1. Introduction

1.1. The Purpose of this Report to Inform Appropriate Assessment (RIAA)

  1. The Report to Inform Appropriate Assessment (RIAA) has been prepared by RPS (Parts One and Two) and Royal HaskoningDHV, Pelagica Environmental Consultancy Ltd and APEM (Part Three - this document) on behalf of the Applicant, to support the Habitats Regulations Appraisal (HRA) of the Proposed Development in the determination of the implications for European sites. The RIAA builds upon the Offshore HRA Screening Report (SSER, 2021b)( hereafter ‘The HRA Stage One LSE Screening Report’) completed in October 2021 and subsequent joint Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Scoping and Likely Significant Effect (LSE) Screening advice received in the Berwick Bank Wind Farm Scoping Opinion (MS-LOT, 2022) in February 2022 and considers the environmental effects of the Proposed Development as they relate to relevant European site integrity at Stage Two of the HRA process.

1.2. Structure of the RIAA

  1. As detailed in section 1.5 of Part One of this RIAA for the Proposed Development, for clarity and ease of navigation, the RIAA is structured and reported in several ‘Parts’, as follows:
  • Executive Summary and Conclusions;
  • Part One – Introduction and Background;
  • Part Two – Consideration of Special Areas of Conservation (SACs); and
  • Part Three (this document) – Consideration of Special Protection Areas (SPAs).
    1. Each ‘Part’ of the RIAA is supported by a series of topic specific appendices and relevant documentation including European Site Summaries.

1.3. Structure of this Document

  1. This document constitutes Part Three of the RIAA and provides consideration of the implications of the Proposed Development on SPAs.
  2. This document is structured as follows:
  • Chapter 1: Introduction – this section details the purpose and structure of the RIAA.
  • Chapter 2: Consultation – this section provides a summary of the consultation undertaken with regards to the qualifying features of SPAs, the responses provided, and how these have been addressed within this Part of the RIAA.
  • Chapter 3: Summary of HRA Screening – this section presents the SPAs potentially at risk of LSE and the features and pathways for which HRA Stage Two Appropriate Assessment is required, both alone and in-combination.
    1. Information for the HRA Stage Two Appropriate Assessment is then provided in:
  • Chapter 4: Information to inform the Appropriate Assessments, including maximum design scenarios, designed in measures, an outline of the approach taken to baseline data, conservation objectives, and the in-combination assessment.
  • Chapter 5: Appraisal of Adverse Effects on Integrity on European sites designated for ornithological features, alone and in-combination.
  • Chapter 6: Site conclusions – the conclusions of chapter 5 are summarised for clarity and the overall finding of this Part of the RIAA is provided.
    1. The scope of this Part of the RIAA covers all relevant SPAs (and Ramsar sites) and relevant qualifying interest features where LSEs have been identified due to impacts arising from the Proposed Development. This report will provide the competent authority with the information required to undertake an HRA Stage Two Appropriate Assessment (see Part One of the RIAA for more detail on the HRA process).

1.4. Contributing Authors

  1. Further detail on the contributing authors, their qualifications and experience is provided below: 

1.4.1.    Royal HaskoningDHV: Dr Murray Grant (BSc, PhD)

  1. Murray is the Technical Director for ornithology at Royal HaskoningDHV. He has over 25 years’ experience as an applied ornithologist, with a science background and expertise in HRA and EIA gained from leading and managing a wide range of projects concerned with assessing and advising on the ornithological impacts of (primarily) offshore renewables developments. This has included the EIA and HRA productions and provision of post-consent support for a range of major offshore wind farm projects. Murray also provided technical support for the Judicial Review (and subsequent appeal) of the Forth and Tay wind farms, has provided Expert Witness and technical support for Public Inquiries, and represented projects at Planning Inspectorate Hearings. He has published widely in the peer reviewed scientific literature, as well as being a contributory author for several books on ornithology and ecology. Prior to working in consultancy he was a Principal Conservation Scientist at RSPB.
  2. Sections:
  • Lead Author.
  • Chapter 1 Introduction up to and including section 5.6 Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza (HPAI).
  • Section 5.7 Appropriate Assessments: Breeding Seabird Colony SPAs including sections 5.8.1 to 5.8.8 inclusive.
  • Chapter 6 Conclusions.
  • Appendix 3A.

1.4.2.    Pelagica Environmental Consultancy Ltd: Phil Bloor (BSc)

  1. Over 25 years’ experience as either a regulator, environmental consultant or for a statutory nature conservation body, with 19 years’ experience in the consenting of offshore wind farms. Phil has had significant involvement in the consenting of twenty UK offshore wind farm developments focussed on undertaking HRA’s and assessing the potential impacts on birds and marine mammals. Since 2005, Phil has prepared 57 HRAs, over half of which have been related to offshore wind farm projects and undertaken EIAs relating to either birds, marine mammals and bats for five offshore wind farm projects.
  2. Sections:
  • Contributing Author.
  • Section 5.6 Appropriate Assessments: Marine SPA including section 5.7.1
  • Section 5.7 Appropriate Assessments: Breeding Seabird Colony SPAs including sections 5.8.9 to 5.8.20 inclusive.

1.4.3.    APEM Ltd. Sean Sweeney, Dr Tim Kaosoar and James Chapman

  1. Sean is an Associate Director and head of APEM’s Ornithology Consultancy Team. He has over 15 years’ experience in delivering ornithological EIA, SEA and HRA assessments for offshore wind, acting as expert witness for clients at PINS Examinations. Tim is a technical specialist and has most recently led the ornithology EIA chapters for both Awel y Môr and Rampion 2. Tim is an experienced biometrician with experience in a range of ornithological assessment tools. James is a senior ornithologist completing his PhD in relation to the marine renewable industry. James supports the APEM team with his statistical background in impact assessment modelling.   
  2. Sections:
  • Contributing Author.
  • Section 5.8 Appropriate Assessment: Migratory Waterbird SPAs including sections 5.8.1 to 5.8.19 inclusive.
  • Appendices 3B and 3C.

 

2. Consultation

  1. Consultation has been undertaken with statutory stakeholders during key stages of the Proposed Development with regards to ornithological features of SPAs.
  2. A summary of the details of all consultation undertaken to date which is relevant to this Part of the RIAA on SPAs, and the HRA process in general, is presented in Table 2.1   Open ▸ .

 

Table 2.1:
Consultation Summary

Table 2.1: Consultation Summary

 

3. Summary of HRA Screening Conclusions for Special Protection Areas

  1. This section summarises all LSEs identified from the HRA Stage One Screening (arising alone and/or in-combination) for SPAs (and Ramsar sites) and defines the scope of the Stage Two assessments within this Part of the RIAA. An account is provided of any updates made to the screening outcomes as reported in the HRA Stage One Screening Report, which was shared with consultees in October 2021 (SSER, 2021b).

3.1. Screening Outcomes for the Proposed Development Alone

 

  1. As detailed in the HRA Stage One Screening Report (SSER, 2021b), a total of 37 European sites designated for ornithological features were originally advanced to HRA Stage Two Appropriate Assessment. These comprised one marine SPA, 19 breeding seabird colony SPAs and 17 migratory waterbird SPAs (and Ramsar sites).
  2. Following receipt of the Berwick Bank Wind Farm Scoping Opinion and associated representations and advice (volume 3, appendix 6.2 of the Offshore EIA Report; Table 2.1   Open ▸ ), it was concluded that a further four qualifying features from breeding seabird colony SPAs should be advanced to HRA Stage Two.
  3. These additional qualifying features included three named components of the breeding seabird assemblage feature from the Farne Islands SPA (i.e. lesser black-backed gull, herring gull and razorbill) which are not currently identified in the current version of the Conservation Advice provided in Natural England’s Designated Sites System[1]. Natural England’s scoping advice (volume 3, appendix 6.2 of the Offshore EIA Report) also identified that the HRA Stage One Screening Report had erroneously omitted consideration of the Sandwich tern qualifying feature of the Farne Islands SPA. However, although the Farne Islands SPA Sandwich tern qualifying feature does have connectivity with the Proposed Development (including during the breeding season), there is no potential for LSE because of its low level of occurrence within the Offshore Ornithology Study Area and absence from the Proposed development array area (HRA Stage One Screening Report, volume 3, appendix 11.1 of the Offshore EIA Report).
  4. The NatureScot scoping advice (volume 3, appendix 11.8 of the Offshore EIA Report) identified concerns with the screening out of SPA populations which had connectivity with the Proposed Development in the non-breeding season only and which comprised a small proportion of the relevant BDMPS population, making it likely that few individuals from these populations would occur within the area occupied by the Proposed Development (as detailed in paragraphs 142 – 146 of the HRA Stage One Screening Report). Therefore, this was investigated in more detail using the baseline survey data, which demonstrated for:
  • Red-throated diver: Based on the mean peak population estimate within the Proposed Development array area for the non-breeding period (i.e 12 – volume 3, appendix 11.1, annex H of the Offshore EIA Report), no SPA population would be estimated to contribute more than a fraction of an adult bird to the non-breeding population within the Proposed Development array area. Up to five adult birds would be estimated to derive from the Ronas Hill – North Roe and Tingon SPA within the Offshore Ornithology Study Area but a high proportion of the birds recorded in the non-breeding period surveys (including for the peak counts) were located towards the outer parts of the 16km buffer where effects from the Proposed Development are unlikely (volume 3, appendix 11.1 of the Offshore EIA Report).
  • Arctic tern: Based on the mean peak population estimate within the Proposed Development array area for the non-breeding period (i.e 19.5 – volume 3, appendix 11.1, annex H of the Offshore EIA Report), no SPA population would be estimated to contribute more than a fraction of an adult bird to the non-breeding population within the Proposed Development array area. Up to five adult birds would be estimated to derive from the Farne Islands SPA within the Offshore Ornithology Study Area but the vast majority of birds recorded in the non-breeding period surveys (including for the peak counts) were located towards the outer parts of the 16km buffer where effects from the Proposed Development are unlikely (volume 3, appendix 11.1 of the Offshore EIA Report).
  • Common tern: Based on the mean peak population estimate within the Proposed Development array area for the non-breeding period (i.e 28.5 – volume 3, appendix 11.1, annex H of the Offshore EIA Report), no SPA population would be estimated to contribute more than a fraction of an adult bird to the non-breeding population within the Proposed Development array area. Up to a single adult bird would be estimated to derive from the Coquet Island SPA within the Offshore Ornithology Study Area but the vast majority of birds recorded in the non-breeding period surveys (including for the peak counts) were located towards the outer parts of the 16 kilometre buffer where effects from the Proposed Development are unlikely (volume 3, appendix 11.1 of the Offshore EIA Report).
  • Great black-backed gull: Based on the mean peak population estimate within the Proposed Development array area for the non-breeding period (i.e. 63.5 – volume 3, appendix 11.1, annex H of the Offshore EIA Report), no SPA population would be estimated to contribute more than a fraction of an adult bird to the non-breeding population within the Proposed Development array area.
  • Great skua: Based on the mean peak population estimate within the Proposed Development array area for the non-breeding period (i.e 28.5 – volume 3, appendix 11.1, annex H of the Offshore EIA Report), none of the SPA populations considered in Table 4.6 of the HRA Stage One Screening Report would be estimated to contribute more than a fraction of an adult bird to the non-breeding population within the Proposed Development array area. Up to a single adult bird would be estimated to derive from the Noss SPA within the Offshore Ornithology Study Area but some of birds recorded in the non-breeding period surveys (including from the peak counts) were located towards the outer parts of the 16km buffer where effects from the Proposed Development are unlikely (volume 3, appendix 11.1 of the Offshore EIA Report).
  • Kittiwake: For each of the SPA populations identified in Table 4.6 of the HRA Stage One Screening Report, the number of adult birds that would be estimated within the Proposed Development and two kilometre buffer was calculated using the maximum of the two passage period mean peak abundance estimates and the maximum BDMPS proportion (volume 3, appendix 11.4 of the Offshore EIA Report). This indicated that for most of these SPA populations, at most a few tens of birds would be estimated to occur on the Proposed Development and two kilometre buffer during the non-breeding periods, with the combined potential mortalities from displacement/barrier effects and collisions likely to be fewer than a single adult bird (based upon the approaches used in the Scoping Approach for estimating these effects – see section 5.8 below). The one exception was the West Westray SPA, for which the number of adult birds estimated to occur within the Proposed Development and two kilometre buffer would be likely to be approximately 320. 
  • Razorbill: For each of the SPA populations identified in Table 4.6 of the HRA Stage One Screening Report, the number of adult birds that would be estimated within the Proposed Development and two kilometre buffer was calculated using the maximum of the different non-breeding period mean peak abundance estimates and the maximum BDMPS proportion (volume 3, appendix 11.4 of the Offshore EIA Report). This indicated that for most of these SPA populations a few tens of birds would be estimated to occur on the Proposed Development and two kilometre buffer during the non-breeding periods, with the combined potential mortalities from displacement / barrier effects and collisions likely to be fewer than a single adult bird in all cases (based upon the approaches used in the Scoping Approach for estimating these effects – see section 5.8 below).
    1. Given the above, the only additional SPA population taken forward to the HRA Stage Two assessment on the basis of connectivity during the non-breeding period is the West Westray SPA kittiwake population. Thus, in addition to those SPA populations for which it was concluded that LSE could not be excluded in the HRA Stage One Screening Report, a further four populations from two SPAs (i.e. West Westray and the Farne Islands) were advanced to HRA Stage Two. The inclusion of these means that the final number of SPAs (and Ramsar sites) advanced to HRA Stage Two is 38, of which 20 are breeding seabird colony SPAs.
    2. The effect pathways associated with a LSE for qualifying features were originally identified in Tables 5.17 – 5.62 of the HRA Stage One Screening Report (SSER, 2021b)[2]. However, the Berwick Bank Wind Farm Scoping Opinion and associated scoping advice from consultees (volume 3, appendix 6.2 of the Offshore EIA Report) highlighted a small number of concerns in relation to the conclusions in these tables, and following further discussion with consultees on these points at Road Map Meeting 6 (see Table 2.1   Open ▸ and volume 3, appendix 11.8, annex A of the Offshore EIA Report), the following changes were agreed:
  • Direct habitat loss included as an effect pathway during the decommissioning phase for qualifying features of the Outer Firth of Forth and St Andrews Bay Complex SPA.
  • Collision and barrier to movement both included as effects pathways for the waterbird populations which are qualifying features of the Outer Firth of Forth and St Andrews Bay Complex SPA.
  • In-combination effects for the qualifying features of the migratory waterbird SPAs (and Ramsar sites) are restricted to the operation and maintenance phase (as no effect pathways are identified from the Proposed Development during the construction and decommissioning phases).
    1. Furthermore, it should be noted that common terns using the Outer Firth of Forth and St Andrews Bay Complex SPA include those breeding at Imperial Dock Lock SPA. The Imperial Dock Lock SPA was omitted from the HRA Stage One Screening Report (SSER, 2021b). This SPA is designated solely for its population of breeding common terns. Given that the Proposed Development is situated well beyond the foraging range of common tern breeding at this SPA (based on colony tracking data and a mean maximum plus 1 SD foraging range of 18.0±8.9 km; Wilson et al. 2014; Woodward et al. 2019), it is considered that there is no pathway for effect on common terns breeding at this colony. The Imperial Dock Lock SPA has therefore not been advanced to HRA Stage Two but is considered as part of the assessment of the Outer Firth of Forth and St Andrews Bay Complex SPA.
    2. The changes made to the boundary of the Proposed Development array area since the submission of the HRA Stage One Screening Report (see volume 1, chapter 4 of the Offshore EIA Report) also affect the conclusions regarding breeding season connectivity for a small number of breeding seabird colony SPA qualifying features for which the previous Proposed Development array area was close to the edge of their putative breeding season foraging range[3] (e.g. puffin from Hoy SPA – Tables 4.4 and 4.5 in the HRA Stage One Screening Report). However, since the boundary change was limited to contractions of less than 10 kilometre at any point, with no points of expansion, any such changes to the conclusions would be of little importance when considered in relation to the large extent of the foraging ranges and the coarse level, generic, way in which they are defined. Therefore, no changes were made to the conclusions regarding the potential for LSE on the basis of the boundary change.
    3. The final list of the SPAs and Ramsar sites which are advanced to HRA Stage Two is presented in Table 3.1   Open ▸ , along with details of the finalised list of qualifying features from these sites and the associated effect pathways for which the potential for LSE has been concluded. The locations of these SPAs and Ramsar sites is shown in Figure 3.1

Figure 31:
Location of European Sites Designated for Ornithological Features (Seabirds and Migratory Waterbirds) Taken Forward for the HRA Stage Two assessment.

Figure 31: Location of European Sites Designated for Ornithological Features (Seabirds and Migratory Waterbirds) Taken Forward for the HRA Stage Two assessment.

 

3.2. Screening Outcomes for Likely Significant Effects In-Combination

  1. For all SPAs (and Ramsar sites) the potential for Likely Significant Effects In-Combination (LSEI) was identified for any qualifying features for which the potential for LSE in relation to the potential project alone effects could not be excluded. It was considered that there was no potential for LSEI where no LSE was concluded in relation to the potential project alone effects, given that effects were so low as to be inconsequential when added to in-combination totals. Therefore, no further SPAs (and Ramsar sites) were advanced to HRA Stage Two solely on the basis of the potential for LSEI.

3.3. Summary Table of Likely Significant Effects Identified and Considered in the HRA Stage Two Appropriate Assessment

  1. A summary of the sites and features for which LSE has been identified, along with corresponding impact pathways for each phase of the Proposed Development, is provided in Table 3.1   Open ▸ . Table 2.1   Open ▸ captures updates which have occurred following submission of the HRA Stage One Screening Report (SSER, 2021b).

 

Table 3.1:
A Summary of all European Sites and Features for which LSE Could not be Discounted at HRA Stage One Screening and for which Appropriate Assessment is Required.

Table 3.1: A Summary of all European Sites and Features for which LSE Could not be Discounted at HRA Stage One Screening and for which Appropriate Assessment is Required.

4. Information to Inform the Appropriate Assessments

  1. As described in chapter 2 of Part One of the RIAA, a European site is progressed to the Appropriate Assessment stage (Stage Two of the HRA process) where it is not possible to exclude an LSE on one or more of its qualifying interest features in view of the site’s conservation objectives. European sites, features and potential impacts requiring an Appropriate Assessment for the Proposed Development are therefore those for which LSE could not be ruled out during the Screening exercise and following consultation (see Table 3.1   Open ▸ ).
  2. Information to help inform the Appropriate Assessment for SPAs (and Ramsar sites) is provided in the following sections of this Part of the RIAA. The information provided includes a description of the SPAs (and Ramsar sites) under consideration, their qualifying interest features, and an assessment of potential effects on site integrity in light of the conservation objectives of each site. A cross-referencing approach has been adopted to aide readability and reduce repetition where relevant, but that this has been carefully carried out to ensure that all information required for a robust HRA of each site is presented. 

4.1. Maximum Design Scenario

  1. Assessments for all European sites considered in this Part of the RIAA are based on a realistic maximum design scenario derived from the design envelope for the Proposed Development. An overview of the maximum design scenario considered for the assessment of potential impacts on ornithological features considered in this Part of the RIAA has been provided in Table 4.1   Open ▸ .
  2. The maximum design scenario is consistent with that used for assessment in the relevant chapter of the Offshore EIA Report (volume 2, chapter 11 of the Offshore EIA Report).

4.2. Designed in Measures

  1. As part of the project design process, a number of designed in measures have been included in the Proposed Development and are committed to be delivered by the Applicant as part of the Proposed Development. These designed in measures are integrated into the project description for the Proposed Development and are not considered as mitigation measures intended to specifically avoid or reduce effects on European sites.
  2. Measures intended specifically to avoid or reduce effects on European sites were not considered during the HRA Stage One Screening but are included within the HRA Stage Two Appropriate Assessment for determination of Adverse Effects on Integrity.
  3. An overview of the designed in measures of relevance for ornithological features is provided in Table 4.2   Open ▸ .

4.3. Baseline Information

  1. Baseline information on the European sites (i.e. SPAs for this Part of the RIAA) identified for further assessment within HRA Stage Two Appropriate Assessment has been gathered through a suite of contemporary site-specific surveys, in addition to a comprehensive desktop study of existing studies and datasets. Baseline information is presented in detail in volume 3, appendix 11.1 of the Offshore EIA Report and summarised in volume 2, chapter 11 of the Offshore EIA Report.
  2. The key data sources are presented within volume 2, chapter 11 of the Offshore EIA Report. Notably, the assessment is underpinned by technical appendices that are derived from analyses of the baseline survey data which include:
  • volume 3, appendix 11.1 Baseline Ornithology Technical Report;
  • volume 3, appendix 11.3 Ornithology Collision Risk Modelling Technical Report;
  • volume 3, appendix 11.4 Ornithology Displacement Technical Report;
  • volume 3, appendix 11.5 Ornithology Apportioning Technical Report;
  • volume 3, appendix 11.6 Ornithology Population Viability Assessment Technical Report; and
  • volume 3, appendix 11.8 Offshore Ornithology Road Map.
    1. Furthermore, a suite of supporting technical annexes to these appendices are referred to within the assessment, including:
  • volume 3, appendix 11.3, annex B  Boat-Based Kittiwake Collision Estimates;
  • volume 3, appendix 11.3. annex C  Stochastic Collision Risk Modelling;
  • volume 3, appendix 11.4, annex B  Monthly Apportioned Population Estimates;
  • volume 3, appendix 11.4, annex E  Analysis of GPS Data for Gannets from the Bass Rock Colony;
  • volume 3, appendix 11.4, annex G  Justification of Developer and Scoping Approach;
  • volume 3, appendix 11.4, annex H SeabORD Sensitivity Analysis Report;
  • volume 3, appendix 11.6, annex E  Summary of Approach and Collation of In-Combination Totals;
  • volume 3, appendix 11.6, annex F Asymptotic Age Distributions; and
  • volume 3, appendix 11.8, annex A Road Map Meeting Minutes.
    1. Any additional sources of information used in the HRA Stage Two Appropriate Assessment are summarised within the main body of this Part of the RIAA and in appendix 3A.

4.4. Conservation Objectives and Conservation Advice

  1. Conservation objectives set the framework for establishing appropriate conservation measures for each feature of a site and provide a framework against which plans or projects can be assessed. The conservation objectives set out the essential elements needed to ensure that the favourable conservation status (FCS) of a qualifying habitat or species is maintained or restored at a site. If all the conservation objectives are met, then the integrity of the site will be maintained.
  2. In this Part of the RIAA, the Applicant has referenced the most up-to-date conservation objectives and conservation advice available. The statutory nature conservation bodies (SNCBs) have produced conservation advice for European sites under their statutory remit. This conservation advice provides supplementary information on sites and features, and although the content provided is similar, the format of the advice provided varies between the different SNCBs.
  3. For European sites under the statutory remit of NatureScot, Conservation and Management Advice documents (CMAs) have been produced for all marine SPAs. These documents contain revised and updated conservation objectives for the features of each site, site-specific clarifications and advice in order for the conservation objectives to be achieved, and advice on management required to achieve the conservation objectives. Each objective includes site-specific supplementary advice.
  4. For European sites under the statutory remit of Natural England, Supplementary Advice to the conservation objectives has been produced for some SPAs, which provide site-specific attributes and targets specific to the features of the site.  
  5. Where Ramsar interests coincide with qualifying features within an SPA, the advice for overlapping designations is considered to be sufficient to support the management of the Ramsar interests. Therefore, the conservation objectives are referenced for both designations.
  6. Further details are provided in appendix 3A, and/or referenced in the course of the HRA Stage Two Appropriate Assessment.

4.5. Approach to the In-Combination Assessments

  1. The Marine Scotland Science Consenting and Licensing Guidance: For Offshore Wind, Wave and Tidal Energy Applications (Scottish Government 2018) states that ‘Engagement with MS-LOT is required to identify which plans/projects/ongoing activities should be included in the in-combination element of the cumulative effects assessment.’ The offshore wind projects in the Forth and Tay region have been considered, alongside other developments, including those which:
  • became operational since baseline characterisation;
  • are under construction;
  • those with consent and submitted but not yet determined;
  • those projects with a Scoping Report; and
  • plans and projects which are “reasonably foreseeable” (i.e. developments that are being planned, including, for example, offshore renewable energy projects which have a Crown Estate Agreement for Lease (AfL), offshore renewable energy projects that have been scoped).
    1. The in-combination assessment has considered all other relevant plans and projects where detail to inform the assessment is publicly available three months prior to the Proposed Development application.
    2. The approach taken for the assessment of in-combination impacts in this Part of the RIAA has been informed by the cumulative effects assessment (CEA) carried out in volume 2, chapter 11 of the Offshore EIA Report. The plans and projects selected as relevant to the in-combination assessment presented in this Part of the RIAA are based upon the results of a Screening exercise undertaken for volume 2, chapter 11 of the Offshore EIA Report (see volume 3, appendix 6.3 of the Offshore EIA Report). Each plan or project has been considered on a case-by-case basis for inclusion based upon data confidence, effect pathways and the spatial/temporal scales involved.
    3. In undertaking the in-combination assessment, it is important to bear in mind that other plans and projects under consideration will have differing potential for proceeding to an operational stage and hence a differing potential to ultimately contribute to an in-combination effect alongside the Proposed Development. Therefore, a tiered approach has been adopted. This provides a framework for placing relative weight upon the potential for each plan or project to be included in the in-combination assessment to ultimately be realised, based upon the plan or project’s current stage of maturity and certainty in the projects’ parameters. The tiered approach which has been utilised within the in-combination assessment employs the following tiers:
  • tier 1 assessment – Proposed Development (Berwick Bank Wind Farm offshore) with Berwick Bank Wind Farm onshore;
  • tier 2 assessment – all plans/projects assessed under Tier 1, plus projects which are operational, under construction, those with consent, and those which have been submitted but are not yet determined;
  • tier 3 assessment – all plans/projects assessed under Tier 2, plus those projects that have submitted Scoping Report but not a consent application; and
  • tier 4 assessment – All plans/projects assessed under Tier 3, plus those projects likely to come forward where an Agreement for Lease (AfL) has been granted.
    1. This tiered approach has been adopted to provide an explicit assessment of the Proposed Development as a whole.
    2. The specific projects scoped into the in-combination assessment for this Part of the RIAA are detailed in Annex E in volume 3, appendix 11.6 of the Offshore EIA Report, noting that these differ between SPA populations according to variation in connectivity (which in turn is dependent on location, breeding season foraging ranges, and distribution and movements in the non-breeding periods).
    3. The nature of effects that have been assessed for each ornithological feature, and the scale over which those effects may occur, are based on assessment criteria applied during the HRA Stage One Screening exercise as presented in section 3. These effects are detailed within the Proposed Development alone assessment (see section 3.1) and have not been re-iterated here. The overarching approach to the assessment of in-combination effects is set out in section 3.2. The range of potential in-combination effects is a subset of those considered for the Proposed Development alone assessment. This is because some of the potential impacts identified and assessed for the Proposed Development alone, are determined to be localised and temporary in nature. It is considered therefore, that these potential impacts have limited or no potential to interact with similar changes associated with other plans or projects.
    4. Similarly, some of the potential effects considered within the Proposed Development alone assessment are specific to a particular phase of development (e.g. construction, operation and maintenance or decommissioning). Where the potential for in-combination effects with other plans or projects only have potential to occur where there is spatial or temporal overlap with the Proposed Development during certain phases of development, effects associated with a certain phase may be omitted from further consideration where no plans or projects have been identified that have the potential for in-combination effects during this period.
    5. Following advice from NatureScot provided through the Ornithology Roadmap process (at meeting 3, 8th December 2021), the in-combination assessments were undertaken for the full suite of plan and projects considered to be potentially relevant and for the subset of these plans and projects represented by the other Forth and Tay wind farms (which are located in the same region as the Proposed Development). For the purposes of this assessment, the other Forth and Tay wind farms are taken to be the Seagreen 1, Seagreen 1A Project, Inch Cape and Neart na Gaoithe offshore wind farms. The in-combination assessment for this subset of plans and projects was undertaken in relation to those breeding seabird SPAs which were considered in the assessments for the revised designs of the other Forth and Tay wind farms – i.e. St Abb’s Head to Fast Castle, Forth Islands, Fowlsheugh and Buchan Ness to Collieston Coast (e.g. Marine Scotland 2017a,b,c, ICOL 2018).
    6. As described in volume 1, chapter 3 of the Offshore EIA Report, the Applicant is developing an additional export cable grid connection to Blyth, Northumberland (the Cambois Connection). Therefore, applications for necessary consents (including marine licences) will be applied for separately. The in-combination assessment for the Cambois Connection is based on information presented in the Cambois Connection Scoping Report (SSER, 2022e), submitted in October 2022. Although the Cambois Connection will overlap spatially and temporally with the Proposed Development, based on conclusions on the likely scale of impact from cable burial and installation of cable protection on key prey species and limited potential for indirect effects on qualifying features of SPAs as a result of temporary changes to prey distribution, the potential for in-combination impacts has been screened out (see volume 3, appendix 6.3 of the Offshore EIA Report). The CEA methodology is described in detail in volume 1, chapter 6 of the Offshore EIA Report and summarised below.
    7. Furthermore, The Applicant is aware that on 04 July 2022, Inch Cape Offshore Limited (ICOL) applied to Scottish Ministers to vary its offshore consent to construct and operate Inch Cape Offshore Wind Farm[4]. The proposed variation(s) are at a very early stage in the development process. It was concluded in the supporting EIA and HRA Screening report[5] that there are no new or materially different impacts arising from the variation compared to the initial proposal (ICOL revised design as consented). Given that this is the most current information available (as of October 2022), the Applicant has continued to assess the ICOL revised design (as consented).

 

Table 4.1:
Maximum Design Scenario Considered for the Assessment of Potential Impacts on Ornithological Features.

Table 4.1: Maximum Design Scenario Considered for the Assessment of Potential Impacts on Ornithological Features.

Table 4.2:
Designed in Measures of Relevance to the Assessment of Potential Impacts on European Sites Designated for Ornithological Interest Features.

Table 4.2: Designed in Measures of Relevance to the Assessment of Potential Impacts on European Sites Designated for Ornithological Interest Features.