent evidence (Newton et al., 2017; Gardiner et al., 2018a) from the Moray Firth suggests that smolts migrating from rivers in the Moray Firth head north and directly across the North Sea relatively rapidly, rather than moving in a coastal direction upon leaving their natal rivers. Similar evidence of a rapid easterly migration out into the North Sea has also been shown for the River Dee in Aberdeenshire (Gardiner et al., 2018b). There is therefore no basis for a LSE to result for those rivers flowing into the Moray Firth and the Proposed Development.
109. With respect to adult Atlantic salmon, the latest evidence indicates that adult migration to natal rivers in the Moray Firth is most likely from the north (TCE, 2019), so the risk of the Proposed Development causing a barrier to adults migrating towards the Moray Firth is very low. It should also be noted that there are no SACs designated for Atlantic salmon on the east coast of England.
110. As acknowledged in the screening response received from MSS and NatureScot on the Initial Berwick Bank Wind Farm Proposal LSE Screening Report, there is little information on their spatial distribution of lamprey species out with estuaries. The area considered for Atlantic salmon, as discussed above, is however also considered to be suitably precautionary for sea and river lamprey.
111. On this basis, a total of six European sites have been screened in using this criterion (Figure 4.2) and must, therefore, be taken forward for determination of LSE in section 5.3. These are:

• Tweed Estuary SAC;
• River Tweed SAC;
• River South Esk SAC;
• River Tay SAC;
• River Dee SAC; and
• River Teith SAC.

Criterion 3

112. Criterion 3 considers European or Ramsar sites and/or qualifying interest features which are located within the potential ZOI of impacts associated with the Proposed Development (e.g. habitat loss/disturbance, noise and risk of collision). Given the large buffer proposed for criterion 2 above (100 km), the ZOI for key impacts to migratory fish species (i.e. underwater noise, habitat loss and increased SSC) are anticipated to be well within this range. No additional European sites with Annex II diadromous fish as qualifying features, beyond those already identified for criterion 2, are therefore screened in for further consideration on the basis of criterion 3.

4.2.3.    Summary of Initial Screening of Sites for Annex II Diadromous Fish

113. The initial screening process has identified six European sites with Annex II diadromous fish species as qualifying features to be taken forward for detailed determination of LSE in section 5.3 of this report. The sites are listed in Table 4.2   Open ▸ and illustrated in Figure 4.2. The Natura 2000 standard data forms for all sites are provided in Appendix 1.

Table 4.2:  European Sites Designated for Annex II Diadromous Fish Species Taken Forward for Determination of LSE

Figure 42: Location of European Sites Designated for Annex II Diadromous Fish Species Taken Forward for Determination of LSE

4.3. Sites Designated for Annex II Marine Mammals

114. Based on data collected to date during aerial surveys for the Proposed Development, the Annex II marine mammal species likely to occur in the vicinity of the Proposed Development and therefore considered in the LSE screening are:

• harbour porpoise (Phocoena phocoena);
• bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus);
• grey seal (Halichoerus grypus); and
• harbour seal (Phoca vitulina).
  115. This section does not consider European otter Lutra lutra; as there is considered to be no potential for impacts as a result of offshore works. This species will be covered by the separate HRA process for the onshore elements (landward of MLWS) of the Proposed Development, should it be required.

4.3.1.    Initial Identification of Sites

116. The following sections detail the results of the stepwise process to identify the European sites with relevant Annex II marine mammals as qualifying features to be taken forward for detailed determination of LSE based on the methodology and criteria outlined in section 2.4 and Table 2.1   Open ▸ .
117. The approach adopted for this LSE screening report focusses on the Annex II marine mammal qualifying interest features for which there is considered to be a potential for impact as a result of the Proposed Development. Whilst only these qualifying interest features have been screened in for further consideration in section 5, it is acknowledged that the Competent Authority must undertake the LSE screening, and any subsequent appropriate assessment, at the site level and not for individual qualifying interest features.

Criterion 1

118. Criterion 1 considers European or Ramsar sites which overlap with the boundaries of the Proposed Development. There are no sites with Annex II marine mammal species as qualifying features which overlap with the Proposed Development, therefore no sites are screened in for further consideration for marine mammals on the basis of this criterion.

Criterion 2

119. Criterion 2 considers European or Ramsar sites with qualifying mobile species whose range (e.g. foraging, migratory, overwintering, breeding or natural habitat range) overlaps with the Proposed Development. There is the potential for activities associated with the construction, operation and maintenance and decommissioning of the Proposed Development to result in impacts on Annex II marine mammal species at distance from the sites for which they are qualifying interest features on the basis that these are highly mobile species which potentially forage over wide areas. The relevant ranges for the different marine mammal receptors are discussed in the following paragraphs.

Cetaceans

120. A precautionary approach to the identification of relevant sites for cetaceans (i.e. harbour porpoise and bottlenose dolphin) has been adopted in order to capture all sites with the potential for connectivity with the Proposed Development based on criterion 2. On this basis, it has been considered that sites with harbour porpoise and/or bottlenose dolphin as qualifying interest features which are located within a buffer that equates to the regional marine mammal study area, as defined in the Offshore EIA Scoping Report for the Proposed Development (SSE, 2021) (recently confirmed via the Road Map process) could potentially be affected and must therefore, be taken forward for determination of LSE in section 5.4 of this report. In accordance with advice received during consultation (Initial Berwick Bank Wind Farm Proposal Offshore EIA Scoping Opinion, 2020), the Regional Marine Mammal Study Areas will be informed by species Management Units (MU): cetacean MUs are defined by the Inter Agency Marine Mammal Working Group (IAMMWG, 2015). The regional marine mammal study area incorporates the region encompassed by the northern North Sea biogeographic region and extending east to encompass the coastline and waters of the Netherlands, Germany, Denmark and Sweden, as shown in Figure 4.3.
121. All European sites within the regional marine mammal study area, where harbour porpoise or bottlenose dolphin are listed as a qualifying interest feature of the site, have been considered. A total of 20 European sites for harbour porpoise and a single site for bottlenose dolphin have been screened in using this criterion (see Table 4.3   Open ▸ ).

Harbour Seal

122. All SACs designated for harbour seal located within the same Seal MU (SCOS, 2020) as the Proposed Development (the East Scotland MU) will be considered by the screening. As the Proposed Development is adjacent to the North-East England MU, connectivity to SACs within this unit has also been considered. In addition, a screening range has been applied to identify sites for inclusion in the assessment of LSE for harbour seal which is based on a combination of the typical foraging range of this species and telemetry data available from harbour seals tagged by SMRU in the East Scotland Seal Management Area (SMA) between 2001 and 2008 (Sparling et al., 2012; see Appendix 2). Harbour seals tend to make relatively short foraging trips from haul out sites and the latest Special Committee on Seal (SCOS) report (SCOS, 2020) states that harbour seals typically forage at distances of 40 to 50 km from haul out sites. Telemetry data for the harbour seals tagged in the East Scotland SMA, and specifically those tagged in the Eden Estuary, demonstrates that whilst harbour seal movements are mostly coastal with little overlap with the Proposed Development, there is some connectivity between the Proposed Development and the Firth of Tay and Eden Estuary SAC (Sparling et al., 2012; see Appendix 2). As this SAC is approximately 62 km from the Proposed Development array area there is the possibility that seals in the area may forage at distances greater than 40-50 km. Therefore, in order to adopt a precautionary approach to the initial screening of sites for harbour seal, a screening range of 100 km has been applied for this species. Although some individuals do occasionally make longer trips, these are often associated with young animals dispersing from sites and are therefore not considered to indicate likely repeated connectivity between European sites and the Proposed Development.
123. Data from seals tagged in UK, Dutch and Danish waters (e.g. Tougaard et al., 2008) suggest there is limited dispersal or mixing of harbour seals within these parts of the North Sea coastline and whilst a lack of movement by tagged individuals does not exclude the potential for mixing between subpopulations, it does support the conclusion that there is little or no potential for connectivity between harbour seals using the Proposed Development and European sites along the Dutch, German, Danish and Swedish coastlines.
124. The screening process for harbour seal includes any European site where the species is considered as a qualifying feature. A single European site for harbour seal has been screened in using this criterion (see Table 4.3   Open ▸ ).

Grey Seal

125. All SACs designated for grey seals located within the same Seal MU (SCOS, 2020) as the Proposed Development (the East Scotland MU) will be considered by the screening. As the Proposed Development is adjacent to the North-East England MU, connectivity to SACs within this unit has also been considered. Two European sites were identified as sharing the East Scotland MU (Berwickshire and North Northumberland Coast SAC and the Isle of May SAC). Berwickshire and North Northumberland Coast SAC straddles both relevant MUs, but no additional sites were identified for the Screening (i.e. within the North-East England MU. A screening range of 100 km has also been adopted to identify sites with grey seal as a qualifying feature for inclusion in the assessment of LSE, which is based on the latest advice regarding the typical foraging range of this species from haul out sites (SCOC, 2018). No additional sites were identified within this range. Therefore, a total of two European sites for grey seal have been identified for consideration at LSE screening (see Table 4.3   Open ▸ ).

Criterion 3

126. Criterion 3 considers European sites and/or qualifying interest features which are located within the potential ZOI of impacts associated with the Proposed Development (e.g. habitat loss/disturbance, noise and risk of collision). Given the large buffers proposed above for both cetaceans and pinnipeds in criterion 2, the ZOI for key impacts to marine mammals (i.e. underwater noise and changes to prey species) are anticipated to be well within this area. No additional European sites have marine mammal species as qualifying features, beyond those already identified for criterion 2; therefore no additional sites have been screened in for further consideration on the basis of this criterion.

4.3.2.    Summary of Initial Screening of Sites for Annex II Marine Mammals

127. The initial screening process has identified 24 European sites with Annex II marine mammals as qualifying features to be taken forward for detailed determination of LSE in section 5.4 of this report. The sites are listed in Table 4.3   Open ▸ and shown in Figure 4.3. The Natura 2000 standard data forms for all sites are provided in Appendix 1.

Table 4.3: European Sites Designated for Annex II Marine Mammals Species Taken Forward for Determination of LSE

Figure 43:  Location of European Sites Designated for Annex II Marine Mammal Species Taken Forward for Determination of LSE

4.4. Sites Designated for Marine Ornithological Features

4.4.1.    post-consultation updates

128. In response to the consultation advice provided by MSS (2020a), NS (2020a) and Natural England (2021), the approach used for the initial screening of SPAs and Ramsar sites in relation to marine ornithology has been revised from that adopted in the earlier HRA Screening report for the initial Berwick Bank Wind Farm Proposal. The main changes are as follows:

• Distinguishing four distinct categories of SPAs (and Ramsar sites) that have potential for connectivity with the Proposed Development, based on the types of qualifying features and the function of the protected site in terms of the resources provided for qualifying features.
• Providing explicit consideration of all breeding seabird colony SPAs within the mean maximum breeding season foraging range plus 1 SD of the Proposed Development, for those SPAs on the east coast of Scotland and in north (including Orkney and Shetland) and northwest Scotland.
• Inclusion of additional breeding seabird colony SPAs in northern England.
• Explicit consideration of connectivity during the non-breeding season (as well as during the breeding season) for the breeding seabird colony SPAs and associated qualifying features.
• Consideration of factors that result in an absence of connectivity with the Proposed Development for particular breeding seabird qualifying features and SPAs for which connectivity would be assumed on the basis of the geographical location alone (e.g. being within the mean maximum breeding season foraging range plus 1 SD of the Proposed Development).

4.4.2.    Initial Identification of Sites and potential connectivity

Defining the qualifying features and sites: Broad-scale considerations

129. Birds present in offshore waters and potentially affected by the construction, operation and decommissioning of the Proposed Development will be predominantly seabirds (defined for this report as auks, gulls, terns, gannets, skuas, shearwaters, petrels, cormorants and divers). These species have the potential to be present in the vicinity of the Proposed Development during the breeding and non-breeding seasons (including the spring and autumn passage periods). Other bird species that may be affected by the Proposed Development include those which may fly through the area of the Proposed Development during their spring and/or autumn migration (or passage) periods (e.g. waterfowl), and any other species which may use the inter-tidal habitats or the inshore or offshore waters which are potentially affected by the Proposed Development.
130. Based on the above, it is considered that (in relation to marine ornithology) the SPAs (and Ramsar sites) which have the potential to be affected by the Proposed Development are those which:

• Overlap with the location of the Proposed Development, or with the area in which potential effects from the Proposed Development could extend (e.g. displacement effects extending beyond the boundary of the array area).
• Include seabird qualifying features that use the waters in and around the Proposed Development (e.g. for foraging).
• Include qualifying features which may fly through the area of the Proposed Development during migration.
  131. The SPAs (and Ramsar sites) which meet these different criteria are outlined below under the categories of:
• Marine SPAs.
• Breeding seabird colony SPAs (and Ramsar sites).
• SPAs (and Ramsar sites) with migratory waterbird qualifying features (subsequently termed migratory waterbird SPAs for convenience, with waterbirds defined for this report as waders, ducks, geese, swans, grebes, divers, gulls, terns and cormorants).
• Other SPAs (and Ramsar sites) which are located within the ZOI of the Proposed Development.

Marine SPAs

132. The Outer Firth of Forth and St Andrews Bay Complex SPA abuts the southwest boundary of the array area, whilst the offshore export cable corridor runs through the southern part of this SPA (Figure 4.4). Consequently, all qualifying features of this SPA (as detailed in Table 4.5   Open ▸ , subject to the various exclusions outlined in the text below) are considered for determination of LSE in section 5.5.
133. No other marine SPAs are considered to occur within sufficient proximity of the Proposed Development for connectivity to be likely, with next closest such site being the Northumberland Marine SPA which, at approximately 30 km from the Proposed Development, is beyond the distance at which potential effects are likely to extend. This is particularly so, given that such SPAs provide supporting habitat for qualifying features (for purposes such as foraging and moulting), as opposed to providing only the nesting or roosting areas, from which qualifying features commute to their foraging areas.

Breeding seabird SPAs

134. Seabird species may have large foraging ranges during the breeding season ( Table 4.4   Open ▸ , Woodward et al., 2019). Therefore, the Proposed Development could potentially have effects on seabird qualifying features from a large number of SPA breeding colonies because the area within which it is located may be used by these qualifying features when foraging or when commuting between the colony and foraging areas. Furthermore, seabird qualifying features from SPA breeding colonies may use, or fly through, the area occupied by the Proposed Development during the non-breeding season, when these populations are widely distributed and not constrained by the need to return to the colony.
135. To determine the breeding seabird colony SPAs which may have connectivity with the Proposed Development, those SPAs on the east coast of Scotland and in north (including Orkney and Shetland) and northwest Scotland were considered (Figure 4.4). In addition, several SPAs on the east coast of England were also included for consideration, as advised by Natural England (2021). St Kilda was the most southerly SPA in northwest Scotland included, on the basis that the qualifying features from more southerly sites on the west coast are highly unlikely to use the waters in proximity of the Proposed Development, either during the breeding or non-breeding seasons (Woodward et al., 2019; Furness, 2015; Dean et al., 2012, 2015; Shoji et al., 2015).

Table 4.4: Mean maximum Foraging Ranges of Breeding Seabirds (from Woodward et al., 2019)

Notes:

*No SD available for mean maximum value.

**Mean value without SD – no mean maximum value available.

***Mean value with SD – no mean maximum value available.

Connectivity in the breeding season

136. The initial stage in establishing potential connectivity during the breeding season involved determining whether either the array area or offshore export cable corridor are within (i) the mean maximum foraging range and (ii) the mean maximum foraging range plus 1 SD of each qualifying feature from each of the SPAs ( Table 4.4   Open ▸ , Woodward et al., 2019). For 32 of the 33 SPAs, both the array area and offshore export cable corridor are within the mean maximum foraging range plus 1 SD of at least one qualifying feature, whilst this is the case for 31 SPAs when considering the mean maximum foraging range. For Marwick Head SPA neither the array area nor the offshore export cable corridor are within the mean maximum foraging range plus 1 SD of any qualifying features, whilst this is also the case for Ronas Hill – North Roe and Tingon SPA when considering the mean maximum foraging ranges.
137. However, the measured distances in Table 4.5   Open ▸ represent the shortest straight-line between the SPAs and the Proposed Development and do not incorporate the additional distance involved in flying around (as opposed to over) larger land masses. Taking this into account increases the effective seabird flight distance for several SPAs, particularly for those in northwest Scotland, and means that there is no potential for breeding season connectivity with Priest Island SPA (because the effective flight distance greatly exceeds the estimated foraging range of storm petrel, which is the single qualifying feature at this SPA – Figure 4.4, Woodward et al., 2019). Similarly, consideration of the effective flight distance also excludes the potential for connectivity with kittiwake from Cape Wrath SPA and Handa SPA, and with gannet from St Kilda (on the basis that the effective flight distances between each of these SPAs and the Proposed Development will exceed the mean maximum foraging range plus 1 SD of the relevant qualifying feature – Figure 4.4, Woodward et al., 2019). Also, it is considered highly unlikely that Manx shearwater from the St Kilda SPA would have connectivity with Proposed Development, given the foraging areas used by birds from other colonies of this species in western Britain and its known distribution in UK waters (Kober et al., 2010; Dean et al., 2012, 2015; Shoji et al., 2015).
138. Two years of aerial survey data were collected between March 2019 and April 2021 from the array area of the Berwick Bank Wind Farm (as defined in the current report) and a surrounding (approximate) 16 km buffer (as will be outlined in the Baseline Report, which is due to be completed in October 2021). These data demonstrate that several of the species which are identified as having potential breeding season connectivity with the Proposed Development in Table 4.5   Open ▸ occur infrequently and in low numbers within this survey area during the breeding season. Thus, there were no breeding season  records of Roseate tern, cormorant or Leach’s storm petrel, whilst there was a maximum of three shag, nine Sandwich tern, eight great skua and six storm petrel recorded in any single breeding season period. Based on this low level of occurrence, there is considered to be little, or no, potential for breeding season connectivity for SPA populations of these species, except in the context of these species as qualifying features of the Outer Firth of Forth and St Andrews Bay Complex SPA or of migratory waterbird SPAs.
139. Given the above, it is considered that 28 of the breeding seabird colony SPAs identified in Table 4.5   Open ▸ have potential connectivity with the Proposed Development during the breeding season. In addition to the exclusion of Marwick Head SPA and Priest Island SPA (see above), it is also considered that there is no potential for connectivity with:

• Ramna Stacks and Gruney SPA due to the absence of records of Leach’s storm petrel (the only qualifying feature of this SPA) during the baseline surveys for the Proposed Development.
• Ronas Hill – North Roe and Tingon SPA due to the scarcity of breeding season records of great skua during the baseline surveys for the Proposed Development (great skua being the only qualifying feature of this SPA within mean maximum foraging range plus 1 SD of the Proposed Development).
• Auskerry SPA due to the scarcity of breeding season records of storm petrel during the baseline surveys for the Proposed Development (storm petrel being the only qualifying feature of this SPA within likely foraging range of the Proposed Development).

Table 4.5: European Sites Designated for Marine Ornithological Features with Potential Connectivity to the Proposed Development

Notes:

1. Measured as the closest, straight line, distance from the SPA (irrespective of the presence of land masses).

2. This includes all qualifying features of the marine SPA, all seabird qualifying features of the breeding seabird colony SPAs and all passage and wintering waterbird qualifying features of the migratory waterbird SPAs (and Ramsar sites). The definitions of seabirds and waterbirds used in this report are given in the text. A small number of SPAs in the breeding seabird category (all in Orkney or Shetland) include breeding raptor or wader qualifying features, whilst a small number in the migratory waterbird category include breeding tern or (in one case) raptor qualifying features. These are not considered relevant to this assessment (noting that the breeding tern qualifying features from the migratory waterbird SPAs are beyond the mean maximum foraging range plus 1 SD from the Proposed Development).

3. Relevant to qualifying features of breeding seabird colony SPAs only (and not applicable (N/A) to the qualifying features of other SPAs). Breeding seabird foraging ranges are from Woodward et al., (2019). Where a qualifying feature is within foraging range of the array area but not the offshore export cable corridor this is indicated by Y/N (with N/Y indicating the opposite situation).

4. For a small number of species no estimate of the mean maximum foraging range is available, with the mean or maximum foraging range being used instead (see Table 4.4   Open ▸ and Woodward et al., 2019 for details).

Connectivity in the non-breeding season

140. Outside the breeding season seabirds are not constrained by the requirement to attend nests and may disperse over greater distances than during the breeding season. As such, there is potential for connectivity with a greater range of qualifying features from breeding seabird colony SPAs than during the breeding season. MSS (2020b) and NS (2020c) advise that consideration of the potential for non-breeding season effects associated with the Proposed Development should be based upon the BDMPS approach (Furness, 2015) for all species other than guillemot. For guillemot, it is advised that the breeding season foraging range should be used because this species is not considered to disperse as widely from the breeding areas as are other seabird species during the non-breeding season.
141. For most seabird species there are only two BDMPS regions defined within UK waters (with the main division being between the North Sea and western waters), although there are up to five for some species (Furness 2015). For almost all species, the BDMPS of relevance to the Proposed Development is defined as the UK North Sea and Channel or the UK North Sea (although for red-throated diver, shag and cormorant it is the North West North Sea and for Roseate tern the East Coast and Channel). Within these large expanses of offshore waters, it is generally assumed that there is even mixing of birds from the different ‘source’ populations (from the UK and elsewhere) during passage and other non-breeding periods (Furness, 2015).
142. During the two years of aerial surveys undertaken between March 2019 and April 2021 across the array area and buffer, no records of Roseate tern, little tern, storm petrel, Leach’s storm petrel or cormorant were obtained during the respective passage periods or non-breeding seasons1 for these species. Also, several other species were recorded in very low numbers during the passage periods or non-breeding seasons. Thus, there was a single non-breeding season record of shag and a maximum of four records of lesser black-backed gull during any single non-breeding season, whilst a maximum of four Arctic skua and one Sandwich tern were recorded during any passage period. On the basis of these low levels of occurrence within the array area and surrounding survey buffer, it is considered that connectivity with any SPA populations of these species during the non-breeding season is highly unlikely (except in the context of these species as qualifying features of the Outer Firth of Forth and St Andrews Bay Complex SPA or of migratory waterbird SPAs – Table 4.5   Open ▸ ).
143. For several other seabird species, connectivity between SPA populations and the Proposed Development during the non-breeding season can be excluded on the basis of the small (or negligible) contribution of these populations to the overall BDMPS population. Thus, none of the UK Manx shearwater SPA populations are considered to contribute to the UK North Sea BDMPS for this species, whilst for red-throated diver, great black-backed gull, common tern and Arctic tern, 85% to 95% of the relevant BDMPS population of adult birds are estimated to derive from non-UK populations combined with non-SPA UK colonies (Furness 2015). For these latter species, the maximum contribution of any individual SPA population to the BDMPS population of adult birds is 5% for red-throated diver (Ronas Hill – North Roe and Tingon SPA), 3.3% for Arctic tern (Farne Islands SPA), 1.75% for great black-backed gull (Calf of Eday SPA) and 1.6% for common tern (Coquet Island SPA). Given the large size of most of these BDMPS populations , together with the assumption of even mixing of birds from different populations (and age classes) across the BDMPS, only a very small number of SPA birds would be estimated to occur within the vicinity of the Proposed Development.
144. The above considerations indicate that the potential for connectivity between breeding seabird colony SPAs and the Proposed Development during the non-breeding season can be excluded in relation to several of the seabird species which are qualifying features of these SPAs. The remaining species of relevance are fulmar, herring gull, kittiwake, great skua, gannet, guillemot, razorbill and puffin. These include the species recorded in greatest abundance on the array area and the associated buffer during the baseline aerial surveys. For guillemot, connectivity during the non-breeding season is determined on the same basis as for the breeding season (following the advice of MSS and NS – see above). For the other species, it is assumed that there is the potential for non-breeding season effects (and hence connectivity) for any of the SPA populations for which breeding season connectivity is established (as determined from the species’ mean maximum foraging range plus 1 SD - see Table 4.5   Open ▸ and associated text above). The potential for connectivity with other SPA populations of these species during the non-breeding season is determined on the basis of the contribution of these SPA populations to the relevant BDMPS population ( Table 4.6   Open ▸ ).

Table 4.6: The Percentage Contribution of Different SPA Populations to the BDMPS Population Relevant to the Proposed Development (Based on Adult Birds only), as Derived from Furness (2015). SPA Populations are Included for those Species with Potential Connectivity to the Proposed Development During the Non-Breeding Season but for which the SPA Population does not have Breeding Season Connectivity (See Text). For Species with Multiple Non-Breeding Periods (E.G. Spring And Autumn Passage), the Maximum Percentage Contribution to the BDMPS Population is Presented.

Notes:

1. ‘N/A’ indicates that the species is not a qualifying feature of the SPA. ‘–‘ indicates that the SPA population has breeding season connectivity with the Proposed Development (so that non-breeding season connectivity is assumed – see text).

2. A range is given for species with multiple non-breeding periods, encompassing the minimum and maximum BDMPS population size (noting that the winter BDMPS population size for great skua is omitted because it includes no birds from UK colonies).

145. The data in Table 4.6   Open ▸ demonstrate that, with the exception of great skua, these other SPA populations generally comprise a small part of the overall BDMPS population of the species (being substantially below 1% in the vast majority of cases). Therefore, when the large size of the BDMPS populations is considered together with the assumption of even mixing of birds from different populations (and age classes), it is apparent that there is unlikely to be any substantive connectivity between most of these SPA populations and the Proposed Development during the non-breeding season. In two cases the SPA populations comprise more than 5% of the relevant BDMPS population (razorbill from the East Caithness Cliffs SPA (8.3%) and from the Flamborough and Filey Coast SPA (6.6%)) and, on a precautionary basis, it is considered that these two populations will have connectivity with the Proposed Development during the non-breeding season. For great skua, the SPA populations from Hoy, Foula, Fetlar and Hermaness, Saxa Vord and Valla Field each comprise relatively high percentages of the BDMPS population and, as such, it is considered that they will also have connectivity with the Proposed Development during the non-breeding season.
146. Therefore, consideration of connectivity during the non-breeding season does not result in the inclusion of any additional breeding seabird SPAs (over and above the 28 for which connectivity with the Proposed Development during the breeding season has been established).