1.3.4.    Construction Phase/Methodology

76. The Proposed Development is likely to be constructed according to the general sequence below, although the final sequence may vary from this:

• step 1 – offshore export cables – landfall installation using trenchless technology;
• step 2 – foundation installation and scour protection installation;
• step 3 – OSP/Offshore convertor station platform topside installation/commissioning;
• step 4 – inter-array and interconnector cable installation and cable protection installation;
• step 5 – offshore export cables – offshore installation and cable protection installation; and
• step 6 – wind turbine installation/commissioning.
  77. Various installation vessels will be used during construction of the Proposed Development. This includes main installation vessels (e.g. jack-up barges or dynamic positioning vessels), cargo barges, support vessels, tugs and anchor handlers, cable installation vessels, guard vessels, survey vessels, Crew Transfer Vessels (CTVs), Service Operation Vessels (SOVs), scour/cable protection installation vessels and resupply vessels. In addition, it is possible that helicopters will be used for crew transfers.
  78. An indicative construction programme of up to eight years is presented in this Offshore EIA Report. Although construction activities will typically occur sequentially there are expected to be periods where certain construction activities occur concurrently.

1.3.5.    Operation and Maintenance Phase Methodology

79. It is expected that the Proposed Development will have an operational lifetime of 35 years. The overall operation and maintenance strategy will be finalised once the operation and maintenance base location and technical specification of the Proposed Development are known, including wind turbine type, electrical export option and final project layout.
80. During the operational lifetime of the Proposed Development, regular maintenance activities will be required. Volume 1, chapter 3 provides a description of the foreseeable planned and unplanned maintenance activities.
81. A range of maintenance vessels will be used over the lifetime of the Proposed Development. This includes SOVs and/or CTVs. This will be developed at a later stage once further detail is confirmed for the Proposed Development.

1.3.6.    Decommissioning Phase Methodology

82. At the end of the operational lifetime of the Proposed Development, it is anticipated that wind turbine and OSP/Offshore convertor station platform foundations will be cut at below the seabed at an agreed depth and removed. Suction caisson foundations will be fully removed. As the decommissioning programme will be updated during the Project lifespan, it may be decided, closer to the time of decommissioning, that removal will result in greater environmental impacts than leaving offshore components in situ.
83. Scour protection and offshore cables will be removed where possible and appropriate to do so. This approach will be reviewed at the time of decommissioning following the most up to date and best available guidance.
84. The decommissioning sequence will generally be the reverse of the construction sequence and involve similar types and numbers of vessels and equipment.

1.3.7.    Designed in Measures

85. The PDE includes a number of designed in measures which have been included in the Proposed Development and are committed to be delivered by the Applicant as part of the Proposed Development. The designed in measures for the Proposed Development include a range of measures used to reduce potential impact pathways. For example a key designed in measure is the use of soft start piling procedures in order to reduce impacts to receptors that are sensitive to underwater noise (e.g. marine mammals and some fish species) by allowing receptors in the vicinity to flee the area before noise levels increase to thresholds that may cause injury or mortality. A further key example of a designed in measure is an increased air gap between the lower wind turbine blade tip height and sea surface which reduces the risk of seabird collision impacts (and therefore seabird mortality) as an increased proportion of birds fly below the wind turbine rotor height. For a full description of all designed in measures, they are detailed in volume 1, chapter 3 and also in volume 3, appendix 6.3. Designed in measures that are relevant to specific topics have also been listed in the topic chapters throughout volume 2.

1.4. Site Selection and Consideration of Alternatives

86. This section presents a summary of volume 2, chapter 4 which outlines the site selection process undertaken and the alternatives considered for the Proposed Development following award of development rights for the Firth of Forth zone in 2010 as part of The Crown Estate Round 3 leasing process.
87. There have been multiple steps undertaken to date including a Zone Appraisal Process (2010 – 2012) and Project Identification and Approval Process (2017 to 2020) which helped identify discrete projects within the Firth of Forth Round 3 Zone. These projects included Seagreen Alpha and Bravo to the north (now known as Seagreen 1 and Seagreen 1A) and Berwick Bank and Marr Bank to the south of the zone.
88. In 2021, Berwick Bank and Marr Bank projects were combined into a single wind farm project (known as 2020 Berwick Bank Wind Farm) which was subject EIA scoping with Marine Scotland Licensing Operations Team (MS-LOT) in 2021 (SSE, 2021a). The combined project included a reduction in the array area (when compared to the combined size of the two projects separately) in order to mitigate possible effects on key receptors including ornithology, as well as refinements of project infrastructure including the removal of wind turbine foundation types (e.g., monopile, gravity and floating), and increasing minimum rotor blade tip height from 22 m to 37 m in order to mitigate collision risk to bird species.
89. In 2022, following stakeholder engagement and receipt of the Scoping Opinion in February 2022 (MS-LOT, 2022) the project was further refined in order to reduce possible effects on key receptors. This included a significant 23% reduction in the size of the Proposed Development array site to mitigate possible effects on key receptors including ornithology, the Firth of Forth Banks Complex ncMPA, shipping and navigation, and commercial fishing. Further details of the project refinements are included in volume 2, chapter 4. Following the award of two grid connection offers at Branxton, East Lothian, a Strategic Landfall Assessment was undertaken to identify preferred locations for bringing the offshore export cables ashore. Locations were identified based upon their suitability for connecting to potential onshore substation locations including environmental constraints and engineering feasibility. In parallel to the landfall and onshore substation optioneering studies, Proposed Development export cable corridor refinement studies were also undertaken. These were informed by offshore surveys including geophysical surveys.
90. Upon submission of the Offshore Scoping Report (SSE, 2021a) only two landfall locations remained: sites at Thorntonloch and Skateraw, along with two landfall methodologies (trenchless and open trench). Post receipt of the Scoping Opinion (MS-LOT, 2022) the Proposed Development was refined so that only one landfall location (Skateraw) and one landfall methodology (trenchless) remain.

1.5. Stakeholder Engagement and Consultation

1.5.1.    IntroductIon

91. This section presents a summary of volume 1, chapter 5 which contains information regarding stakeholder engagement and consultation undertaken during the pre-Application stage of the Offshore EIA Report relevant to the Proposed Development, which in conjunction with the PAC report, provides a record of the stakeholder and public engagement.

92. In particular, the stakeholder engagement and consultation Offshore EIA Report chapter summarises:

• the approach taken to consultation by the Applicant during the pre-Application stage for the Berwick Bank offshore wind farm;
• informal and formal stakeholder engagement undertaken;
• key feedback received during the pre-Application phase; and
• the stakeholder engagement processes applied to the pre-Application stage.
  93. A separate report detailing the PAC process provides further detail of consultation undertaken and is provided as an accompanying report to this Offshore EIA Report. In addition, the PAC report provides a summary of views raised and response provided by the Applicant dating back to November 2020.

1.5.2.    Good PractiCe in Public Engagement

94. The Applicant has sought to follow good practice throughout pre-Application consultation on the Proposed Development, including complying with advice from MS-LOT on continued engagement throughout pre-Application processes.
95. The Applicant has reviewed and considered all feedback provided as part of stakeholder consultation in the pre-application, which is documented in the following reports:

• volume 1, chapter 5: Stakeholder Engagement and Consultation;
• PAC Report (onshore and offshore) (SSER, 2022d);
• volume 3, appendix 8.2: Benthic Ecology, Fish and Shellfish Ecology and Physical Processes Road Map;
• volume 3, appendix 10.3: Marine Mammals Road Map;
• volume 3, appendix 11.8: Offshore Ornithology Road Map;
• volume 3, appendix 13.2: Shipping and Navigation Road Map; and
• volume 3, appendix 5.1: Audit Document of Post-Scoping Discussions which summarises key points discussed between the Applicant and MS-LOT/NatureScot post-Scoping Report (SSER, 2021a).
  96. Additionally, ongoing consultation has been undertaken with various commercial fisheries stakeholders including Scottish Fishermen’s Federation (SFF), North East Regional Inshore Fisheries Group (NERIFG), and the Under 10 m Association and local Fisheries Industry Representative (FIRs).
  97. The approach to consultation for the Proposed Development has followed the Gunning Principles of “fair and worthwhile” consultation, of which the rules include that consultation:
• must be at a time when proposals are still at a formative stage;
• the proposer must give sufficient reasons for any proposal to permit of intelligent consideration and response;
• adequate time is given for consideration and response; and
• the product of consultation is conscientiously taken into account when finalising the decision.
  98. Public participation is a key element of any major infrastructure project and the Applicant is committed to stakeholder engagement at all stages of the Proposed Development.

1.5.3.    Public Engagement

99. Key groups of public stakeholders have been engaged throughout the pre-Application phase of the Proposed Development, as follows:

• Strategic Engagement: Engagement focussed on local and national Government bodies including local authority councillors;
• National Engagement: Engagement focussed on statutory stakeholders and non-statutory bodies with particular interest in offshore activity; and
• Local Engagement: Engagement focussed on local organisations, local communities and members of the Public.

Pre-application consultation

100. Public consultation for the Project during the pre-Application phase took place during COVID-19 pandemic restrictions, therefore, by necessity, some public exhibitions and consultation events were held online only. The Applicant ran 13 virtual events and 17 in-person events (which followed the Scottish Government’s guidance), seeking to ensure feedback was received from as diverse a range of public groups as possible. For further detail on the approach to formal consultation events and the outcomes of these events please see the Project PAC Report (SSER, 2022d).

Community engagement

101. A dedicated Stakeholder Engagement Manager (SEM) has been in place from the commencement of development of the Proposed Development, to facilitate and support engagement with the community. In addition to formal consultation events, The SEM carried out local engagement with public, community councils, businesses and local organisations in the form of virtual and in person meetings, and also maintains a mailing list to disseminate information to members of the public who have voluntarily provided their contact information (email).

Information provision and awareness raising

102. Throughout the pre-application process, the Applicant has sought to engage with stakeholders, including members of the public, through provision of information. Information has been communicated through a variety of channels as outlined below:

• Fisheries Liaison Officer (FLO): the FLO has fisheries expertise acts as the primary point of contact for liaison with the fishing industry on behalf of the applicant, and has the delegated authority to fully represent the Applicant on fisheries related issues;
• Project website: a dedicated project website is hosted by the Applicant and can be found here www.berwickbank.com;
• Email address: A dedicated email address has been administered throughout the pre-application phase at: berwickbank@sse.com; and
• Local news: Consultation events were advertised in the Courier, East Lothian Courier, St Andrew’s Citizen and Berwickshire News.
  103. The Applicant have also provided digital versions of key documentation to allow easy access and user flexibility. Digital documentation provided includes:
• Digital Offshore EIA Scoping Report;
• Digital Offshore Likely Significant Effect (LSE) Screening Report;
• Digital Offshore EIA Report; and
• Digital Offshore RIAA.

1.5.4.    Stakeholder Engagement

104. Offshore EIA scoping has been undertaken as part of the pre-application phase for the Proposed Development. Two scoping reports were produced in August 2020 (SSER, 2020) and October 2021 (SSER, 2021a). The two scoping opinions were received in March 2021 (MS-LOT, 2021) and February 2022 (MS-LOT, 2022).
105. A thorough statutory and non-statutory stakeholder engagement process has been undertaken by the Applicant, supported by their consultants. Due to COVID-19 pandemic restriction in 2020, 2021 and early 2022, all statutory stakeholder engagement has taken place virtually. For some topics, a “Road Map” processes of engagement was undertaken. These topics were:

• benthic subtidal and intertidal ecology, fish and shellfish ecology and physical processes;
• marine mammals;
• ornithology; and
• shipping and navigation.
  106. The list of organisations that were approached/consulted during the pre-Application process (including Scoping and LSE screening) for the Proposed Development can be found in volume 1, chapter 5, and Organisations that attended the Road Map Meetings are detailed in volume 3, appendix 8.2, appendix 10.3, appendix 11.8 and, appendix 13.2.

1.5.5.    Feedback and Reporting

107. All feedback received throughout the pre-Application consultation phase was recorded and collated by the Applicant, supported by their consultants. Feedback received relating to the Proposed Development technical chapters has been addressed in topic chapters and appendices. Stakeholders provided feedback as part of EIA scoping and LSE screening, and during post-scoping discussions. An Audit Document for Post-Scoping Discussions has been requested by MS-LOT and is presented in volume 3, appendix 5.1. The Applicant has reviewed and had regard to all feedback received throughout the pre-application process.

1.6. Environmental Impact Assessment Methodology

108. This section outlines the EIA methodology used for the assessment of likely significant effects associated with the Proposed Development on physical, biological and human environment receptors. Section 1.6.1 describes the key principles followed during the EIA process and the approach taken as part of this Offshore EIA Report.
109. This Offshore EIA Report has been prepared in accordance with the EIA Regulations and relevant policy and legislation as described in section 1.2.

1.6.1.    Key Principles of the Assessment

Overview

110. The EIA methodology used in this Offshore EIA Report has been included as a separate chapter (volume 1, chapter 6). In addition, the following is included in each topic chapter:

• identification of the study area for the topic specific assessments;
• description of topic specific legislation, policy and guidance;
• summary of consultation carried out for the Proposed Development;
• description of the environmental baseline conditions, including future baseline;
• presentation of the assessment of likely significant effects;
• presentation of the Cumulative Effects Assessment (CEA)
• presentation of the transboundary effects; and
• presentation of the inter-related effects.
  111. The following sections describe the approach taken as part of the offshore EIA process in more detail.

Project Design Envelope

Maximum design scenario

112. The PDE approach has been adopted for the assessment of the Proposed Development, in accordance with current best practice and the “Rochdale Envelope Principle”. This requires the assessment of likely significant effects of the realistic ‘worst case’ parameters of the Proposed Development.
113. This approach has been taken for this Offshore EIA Report due to the lack of precise final design details of the Proposed Development at the time of writing this report. The PDE parameters and range of potential project design values for relevant offshore components of the Proposed Development is included as part of the Project Description chapter (volume 1, chapter 3).
114. For each of the topic chapters within this Offshore EIA Report and for each of the effects assessed, the PDE considered will be the scenario which would give rise to the greatest potential effect (referred to as the maximum design scenario). By identifying the maximum design scenario, it can therefore be concluded that the impact (and therefore the effect) will be no greater for any other design scenario than that assessed for the maximum design scenario.

Designed in measures

115. Primary and tertiary mitigation has been referred to as designed in measures in this Offshore EIA Report. These include those measures which have been incorporated within the design of the Proposed Development.
116. These include standard measures applied to offshore wind development, including the use of “soft starts” for piling operations or lighting and marking of the Proposed Development. Designed in measures have been described within the topic chapters.

Secondary mitigation measures

117. Secondary mitigation is considered as additional measures which are applied after the assessment process has been completed to prevent, reduce and offset LSEs which could not be avoided through designed in measures.

Identification of impacts and significance of effect

118. The Proposed Development has the potential to create a range of impacts and effects with regards to the physical, biological and human environment, for both coastal and marine receptors.
119. For the purposes of the Offshore EIA Report, the term ‘impact’ is defined as a change that is caused by an action. For example, the laying of an inter-array cable (action) is likely to result in seabed disturbance (impact). Impacts can be defined as direct, indirect, temporary, irreversible, secondary, cumulative and inter-related. They can also be either positive or negative, although the relationship between them is not always straightforward and relies on available evidence and professional judgement.
120. The term ‘effect’ is defined as the consequence of an impact. For example, following the inter-array cable laying example described in paragraph 119 the laying of an inter-array cable (action) results in seabed disturbance (impact), with the potential to disturb benthic habitats and species (effect).
121. The overall significance of an effect is determined through the correlation of the magnitude of impact alongside the sensitivity of the receptor. To ensure consistency in defining the significance of an effect, a matrix approach has been adopted, as presented in Table 1.1   Open ▸ . In cases where a range is suggested for the significance of effect, there remains the possibility that this may span the significance threshold (i.e. the range is given as minor to moderate). In such cases the final significance is based upon the expert's professional judgement as to which outcome delineates the most likely effect, with an explanation as to why this is the case.

Table 1.1: Matrix Typically Used for the Assessment of the Significance of the Effect

122. The standard approach for the purposes of this assessment:

• a level of significance of effect of moderate or more will be considered a ‘significant’ effect in terms of the EIA Regulations; and
• a level of significance of effect of minor or less will be considered ‘not significant’ in terms of the EIA Regulations.
  123. Some topic chapters in Volume 2 of the EIAR use alternative EIA methods including specific topic-based guidance/assessments and alternative significance matrices; these are discussed and made clear in the relevant topic chapters.
  124. As part of the topic assessment, further mitigation measures have been identified after the assessment of significance as required. Following this, the assessment re-evaluates the significance of effect using the methodology previously described.

Cumulative Effects Assessment

125. The CEA considers the impacts arising from the Proposed Development cumulatively with other relevant plans, projects and activities. Cumulative effects are therefore the combined effect of the Proposed Development with the effects from a number of different plans, projects and activities, on the same receptor group or resource.
126. An assessment of cumulative effects is required in accordance with the EIA Directive and the EIA Regulations. The EIA Directive (Annex IV, Article 5e) states that “A description of the likely significant effects of the project on the environment resulting from the cumulation of effects with other existing and/or approved projects, taking into account any existing environmental problems relating to areas of particular environmental importance likely to be affected or the use of natural resources”.
127. A process has been followed for the screening of plans, projects and activities that may be considered in the CEA alongside the Proposed Development (volume 3, appendix 6.4). This process involved a screening stage, which identified those foreseeable developments or activities with which the Proposed Development may interact to result in cumulative effects.
128. After the screening, a list of all projects, plans and activities screened in for assessment was produced for each topic and a tiered approach was adopted to complete the CEA. The tiers can be described as:

• tier 1 - Proposed Development (Berwick Bank Wind Farm offshore) with Berwick Bank Wind Farm onshore;
• tier 2 – All plans/projects assessed under Tier 1, plus projects which became operational since baseline characterisation, those under construction, and those with consent and submitted but not yet determined;
• tier 3 – All plans/projects assessed under Tier 2, plus those projects with a Scoping Report; and
• tier 4 – All plans/projects assessed under Tier 3, which are reasonably foreseeable, plus those projects likely to come forward where an Agreement for Lease (AfL) has been granted.
  129. The CEA follows the EIA Methodology (volume 1, chapter 6) as far as practicable to ensure consistency of approach, although this approach may differ between topic chapters. Where the approach has deviated from that set out in EIA Methodology chapter, this is made clear in the chapter and will be a result, for example, of the nature of the topic or data available for each topic or project, plan or activity. As such, some topics have completed the CEA employing full quantitative, a mix of qualitative and quantitative or full qualitative assessment.

Transboundary effects

130. The potential for transboundary effects to arise is a result of an impact from the Proposed Development which has the potential to significantly affect the environment of a European Economic Area (EEA) state(s). Full description of how the transboundary effects assessment has been carried out is found in a standalone appendix (volume 3, appendix 6.6).
131. To assist with this process, a screening exercise for potential transboundary impacts was undertaken at the scoping stage and presented in the Berwick Bank Wind Farm Offshore Scoping Report (SSER, 2021a). This exercise identified that the following receptors may experience transboundary impacts from the Proposed Development:

• fish and shellfish ecology;
• marine mammals;
• offshore and intertidal ornithology;
• commercial fisheries;
• shipping and navigation; and
• offshore socio-economic and tourism.
  132. Each of the above topic chapters provides an assessment of transboundary effects for each receptor group, which also considers the inter-relationships between effects, as described in paragraph 133 et seq.

Inter-related effects

133. The EIA Regulations require consideration of the inter-relationships between EIA topics that may lead to environmental effects. For example, the separate impacts of noise and habitat loss may have an effect upon a single receptor group such as fish and shellfish or marine mammals.
134. The assessment of potential inter-related effects has been carried out concurrently considering two levels of potential effect:

• project lifetime effects: effects that occur throughout more than one phase of the project (construction, operational and decommissioning) interacting to potentially create a more significant effect upon a receptor than if just assessed in isolation in a single phase; and
• receptor led effects: effects that interact spatially and/or temporally resulting in inter-related effects upon a single receptor. For example, the effect of underwater noise on marine mammals may be greater when multiple sources of impact interact or combine to produce a different or greater effect upon this receptor than when single sources of impact are considered in isolation, or where potential impacts on a key prey resource (e.g. sandeels from multiple impact pathways such as habitat disturbance and underwater noise impacts), results in a greater impact on the receptor species than one impact pathway alone. Receptor led effects might be short term, temporary or transient effects, or incorporate longer term effects.
  135. Further detail on the approach and methodology for the assessment of inter-related effects associated with the Proposed Development is provided in volume 2, chapter 20).

1.7. Physical Processes

136. Physical processes refer to the coastal and marine processes and the relationship with the physical environment and includes tidal currents, wave climate and sediment transport regime. The physical processes of the Proposed Development were numerically modelled using datasets collected from a series of site-specific bathymetric surveys, including grab sampling and a detailed desktop review of existing studies and datasets.
137. The geophysical survey carried out by Fugro (2020) indicated that the seabed within the Proposed Development array area is comprised of a dynamic landscape with varied seafloor morphology categorised into four types of features such as large-scale banks, arcuate ridges, incised valleys and bedforms. The geophysical surveys carried out by both Fugro (2020) and XOCEAN (2021) within the Proposed Development export cable corridor shows it to also be a variable landscape primarily characterised as boulder fields and bedforms. The seabed sediments present in the Proposed Development array area are classified as mixed sediments, course gravel, shelly gravelly sand with boulders, mixed sediment with patchy course material or boulders and muddy sand. The seabed of the Proposed Development export cable corridor is comprised of coarse sediment with cobbles, boulders, outcrops etc. with areas of course sediments (gravel) and sandy sediments (muddy and fine sand). Geophysical data from the Proposed Development array area highlights two morphological bank features, Marr Banks and northern extent of the Berwick Bank part of the Firth of Forth Banks Complex ncMPA. Within the Proposed Development array area, the water depth varies from 32.8 m to 68.5 m relative to the LAT.
138. Across the Proposed Development array area, the tidal current floods to the south and ebbs to the north. The flows are relatively weak with tidal current speeds typically between 0.5 m/s and 0.6 m/s during peak flood: with ebb currents being of a similar magnitude. At the centre of the Proposed Development array area, the largest proportion of waves approach from the northerly sectors and the largest waves approaching the Proposed Development array area are from the north through to the north-east. Modelled littoral currents (driven by tides and waves) within the Proposed Development array area resulted in an increase of currents on the flood tide and corresponding reduction on the ebb tide.
139. Within the Proposed Development array area, the residual current speeds are low resulting in low sediment transport rates with sediment transports rates typically higher nearer the shore. During storms approaching from the north, sediment transport increases during flood tides in the Proposed Development array area. The non-algal suspended particulate matter (SPM) was estimated to be on average 0 mg/l to 1 mg/l between 1998 to 2015 (Centre for Environment Fisheries and Aquaculture Science (Cefas), 2016) displaying typical seasonal patterns with an increase in concentration in winter months within the Proposed Development.
140. Two potential impacts of physical processes on receptors due to the construction, operation and maintenance, and decommissioning phases of the Proposed Development, were identified. These were noted as increased suspended sediment concentrations (SSCs) and associated deposition on physical features as a result of seabed preparation, foundation installation, cable installation, maintenance activity, and decommissioning. As well as the presence of infrastructure potentially leading to changes to tidal currents, wave climate, littoral currents and sediment transport which may result in changes to sediment transport pathways, bank morphology, and beach morphology.
141. An assessment was undertaken for the Proposed Development as described in volume 1, chapter 3 of the Offshore EIA Report which includes details of cable and scour protection. The potential impacts of sediment plumes from increased SSCs and associated deposition on physical features/receptors such as the offshore subtidal sands and gravels, shelf banks and moulds and habitat to aggregations of ocean quahog Arctica islandica and moraine formations defining the Firth of Forth Banks Complex ncMPA were either of minor or negligible adverse significance (i.e. not significant in EIA terms). The sediment plumes arising during the construction phase are identified as localised within the development area and do not persist within the Firth of Forth Banks Complex ncMPA and return to background levels within a few tides. Sedimentation during the construction phase comprises of native material which is not expected to influence the bathymetry of receptors such as the sands, gravels and banks within the Firth of Forth Banks Complex ncMPA. Hydrodynamic processes supporting ncMPA characteristics are not altered by the minimal level of bathymetric change as a result of the construction phase sediment releases. Similarly, shelfs, banks and mound features would remain stable and supporting hydrodynamics processes for ocean quahog colonisation remain unaffected. The increased sedimentation from the offshore export cables installation causes little or no sedimentation in the intertidal zone and would be insufficient to affect beach morphology.
142. During the operation and maintenance phase the effects are reduced in comparison to the construction phase, as works are limited to intermittent, discrete repair activities. Overall, for all receptors associated with the Firth of Forth Banks Complex ncMPA, the effect will be negligible to minor adverse significance (not significant in EIA terms). Like the construction phase, the decommissioning phase in response to sedimentation has been identified as localised and composed of native material which is not expected to influence the bathymetry of receptors such as the sands, gravels and banks within the Firth of Forth Banks Complex ncMPA. Overall, for all receptors associated with the Firth of Forth Banks Complex ncMPA, the effect will be negligible adverse (not significant in EIA terms).
143. The presence of infrastructure may lead to changes to tidal currents, wave climate, littoral currents and sediment transport. However, the impacts on receptors such as the offshore subtidal sands and gravels, shelf banks and moulds and habitat to aggregations of ocean quahog and moraine formations defining the Firth of Forth Banks Complex ncMPA was deemed to be of negligible to minor adverse significance (not significant in EIA terms). These minor changes in hydrodynamics occur in close proximity to the location of the wind turbines and do not extend beyond the Proposed Development area. The limited magnitude of changes observed would not alter the hydrography of offshore banks and the habitat for ocean quahog would remain stable. Following the decommissioning phase, the magnitude of the impact would negligible as only those scour and cable protection structures not possible or practical to be removed would remain. Overall, for all receptors, the effect will be negligible to minor adverse significance (not significant in EIA terms).
144. Cumulative impacts of physical processes arising from each identified impact in combination with adjacent offshore wind farm developments were assessed and predicted to result in impacts of negligible to minor adverse significance (not significant in EIA terms) on the Firth of Forth Banks Complex ncMPA. No physical processes mitigation is considered necessary because the predicted impacts in the absence of mitigation is not significant in EIA terms.
145. Monitoring will be undertaken to study the sand wave recovery following seabed clearance activates as these features form the basis for designation. This information will build on the body of knowledge regarding the potential impact of offshore energy infrastructure on physical processes. The project description (volume 1, chapter 3) includes routine inspection and geophysical surveys of wind turbine and OSP/Offshore convertor station platform foundations. Also, offshore export cables, inter-array and interconnector cables burial and protection will be inspected and surveyed as part of the operation and maintenance programme.
146. The inter-related effects due to both project lifetime effects and receptor-led effects were considered for physical processes. Increases in SSC during construction phase would not extend into the operation and maintenance phase. Similarly, those increases which occur in the operation and maintenance phase due to maintenance activities would not extend to decommissioning. Changes to tidal currents and wave climate due to structures relate to the same structures within the construction, operation and maintenance and decommissioning phases. The decommissioning phase structures relate only to those which are not possible or appropriate to be removed thus resulting in a much lesser magnitude of the same impact.
147. In terms of receptor led effects, within the Firth of Forth Banks Complex ncMPA during principally the operation and maintenance phase increased SSCs and associated deposition on physical features may occur due to maintenance activities; this would coincide with changes to tidal currents, wave climate, littoral currents and sediment transport due to the presence of the structures. Maintenance activities are sporadic, with the impacts predicted to be of local spatial extent, short term duration and intermittent. These would therefore not be significant in EIA terms.
148. Effects on physical processes also have the potential to have secondary effects on other receptors and these effects are fully considered in the topic specific chapters. These are presented in volume 2 of the Offshore EIA Report (chapters 8, 9, 10 and 17).
149. No likely significant transboundary effects with regard to physical processes from the Project Development on the interests of other EEA States were predicted.

1.7.1.    Intertidal Area

150. Within the intertidal zone impacts due to changes in physical processes on receptors associated with the construction, operation and maintenance, and decommissioning phases of the Proposed Development, were identified. These were increased SSC and associated deposition on physical features as a result of offshore export cables installation and maintenance activity in the nearshore region.
151. Offshore export cables trenching routes do not pass through any of the designated sites, but sediment plumes may reach the outer extent of the Firth of Forth Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) and Barns Ness SSSI comprised of features such as mudflat, sand dune, saltmarsh and sea cliffs. The Skateraw landfall site for the offshore export cables borders the Barn Ness Coast SSSI, however, a trenchless technique has been selected and sedimentation from nearshore cabling occurs off Torness Point. This increase sediment material is native to the sediment cell and will therefore not affect geodiversity. The increased sedimentation from the offshore export cables installation causes little or no sedimentation in the intertidal zone which would be insufficient to affect beach morphology. Overall, for all receptors in the intertidal area, the effect will be negligible (not significant in EIA terms).
152. Cumulative impacts of physical processes arising from each identified impact in combination with adjacent offshore renewable developments were assessed and predicted to result in impacts of negligible adverse significance (not significant in EIA terms) on the Firth of Forth and Barns Ness Coast SSSI.

1.8. Benthic Subtidal and Intertidal Ecology

153. Benthic ecology refers to the communities of animals and plants which live on or in the seabed and the relationships that they have with each other and with the physical environment. The subtidal benthic ecology of the Proposed Development was characterised via a desk top study as well as a series of site-specific surveys using grab sampling, underwater video and epibenthic trawls. An evidence-based approach was used to inform the environmental assessment of effects on the benthic subtidal environment (area below the low tide mark) receptors within the identified benthic subtidal and intertidal ecology study area. The benthic subtidal and intertidal ecology study area encompassed the Proposed Development array area, and the Proposed Development export cable corridor (including intertidal habitat up to MHWS) and associated landfall site.
154. The subtidal surveys indicated that the seabed within the Proposed Development array area supports a variety of communities that are typical of the North Sea. Key habitats recorded in the array area included sediments ranging from sandy gravel to muddy sand. supporting a range of species such as sea urchins, bristle worms, brittle stars and bivalves, as well as offshore mixed sediment habitats characterised by polychaetes and bivalves. The surveys also indicated that the seabed within the Proposed Development export cable corridor supported a range of diverse communities. Key habitats recorded included sandy mud characterised by bivalves and brittle stars, as well as fine mud habitats characterised by sea pens and burrowing megafauna.
155. The sediments within the eastern parts of the Proposed Development array area were dominated by slightly gravelly sands with areas of gravelly sand in the north and south. The sediments within the western parts of the Proposed Development array area were typically slightly coarser and characterised by sandy gravel sediments in addition to slightly gravelly sand and gravelly sand. Within the Proposed Development export cable corridor the sediments are characterised as slightly gravelly sand/gravelly sand sediments graded into muddy sand with patches of slightly gravelly muddy sand in the inshore and central sections. The benthic communities in the Proposed Development array area and Proposed Development export cable corridor were characterised by echinoderms (sea urchins and brittle stars), bivalves and polychaetes in both the Proposed Development array area and Proposed Development export cable corridor, both exhibiting similar diverse communities. The muddy sediments in the central section of the Proposed Development export cable corridor were characterised by communities of sea pens and burrowing megafauna.
156. Both the Proposed Development array area and Proposed Development export cable corridor overlap with the Firth of Forth Banks Complex (FFBC) ncMPA which is designated for ocean quahog, offshore subtidal sand and gravels, shelf banks and mounds, and moraines representative of the Wee Bankie Key Geodiversity Area.
157. A number of likely significant effects on benthic subtidal communities/species, associated with the construction, operation and maintenance, and decommissioning phases of the Proposed Development, were identified. These included increased suspended sediment concentrations and associated deposition, temporary habitat disturbance/loss, long term habitat loss, introduction and colonisation of new habitat, introduction of invasive and non-native species (INNS), disturbance due to electromagnetic fields (EMFs) and habitat disturbance via scour and vessel activities during operation. With the proposed designed in measures in place, the majority of these impacts result in effects of either negligible or minor adverse significance, which is not significant in EIA terms. This was due to the limited extent of the effects on the widespread receptors (species, communities, and habitats) and the localised, short term and reversable nature of the majority of effects.
158. Temporary habitat loss/disturbance were deemed to be of moderate adverse significance in the construction phase to benthic receptors in the benthic subtidal and intertidal ecology study area. This is significant in EIA terms in the short term, with this decreasing to minor adverse significance in the long term as the sediments and communities are predicted to recover. Therefore, no likely significant long term effects are predicted. This was due to the large area of habitat lost, and benthic ecology receptors present had a low to high sensitivity for this type of disturbance. No other likely significant effects were predicted.
159. Additionally, impacts to the ocean quahog feature of the FFBC ncMPA, during the construction and decommissioning phases were identified as being of moderate adverse significance for temporary habitat disturbance in the medium term due to their slow recovery rates in comparison with the surrounding habitat (i.e. within ten years of completion of construction activity). This impact however was predicted to reduce to minor adverse significance in the long term as the ocean quahog population and habitat are predicted to recover.
160. Within the cumulative assessment temporary habitat loss/disturbance impacts were deemed to be of moderate adverse significance in the construction phase to subtidal benthic receptors in the cumulative benthic subtidal and intertidal ecology study area. This is significant in EIA terms in the short term, with this decreasing to minor adverse significance in the long term as the sediments and communities are predicted as likely to recover. Therefore, no long term likely significant effects are predicted. No other significant cumulative impacts were predicted.
161. Additionally in the cumulative assessment both the subtidal sands and gravels feature of the FFBC MPA were identified to be moderately affected by temporary habitat disturbance in the construction phase. This effect is likely to be short term however with the significance reducing to minor in the long term. The ocean quahog feature was also found to have a significance of effect of moderate for temporary habitat disturbance in the construction phase in the medium term due to their slow recovery rates in comparison with the surrounding habitat (i.e. within ten years of completion of construction activity). This impact however reduced to minor in the long term as the ocean quahog population and supporting habitat are predicted to recover.
162. No likely significant transboundary effects with regard to benthic subtidal ecology from the Proposed Development on the interests of other EEA States were predicted.
163. The intertidal benthic ecology of the Proposed Development was characterised via a desk top study as well as a series of site-specific surveys using dig-over sampling. An evidence-based approach was used to inform the EIA on the intertidal environment (area between MHWS and MLWS) ecology receptors within the identified benthic subtidal and intertidal ecology study area. The benthic subtidal and intertidal ecology study area encompassed the Proposed Development array area, and the Proposed Development export cable corridor (including intertidal habitat up to MHWS) and associated landfall site.
164. These surveys indicated that intertidal environment at Skateraw is characterised by mosaic biotopes which are composed of multiple different habitats. The west of Skateraw is dominated by fucoid dominated habitats with some upper shore rock pools. Moving eastwards these transition to habitats dominated by red seaweed and barnacles. On the upper shore in the east and west the habitats transition from rock based to sand based and become dominated by polychaete worms and amphipods.
165. The Proposed Development export cable corridor and landfall site overlaps with the Barns Ness Coast SSSI, which includes a lower carboniferous geological feature. However, this site will not be directly affected by the Proposed Development as trenchless techniques will be used to install the cable in the intertidal which will avoid this feature.
166. A number of likely significant effects on benthic intertidal communities/species, associated with the construction, operation and maintenance, and decommissioning phases of the Proposed Development, were identified. These included increased suspended sediment concentrations and associated deposition, introduction of INNS, and alteration of seabed habitats arising from the effects of physical processes. With the proposed designed in measures in place, these impacts result in negligible adverse effects which are not significant in EIA terms. This was due to the limited extent of the effects on the widespread receptors (species, communities, and habitats) and the localised, short term and reversable nature of the effects. Direct impacts to intertidal communities/species, such as those arising from habitat loss/disturbance, will not occur as a result of the Proposed Development because of the commitment to using trenchless techniques to install the cable in the intertidal area.
167. The cumulative effects assessment concluded that all impacts on intertidal benthic receptors, such as those arising from increases in suspended sediments and associated deposition, and alteration of seabed habitats arising from changes in physical processes, would be of negligible to minor adverse significance, which is not significant in EIA terms.
168. No likely significant transboundary effects with regard to benthic intertidal ecology from the Project on the interests of other EEA States were predicted.

1.9. Fish and Shellfish Ecology

169. The fish and shellfish ecology assessment focusses on the fish and shellfish communities within the vicinity of the Proposed Development fish and shellfish ecology study area and also the Proposed Development northern North Sea fish and shellfish ecology study area. These include fish and shellfish populations which are important to commercial fisheries in the area (although the effects on those fisheries themselves have been assessed separately (see section 1.12), species which are protected under national and international conservation legislation, and those species which provide an important ecological function to the marine ecosystem (e.g. as prey for birds, marine mammals and larger fish species). The fish and shellfish ecology in the vicinity of the Proposed Development fish and shellfish ecology study area was characterised through a detailed desktop review of existing studies and datasets, alongside site-specific data collected during benthic surveys.
170. Fish and shellfish communities in the Proposed Development northern North Sea fish and shellfish ecology study area are comprised of demersal species, pelagic species, elasmobranch species and diadromous species, which are typical of the northern North Sea. Key marine species include anglerfish, blue whiting, cod, European hake, herring, ling, mackerel, plaice, sandeel, whiting, haddock, sprat, lemon sole, spotted ray, spurdog, tope shark and common skate. Diadromous species expected to be present in the Proposed Development fish and shellfish ecology study area include Atlantic salmon, sea trout, European eel, sea lamprey, twaite shad, and allis shad. A large proportion of the Proposed Development northern North Sea fish and shellfish ecology study area is considered important as nursery and spawning grounds for many of the species listed above.
171. A number of potential impacts on fish and shellfish receptors, associated with the construction, operation and maintenance, and decommissioning phases of the Proposed Development, were identified. These included temporary habitat loss/disturbance, increased suspended sediment concentrations and associated deposition, injury and/or disturbance to fish and shellfish from underwater noise and vibration, long-term habitat loss, EMF from subsea electrical cabling and colonisation of foundations, scour protection and cable protection. All of these impacts were assessed as resulting in effects of either negligible to minor or minor adverse significance, which are not significant in EIA terms.
172. Temporary habitat loss/disturbance was deemed to be of minor adverse significance (not significant in EIA terms) to fish and shellfish Important Ecological Features (IEFs) in the Proposed Development fish and shellfish ecology study area as the proportion of habitat lost is a relatively small amount in context of the available habitats in the Proposed Development fish and shellfish ecology study area.
173. Injury and/or disturbance to fish and shellfish from underwater noise and vibration was deemed to be of minor adverse significance (not significant in EIA terms) to fish and shellfish IEFs in the Proposed Development fish and shellfish ecology study area. Designed in measures including soft start piling procedures (slowly increasing hammer energy from low level to required energy for piling) will allow fish and shellfish IEFs to flee the area reducing risk of injury. Behavioural effects in some fish groups are likely to occur out to approximately 20 km during piling activity before returning to baseline conditions on cessation of piling. The impacts on spawning grounds would be very small in the context of the wider available spawning habitat across the northern North Sea fish and shellfish ecology study area.
174. Cumulative impacts arising from the Proposed Development together with other projects and plans including other offshore renewable energy developments and dredge/disposal activities were assessed and predicted as likely to result in effects of negligible to minor adverse significance (not significant in EIA terms) upon fish and shellfish IEFs within a 25 km buffer of the Proposed Development fish and shellfish ecology study area.
175. No likely significant transboundary effects with regard to fish and shellfish ecology from the Proposed Development on the interests of other EEA States were predicted.