1. Introduction

1. This Water Framework Directive (WFD) Report provides a WFD Screening, Scoping and assessment of effects for the Berwick Bank Wind Farm offshore infrastructure (hereafter referred to as “the Proposed Development”) against the objectives for the WFD water bodies relevant to the Proposed Development. It describes the current baseline conditions and quantifies the potential changes due to the installation and presence of the Proposed Development.
2. The WFD (Council Directive 2000/60/EC establishing a framework for community action in the field of water policy) was adopted by the European Commission in December 2000. The WFD requires that all European Union Member States prevent deterioration and protect, enhance and restore, all identified bodies of water. This means that Member States must ensure that new schemes do not adversely impact upon the status of aquatic ecosystems, and that they must address historical modifications that are already impacting an identified water body. Whilst the WFD originates from the EU it has been retained in UK law following the UK’s exit from the European Union (EU). The Environment (EU Exit) (Scotland) (Amendment etc.) Regulations 2019 is the implementing legislation which ensures principals of the Directive are largely retained within Scottish legislation.
3. The WFD applies to all water bodies, including those that are both natural and man-made. Under the WFD, coastal waters, estuaries, rivers, man-made docks and canals are divided into a series of water bodies. Within each water body, the WFD sets ecological and chemical objectives. The aim of the WFD was for all EU water bodies covered by the Directive to achieve “good status” by 2015. This aim (“good status” for all water bodies by 2015) was not achieved by 2015, but by 2021 87% of water bodies had achieved good status (SEPA, 2021). The Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA) is aiming to maintain this, and to achieve, or return to, good status in 94% of waters by 2027 (SEPA, 2015). Under all conditions, it requires that there should be no deterioration in status, unless caused by a new activity providing significant specified benefits to society or the wider environment (SEPA, 2014a).
4. Whilst Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) is an efficient mechanism to gather the relevant information for WFD compliance assessment, it needs to be interpreted in relation to the WFD objectives. According to Environment Agency guidance, impacts of biology, chemistry and hydromorphology need to be considered in relation to WFD status classes and reported under a specific WFD section in any environmental statement or report produced or in a separate WFD compliance report (Environmental Agency, 2010). This guidance is followed as industry best practice also applicable to Scottish waters. Therefore, this WFD compliance assessment has been undertaken to demonstrate the potential impact on WFD receptors caused by the different activities associated with the Proposed Development in the context of the environmental objectives of any affected WFD surface water body. The compliance assessment also offers the opportunity to inform the detailed design of the Proposed Development to avoid, minimise, mitigate or compensate for the risks to the environmental objectives of WFD surface water receptors where the risk assessment determines that the activities have the potential to:

• cause a surface water body to deteriorate from one WFD status class to another or cause significant localised impacts that could contribute to this happening; and
• prevent or undermine action to get surface water bodies to good status (e.g. compromise the programme of measures put in place to achieve the ultimate water body objective).
  5. Using the Environment Agency ‘Clearing the Waters for All’ guidance (Environment Agency, 2016) and referring to the relevant chapters of the Proposed Development EIA, a WFD assessment of the potential for the Proposed Development to have a significant non-temporary effect on WFD parameters at water body level has been carried out. This has been undertaken on the basis of the Proposed Development information detailed within volume 1 chapter 3. Temporary effects of the Proposed Development are not expected to be significant (see paragraph 27), and as such have not been included for assessment.
  6. This report should be read alongside the following chapters of the Proposed Development Offshore EIA Report:
• volume 2, chapters 7 to 9; and
• volume 2, chapter 19.

2. Methodology

7. The following relevant national legislation was considered during the preparation of this chapter:

• The Water Environment and Water Services (Scotland) Act 2003; this Act transposes the requirement of the WFD into Scottish law;
• The Environment (EU Exit) (Scotland) (Amendment etc.) Regulations 2019; and
• The Water Environment (Controlled Activities) (Scotland) Regulations 2011 (as amended); these regulations were introduced under the 2003 Act to specify the control regimes for discharges to, abstractions from and impoundments and engineering activities affecting the water environment (i.e. rivers, lochs, transitional waters (estuaries), coastal waters groundwater, and groundwater dependant wetlands).
  8. ‘Good status’ comprises two parts. The first is ‘good ecological status’ (or ‘good ecological potential’, for water bodies classed as heavily modified or artificial). The second is ‘good chemical status’. ‘Good ecological status/potential’ includes biological, hydromorphological and physicochemical quality elements and specific pollutants. ‘Good chemical status’ concerns a series of priority substances, including a number of priority hazardous substances. The WFD also requires that relevant protected area objectives (Environment Agency, 2015) are achieved.
  9. The current status of water bodies is detailed within River Basin Management Plans (RBMPs) and supporting Appendices. Each RBMP includes the work undertaken over the preceding five years, and the plans/objectives for the next six years following publication. The first RBMPs were published in 2009 and have been superseded by the updated 2015 and 2021 plans (SEPA, 2015; 2021).
  10. This WFD assessment focuses on those elements of the Proposed Development relevant to the offshore/coastal areas which are required to be assessed against the objectives for each WFD water body (i.e. extending out to 1 nm from Mean High Water Springs (MHWS), see Figure 2.1   Open ▸ ). As such, activities of relevance relate to the installation of the offshore export cables within 1 nm of the coast and at the landfall (i.e. rather than considering any of the offshore elements of the scheme seawards of 1 nm from the coast). Assessment of inland WFD water bodies is covered in the Berwick Bank Wind Farm Onshore EIA Report (SSER, 2022a) and therefore not considered further in this assessment. There are no transitional water bodies to be considered as all water bodies are coastal.
  11. The ‘Clearing the Waters for All’ guidance (Environment Agency, 2016) stipulates that the footprint of the activity be considered when assessing the impact of the Proposed Development upon WFD water bodies and protected areas. ‘Activity’ refers to the construction works required for the installation of offshore export cables and associated infrastructure within 1 nm seaward of MHWS. ‘Footprint’ refers to the area of habitat potentially directly affected by the installation of the offshore export cables and associated infrastructure.
  12. Offshore export cables are used for the transfer of power from the Offshore Substation Platforms (OSPs)/Offshore convertor station platforms to the onshore High Voltage Alternating Current (HVAC)/High Voltage Direct Current (HVDC) substation. Up to eight export cables will be required for the Proposed Development. The offshore export cables shall be located within the Proposed Development export cable corridor and make landfall at Skateraw on the East Lothian coast. The Project Design Envelope for the Proposed Development export cable corridor and the Skateraw landfall area are set out in volume 1, chapter 3 of the Offshore EIA Report, and offshore export cables will be located wholly within the Proposed Development export cable corridor shown in Figure 2.1   Open ▸ . A summary of the maximum design scenario for the offshore export cables is given in Table 2.1   Open ▸ .

Table 2.1 Maximum Design Scenario for Offshore Export Cables, for Whole Proposed Development, and up to 1 nm from MHWS.

Figure 2.1: Proposed Development WFD Assessment Area

13. Drawing on the information outlined in volume 1 chapter 3, the primary effects associated with laying of the offshore export cables (hereinafter referred to as ‘the activity’) that are considered to be relevant to the WFD assessment are:

• offshore export cables installation (via possible combination of jet trencher, mechanical trencher, cable ploughs, deep jet trencher and trenchless technique), including trenchless (e.g. HDD) punch out excavation and sand wave clearance; and
• crossing the intertidal via trenchless technology.
  14. The effects of operation and maintenance activities (i.e. cable inspection, repair and reburial) during the lifetime of the Proposed Development are not expected to exceed those during the construction phase. These have been considered in the scoping process where relevant, however no additional effect pathway is likely given the nature and scale of the activities.
  15. The effects of decommissioning activities at the end of the Proposed Development are not expected to exceed those during the construction phase. Cables and cable protection will be removed where possible and practicable to do so, and this approach will be kept under review during the operational life of the Proposed Development and finalised at decommissioning, following the most up to date and best available guidance. Decommissioning has been considered in the scoping process where relevant, however no additional effect pathway is likely given the nature and scale of the activities.
  16. This WFD Assessment, as advised by the Marine Scotland Licensing Operations Team (MS-LOT) Scoping Opinion (MS-LOT, 2022), adheres to the Environment Agency guidance on WFD Assessment of estuarine (transitional) and coastal waters, ‘Clearing the waters for All’. As outlined in this guidance, WFD Assessment is undertaken in three stages:
• screening – excludes any activities that do not need to go through the scoping or assessment of effects stages;
• scoping – identifies the receptors that are potentially at risk from your activity and need assessment of effects; and
• assessment of effects – considers the potential impacts of your activity, identifies ways to avoid or minimise impacts, and demonstrates if your activity may cause deterioration or jeopardise the water body achieving good status.
  17. SEPA does not issue specific guidance on the WFD assessment and although Environment Agency jurisdiction does not extend to Scottish waters, the guidance contained within ‘Clearing the Waters for All’ provides an appropriate outline for WFD assessment in Scotland. Moreover, the spatial contiguity of European Sites and Annex I habitats across English and Scottish boundaries, and the cross-jurisdiction habitat use by biological qualifying features, support the relevance of this guidance.
  18. The assessment presented in this appendix covers the screening, scoping and assessment stages of the WFD assessment process for the Proposed Development; identifying all potential risks to the relevant receptors associated with the proposed activity/activities; identifying those receptors which may require further assessment; receptors that can be scoped out of the WFD assessment and undertaking an assessment for those receptors where a potential risk is identified. The assessment focuses on the receptors where risks have been identified and which according to the Environment Agency ‘Clearing the Waters for All’ (2016) guidance should be scoped into the assessment.
  19. Where designed in mitigation measures are followed (e.g. avoidance of EQSD-listed chemicals, selection of low sediment-mobilising trenching methods), these mitigation measures are taken into account at the scoping stage of the WFD assessment and comprise:
• development of, and adherence to, an appropriate Code of Construction Practice (CoCP) to include strategies, control measures and monitoring procedures for managing the potential environmental impacts of constructing the Project and limiting disturbance from construction activities as far as reasonably practicable;
• an Environmental Management Plan (EMP) (volume 4, appendix 22), to be prepared and implemented during the construction, operation and maintenance and decommissioning phases of the Proposed Development;
• a Marine Pollution Contingency Plan (MPCP), included within the EMP, containing measures to be adopted to ensure that the potential for release of pollutants from construction, operation and decommissioning plant is minimised;
• an Invasive Non-Native Species (INNS) Management Plan (INNSMP), included within the EMP, to be implemented to manage and reduce the risk of potential introduction and spread of INNS so far as reasonably practicable; and
• the use of drilling fluids that are on the Poses Little or No Risk (PLONOR) to the environment list.

2.2. Screening

20. According to the Environment Agency ‘Clearing the Waters for All’ guidance (Environment Agency, 2016), screening is required for the Proposed Development as it is not a low risk activity, is not a fast-track or accelerated marine licence activity (i.e. it is not part of ongoing dredging operations) and does not fall into any of the categories of projects where screening is not required. An activity is considered low-risk if it involves:

• maintaining pumps at pumping stations;
• removing blockages within 10 m of an existing structure;
• replacing or removing existing pipes; or
• 'over water’ replacement or repairs (e.g. to bridges, piers, jetties, etc.) (Environment Agency, 2016).
  21. Initial screening information is necessary as part of the scoping stage to inform the WFD assessment Additionally, screening the construction and operational activities of projects enables a high-level initial assessment of those activities that could impact on compliance parameters within WFD water bodies.
  22. The necessary screening information is provided in the scoping section (section 2.3) of this assessment.

2.3. Scoping

23. The Scoping stage identifies the receptors that are potentially at risk from the proposed activity and therefore may need assessment of effects.
24. At the scoping stage it is necessary to identify all potential risks to each receptor associated with the proposed activity/activities. The receptors, as specified in the ‘Clearing the Waters for All’ guidance, are:

• hydromorphology;
• biology – habitats;
• biology – fish;
• water quality;
• protected areas; and
• INNS.
  25. The ‘Clearing the Waters for All’ guidance provides specific criteria for each of the receptors outlined above to determine if an assessment of effects is required and recommends the use of a scoping template as part of the WFD assessment process. These criteria are considered for each receptor in section 4 of this appendix, using the recommended scoping template.

2.4. Assessment of Effects

26. Following the Scoping stage, if it is determined that the assessment of effects stage is required, ‘Clearing the Waters for All’ guidance sets out that an assessment of effects should be undertaken for each receptor identified as being at risk from the activity. The assessment of effects should consider what (if any) pressures the activity may create on the marine environment and specifically the receptors identified. The key aim of the assessment of effects is to determine whether there is potential for deterioration in the status of the water body receptor.
27. Deterioration is when the status of a quality element reduces by one class. For example, biological quality elements move from good to moderate status. If a quality element is already at the lowest status, then any reduction in its condition counts as deterioration. According to the ‘Clearing the Waters for All’ guidance, temporary effects due to short-duration activities like construction or maintenance are not considered to cause deterioration if the water body would recover in a short time without any restoration measures. Where relevant, mitigation measures should be included to avoid or minimise risks of deterioration.
28. If the activity could result in a risk of deterioration, either of the quality element or supporting habitat, an explanation must be provided of how this deterioration could occur, including consideration of whether the impact is:

• direct and immediate – it will happen at the same time and place as the activity; or
• indirect – it will happen later or further away, including in other linked water bodies.
  29. Where the activity may cause deterioration, alternatives should be considered to minimise the impact, including changes to the materials or substances used, the size, scale or timing of the activity/activities or methods of working and/or how equipment or services are used.
  30. In addition to assessing the potential for deterioration of the current status of a water body, the assessment of effects must consider the risk of jeopardising the achievement of the water body’s environmental objectives (e.g. good status). Every water body has a target status that it is expected to achieve, with an expected date by when this should be achieved. Where the status of a water body or quality element is less than “Good”, the assessment of effects should consider whether the activity may jeopardise the water body achieving “Good” status in the future. These may include activities which reduce the effectiveness of improvement activities taking place or prevent improvement activities taking place in the future. Details of these improvement activities, or measures, can be found in the RBMPs.

3. Background Information on WFD Water Bodies

3.1. Identification of Water Bodies

31. The ‘Clearing the Waters for All’ guidance stipulates that the WFD Assessment helps the developer and the regulator understand the impact the activity may have on the immediate water body and any linked water bodies.
32. The Proposed Development has the potential to directly impact the Barns Ness to Wheat Stack water body (ID: 200038) as the Proposed Development export cable corridor will cross through this water body. The Barns Ness to Wheat Stack water body is located directly adjacent to two other WFD water bodies and the Proposed Development export cable corridor is located approximately 1 km from the boundary of the North Berwick to Barns Ness water body (ID: 200467, to the north-west) and 3 km from the boundary of the Wheat Stack to Berwick-Upon-Tweed water body (ID: 200031, to the south-east). Figure 3.1   Open ▸ indicates the location of the Proposed Development export cable corridor in relation to these WFD water bodies. All water bodies considered are coastal.
33. Assessment of inland WFD water bodies from the RBMP for Scotland 2021-2027 was scoped out of the Berwick Bank Wind Farm Onshore EIA (SSER, 2022a) on the grounds that no onshore pathways to transitional water bodies exist and is therefore not considered further in this assessment.
34. The Berwick Bank Wind Farm Onshore EIA considers the potential for pollution to enter inland watercourses, and the Thorntonloch Bathing Water indirectly, as a consequence of runoff from construction areas, chemical/fuel spills and untreated foul water discharge. This impact was assessed as having a negligible magnitude on a high sensitivity receptor (the WFD water bodies at ‘Good’ status) and considered to be of minor adverse significance. Potential cumulative effects are considered in paragraphs 65 to 67.

3.1.2.    North Berwick to Barns Ness (ID: 200467)

35. North Berwick to Barns Ness is a coastal water body which covers approximately 134.5 km2, located within the ‘Scotland’ river basin district, managed by the Forth Area advisory group (SEPA, 2014a). North Berwick to Barns Ness is not classed as an artificial or heavily modified water body and has an overall status in 2020 of Good, with an ecological status of Good and a chemical status of Pass (SEPA, 2022). The water body has an objective of maintaining Good overall status by 2027, and there are currently no pressures identified on this water body that would cause a deterioration from Good status (SEPA, 2014a).

Figure 3.1: WFD Coastal Water Bodies and Bathing Water Sampling Locations Relevant to the Proposed Development

36. The North Berwick to Barns Ness water body overlaps with the following WFD protected areas (SEPA, 2014a):

• Firth of Forth Special Protection Area (SPA);
• Outer Firth of Forth and St Andrews Bay Complex (SPA);
• Forth Islands (SPA);
• Barns Ness Coast Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI);
• Firth of Forth (SSSI);
• Bass Rock (SSSI);
• Lothian/Borders Nitrate Vulnerable Zone (NVZ);
• Seacliff (European Community (EC) Bathing Water);
• Dunbar (Belhaven) (EC Bathing Water);
• Dunbar (East) (EC Bathing Water); and
• Whitesands (EC Bathing Water).
  37. The WFD protected areas that overlap the North Berwick to Barns Ness water body contain the following WFD habitats (NatureScot, 2011a; JNCC, 2015), although these do not coincide with the offshore export cables works, and may not coincide with the WFD water body:
• saltmarsh;
• cobbles, gravel and shingle;
• intertidal soft sediments like sand and mud; and
• rocky shore.
  38. A summary of the North Berwick to Barns Ness water body is provided in Table 3.1   Open ▸ .

Table 3.1: Summary of North Berwick to Barns Ness Water Body Features (SEPA, 2014a), and Classifications as at 2020 (SEPA, 2022)

3.1.3.    Barns Ness to Wheat Stack (ID: 200038)

39. Barns Ness to Wheat Stack is a coastal water body which covers approximately 98.3 km2, located within the ‘Scotland’ river basin district, managed by the Forth Area advisory group (SEPA, 2014b). Barns Ness to Wheat Stack is not classed as an artificial or heavily modified water body and has an overall status in 2020 of Good, with an ecological status of Good and a chemical status of Pass (SEPA, 2022). The status of the water body has an objective of maintaining Good overall status by 2027. There are currently no pressures identified on this water body that would cause long-term deterioration from Good status (SEPA, 2014b).
40. The Barns Ness to Wheat Stack water body overlaps with the following WFD protected areas (SEPA, 2014b):

• Berwickshire and North Northumberland Coast Special Area of Conservation (SAC);
• St Abb's Head to Fast Castle (SAC);
• St Abbs Head to Fast Castle (SPA);
• Outer Firth of Forth and St Andrews Bay Complex (SPA);
• Barns Ness Coast (SSSI);
• Siccar Point (SSSI);
• Pease Bay Coast (SSSI);
• St Abbs Head to Fast Castle Head (SSSI);
• Berwickshire Coast (Intertidal) (SSSI);
• Lothian/Borders (NVZ);
• Thorntonloch (EC Bathing Water); and
• Pease Bay (EC Bathing Water).
  41. The WFD protected areas that overlap the Barns Ness to Wheat Stack water body contain the following WFD habitats (NatureScot, 2011b; NatureScot, 2011c; JNCC, 2015). Figures in parentheses indicate the area of each habitat within the WFD water body:
• Saltmarsh (0 km2);
• cobbles, gravel and shingle (0 km2);
• intertidal soft sediments like sand and mud (0.5 km2); and
• rocky shore (23.4 km2).
  42. A summary of the Barns Ness to Wheat Stack water body is provided in Table 3.2   Open ▸ .

Table 3.2: Summary of Barns Ness to Wheat Stack Water Body Features (SEPA, 2014b) and Classifications as at 2020 (SEPA, 2022)

3.1.4.    Wheat Stack to Berwick-Upon-Tweed (ID: 200031)

43. Wheat Stack to Berwick-upon-Tweed is a coastal water body which covers approximately 115.2 km2, located within the ‘Scotland’ river basin district, managed by the Forth Area advisory group (SEPA, 2014c). Wheat Stack to Berwick-upon-Tweed is not classed as an artificial or heavily modified water body and has an overall status in 2020 of Good, with an ecological status of Good and a chemical status of Pass (SEPA, 2022). The water body has an objective of maintaining Good overall status by 2027, and there are currently no pressures identified on this water body that would cause long-term deterioration from Good status (SEPA, 2014c).
44. The Wheat Stack to Berwick-upon-Tweed water body overlaps with the following WFD protected areas (SEPA, 2014c):

• Berwickshire and North Northumberland Coast (SAC);
• St Abb's Head to Fast Castle (SAC);
• St Abbs Head to Fast Castle (SPA);
• Outer Firth of Forth and St Andrews Bay Complex (SPA);
• Burnmouth Coast (SSSI);
• St Abbs Head to Fast Castle Head (SSSI);
• Berwickshire Coast (Intertidal) (SSSI);
• Lothian/Borders (NVZ);
• Coldingham (EC Bathing Water); and
• Eyemouth (EC Bathing Water).
  45. The WFD protected areas that overlap the Wheat Stack to Berwick-upon-Tweed water body contain the following WFD habitats (NatureScot, 2011d; JNCC, 2015), although these do not coincide with the offshore export cables works, and may not coincide with the WFD water body:
• cobbles, gravel and shingle;
• intertidal soft sediments like sand and mud; and
• rocky shore.
  46. A summary of the Wheat Stack to Berwick-upon-Tweed water body is provided in Table 3.3   Open ▸ .

Table 3.3: Summary of Wheat Stack to Berwick-upon-Tweed Water Body Features (SEPA, 2014c) and Classifications as at 2020 (SEPA, 2022)