1.10. Marine Mammals

The marine mammal assessment focuses on the marine mammal communities within the vicinity of the Proposed Development marine mammal study area and also the regional marine mammal study area. The northern North Sea is an important area for marine mammals, supporting many species of cetaceans and two species of pinnipeds. The distribution of marine mammals is strongly influenced by the distribution of their prey and their occurrence is often unpredictable due to their highly mobile nature.
The marine mammal ecology in the vicinity of the Proposed Development marine mammal study area was characterised through a detailed desktop review of existing studies and datasets, alongside site-specific data. Data from the Digital Aerial Survey (DAS) demonstrated that six marine mammal species occurred regularly within the Proposed Development marine mammal study area, and these included: harbour porpoise, bottlenose dolphin, white-beaked dolphin, minke whale, harbour seal and grey seal. Of the cetaceans, harbour porpoise was the most frequently recorded species and, during site-specific aerial surveys, was sighted in every month of the year. Minke whale and white beaked dolphin were found to be seasonal visitors to the region (summer months), whilst bottlenose dolphins, which primarily move along inshore areas, are part of an east coast of Scotland resident population. Grey seals and harbour seals haul out on shore in coastal areas and make foraging trips out to sea. Seals were recorded regularly during site-specific aerial surveys, with most species identified as grey seal.
A number of potential impacts on marine mammal receptors, associated with the construction, operation and maintenance, and decommissioning phases of the Proposed Development, were identified. Injury and disturbance from elevated underwater noise could arising from a variety of different activities associated with the Proposed Development including piling, site investigation surveys, clearance of UXOs, vessel use and other construction-related activities. An increased risk of injury of marine mammals could also arise due to collision with vessels. In consideration of the wider ecosystem, the assessment also considered potential indirect effects due to changes in fish and shellfish communities which could affect prey availability for marine mammals.
Most of these impacts were assessed as resulting in effects of minor adverse significance, which are not significant in EIA terms. Population modelling was undertaken to support the assessment and demonstrate that, in the long term, there would be negligible effects on the population size of any of the key species. The assessment did, however, conclude a potential for moderate impacts on minke whales (injury) as a result of underwater noise due to piling and harbour porpoise (injury) as a result of clearance of UXOs by full detonation of the munition (injury) was identified, noting that ranges of effect were considered to be highly precautionary due to the conservative nature of the assessment. Given that the potential injury of minke whale could not be mitigated by designed-in measures alone, additional mitigation in form of acoustic deterrent devices (ADD) has been proposed, the implementation of which would reduce the risk and residual significance was assessed as minor adverse, which is not significant in EIA terms. For UXOs, the proposed approach is to clear the munitions using small, shaped donor charges that would neutralise the explosive and therefore not lead to full detonation. Since there is a small, inherent risk of an accidental full detonation could occur, additional mitigation was proposed via use of an ADD and soft-start charges (very small scare charges) and although there remains some residual effect (i.e. potential risk of injury to harbour porpoise), the numbers are likely to be small in the context of the North Sea reference population and therefore the impacts was determined to be of minor adverse significance, which is not significant in EIA terms. Whilst the proposed approach is to avoid the use of full detonation, a European Protected Species licence will be applied for on the basis in the event that such detonation could occur.
Cumulative impacts arising from the Proposed Development together with other projects and plans including other offshore renewable energy developments, subsea cables and dredge/disposal activities were assessed and predicted to result in effects of minor adverse significance (not significant in EIA terms) upon marine mammals within a regional marine mammal study area. Population modelling was undertaken for cumulative projects and, as found for the Proposed Development alone, there were no long-term effects on population sizes of key marine mammal species.
The assessment finally considered the inter-related effects of multiple stressors on marine mammals. Three main stressors were identified from the impacts: injury or disturbance from underwater noise, injury due to collisions with vessels, and changes in prey communities. Various activities could interact to contribute to each of these stressors (i.e. there are a number of activities that lead to elevations in underwater noise) and in additional each stressor could interact to contribute to a different, or greater effect on marine mammal receptors than when the effects are considered in isolation. The assessment concluded that despite the potential effects from multiple stressors associated with offshore wind farms, marine mammals can quickly recover and return to previously impacted areas.
No transboundary effects with regard to marine mammals from the Proposed Development on the interests of other EEA States were predicted.

1.11. Offshore and Intertidal Ornithology

The offshore and intertidal ornithology assessment focuses on the seabird communities within the Proposed Development offshore ornithology study area and also the offshore ornithology regional study area. In addition, intertidal bird communities within the intertidal ornithology study area were also considered. The northern North Sea is an important area for seabirds, supporting many species in both the breeding and non-breeding seasons. The distribution of seabirds and intertidal birds is strongly influenced by the distribution of their prey and their occurrence is often unpredictable due to their highly mobile nature.
The seabird ecology in the vicinity of the Proposed Development offshore ornithology study area was characterised through a detailed desktop review of existing studies and datasets, alongside site-specific digital aerial survey (DAS) data. Similarly, bird ecology in the intertidal ornithology study area was characterised by a detailed desktop review of existing studies and datasets, alongside site-specific survey data.
Data from the DAS demonstrated that 28 seabird species were recorded within the Proposed Development offshore ornithology study area with the most frequently recorded species being: gannet, kittiwake, herring gull, lesser black-backed gull, guillemot, razorbill and puffin. Seabird numbers were typically highest during the breeding season, with lower numbers recorded in the non-breeding season. Data from the Intertidal surveys demonstrated that 54 species were recorded within the intertidal and nearshore Survey Area, with the most frequently recorded species being: eider, oystercatcher, turnstone, curlew, dunlin and redshank. Highest numbers of birds on the intertidal surveys were typically recorded in the non-breeding season.
A number of potential impacts on offshore and intertidal ornithology receptors, associated with the construction, operation and maintenance, and decommissioning phases of the Proposed Development, were identified. Disturbance and displacement effects could arise from a variety of different activities associated with the Proposed Development including vessel activity, cable-laying and other construction-related activities, as well as from the wind turbines. Collision and displacement effects could occur during the operation phase. In consideration of the wider ecosystem, the assessment also considered potential indirect effects due to changes in fish and shellfish communities which could affect prey availability for seabirds. In terms of intertidal ornithology, disturbance effects from vessel activity and cable-laying activities were considered.
Disturbance and displacement effects within the Proposed Development array area as a result of construction and decommissioning activities were assessed as resulting in effects of negligible to minor adverse significance, which is not significant in EIA terms, as were effects from aviation and navigation lighting. Indirect effects as a result of habitat loss or displacement of prey species due to increased noise and disturbance to the seabed were also assessed as resulting in effects of negligible to minor adverse significance, which is not significant in EIA terms. Disturbance and loss of seabed habitat effects resulting from cable installation/removal within the Outer Firth of Forth and St Andrews Bay Complex SPA, including the intertidal study area were also assessed as being of not more than minor adverse significance, which is not significant in EIA terms.
For displacement, barrier and collision effects in the operation phase, population modelling was undertaken to support the assessment and to investigate any long-term effects from the Proposed Development on the population size of any of the key species. For the ornithological assessment two approaches were undertaken – the Developer Approach and the Scoping Approach, which includes a low (Scoping Approach A) and high (Scoping Approach B) range of results, with the justification for these differences presented in volume 3, appendix 11.4.
For the project alone, for the five key species considered, displacement and barrier effects in the operation phase were assessed to be of no more than minor adverse significance for gannet, kittiwake, razorbill and puffin. These effects are therefore not significant in EIA terms. For guillemot, displacement and barrier effects in the operation phase were considered to be minor adverse, however for Scoping Approach B, the effect was considered to be moderate adverse, which is significant in EIA terms. However, it is considered that the displacement mortality rates used in Scoping Approach B are likely to be highly precautionary, for the reasons outlined in volume 3, appendix 11.4.
For the project alone, for the eight key species considered, collision effects from wind turbines during the operation phase were assessed to be of no more than minor adverse significance for gannet, herring gull, lesser black-backed gull, little gull, common tern, Arctic tern and great skua. These effects are therefore not significant in EIA terms. For kittiwake, collision effects from wind turbines during the operation phase were considered to be minor to moderate adverse. However, these effects were revised under expert judgement to be minor adverse, which is not significant in EIA terms. This is because combining displacement and collision effects is considered extremely precautionary, as outlined in volume 3, appendix 11.3 and appendix 11.4.
Cumulative impacts arising from the Proposed Development together with other projects and plans including other offshore renewable energy developments, subsea cables and dredge/disposal activities were also assessed. The cumulative effects assessed included displacement and barrier effects from offshore infrastructure and collision effects from wind turbines during the operation phase. Overall, it was concluded that there will be a likely significant effect on guillemot and razorbill for Scoping Approach B arising from cumulative displacement effects from the Proposed Development alongside other projects/plans. In addition, there will also be a likely significant effect on gannet and kittiwake for Scoping Approach B from combined displacement and collision effects from the Proposed Development alongside other projects/plans.
The assessment finally considered the inter-related effects of multiple stressors on offshore and intertidal ornithology. One main stressor was identified from the impacts: overall effects on foraging seabirds from potential changes in prey communities that could be caused by disturbance, habitat loss or SSC.
Various activities could interact to contribute to this stressor (i.e. there are a number of activities that could lead to changes in seabird prey communities). The assessment concluded that due to the high mobility of foraging seabirds and their ability to exploit different prey species, and the small scale of potential changes in context of wider available habitat, any changes to fish prey communities are unlikely to have a significant effect on foraging seabirds.
No transboundary effects with regard to offshore and intertidal ornithology from the Proposed Development on the interests of other EEA States were predicted

1.12. Commercial Fisheries

Commercial fishing is defined as any form of fishing activity legally undertaken for taxable profit. The activity of Scottish and non-Scottish commercial fishing fleets operating in the vicinity of the Proposed Development was characterised through desktop review and analysis of available fisheries data, and through direct consultation with local fishermen via the Fisheries Liaison Officer (FLO).
The commercial fisheries study area supports the following main commercial fishing activities:

demersal otter trawling (predominantly for Nephrops and to a much lesser extent squid);
creeling for lobster and crab; and
scallop dredging.
1. Demersal trawling for Nephrops concentrates in inshore areas of the commercial fisheries study area, predominantly within the 6 nm limit, including in areas that overlap with the Proposed Development export cable corridor. Within the Proposed Development array area, negligible levels of trawling for Nephrops are expected. Demersal trawling for squid is often undertaken by Nephrops trawlers that change gear to target the squid fishery seasonally. Vessels targeting squid in the commercial fisheries study area are primarily active in inshore areas, including in sections of the Proposed Development export cable corridor. There is also potential, however, for some activity to take place within the Proposed Development array area. This is expected to be primarily undertaken by visiting squid vessels from other areas of the east coast of Scotland.
2. Creeling, targeting lobster and crab, is undertaken at greater levels in inshore areas of the commercial fisheries study area. Although at a relatively lower level, considerable activity by local creelers has also been reported from offshore areas, including within the Proposed Development array area, particularly around its north‑western section.
3. Scallop dredging by vessels over 15 m in length (typically nomadic vessels) is undertaken at moderate levels in areas of relevance to the Proposed Development array area, being predominantly concentrated in its north-western section. The level of activity recorded within the Proposed Development is however relatively low compared to that recorded in other grounds around Scotland and the UK that are targeted by the nomadic scallop fleet. There is also some activity by smaller scallop dredgers (under 15 m local vessels) within the commercial fisheries study area. This is however limited to inshore areas and shows limited overlap with the Proposed Development export cable corridor.
4. A number of potential impacts on commercial fisheries, associated with the construction, operation and maintenance, and decommissioning phases of the Proposed Development, were identified. These include loss or restricted access to fishing grounds, displacement of fishing activity into other areas, increased steaming times, snagging risk (loss or damage to fishing gear) and safety issues, interference with fishing activities and potential impacts on commercially exploited species. All of these impacts were assessed as resulting in effects of either negligible to minor or minor/tolerable adverse significance, which are not significant in EIA terms.
5. Loss or restricted access to fishing grounds was deemed to be of minor adverse significance (not significant in EIA terms) to relevant commercial fisheries receptors operating in the commercial fisheries study area, due to the implementation of a range of measures. This includes close fisheries liaison with the industry stakeholders, management methods (i.e. use of guard vessels and Offshore Fisheries Liaison Officers (OFLOs) to maintain good communication between vessels active on the Proposed Development) and use of mitigation through cooperation payments where necessary and appropriate.
6. Increased steaming times were deemed to be of minor adverse significance (not significant in EIA terms) to relevant commercial fisheries receptors operating in the commercial fisheries study area. This is due to the very small spatial extent of the safety zones and/or advisory measures as well as the majority of fishing vessels being able to adapt to changes in steaming routes. Smaller vessels that operate in nearshore waters will have less ability to adapt steaming times. As above, there will also be appropriate fisheries liaison and management measures to minimise effects on commercial fisheries receptors.
7. Snagging risk (loss or damage to fishing gear) and safety issues was deemed to be of minor adverse significance (not significant in EIA terms) to relevant commercial fisheries receptors operating in the commercial fisheries study area. A number of liaison and management measures will be implemented to ensure that loss or damage to fishing gear and associated safety issues is minimised and mitigated appropriately. This will include the circulation of the required information with regard to construction works, including on the location of safety zones and advisory measures. In addition, guard vessels and OFLOs will be used during construction as appropriate.
8. Cumulative impacts arising from the Proposed Development together with other projects and plans including other offshore renewable energy developments and subsea cables were assessed and predicted as likely to result in effects of negligible to minor/tolerable adverse significance (not significant in EIA terms) upon commercial fisheries receptors within the commercial fisheries CEA study area.
9. No likely significant transboundary effects with regard to commercial fisheries from the Proposed Development on the interests of other EEA States were predicted.

1.13. Shipping and Navigation

Shipping and navigation refers to the flow of vessel traffic including commercial and non-commercial vessels, as well as emergency response facilities used to manage incidents at sea. Shipping and navigation within and in proximity to the Proposed Development was characterised via site-specific surveys, desktop studies and consultation.
The vessel traffic survey data, covering 28 days in winter 2021 and summer 2022 and colour-coded by vessel type, is presented in Figure 1.3 Open ▸ and Figure 1.4 Open ▸ . During the summer vessel traffic survey an average of 14 unique vessels per day were recorded within 10 nm of the Proposed Development array area, with the main vessel types being tankers (30%), cargo vessels (23%) and passenger vessels (12%). During the winter vessel traffic survey an average of 14 unique vessels per day were recorded within 10 nm of the Proposed Development array area, with the main vessel types being cargo vessels (37%), tankers (32%) and commercial fishing vessels (13%). Although, passenger vessels were not present in the winter vessel traffic surveys, an analysis of long-term vessel traffic data indicated an average of one unique passenger vessel every two days within 10 nm of the Proposed Development array area, with this discrepancy attributed to the COVID-19 pandemic and confirmed during consultation.
From desktop studies, key navigational features were identified including other offshore wind farms, ports and related services and aids to navigation. In particular, there are three other large-scale offshore wind farm developments within the Outer Firth of Forth: Seagreen, Inch Cape and NNG (see Figure 1.1 Open ▸ for locations).
A number of potential impacts on shipping and navigation associated with the construction, operation and maintenance and decommissioning phases of the Proposed Development were identified. These included:

vessel displacement;
increased vessel to vessel collision risk between a third-party vessel and a project vessel;
increased vessel to vessel collision risk between third-party vessels;
vessel to structure allision risk;
reduced access to local ports;
reduction of under keel clearance;
interaction with subsea cables;
reduction of emergency response capability; and
interference with magnetic position fixing equipment.
1. With the relevant designed in measures in place, the significance of effect was deemed to be broadly acceptable or tolerable for all impacts and phases assessed.
2. The displacement of vessels from their existing routes due to the presence of the Proposed Development and/or activities was deemed to be of tolerable significance (not significant in EIA terms) for all vessels, given the likely increases in journey times and distances leading to increased fuel consumption. However, it is likely that time losses can be made up through effective passage planning and increased speeds when in open seas, limiting disruption to schedules.
3. The increased risk of vessel collision was deemed to be broadly acceptable (not significant in EIA terms) for all vessels due to the risk of collision being extremely unlikely. Vessels are expected to be compliant with regulations including COLREGSs, and promulgation of information and charting of infrastructure associated with the Proposed Development which will maximise awareness of the Proposed Development and ongoing activities.
4. The reduction in under keel clearance considered for the operation and maintenance phase was deemed to be broadly acceptable (not significant in EIA terms). The frequency of occurrence is considered to be extremely unlikely and in compliance with the requirements of MGN 654 any change to water depth of more than 5% chart datum will require consultation with the MCA and NLB.
5. The risk of interaction with subsea cables was considered for the operation and maintenance phase and was deemed to be broadly acceptable (not significant in EIA terms). It is considered that there is a low likelihood of vessel anchoring in the area and alongside the burial and protection of cables which will be determined by a cable burial risk assessment, it is considered highly unlikely that an anchor interaction incident would occur.
6. The vessel to structure allision risk due to the presence of the Proposed Development was deemed to be of tolerable significance (not significant in EIA terms) for all vessels, given the exposure to new surface infrastructure not previously in the area for vessels under power, adrift or navigating internally within the array (small craft only). However, the likelihood of an allision incident is considered low given that project vessels will be able to ensure third-party users are aware of the Proposed Development and act under International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS) obligations should an incident develop.
7. The reduction in access to local ports due to the presence of the Proposed Development and/or activities was deemed to be of tolerable significance (not significant in EIA terms) for all vessels, given the likely disruption to vessel approaches to and from the Firth of Forth or other local ports. However, disruption to port related services such as pilot boarding and the operation of the Vessel Traffic Service (VTS) system for the Firth of Forth are not anticipated to be affected.
8. The reduction in emergency response capability (including Search and Rescue (SAR) access) due to the presence of the Proposed Development was deemed to be of tolerable significance (not significant in EIA terms) for emergency responders and all vessels, since the likelihood of an incident requiring emergency response will be greater due to the increased presence of project vessels and new infrastructure. However, project vessels will be managed by marine coordination and the Applicant intends to comply with MCA guidance relating to array layouts and emergency response.
9. The same impacts assessed for the Proposed Development in isolation were also assessed as part of the CEA, which included other offshore wind farm developments in the area. With the relevant designed in measures in place, the significance of effect was deemed to be either tolerable or broadly acceptable (not significant in EIA terms).
10. Vessel displacement for commercial routeing between international ports was identified as a transboundary effect. Given the international nature of commercial vessel traffic, the relevant receptors are captured as part of the vessel traffic survey data and are subsequently suitably considered within the CEA, concluding that the effect is of tolerable significance, which is not significant in EIA terms.

Figure 1.3: Vessel Traffic Survey Data within Proposed Development Array Area Shipping and Navigation Study Area (14 Days, Winter 2021)

Figure 1.4: Vessel Traffic Survey Data within Proposed Development Array Area Shipping and Navigation Study Area (14 Days, Summer 2022)

1.14. Aviation, Military and Communications

The Aviation, Military and Communications Chapter assesses the likely significant effects (as used by the EIA Regulations) of the Proposed Development on aviation, military and communications receptors.
With reference to the Infrastructure and Other Users Chapter (which confirms an absence of subsea telecommunications cables or other communications receptors in the vicinity) and feedback from consultees such as British Telecom (BT), the Applicant was able to determine that the Proposed Development would have no likely significant effects on communications (infrastructure or services). Therefore, no detailed consideration was given to effects on forms of telecommunication such as interference with cellular telephone service coverage, television scanning telemetry or non-aviation radar, satellite communications (e.g. with offshore oil and gas), maritime communications, Very High Frequency radio and/or microwave links or any other forms of cabling (telecommunications and interlinks).
The key aviation and military receptors identified for assessment concern civilian and military radar systems and the potential for the Proposed Development to impact on Air Traffic Control (ATC) and Air Defence (AD) capabilities. During construction, the installation of wind turbines (or objects more than 91.4 m in height) such as vessels with cranes present risks (obstacles) to low flying aircraft (including SAR helicopter operations). These risks will be managed through the agreement of a Lighting and Marking Plan (LMP) (volume 4, appendix 27) with aviation stakeholders that will coordinate lighting and marking details for construction infrastructure. Consequently, likely significant effects are anticipated to be of minor adverse significance for the Proposed Development, considered alone and cumulatively.
During operation, radar interference (or "clutter") generated by the spinning blades of the wind turbines during operation could desensitize radar in the area of the wind farm. This radar interference can hinder the detection of legitimate targets and therefore, operational aircraft safety. These effects were considered cumulatively in the context of four other offshore wind farm developments operating or u in the Firth of Forth and Tay.
The following relevant radar systems were identified through a desktop review and consultation with the relevant stakeholders:

MoD Brizlee Wood AD radar;
MoD Buchan AD radar;
MoD Leuchars Station ATC radar;
MoD Spadeadam Deadwater Fell ATC radar;
NERL Allanshill ATC radar; and
NERL Perwinnes ATC radar.
1. Effects on both ATC and AD radar were assessed as high magnitude. As the receptors are high sensitivity, the chapter predicts major adverse effects for six potential ATC and AD radar systems during the Proposed Development’s operational lifetime (which is significant in EIA terms). These effects will be reduced to negligible (and non-significant in EIA terms), by mitigation solution implemented by New Enroute Centre (NERC) (for ATC radar) and the Ministry of Defence (MoD). NERL has proven processes and techniques to mitigate the adverse impact of wind turbines on their ATC radar. It is likely that the proposed solution will be the use of multi-Radar Tracker blanking, which is a technical mitigation solution routinely offered by NERL that removes wind turbines returns from the ATC radar display.
2. The MoD has a recognised process for entering into agreement for AD radar migration. The MoD has recently started accepting mitigation proposals for alternative technologies other than 3-D Non-Auto Initiation Zone (NAIZ) which has allowed them to withdraw AD radar objections subject to agreement of a suitably worded suspensive planning condition); thereby, de-risking the consenting process. Negotiations with NERL and MoD are continuing.
3. The potential for impacts from the wind turbines on civil airport patterns and procedures was investigated by a Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) approved agent. This investigation, reported in volume 3, appendix 14.2concluded there would be no impact from the Proposed Development on the published Instrument Flight Procedures (IFPs) at Aberdeen Edinburgh, and Dundee Airport. Accordingly, this impact was scoped out of the Aviation, Military and Communications Chapter as agreed by CAA.
4. The likely significant effects of the Proposed Development are considered to be significant (without mitigation) irrespective of the cumulative situation. However, with application of secondary mitigation in the form of radar mitigation solutions, all cumulative effects are assessed as minor and are not significant in EIAR terms.
5. There were no likely significant transboundary effects with regard to aviation, military and communications from the Proposed Development upon the interests of other EEA States.

1.15. Seascape, Landscape, and Visual Resources

The Seascape, Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment considers the significance of changes resulting from the Proposed Development on coastal (seascape) character and on people’s views and visual amenity, as well considering the cumulative effects with other projects.
The Proposed Development array area has been sited 37.8 km offshore from closest part of the array area to the closest section of coast. The eastern edge of the array area is generally located at distances over 60 km from the coast. The siting of the Proposed Development at long distance offshore forms the key designed in measure which minimises potential for significant seascape, landscape and visual effects experienced in coastal views.
The spatial extent of the northern part of the Proposed Development array area was also reduced during the project design which increased its distance offshore from the coast of Aberdeenshire, Angus and Fife, reducing effects on receptors in these areas.
The SLVIA is based on the likely significant effects of a realistic ‘worst-case’ scenario layout with 179 wind turbines at the highest potential blade tip height (355m), with wind turbines occupying locations that represent the impacts arising from the full extent of the wind farm array area.
In accordance with guidance (GLVIA3 - Landscape Institute, 2013), existing offshore and onshore wind farms and those which are under construction are included in the baseline for both landscape and visual effects assessments. As both Neart na Gaoithe and Seagreen 1 are they currently under-construction and expected to be operational before the Proposed Development starts construction offshore, they are assumed to be part of the baseline i.e., they are assumed to be operational for the purposes of the SLVIA.
The SLVIA considers effects within a large study area of 60 km radius, assessing the effects of the Proposed Development arising on the coastal character and views from the coastline of Aberdeenshire, Angus, Fife, East Lothian, Scottish Borders and Northumberland.
The Angus coastline is located to the north-west of the Proposed Development and is over 40.3km from the Proposed Development. Despite the potential visibility of the Proposed Development from the coastline, the coastal character and views will generally experience not significant (moderate/minor) effects due to the long distance of the Proposed Development from the coast; the relatively small apparent scale of the wind turbines and their location partially behind Seagreen 1 offshore wind farm, which means it adds a relatively narrow additional spread of wind turbines as an extension of the wind turbine elements that are already present in the views.
The coastline of Fife is located to the west of the Proposed Development, with coastline between St Andrews and St Monans, with the closest point at Fife Ness situated 40.9 km from the Proposed Development. Despite the high and medium-high sensitivity of the coastal character and views from parts of the Fife coastline, the effect of the Proposed Development on the perceived character and visual amenity is assessed as not significant due to the low magnitude of change arising from the Proposed Development on the character and views of the coastlines of the St Andrew’s to Fife Ness coast, and East Neuk of Fife. The Proposed Development will largely be subsumed behind Neart na Gaoithe offshore wind farm in views from the Fife coastline, contributing mainly to an increase in the density of wind turbines where they overlap and a very narrow increase in lateral spread, in which the majority of open sea skyline will be retained and remain unaffected.
The East Lothian coastline is located to the south-west of the Proposed Development and is situated over approximately 45 km from the Proposed Development at its closest point (Torness Point). The sensitivity of the coast is very variable as it includes many local SLA designations covering the coastline yet this is moderated by the extent of modification by settlement, industrial/energy generation development and busy transport routes, as well as the presence of Neart na Gaoithe offshore wind farm in the seascape setting approximately 28 km from the closest parts of the coast. Not significant effects on the perceived coastal character, special qualities and views/visual amenity are assessed as occurring as a result of the Proposed Development, due to the generally medium-low magnitude of change. The Proposed Development will be at long distance offshore (45 km to 56 km) separating coastal viewpoints, which means that it will appear relatively small in vertical scale, generally low on the horizon and viewed in the context of a southern extension to the existing Neart na Gaoithe offshore wind farm, while retaining the wider open sea horizon and separation from the coast.
The Scottish Borders coastline includes section of more remote, exposed and dramatic coastline within the SLVIA Study Area within the Berwickshire Coast SLA and the section at St Abb’s Head forms the closest section of coast, situated approximately 37.8 km to the east of the Proposed Development. The scenic quality of much of the Scottish Borders coastline is recognised by the Berwickshire Coast SLA designation at a local level and historic environment assets, which contribute to the societal recognition of its value. The coastline within the St Abb’s area is strongly associated with the sea, particularly where cliffs provide elevation, and has a higher sensitivity to development at sea. Significant effects will arise from the Proposed Development on the perceived character of the coastline and views/visual amenity between Fast Castle Head and Eyemouth, including from the Berwickshire Coastal Path and views from Fast Castle (Viewpoint 13), Tun Law (Viewpoint 14), St Abb’s Head (Viewpoint 15) and Eyemouth (Viewpoint 16). The visual effects will be relatively higher in these areas due to the elevation of the coast, which has views ‘over’ the seascape and the Proposed Development due to its aspect, with a greater amount of the wind turbines being visible and a wider proportion of the field of view occupied at relatively closer range. The addition of the Proposed Development to the seascape context will influence the open and exposed character and the wide views out to sea, however due to its position offshore, it avoids the dramatic coastal scenery, the rocky coastline and stretch of cliffs in views along the coast. The wild, expansive and exciting qualities of the coast will fundamentally continue to be experienced and define to the character and quality of the coast.
The Northumberland coastline is located over 40 km to the south of the Proposed Development. Views to the open sea are extensive and include striking vistas to coastal landmarks, such as Lindisfarne and Holy Island; and dramatic distant views from the beaches along the northern rugged coastline. Not significant effects on views experienced by people along the Northumberland coastline have been identified at views from Berwick-upon-Tweed, Cocklawburn Beach, Lindisfarne Castle and Bamburgh Castle. The long distance (46.0 to 60.1 km) separating the viewpoints from the Proposed Development means that it will appear within a peripheral location with regards to the expansive, open seascape and will generally appear low on the horizon and relatively small in scale. Characteristic views along the coastline and out to sea will remain, and it will remain an exposed, relatively undeveloped landscape whose character is governed by the influences of the sea and weather. Not significant effects on the Northumberland Coast AONB (and North Northumberland Heritage Coast) occur due to their distance from the wind farm array area (47.9 km and 41.8 km respectively). Low levels of change and not significant effects occur on the Northumberland Coast AONB’s special qualities. Due to the limited and localised significant effects on views across the coast and seascape, and the context in which these occur, neither the natural beauty nor the purposes of designation of the Northumberland Coast AONB will be compromised, nor will its integrity be harmed or undermined.
The effect of the visible lighting of the Proposed Development at night will be dependent on a range of factors, including the intensity of lights used, the clarity of atmospheric visibility and the angle of view from the light to the observer. There are no specific dark sky parks with viewing locations promoted for viewing the night skies and the baseline lighting conditions across the SLVIA study area vary considerably, with coastal urbanised areas and settlement forming the brightest light sources and the darker landscapes often being located inland associated with areas of upland and restricted to sections of less developed coast such as the Berwickshire Coast in the Scottish Borders. The effect of the Proposed Development lighting at night is assessed to be of low magnitude and not significant in views from Angus and Fife, where the additional lighting will appear behind and overlapping much of Seagreen 1 or Neart na Gaoithe, increasing to medium-low in views from East Lothian where the spread of lighting is greater, however this is moderated by the increased distance of the lights offshore (at over 45 km from the closest parts of the East Lothian coast). The effect of the Proposed Development lighting at night is only assessed as being significant in views from the coastline around St Abb’s Head, due to the combination of its higher sensitivity and the change resulting from the lighting to the dark seascape in the view off this coast at night. Aviation lights will however be low to the horizon and do not extend into, nor impede, the wider expanse of night sky, nor result in brightening of the night sky (skyglow) or glare on to the sea surface and would therefore not be of detriment to the experience of the night skies. The distance of the coastlines of the study area from the potential sources of light reduces the effects as viewers are unlikely to perceive the aviation lights to any degree of intensity at such long range.
The effects of the Proposed Development will vary according to the weather and prevailing visibility. The varied clarity or otherwise of the atmosphere will reduce the number of days (the ‘frequency’) upon which views of the Proposed Development will actually be available from the coastline, and is likely to inhibit clear views, rendering the Proposed Development wind turbines located at long distance offshore, as visually recessive within the wider seascape. Effects that may be assessed as being significant under ‘very good’ or ‘excellent’ (i.e. worst-case/optimum) visibility conditions, may be not significant under moderate, poor or very poor visibility conditions. The assessed worst case optimum visibility out towards the wind turbines and the horizon does not occur very often and for the greater part of the time the clarity of long-distance views out to sea will not be part of the experience of those enjoying the coast and under the more frequent sub optimal conditions, the effect of the wind turbines on views will not be significant.

The cumulative effect assessment undertaken takes account the impact associated with the Proposed Development together with other relevant plans, projects and activities. In accordance with guidance (NatureScot, 2021 and Landscape Institute 2013), existing projects and those which are under construction are considered as part of the baseline conditions. A tiered approach to the CEA is adopted based on the differing potential of projects for proceeding and ultimately contributing to a cumulative impact.
The Tier 1 assessment considers the Proposed Development (Berwick Bank Wind Farm offshore) with Berwick Bank Wind Farm onshore i.e. a whole project assessment. It found that the majority of receptors will not experience tier 1 cumulative effects since they have either no visibility, or very limited/distant visibility, of either the onshore infrastructure or the Berwick Bank Wind Farm offshore. The main tier 1 cumulative effect during construction is likely to occur in views experienced by walkers along a short section of the John Muir Way between Torness and Chapel Point, and visitors to Skateraw Harbour, where the construction of the landfall will be visible at close range in combination with the construction of the Berwick Bank Wind Farm offshore and the construction of the onshore substation in inland views, which are assessed to be significant (major/moderate), although temporary during construction.
The Tier 2 assessment considers projects consented and submitted but not yet determined. These consist of offshore and onshore wind farms within the SLVIA study area but the primary impact interactions result from the Proposed Development with the consented Inch Cape offshore wind farm and Seagreen 1A, The contribution of the Proposed Development to the cumulative effect with tier 2 projects on views and perceived character of the South-East Aberdeenshire, Fife and Angus coastline of the SLVIA study area has been found to be medium-low to low with effects not significant (moderate to minor), due to it being visually recessive at long distance offshore partially behind Inch Cape and Seagreen 1A, with Inch Cape contributing most to the overall cumulative effect on the views given its closer proximity and larger vertical scale. The cumulative effect of the Proposed Development with tier 2 projects is also assessed as medium-low and not significant. The cumulative effect of the Proposed Development with tier 2 projects is also assessed as medium-low and not significant in views and perceived character of the East Lothian coast and progressively reduces to low in views from the Scottish Borders coastline, fundamentally because tier 2 projects (Inch Cape and Seagreen 1A in particular) will have a limited influence on views, as they are located at very long range (over approximately 56km and 69km respectively from the coast)

1.16. Infrastructure and Other Users

The infrastructure and other users chapter considers the impact of the Proposed Development on the following:

recreational sailing and motor cruising;
kite surfing, surfing and windsurfing;
sea/surf kayaking and canoeing;
scuba diving;
recreational fishing;
other offshore wind farm projects;
offshore telecommunications cables and subsea cables;
carbon capture and storage and natural gas storage;
disposal sites;
aggregate extraction; and
oil and gas operations (including pipelines) and additional renewable energy projects.
1. Information on infrastructure and other users was collected through a detailed desktop review of existing studies and datasets through consultation. Due to the distance from the Scottish coast, the level of recreational activity within the Proposed Development array area is low, and recreational fishing is likely to be limited. There is low to medium recreational vessel activity in the nearshore area of the Proposed Development export cable corridor, numerous offshore routes, and general boating areas located to the north and south of the Proposed Development export cable corridor. Boat angling and shore angling take place along the Scottish coastline and surfing, kite surfing and wind surfing predominantly occur north of the Proposed Development export cable corridor. There are 11 scuba diving sites within the broad infrastructure and other users study area – potential increased turbidity area.
2. The closest offshore wind farm projects to the Proposed Development array area are the NnG offshore wind farm (under construction), Inch Cape offshore wind farm (consented), the Seagreen 1 offshore wind farm (under construction) and the Seagreen 1A Project wind farm with its Export Cable Corridor (consented). There are two planned subsea cables within the infrastructure and other users study area – inner area, and more specifically within the Proposed Development array area and export cable corridor (Eastern Link 1 offshore export cables). In the landfall location, the Proposed Development export cable corridor also crosses the export cable corridor for the NnG offshore wind farm. There are no wave and tidal projects, aggregate extraction sites, active disposal sites, active license blocks, or carbon capture and natural gas.
3. A number of potential impacts on infrastructure and other users, associated with the construction, operation and maintenance, and decommissioning phases of the Proposed Development, were identified. These included displacement of recreational craft, recreational vessels and recreational activities, and restriction of access to cables and pipelines associated with the NnG offshore wind farm and Eastern Link 1 offshore export cables. With the proposed mitigation measures in place, there will be negligible significant effects arising from the Proposed Development array area and Proposed Development export cable corridor in isolation during the construction, operation and maintenance, or decommissioning phases on recreational vessels, recreational fishing, recreational users, and restrictions to temporary access of the NnG and Eastern Link 1 offshore export cables. These impacts result in effects of minor adverse significance (not significant in EIA terms).
4. Cumulative impacts associated with the construction, operation and maintenance and decommissioning of the Proposed Development array area and Proposed Development export cable corridor together with other offshore wind farm developments, and cables and pipelines, were assessed and predicted to result in effects of minor adverse significance upon recreational users and recreational activities; and cables and pipeline receptors and are not significant in EIA terms
5. No transboundary effects with regard to infrastructure and other users from the Proposed Development array area and Proposed Development export cable corridor on the interests of other EEA States were predicted.

1.17. Offshore Socio-Economics and Tourism

The offshore socio-economics assessment of effects considers the local economies, populations, tourism and recreation activities which are located in the areas that might be affected by the Proposed Development. This includes the areas closest to offshore activities as well as other important locations that may be used to support the construction, operation and maintenance, and decommissioning activities related to the offshore elements of the Proposed Development (e.g. laying cables offshore, installing the wind turbines etc). These are primarily port and harbour facilities on the east coast of Scotland. The assessment also considers how the Proposed Development might affect Scotland as a whole.
The exact location of port and harbour facilities that might be used to support the various phases of the Proposed Development are not yet determined. As such, the assessment has looked at the potential locations currently on the short list for selection which are summarised in Table 1.2 Open ▸ below. Assumptions have been made about contracting and procurement decisions which have not yet been taken. These underpinning assumptions draw on previous offshore wind farm projects, along with an understanding of the potential range of activities that could be located in Scotland and within the local areas under consideration.

Table 1.2: List of Potential Construction, Operation and Maintenance, and Decommissioning Facilities

The offshore wind sector is identified as a high priority industry within national, regional and local policies across Scotland. This reflects the opportunities the sector provides for supporting economic development and growth and providing jobs and incomes for Scottish residents. Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic there were 2.6 million people employed in Scotland (Office for National Statistics (ONS) Business Register and Employment Survey, 2019) and total economic output (measured by gross value added (GVA)) was measured as £147 billion (ONS, 2021). It is very hard to define the size of the offshore wind sector using official statistics, however, detailed research by the Fraser of Allander Institute (FAI) estimated that there were 4,700 full time equivalent (FTE) jobs and £447 million in GVA supported by the offshore wind sector in Scotland in 2019. This is therefore currently a small sector when compared to the whole economy, but one with the potential to grow – research by Skills Development Scotland indicates it could support 20,000 jobs by 2031.
Aberdeen socio-economics local study area has the largest employment base in activities relevant to the offshore wind sector, largely because of its long standing strength in the oil and gas industry. However, employment has been falling in recent years. The offshore wind sector is identified as a potential employment option for workers transitioning from oil and gas related activities. Other socio-economics local study areas under consideration have a smaller employment base in relevant sectors at present. Economic activity rates, which measure the share of the population that are ready and able to work, are higher than the Scottish average across all the socio-economics local study areas. Unemployment is also falling across these locations.
The tourism sector is an important sector within the relevant policy environments. The sector accounts for 7-13% of employment and 2-5% of GVA across socio-economics local study areas under consideration. The most significant is the Leith socio-economics local study area, resulting from the concentration of activity in Edinburgh. The scenery and landscape are the most commonly cited reasons for visiting Scotland, and a key driver for repeat visits. When considering coastal tourism, active pursuits such as swimming, sailing and watersports make up 49% of visitors’ activities. Walking is also a very popular activity.
Looking towards the future, the available data shows relatively weak performance of the Scottish economy anticipated in the medium term, with a declining working age population and falling levels of total employment. The offshore wind sector is identified as a key growth opportunity but is reliant on investments being secured, such as the Proposed Development. Without such investments the scale of growth in the offshore wind sector as forecast will not be realised.
A number of potential impacts on socio-economics and tourism activities, associated with the construction, operation and maintenance, and decommissioning phases of the Proposed Development were identified. These included: supporting employment and GVA across Scotland and within the identified support facilities locations, including creating employment opportunities for local workers; increasing demand for short term, medium term and long term accommodation and housing from workers migrating into selected support locations; and potential impacts on the tourism and recreation sector. Following assessment the vast majority of effects will be beneficial, ranging from minor to major significance. The Applicant is also committed to a range of activities seeking to enhance the beneficial effects.
The impact on employment, GVA, and access to employment amongst local residents in activities (including the supply chain) associated with the development, manufacturing, construction and installation; operation and maintenance; and decommissioning of the Proposed Development was deemed to be of moderate to major beneficial significance across all of the local and national areas considered under all the assessed scenarios. This is significant in EIA terms. The Proposed Development will support existing employment through contracts placed with existing enterprises and support new employment and economic activity enabling the expansion of the offshore wind sector which is a high policy priority.
The impact on the demand for housing, accommodation and local services across the construction, operation and maintenance, and decommissioning phases was deemed to be of no greater than minor beneficial significance. This is not significant in EIA terms. The Proposed Development will support additional demand for short term (e.g. overnight tourist accommodation), medium-term (e.g. private rented sector housing, and long term (e.g. permanent housing) at different phases. The scale of additional demand is generally negligible to low when compared to the existing baseline and available capacity. The majority of temporary workforce associated with the construction phase will be accommodated offshore.
The impact on tourism and recreation activity and its associated economic value has been assessed as no greater than minor beneficial for almost all geographic areas considered. This is not significant in EIA terms. There is potential for minor adverse impacts within the local study area covering the local authority areas of East Lothian and Scottish Borders due to low level disruption to recreational users of the sea. The detailed assessments of disruption to activities have not found these to be substantial. This is not significant in EIA terms.
Cumulative impacts from offshore energy developments were assessed and predicted as likely to result in no adverse change to the levels of significance assessed when considering the Proposed Development in isolation.
No likely significant transboundary effects with regard to socio-economics and tourism from the Project on the interests of other EEA States were predicted.

1.18. Cultural Heritage

Cultural heritage, in the context of the current assessment, refers to historic monuments, buildings and sites that are valued for their architectural, historic or archaeological interest, together referred to as cultural heritage assets. The cultural significance of such assets draws to varying degrees upon their setting.
This assessment has identified cultural heritage assets as receptors where the Proposed Development might conceivably result in change that would adversely affect their cultural significance. This has been done through desk-based research, consultation and the use of a Zone of Theoretical Visibility (ZTV). The receptors include selected castles, lighthouses and ecclesiastical sites of national importance on the coast.
The assessment of the cultural significance of these receptors drew heavily upon visual relationships with the seascape. Owing to the history of intensive activity, the setting of assets on the coastal plain and in the Lammermuirs, at the fringe of the cultural heritage study area, inevitably contains Modern features. Consequently, whilst numerous assets in the cultural heritage study area have strong visual relationships with the sea, very few are sensitive to distant change.
The assessment, informed by appropriate visualisations, concluded that the Proposed Development will result in visual change in the setting of the cultural heritage receptors, but that that this will not affect the cultural significance of the receptors except in one case where a minor adverse effect (not significant in EIA terms) is predicted. These conclusions reflect the distance of the Proposed Development from the receptors. It lies over 30 km from the coast and hence all the receptors, except for the Bell Rock lighthouse, which is 24 km away. At such distances the Proposed Development will be visible only intermittently and will appear as part of the distant seascape. Whilst the receptors’ cultural significance draws upon visual relationships with the sea and relatively long-range views, such distant change in the seascape does not have the potential to result in likely significant effects in EIA terms.
The potential for cumulative effects to arise from the Proposed Development in combination with other offshore wind farms within 60 km was considered. It is considered that there is no potential for cumulative effects to occur. No likely significant transboundary effects with regard to cultural heritage from the Project on the interests of other EEA States were predicted.

1.19. Water Quality

Water quality refers to the chemical, physical, and biological properties of the aquatic environment that allow ecological communities that depend upon water to function in a healthy and sustainable way. It also refers to the standards that convey safety for human contact, either for use as drinking water, or for recreational and commercial activities. The human and ecological contexts coincide when considering aquacultural ventures such as shellfish and finfish cultivation, and the harvesting of wild fish stocks. Water quality standards in the UK are based upon the levels of specific pollutants (particularly the presence of heavy metal and organic compound contaminants), biological indicators such as E. coli and intestinal enterococci, and the concentration of suspended sediments. The EU Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC) and MSFD (2008/56/EC) obliges EU member states to ensure that water bodies attained good ecological status. These Directives were transposed into Scottish Law by the Water Environment and Water Services (Scotland) Act 2003, and the Marine Strategy Regulations 2010, respectively. Similarly, the EU Bathing Water Directive (2006/7/EC) obliges EU member states to monitor designated bathing waters within their jurisdictions, and this was transposed to Scottish law by the Bathing Waters (Scotland) Regulations 2008. All EU-derived legislation pertaining to water quality has been retained following the UK’s exit from the EU, and these form the legislative framework that directs the approach to assessing the significance of impacts related to the Proposed Development.
The baseline environment for the water quality study area was established through a detailed desktop review of existing studies and datasets. Key features of relevance to water quality were the four WFD water bodies in the vicinity of the Proposed Development array area and export cable corridor, and eight designated bathing water sampling locations. Two WFD water bodies (Barns Ness to Wheat Stack (ID: 200038), and Firth of Forth Outer – Offshore (ID: 200055)) were found to be directly affected by the Proposed Development, as the Proposed Development export cable corridor overlaps them. Two bathing water sampling locations (Thorntonloch (ID: UKS7616059) and Whitesands (ID: UKS7616062)) are located within 2 km of the Proposed Development export cable corridor.
The WFD assessment (volume 3, appendix 19.1) concluded that the hydromorphology, biology (habitats and fish), water quality and INNS receptors associated with the four WFD water bodies were not at risk of being significantly impacted by the Proposed Development. The Thorntonloch bathing water and Outer Firth of Forth and St Andrew’s Bay Complex SPA are located within 2 km of the Proposed Development and are therefore required to be taken forward for the WFD assessment of effects.
A number of potential impacts on water quality receptors, associated with the construction, operation and maintenance, and decommissioning phases of the Proposed Development, were identified. These included increased risk of introduction and spread of INNS, accidental release of lubricants, chemicals or similar, operational painting and cleaning of marine growth and deterioration of water quality from offshore export cables landfall works. With the proposed mitigation measures in place, the impacts result in effects of either negligible to minor or minor adverse significance and are not significant in EIA terms.
Accidental release of lubricants, chemicals or similar was deemed to be of minor adverse significance (i.e. not significant in EIA terms) to water quality receptors in the water quality study area. This is because the receptor was deemed to have medium sensitivity to this impact, but the magnitude of impact is predicted to be low since it would be of local spatial extent, short term duration, to be intermittent in occurrence and to be highly reversible.
Operational painting and cleaning of marine growth was also deemed to be of minor adverse significance (i.e. not significant in EIA terms). The receptor was again deemed to have medium sensitivity to the impact, but the magnitude of the impact was predicted to be low. This is because operational painting would be of local spatial extent, short term duration, to be intermittent in occurrence across the lifespan of the Proposed Development and its impact will be highly reversible, and cleaning of marine growth will be undertaken only by ad-hoc use of jet washer (i.e. no additional cleaning fluids).
Likewise, deterioration of water quality from offshore export cables landfall works was deemed to be of minor adverse significance (i.e. not significant in EIA terms) as the receptor was deemed to be of medium sensitivity, but the magnitude of the impact is predicted to be low due to the limited temporal and spatial extent of the works, and because its impact is likely to be highly reversible.
Cumulative impacts from the increased risk of introduction and spread of INNS were assessed and predicted as likely to result in effects of negligible to minor adverse significance upon water quality receptors within a 25 km buffer of the Proposed Development. This does not exceed the likely significance of the Proposed Development in isolation, so cumulative effects are not considered to be significant in EIA terms.
No likely significant transboundary effects with regard to water quality from the Proposed Development on the interests of EEA States were predicted.
A number of potential impacts on water quality receptors in the intertidal area, associated with the construction, operation and maintenance, and decommissioning phases of the Proposed Development, were identified. These included increased risk of introduction and spread of INNS, accidental release of lubricants, chemicals or similar, operational painting and cleaning of marine growth and deterioration of water quality from offshore export cables landfall works. With the proposed mitigation measures in place, the majority of these impacts result in effects of either negligible to minor or minor adverse significance.
Accidental release of lubricants, chemicals or similar was deemed to be of minor adverse significance (i.e. not significant in EIA terms) to water quality receptors in the intertidal water quality study area. This is because the receptor was deemed to have medium sensitivity to this impact, but the magnitude of impact is predicted to be low since it would be of local spatial extent, short term duration, to be intermittent in occurrence to be highly reversible.
Likewise, deterioration of water quality from offshore export cables landfall works was deemed to be of minor adverse significance (i.e. not significant in EIA terms) as the intertidal receptor was deemed to be of medium sensitivity, but the magnitude of the impact is predicted to be low due to the limited temporal and spatial extent of the works in the intertidal area, and because its impact is likely to be highly reversible.
Cumulative impacts from the increased risk of introduction and spread of INNS were assessed and predicted as likely to result in effects of negligible to minor adverse significance upon water quality receptors within the intertidal area. This does not exceed the likely significance of the Proposed Development in isolation, so cumulative effects are not considered to be significant in EIA terms.
No likely significant transboundary effects with regard to intertidal water quality from the Proposed Development on the interests of EEA States were predicted.

1.20. Inter-Related Effects

The inter-related effects for all topics have been considered and are detailed above. It has been possible to conclude that inter-related effects across phases of the Proposed Development will not result in combined effects of greater significance than the assessments presented for each of the individual phases. It has also been concluded that multiple effects will not interact in a way that are likely to result in greater significance than those assessments presented for individual receptors.
The assessments within volume 2, chapter 9 of the Offshore EIA Report concluded that none of the potential impacts arising from the Proposed Development alone or in combination with other projects, would result in significant adverse effects on prey species.
This ecosystem effects assessment concluded that whilst colonisation of foundations, scour protection and cable protection has the potential to lead to localised increases in fish species through potential reef effects, any increases would be localised and are not expected to lead to a significant increase in prey species.
Predator species most vulnerable to changes in prey availability arising from the Proposed Development impacts include harbour porpoise, harbour seal, minke whale and kittiwake. However, as significant changes to prey species as a result of the Proposed Development alone and in-combination with other projects are not predicted, significant effects on the key predator species are also not predicted.
It is concluded that there will be no adverse effects on seabirds arising from changes in the behaviour or availability of prey species for seabirds as a result of the Proposed Development. As outlined above, the majority of seabird species have a variety of target prey species and have large foraging ranges, meaning that they can forage for alternative prey species or move to other foraging areas if prey becomes temporarily unavailable due to construction activities.

Previous part

Next part

Tables ▼