3.7.6      Migratory Waterbirds Collision Report

  1. During LSE Screening, 40 species of migratory waterbirds associated with 17 designated sites were screened in for further analysis regarding potential collision risk and/or barrier effects, as detailed in Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm Habitats Regulation Appraisal (HRA) Stage 1 Screening Report (EOR0766 Rev 04).
  2. Guidance was obtained from NatureScot to consider the data, outcomes and approaches detailed within the “Strategic assessment of collision risk of Scottish offshore wind farms to migrating birds” (WWT Consulting, 2014), with priority given to consider a qualitative approach to assessment due to known data and knowledge constraints for several of the species screened in. The quantitative results presented within the MS Strategic Assessment are no longer accurate as a result of design changes for the offshore wind farms considered within that report during their development and consenting processes. These changes are incorporated within the approach outlined in the RIAA to ensure that the outcomes presented are more representative of the current scale of offshore wind farms present along the Scottish east coast.
  3. It was noted in the guidance from NatureScot that some species (nine) that are qualifying features of the designated sites screened in were not included within the MS Strategic Assessment. Additional methodological work for these species was, therefore, developed to allow similar qualitative summaries to be included within the RIAA for the nine species noted.
  4. Outcomes for designated species are presented in the RIAA, Part 3 Report for each site identified within the HRA Screening Report, with summaries on potential collision risk and extent of potential barrier effects.

3.7.7      Gannet Tracking Data

  1. Within the Scoping Opinion (5.10.5) the Scottish Ministers highlighted the NatureScot representation and MSS advice regarding gannet displacement and barrier effects and suggested further discussion and agreement as part of the Developer’s Road Map process. During Road Map 6 the Applicant proposed to use available GPS tracking data to provide contextual data to help understand the level of potential barrier and displacement effects that gannet from the Forth Islands SPA may experience, with regard to age & sex of birds and taking account other Forth & Tay developments.
  2. It was highlighted that the Applicant initially only received permission to use 2010-2012 data, so suggested summarising information from more recent published papers. Since then, further datasets from 2015-2019 were made available.
  3. Data were collated from GPS tags deployed on adult gannets annually during the breeding season on the Bass Rock from 2010 to 2019. These data were compiled through BirdLife International’s seabirdtracking.org database and received from Keith Hamer and Jude Lane from Leeds University. More recent data were not included as they were provided in their raw form and not processed to a suitable point for inclusion in the current analysis. The results are presented in volume 3, appendix 11.4, annex E.

3.8. Commercial Fisheries

3.8.1      New Guidance for Assessing Fisheries Displacement

  1. In the 2022 Scoping Opinion, MS-LOT refer to good practice guidance for assessing fisheries displacement that should be considered, once published (para 5.11,1). On 15 July 2022, MS-LOT advised the Applicant that the ‘Good Practice Guidance for Assessing Fisheries Displacement’ had recently been published and provided a hyperlink to the guidance available on the Scottish Government website.
  2. The Applicant has reviewed the published guidance with the intention to include aspects as necessary in the Offshore EIA Commercial Fisheries chapter. The Applicant found that the guidance does not vary substantially from the draft guidance available prior and further, contains no explicit directions/approach or methods that would change the current approach to fisheries displacement assessments within EIA. It is therefore the Applicant’s position that a compliant fisheries displacement assessment has been carried out.

3.8.2      Assessment of Impacts on Sale of Fish and Supply lines

  1. In the 2022 Scoping Opinion, MS-LOT advises that impacts on sales of fish and the supply chain should be assessed as part of the socio-economic/commercial fisheries assessment. Further, that there may be a requirement for further discussion between MS-LOT and Marine Scotland Science as to whether this assessment (or other aspects relating to commercial fisheries) should sit within the Offshore EIA Report or in a separate document/appendix.”
  2. Since the publication of the 2022 Scoping Opinion, the Applicant has engaged in multiple discussions with Marine Scotland and MAU to clarify the nature of this request. On 4 March 2022, the Applicant sought clarification via email from MS-LOT. Noting the lack of available precedent and guidance on this topic and the unique precedent this request has set for EIA, the Applicant sought to establish the level of detail anticipated. Clarifications were provided on 4 April 2022, where the requirement for the assessment was reiterated and detailed advice from Marine Scotland was received on 25 February 2022. The Applicant was advised that MAU are developing a socio-economic toolkit, which could help (these have not been made available). Further, it is noted that, MAU did “not wish to specify the methodology or data to be used as it is for the developer to consider what is needed.” At the biweekly MS/NS call on 25 February 2022 MS-LOT mentioned that the potential impact was picked up by MAU and an assessment is required, as MS-LOT expect the 2022 Scoping Opinion to be followed.
  3. Through its various communications on this issue, the requirement for further discussion is considered by the Applicant to be satisfied. The Applicant was not able to fully comply with this request but has ascertained no likely impact on supply chain. The justification for this approach is two-fold:
  • in the absence of an established assessment framework, or any precedent or guidance any such assessment would be complex and unreliable, such that it would be meaningless; and
  • as the evidence indicates commercial fisheries will not likely be significantly affected, this negates the need for an assessment of the associated supply lines and socioeconomic effects.
    1. Given the social, economic and environmental variations that could influence the outcomes, any attempt to at an integrated assessment of supply chains is expected to be complex and unreliable. The information required for the analysis (e.g. the number and diversity of relevant fisheries, their supply chains and how resilience to unknown influences) would, if it existed, be widely dispersed and uneven. It is the Applicant’s position that any such assessment would require the development of a complex assessment framework to process the data, and account for unpredictable factors such as human responses to change, environmental variations and external supply chain disruptions. In the absence of such a framework, any assessment would be so unreliable as to be meaningless.
    2. Further, MAU has clarified (4 April 2022) that “if it is likely that commercial fisheries will be affected by the development then the socio-economic impacts should be included in the assessment”. The commercial fisheries assessment (volume 2, chapter 12) considers impacts on commercial fisheries from reduced access to, or enhanced competition within fishing grounds. The commercial fisheries assessment did not identify any likely significant effects on fishers related to a loss of access to fishing grounds. It is therefore the Applicant’s position that commercial fisheries will not likely be affected. With no significant impacts at source, there would be no significant manifestation of effects later in the supply chain.

3.9. Shipping and Navigation

  1. Following the boundary revisions announced in June 2022, the Applicant hosted a second hazard (consultation) workshop. Other than by the UK Chambers of Shipping (addressed directly) no concerns were raised. Therefore, the boundary revision is considered to have mitigated concerns raised previously. Accordingly, there are no post-scoping communications or developments to include in the Audit Document.

3.10. Aviation, Military and Communications

3.10.1 Civil Airport Patterns and Procedures

  1. In 2022 Scoping Opinion, MS-LOT did not agree with the Applicant's proposal to scope out potential impacts on civil airport patterns and procedures, due to the presence of obstacles (para 5.13.3) (hereafter ‘civil airport patterns’). This took into account the November 2021 Scoping representation from the relevant authority - National Air Traffic Service (NATS). The Applicant was advised to assess the impacts in the Offshore EIA Report and further, seek to engage with the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) prior to the submission of the Offshore EIA Report.
  2. The nearest civil airports are Dundee, Aberdeen and Edinburgh, which are approximately 36 nm, 46 nm and 57 nm respectively from the nearest aspect of the Proposed Development boundary. In view of these distances, it has remained the Applicant’s position that it is extremely unlikely that any impact on civil airport patterns and procedures could occur. In an email exchange with the Applicant on 9 May 2022, NATS confirmed that it had not raised concerns about civil airport patterns in its scoping submission (and they had none) [SSE/NATS/AVI/09.05.22].
  3. From May through July 2022, the Applicant exchanged emails with MS-LOT to ascertain if MS-LOT had chosen to diverge from NATs position (and continue to advise the Applicant to scope in civil airport patterns. On 7 July 2022, MS-LOT provided an interim recommendation that the Applicant justify within the Offshore EIA Report, the reasons (based on the available evidence) to scope out these impacts [SSE/MS-LOT/AVI/07.07.22]. This was followed by MS-LOT’s formal advice on 22 August 2022, whereby MS-LOT confirmed that the position adopted in the Berwick Bank Wind Farm Scoping Opinion (MS-LOT, 2022) (and also the 2020 Berwick Bank Scoping Opinion (MS-LOT, 2021)) remains unchanged [MS-LOT/AVI/22.08.22]. The lack of representation from the CAA and lack of sufficient evidence provided the basis for this position.
  4. MS-LOT further confirmed that if the Applicant were to take a different approach from the position adopted in the Berwick Bank Wind Farm Scoping Opinion (MS-LOT, 2022), then the reasoning behind any discrepancy must be clearly evidenced within the Offshore EIA Report along with relevant correspondence supporting this position from NATS and the CAA.
  5. In September 2022, the Applicant emailed the CAA to request its comment on civil airport patterns. Concurrently, the Applicant commissioned an independent assessment of the potential for impacts on Instrument Flight Procedures (IFPs) at Aberdeen, Edinburgh and Dundee Airports. An assessment was undertaken and reported by Osprey Consulting Services Limited (Osprey), a CAA approved agent. This report (titled ‘High-level Safeguarding of Instrument Flight Procedures’) (the Osprey Report) concludes that the Proposed Development is not anticipated to have any impact on the published IFPs at Aberdeen and Edinburgh and Dundee Airports.
  6. The Osprey Report was provided to the CAA for review. In October 2022, the CAA responded in writing to agree that civil airport patterns should be scoped out.

3.11. Seascape, Landscape, Visual Resources

  1. All relevant points regarding SVLIA assessment are addressed in Table 2.1.

3.12. Cultural Heritage

3.12.1 Category B and C Listed Buildings

  1. In 2022 Scoping Opinion, MS-LOT advised (with reference to the East Lothian Council’s (ELC) scoping representation of 24 January 2021 that it may not be possible to scope out the majority of Category B and C listings (which are considered of national importance as National Designations) - some listings may need to be assessed and the Applicant should identify these [para 5.16.3].
  2. On April 25, 2022, the Applicant emailed the ELC and set out its justification to take an alternative approach to the position adopted by MS-LOT at scoping. The Applicant’s position is that Category B and C listed building should be scoped out of the EIA as per the approach taken for the consented wind farms in the area and other projects in Scottish waters. The Applicant’s approach is in line with current guidance (e.g. Planning Advice Note 1/2013: Environmental Impact Assessment, which espouses a proportionate approach that focusses on significant environmental effects). The guidance provided by Historical Environment Scotland (HES) in The EIA Handbook and elsewhere Handbook (HES & Scottish Natural Heritage 2018, 63), has Category B and C Listed Buildings as of regional and local importance, respectively.
  3. The Applicant further cited the distance of the Proposed Development array area from the East Lothian coastline (for which Met Office data indicates visibility frequency of 28.5%), the low to medium sensitivity of the receptors and that a requirement to screen 7,615 Category B and C Listed Buildings in the Cultural Heritage study area would be contrary to the promoted aim of a proportionate EIA. At the time of Application in October 2022, no response has been received from the ELC.
  4. On 25 May 2022, the Applicant sent further email to the ELC, restating the case made previously. At the time of finalising this document in November 2022, no response has been received.
  5. The Applicant has chosen to take an alternative approach to the position MS-LOT has adopted in the Berwick Bank Wind Farm Scoping Opinion (MS-LOT, 2022) and has scoped out Category B and C listings from the Offshore EIA Report. The Applicant has provided the reasoning behind this to the ELC directly and within the Offshore EIA Report.

3.13. Infrastructure and Other Users

  1. All relevant points regarding Infrastructure and other users assessment are addressed in Table 2.1.

3.14. Offshore Socio-Economics and Tourism

3.14.1 Additional Impacts and Community Engagement

  1. In the 2022 Scoping Opinion, MS-LOT advised that the current stance (relying on desktop study and not undertaking site specific surveys) is not sufficient and primary data must be collected, including engagement with communities and local industries.
  2. The Applicant therefore undertook a further round of consultation involving multiple community councils with potential interest in the various local study areas we are considering. The consultation involved, 5x1 hour virtual workshops related to key locations/sectors (Invergordon, Aberdeen/Montrose, Firth of Forth Rosyth, Burntisland, Methil, Leith, Dundee, A week of workshops that ran from 10 – 16 March 2022 and a ‘wash up’ workshop on 18 March for those unable attend invited session.

3.14.2 Additional Data Sets

  1. In 2022 Scoping Opinion, MS-LOT also advised that the Applicant to undertake further work to identify (then assess) socio-economic impacts with reference to the MAU representations which call for:
  • a wider range of potential impacts than described in the Scoping Report,
  • delivered using a wider range of socio-economic methodologies;
  • local and regional impacts to be acknowledged as well as different ‘epicentres of impact’;
  • review of interactions with other topic groups (e.g. impacts on visual amenity, commercial fisheries, shipping and navigation, and cultural heritage);
  • consideration of displacement, substitution impact and additionality;
  • greater clarity required on methods to assess impacts on wider range of socio economic receptors
  • consideration of additional datasets and reports; and
  • use of both qualitative and quantitative social research methodologies.
    1. The MAU Representations broadly align themselves with guidance on Socio-Economic Impact Assessments for Offshore Renewable Developments to be published by Marine Scotland. As of November 2022, the Guidance from Marine Scotland was still awaiting Ministerial sign-off and publication and there was no timescale known for its release. In the course of its communications to clarify the primary data collection requirements, the Applicant understands the request to be a novel one; the Applicant is being asked to cover a broader range of issues and a wider range of socio-economic methodologies than previous socio-economic assessments and is one of the first developers to be asked to do so.
    2. Whilst there is clear focus on evolving and developing socio-economic impact assessments, the new guidance (or socio-economic toolkits mentioned not been made available). Despite various communications, the Applicant has not managed clarify the primary data collection requirements, or if its proposed strategy will satisfy the scope of the socio-economics assessment that consultees have requested that is well beyond what has been done in prior examples.
  • 25 February 2022, Applicant seeks clarification on the primary data collection requirements and consultation aspects mentioned in the 2022 Scoping Opinion;
  • 04 March 2022 The Applicant submits ‘clarification questions’ and a summary of stakeholder engagement activities and requests confirmation as to whether this was sufficient; and
  • 04 April 2022, the MAU provided written advice in response to the queries raised and referred back to their detailed responses provided at scoping and the new guidance to be published shortly.
    1. The range of impacts considered within the socio-economics chapter is aligned to established practice. Notwithstanding, the Applicant has responded to the Scoping Advice, noting in the absence of specific methodologies, the desire to get coverage of community voices, and potentially tourism related consultees through stakeholder engagement with communities and industries, to inform the baseline analysis. The approach and methodology for the socioeconomics chapter has been refined and enhanced based on the scoping responses to ensure community engagement has been included as part of approach to socio-economics. The datasets/reports specifically referred to by MAU have been considered to inform the socio-economic assessment of effects. The Applicant has supplemented the desk review with primary data collection through stakeholder consultation. Additional pre-planning application public consultation events were arranged to engage community members. A brief summary of stakeholder engagement activities is set out below:
  • Invitation to a range of stakeholders to participate in one-to-one consultation discussions with chapter authors:

-          Scotland and sub-regional economic development organisations – sector leads;

-          Local authorities – economic development, tourism and housing officers (with open invite to engage other colleagues) in the areas that have been identified as potential epicentres of impact;

-          Community councils in the areas that have been identified as potential epicentres of impact;

-          Tourism and recreation representative organisations (e.g. RYA Scotland); and

-          A two week consultation window was provided with respondents able to select a time convenient to them/their organisation.

  • A further consultation period is being opened focused on community councils as a result of low take up of previous invitation. Consultation discussions covered a range of topics relevant to the consultee, including:

-          Offshore renewables sector activity and capacity; Local strengths and weaknesses;

-          Local labour market and supply chain capacity to absorb impact and initiatives to support offshore renewables sector development;

-          Socio-economic and tourism effects of existing/previous offshore energy schemes including unintended/unexpected consequences;

-          Potential impacts and capacity on housing, accommodation, local services and community cohesion; and

-          Potential impacts on tourism and recreation activity and its associated economic value.

3.14.3 Separation of Offshore and Onshore Components

  1. In 2022 Scoping Opinion, MS-LOT advise that the socio-economic impacts from offshore and onshore activities and structures must be considered together to ensure links and interactions can be identified (para 5.18.3). This accords with advice that MAU provided which also advises that the onshore EIA should be submitted alongside the offshore EIA.
  2. The Applicant has considered the socio-economic aspects of the Project (both offshore and onshore aspects) in two separate chapters of the Offshore and Onshore EIA Reports, respectively. These chapters have been submitted concurrently within the offshore and onshore EIAs. As there draw on a single technical report which sets out the combined, and component socio-economic impacts and because the CEA (Tier 1) also considers both combined onshore and offshore socio-economic effects it is the Applicant’s position that it has compiled with scoping and post-scoping advice.  

3.15. Water Quality

3.15.1 Water Quality Chapter and WFD Assessment

  1. In the 2022 Scoping Opinion, MS-LOT described the omission of a water quality chapter (or any identified requirement for water quality) from the Berwick Bank Wind Farm Offshore Scoping Report (SSER, 2021a) as “a significant omission” (section 3.5). The Applicant was advised to consider water quality within the Offshore EIA Report and provide information for any Water Framework Directive (WFD) considerations, highlighting WFD guidance from the UK (UK Clearing the Waters), although not specifying that this guidance must be followed (or a specific WFD assessment undertaken)
  2. At a bi-weekly meeting on 25 Feb 2022, the Applicant sought clarification from MS-LOT on the requirement and whether this was for a formal WFD assessment, and as to the nature of the EIA water quality assessment. On 31 March 2022, MS-LOT confirmed that either a bespoke chapter, or sign-posted amalgamation of sections from other chapters would be acceptable. Further, that MS-LOT will consider WFD when reviewing the submitted information which should address Scottish Waterbodies for cable and associated works up to 3nm and beyond. 
  3. The Applicant has selected to provide a bespoke water quality chapter within the Offshore EIA Report (volume 2, chapter 20) and WFD report for Scottish Waterbodies (volume 3, appendix 19) as part of the Application which meets the specified scope.

3.16. Inter-Related Effects

  1. In the 2022 Scoping Opinion, MS-LOT advises the Application that an ‘ecosystems approach’ is required that describes changes in prey species and whole ecosystem effects are identified resulting from influences such as changes in hydrodynamics and sediment movement impact on the sediment and benthic communities (including from the clearance of potential UXOs) and disturbances in the intertidal and nearshore and INNS. MS-LOT advise further discussion and agreement on an ecosystem approach is required.
  2. Options for assessing ecosystem-level impacts were discussed during Ornithology Road Map Meeting 5. It was agreed with stakeholders at this meeting, that established approaches to ecosystem assessment are currently lacking and further, that quantitative modelling was not appropriate to address these questions. Rather a literature review, focussing on seabirds, their prey and climate change effects would be provided. The Applicant proposed the inclusion of an ‘Interrelated Effects’ chapter in the Offshore EIA Report, to be supplemented with a literature review focussing on seabirds, their prey species. These documents are provided as volume 2, chapter 20 and volume 3, appendix 20.
  3. The Ecosystem Approach assessment is presented in volume 2, chapter 20 and aims to provide a holistic overview of ecosystem level impacts drawing from a range of topics. Key prey species (and potential impacts across key trophic levels) have been assessed throughout these documents, which have been structured to answer each of these questions raised by NatureScot during Ornithology Road Map Meeting 5. This includes positive or negative effects on prey species, including changes in prey distribution.

3.17. Major Accidents and Disasters

  1. MS-LOT states that the Offshore EIA Report must include a description and assessment of the likely significant effects deriving from the vulnerability of the Proposed Development to major accidents and disasters.
  2. The Applicant has selected to provide a bespoke major accidents and disaster chapter within the Offshore EIA Report (volume 2, chapter 21) as part of the Application which meets the specified scope.

3.18. Climate Effects

  1. In the 2022 Scoping Opinion, MS-LOT advise the MSS December (2021) advice regarding to the evaluation of the loss of carbon sequestrated into the sediment within the footprint of the Proposed Development must be fully addressed in the Offshore EIA Report. As described in Table 2.1   Open ▸ , an evaluation of the loss of carbon sequestrated into the sediment within the footprint of the Proposed Development has been undertaken and is included in the Effects on Climate Assessment (see volume 3, appendix 21).

3.19. Marine Archaeology

  1. The Marine Archaeology Technical Report (MATR) and Written Scheme of Investigation (WSI), which includes a protocol of Archaeological Discoveries (PAD). were shared with Scottish Borders Council (SBC), Historic Environment Scotland (HES) and East Lothian Council Archaeology Service (ELC).in November 2021. In the 2022 Scoping Opinion (see para 5.14.2), MS-LOT reported that it is content with regard to the study area and baseline information. This was supported by the representations from Fife Council, HES and SBC. With regard to the study area baseline information, method statements and procedures referred to MS-LOT agreed, with the support of Fife Council, HES and the SBC that Marine Archaeology could be scoped out of the EIA.
  2. Subsequently, the Berwick Bank Wind Farm boundary was revised and the Proposed Development array area was reduced by approximately 20 percent. Accordingly, the MATR and WSI have been updated to account for the location of anomalies and known archaeological assets relative to a revised marine archaeology study area that corresponds with the new Proposed Development boundaries. The updated WSI is available in the Berwick Bank Wind Farm Offshore EIA Report (at volume 4, appendix 22).
  3. The updated MATR is provided as an ‘accompanying document’ to the Application to ensure that the archaeological baseline that corresponds to the WSI is available to consultees. The updated MATR and WSI and PAD do not report any updates to marine archaeology baseline for the revised marine archaeology study area that might warrant changes to the general methodology and procedures in the WSI and the fundamental conclusions are unchanged. The Applicant’s responses to feedback received during consultation are reported in the updated reports. The updates accord with advice the advice provided which includes the need for clear reference within the Offshore EIA Report as to where the information on the onshore works can be found, updates to the Responsibilities and Communications section, edits to the protocol for the further recovery and recording of any archaeological information and making these available to the archaeological record and recommendations for multibeam scanning and making survey.
  4. All comments raised after the publication of the 2022 Scoping Opinion have been actioned in the marine archaeology Report and WSI and PAD. Accordingly, there are no post-scoping communications or developments to include in the Audit Document.


3.20. References

Seagreen Wind Energy Ltd (2020) Seagreen 1A Project Construction Method Statement. Available here: construction_method_statement_4.pdf (marine.gov.scot) Accessed on: 23 September 2022

Seagreen Wind Energy Ltd, (2019). Seagreen Alpha and Bravo Offshore Wind Farms Environmental Impact Assessment Report. Available here: Optimised Application 2018 Documents | SeagreenWindEnergy. Accessed on: 23 September 2022

Seagreen Wind Energy (2012). Appendix G4: Detailed Worst Case Scenarios for Benthic and Intertidal Ecology. Within Environmental Statement (Volume III) for Seagreen 1A Project (Seagreen Wind Energy, 2012). Available at: marine.gov.scot/sites/default/files/appendix_g4.pdf. Accessed on: 23 December 2022

SSE Renewables (SSER) (2021a) Berwick Bank Wind Farm Offshore Scoping Report. Available at: BERWICK BANK WIND FARM Offshore Scoping Report - Introduction (berwickbank-eia.com). Accessed on: 23 September 2022

SSE Renewables (SSER) (2022b). Marine Protected Area Assessment Report.

SSE Renewables (SSER) (2022d) Pre-Application Consultation (PAC) Report.

SSE Renewables (SSER) (2022e). Cambois connection Scoping Report.

Marine Scotland Licensing Operations Team (MS-LOT) (2022) Scoping Opinion for Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm 2022. Available here: scoping_opinion_8.pdf (marine.gov.scot). Accessed on: 23 September 2022

 

Table 3.1:
Relevant Audit Document and Supporting References

Table 3.1: Relevant Audit Document and Supporting References

 

 

[1] construction_method_statement_4.pdf (marine.gov.scot)

[2] Table 1 ‘Worst-case’ scenario for Project Alpha assessment (includes Turbines, intra-array cables and ancillary structures and any activities to place maintain or remove these) (marine.gov.scot)