12.12. Cumulative Effects Assessment

12.12.1. Methodology

237. The CEA assesses the LSE1 associated with the Array together with other relevant plans, projects and activities. Cumulative effects are defined as the combined effect of the Array in combination with the effects from a number of different projects, on the same receptor or resource. Further details on CEA methodology are provided in volume 1, chapter 6.
238. The projects and plans selected as relevant to the CEA presented within this chapter are based upon the results of a screening exercise (see volume 3, appendix 6.4 of the Array EIA Report). Volume 3, appendix 6.4 further provides information regarding how information pertaining to other plans and projects is gained and applied to the assessment. Each project or plan has been considered on a case-by-case basis for screening in or out of this chapter’s assessment based upon data confidence, impact-receptor pathways and the spatial/temporal scales involved.
239. In undertaking the CEA for the Array, it should be noted that other projects and plans under consideration will have differing potential for proceeding to an operational stage and hence a differing potential to ultimately contribute to a cumulative impact alongside the Array. Therefore, a tiered approach has be adopted which provides a framework for placing relative weight upon the potential for each project/plan to be included in the CEA to ultimately be realised, based upon the project/plan’s current stage of maturity and certainty in the projects’ parameters. The tiered approach which will be utilised within the Array CEA employs the following tiers:

• tier 1 assessment – Array with Proposed offshore export cable corridor(s) and Proposed onshore transmission infrastructure, and all plans/projects which became operational since baseline characterisation, which are part of the baseline but have an ongoing impact, those under construction, and those with consent and submitted but not yet determined;
• tier 2 assessment – All plans/projects assessed under Tier 1, plus those projects with a Scoping Report; and
• tier 3 assessment – All plans/projects assessed under Tier 2, which are reasonably foreseeable, plus those projects likely to come forward where an Agreement for Lease (AfL) has been granted.

240. The commercial fisheries cumulative study area has been defined as the North Sea, which is considered to be representative of the fishing grounds exploited by the fleets active across the regional study area, for all fleets except scallop dredging. For scallop dredging the cumulative study area is defined at a UK level; this is because the UK fleet of scallop dredgers are nomadic in nature and target grounds across the North Sea, West of Scotland, Irish Sea and English Channel. This was discussed at the pre-Scoping Workshop with commercial fisheries stakeholders (see Table 12.3   Open ▸ ). The commercial fisheries cumulative study area is presented in Figure 12.7   Open ▸ .
241. The specific projects scoped into the CEA for commercial fisheries, are outlined in Table 12.11   Open ▸ and presented in Figure 12.8   Open ▸ .
242. The range of potential cumulative impacts that are identified and included in Table 12.12   Open ▸ , is a subset of those considered for the Array alone CEA assessment. This is because some of the potential impacts identified and assessed for the Array alone, are 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. These have therefore not been taken forward for detailed assessment.
243. Similarly, some of the potential impacts considered within the Array alone assessment are specific to a particular phase of development (e.g. construction, operation and maintenance or decommissioning). Where the potential for cumulative effects with other plans or projects only have potential to occur where there is spatial or temporal overlap with the Array during certain phases of development, impacts associated with a certain phase may be omitted from further consideration where no plans or projects have been identified that have the potential for cumulative effects during this period.
244. It is considered that other renewable projects in the North Sea have the potential to reduce access to fishing grounds, especially where floating foundations are proposed for offshore wind farm developments. This could lead to the potential cumulative effect of temporary (during construction and decommissioning) and long term (during operation and maintenance) loss or restricted access to fishing grounds. This incremental loss of fishing grounds is often termed ‘spatial squeeze’ and is a growing concern within the fishing industry. The loss of access to fishing grounds may lead to displacement at a cumulative level, where vessels are exploratory fishing and focusing effort in areas outside of cumulative developments. This could lead to the cumulative effect of incremental displacement across the North Sea. This displacement effect and where a displaced fisher chooses to direct the displaced effort can be difficult to assign to a specific project, given that fishing operators are responding to multiple developments.
245. In addition, incremental disruption to fish and shellfish species could lead to cumulative displacement of the commercial resource. For example, at the ecosystem level offshore wind farms and other developments in the marine environment could  act as aggregation devices, attracting a different assemblage of species (which could in itself provide new commercial opportunity), or there could be barrier effects). The fish and shellfish ecology assessment has considered potential cumulative effects to specific species and species groups, as presented within volume 2, chapter 9, with potential knock-on effects considered within this chapter for commercially exploited resources.
246. The remaining impacts to commercial fisheries, including interference with fishing activity due to project-related vessel movements, snagging risk and increased transit times are considered to be highly localised to specific projects. Given the scale of the Array alone effects, any cumulative, additive effects across these impacts within the commercial fisheries cumulative study area would be negligible across projects.
247. To summarise, the following impacts are considered at a cumulative level:

• temporary loss or restricted access to fishing grounds;
• long term loss or restricted access to fishing grounds;
• displacement of fishing activity into other areas; and
• impacts to commercial exploited species populations.

248. The approach to CEA screening of projects for commercial fisheries has taken a wide and inclusive approach, including many developments that are in operational phase. This is because these developments are recognised to continue to pose a potential impact on commercial fisheries through incremental loss of fishing grounds.

Table 12.11: List of Other Projects and Plans Considered within the CEA for Commercial Fisheries

Figure 12.7: Commercial Fisheries Cumulative Study Area

Figure 12.8: Other Projects/Plans Screened into the Cumulative Effects Assessment for Commercial Fisheries

12.12.2. Maximum Design Scenario

249. The maximum design scenarios identified in Table 12.12   Open ▸ have been selected as those having the potential to result in the greatest effect on an identified receptor or receptor group. The cumulative effects presented and assessed in this section have been selected from the details provided in volume 1, chapter 3 of the Array EIA Report as well as the information available on other projects and plans (see volume 3, appendix 6.4), to inform a ‘maximum design scenario’. Effects of greater adverse significance are not predicted to arise should any other development scenario, based on details within the Project Description (e.g. different wind turbine layout), to that assessed here, be taken forward in the final design scheme.

Table 12.12: Maximum Design Scenario Considered for Each Impact as part of the Assessment of Likely Significant Cumulative Effects on Commercial Fisheries

12.12.3. Cumulative Effects Assessment

250. An assessment of the likely significance of the cumulative effects of the Array upon commercial fisheries receptors arising from each identified impact is given below. The receptors are the commercial fishing fleets operating within and around the Array that may also be affected cumulatively by other plans and projects. The commercial fisheries receptors considered in this assessment include:

• demersal otter trawl targeting whitefish and mixed demersal fish species and/or Nephrops;
• demersal seine targeting whitefish and mixed demersal fish species;
• dredge targeting king scallop;
• pelagic trawl targeting herring; and
• potting targeting brown crab and lobster.

Temporary loss or restricted access to fishing grounds

                        Tier 1

                        Construction phase

Magnitude of impact

251. There is potential for cumulative reduction in access to or exclusion from established fishing grounds as a result of construction activities associated with the Array and other projects that are under construction, and with planned decommissioning. There is also potential for cumulative reduction in access to or exclusion from established fishing grounds during the construction of the Array and other projects in construction or operation, although it is assumed that access would be possible for most gear types (with exception of pelagic trawl) within the Tier 1 wind farms and access to export cable routes for most mobile gears, potting and pelagic trawl (noting that while MGN 661 advises that mobile fishing vessels with penetrative gear avoid submarine cables, cables are typically buried or protected to allow trawling, with the exception of dredging). For the purposes of this assessment, this cumulative effect has been assessed within the North Sea (i.e. the commercial fisheries cumulative study area, Figure 12.7   Open ▸ ), which is considered to be a reasonable extent for the fishing grounds exploited by the commercial fisheries receptors active across the commercial fisheries regional study area, for all fleets except scallop dredging. For scallop dredging this effect is assessed at a UK level; this is because the UK fleet of scallop dredgers are nomadic in nature and target grounds across the North Sea, West of Scotland, Irish Sea and English Channel. Fisheries data has been reviewed against the Tier 1 projects.
252. Scallop dredging is noted to occur across a number of Tier 1 projects, specifically in the Irish Sea: Mona Offshore Wind Farm and in the North Sea: Beatrice, Moray East, Moray West, Seagreen 1 Offshore Wind Farm and Dogger Bank A Offshore Wind Farms. Scallop dredging is evident along the western edge of the Proposed offshore export cable corridor(s), outside 12 nm adjacent to the Lincolnshire coastline ( Figure 12.9   Open ▸ ).
253. Demersal otter trawl and demersal seine activity occurs throughout the North Sea, with highly defined grounds for targeting Nephrops (related to muddy habitat) and less defined grounds when targeting whitefish/mixed demersal species, including haddock and cod. Defined grounds for Nephrops fishery are noted primarily across the cable routes of Tier 1 offshore wind farms, including in the Firth of Forth (Neart na Gaoithe, Berwick Bank, Inch Cape and Seagreen 1 Offshore Wind Farms) and Moray Firth (Moray East and Moray West Offshore Wind Farms). Lower levels of demersal otter trawl activity are noted across the Proposed offshore export cable corridor(s) ( Figure 12.10   Open ▸ ).
254. Pelagic otter trawl activity occurs primarily north of the Array, in the central areas of the northern North Sea ( Figure 12.11   Open ▸ ). There is very limited overlap with Tier 1 projects.
255. Potting VMS spatial data is not fully representative of the UK potting fleet because the data is only available for vessels 15 m and over, while the majority of the potting fleet is less than 15 m in length. Nevertheless, the potting VMS data does indicate areas of high activity for the 15 m and over fleet, specifically off the Holderness Coast and in North Norfolk ( Figure 12.12   Open ▸ ). The impact of the Proposed offshore export cable corridor(s) will be temporary and localised in nature, with any significant effects on disruption to the static sector expected to be mitigated directly with affected fishers if required and where appropriate to do so. Furthermore, there is negligible potting activity within the Array and any potting in the vicinity of the regional study area is not likely to be undertaken by the potting fleets potentially affected by the Proposed offshore export cable corridor(s) off the Holderness Coast.
256. A number of operational offshore wind farms are included in the Tier 1 assessment, which throughout their construction provided a range of mitigation directly to commercial fishing businesses. Fishermen have adapted their activities in response to the presence of these offshore wind farms, including both operating within the arrays (for example, by adapting how and where gear is used or set); avoiding construction areas and returning to fishing grounds across export cables post construction and in certain instances overtrawl surveys to confirm resumption of fishing.
257. The offshore wind farms are located in areas where scallop dredgers, demersal otter trawls, pelagic trawls and potting activity were likely to have been operated, with varying degrees of effort. Overall, the commercial fishing fleets have adapted to the presence of the offshore wind farms and adjusted practices to allow fishing businesses to continue operation.
258. The potential for incremental loss of fishing grounds is recognised in the ABPmer (2022) spatial squeeze in fisheries report, which focused on assessment of mobile fishing gears in response to present and future scenarios for restricted access due to Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) (included in Tier 2 of this assessment) and offshore developments including offshore wind farms and cables. The study found that the spatial footprint of activities and policies that constrain trawling represents 23% of the UK EEZ area for the ‘present’ scenario (i.e. as of 2022). It is noted, however, that the scenarios for loss within the ABPmer (2022) report treat all areas equally, i.e. the report does not distinguish between areas that can actually be utilised (and are currently targeted) for fishing. The ‘future 2030’ scenario predicted 36% of the UK EEZ would be restricted to trawling and the ‘future 2050’ worst case scenario predicted 49% of the UK EEZ would be restricted, with an area greater than 30,000 km2 occupied by the renewable offshore wind sector. The ‘future 2050’ worst case scenario assumes mobile fishing would be restricted within all wind farms, which is noted to not necessarily be the case.
259. The ABPmer (2022) report highlights that the fishing industry has adapted to the ‘present’ scenario, based on the majority of restrictions being linked to nature conservation restrictions in waters deeper than 800 m, together with offshore wind farms sited in areas not previously intensively trawled.
260. Overall, it is considered that the fishing industry continue to adapt to operational projects included in the Tier 1 assessment, including active fishing within operational wind farms.
261. The cumulative impact is predicted to be of international spatial extent, medium term duration, continuous and low reversibility. It is predicted that the impact will affect the receptor directly. Given the adaptation of the commercial fishing sector to operational offshore wind farm developments, the magnitude is therefore, considered to be low for Tier 1 projects.

Figure 12.9: Commercial Fisheries Cumulative Projects and Dredge Swept Area Ratio for EU and UK vessels 12 m and over (ICES, 2022)

Figure 12.10: Commercial Fisheries Cumulative Projects and Demersal Otter Trawl Swept Area Ratio for EU and UK vessels 12 m and over (ICES, 2022)

Figure 12.11: Commercial Fisheries Cumulative Projects and Pelagic Trawl VMS data indicating value of landings by UK vessels 15 m and over from 2016 to 2020 (MMO, 2022b)

Figure 12.12: Commercial Fisheries Cumulative Projects and Potting VMS data indicating value of landings by UK vessels 15 m and over from 2016 to 2020 (MMO, 2022b)

Sensitivity of receptor

262. All commercial fishing fleets are sensitive to incremental loss of access to fishing grounds.
263. All commercial fishing fleets are deemed to be of high vulnerability, medium recoverability and medium-high value. The sensitivity of the receptor is therefore, considered to be medium.

Significance of effect

264. Overall, the magnitude of the cumulative effect is deemed to be low and the sensitivity of the receptor is considered to be medium. The cumulative effect will, therefore, be of minor adverse significance, which is not significant in EIA terms.

Further mitigation and residual effect

265. No commercial fisheries mitigation is considered necessary because the likely effect in the absence of further mitigation (beyond the designed in measures outlined in section 12.10) is not significant in EIA terms.

                        Decommissioning phase

Magnitude of impact

266. The magnitude of impact is the same or similar to that assessed for construction, summarised as low for Tier 1 projects.

Sensitivity of receptor

267. The sensitivity of receptors is the same or similar to that assessed for construction, summarised as medium for all commercial fishing fleets.

Significance of effect

268. Overall, the magnitude of the cumulative effect is deemed to be low and the sensitivity of the receptor is considered to be medium. The cumulative effect will, therefore, be of minor adverse significance, which is not significant in EIA terms.

Further mitigation and residual effect

269. No commercial fisheries mitigation is considered necessary because the likely effect in the absence of further mitigation (beyond the designed in measures outlined in section 12.10) is not significant in EIA terms.

                        Tier 2

                        Construction phase

Magnitude of impact

270. The Tier 2 cumulative assessment includes a number of offshore wind farms (including those using floating wind technology), together with the network of UK designated MPAs. Fisheries administrators across the UK are at various stages of implementing management measures within MPAs. The MMO recently (March 2024) implemented byelaws with prohibitions on bottom contact fishing gear within nine MPAs. From a Scottish context, the Marine Directorate has implemented a series of Marine Conservation Orders (MCOs) and fisheries orders in MPAs and SACs, affecting from 2022, and a series of possible MCOs and fisheries orders for other MPAs remains under consideration.
271. In terms of fishing activity, scallop dredge activity is notable within Muir Mhor and Caledonia Offshore Wind Farms, and also to the north and west of Morven and within Morgan Offshore Wind Farm (in the Irish Sea); and demersal otter trawl activity is notable within Caledonia, Marram and Muir Mhor Offshore Wind Farms.
272. The scale of potential restrictions to the commercial fishing fleets is recognised, including through the ABPmer (2022) spatial squeeze analysis. Overall, there is potential for incremental loss of grounds to occur from floating offshore wind farms and nature conservation management. However, the contribution of the Array to spatial squeeze is low particularly when considering the low levels of current fishing activity ongoing within the Array.  
273. The cumulative impact is predicted to be of international spatial extent, medium term duration, continuous and low reversibility. It is predicted that the impact will affect the receptor directly. Given the loss of access posed by floating offshore wind farms, together with the anticipated introduction of fisheries management within the MPA network, the magnitude is therefore, considered to be medium for Tier 2 projects for demersal otter trawl and demersal seine and low for all other fishing fleets. This assessment is based on the potential resumption of a fishery targeting a smaller size class of haddock which is not presently (i.e., from 2018 to 2022) being targeted, but has been in the past (evidenced by confidential fishing industry plotter data and landing statistics for 2011 to 2014). Whilst the area in which Ossian is located is not presently considered important for mobile demersal trawling fleets, as shown by Figure 12.6   Open ▸ and in the commercial fisheries technical report (volume 3, appendix 12.1), there is the possibility that there could be additional pressures on this fishery should all ScotWind floating projects in Tier 2 progress to construction. Based solely on the recent baseline (i.e., from 2018 to 2022), the assessment outcome is low in magnitude, however taking account of the long term data series, and the potential future baseline, the cumulative magnitude of impact has conservatively been assessed as medium for the mobile demersal otter trawl fleet.
274. Given the uncertainty around the small haddock future baseline, the assessment presented is highly uncertain and is presented as a precautionary assessment. The uncertainty relates to whether the fishery for small haddock returns in this area, whether fishing can resume within a floating offshore wind farm (the assessment assumes it cannot) and whether the floating offshore wind farms within Tier 2 are consented.

Sensitivity of receptor

275. All commercial fishing fleets are sensitive to incremental loss of access to fishing grounds.
276. All commercial fishing fleets are deemed to be of high vulnerability, medium recoverability and medium-high value. The sensitivity of the receptor is therefore, considered to be medium.

Significance of effect

277. Demersal otter trawl and demersal seine fishing fleets: overall, the magnitude of the cumulative effect is deemed to be medium (taking account of the long term data series and the potential future baseline) and the sensitivity of the receptor is conservatively considered to be medium. The cumulative effect will, therefore, be of moderate adverse significance, which is significant in EIA terms.
278. All other commercial fishing fleets: overall, the magnitude of the cumulative effect is deemed to be low and the sensitivity of the receptor is considered to be medium. The cumulative effect will, therefore, be of minor adverse significance, which is not significant in EIA terms.

Further mitigation and residual effect

279. A significant cumulative effect of loss of access to fishing grounds is predicted for demersal otter trawl and demersal seine fishing fleets. However, it is emphasised that the overall contribution of the Array to this cumulative impact is considered low.
280. Further mitigation is proposed at a regional scale to monitor fishing activity with the region to identify any changing effort. This monitoring will utilise publicly available datasets on landing statistics, VMS and AIS to monitor the fishing activity and patterns within the commercial fisheries regional study area. The intention of this monitoring is to identify any changes in the baseline assessment from 2023 onwards up to construction and operational phases to ensure that the impact assessment remains valid. Findings from the monitoring will be discussed with the CFWG and support any necessary updates to the FMMS so that mitigation remains valid throughout the operation and maintenance phase. Monitoring fisheries activity is not standard procedure and therefore not considered as a designed in measure. Monitoring in this instance is therefore defined as further mitigation, with the following linkages to the FMMS:

• The proposed approach to monitoring commercial fisheries activity would be detailed in the FMMS.
• The designed in measures within the FMMS includes liaison principles, means of information dissemination and use of company FLO and OFLO as appropriate.
• Appropriate information dissemination to fishers operating in the area would allow them to plan their activities appropriately.

281. In addition, the Applicant is committed to explore opportunities for coexistence within the Array, subject to final design and layout.
282. Overall, for the demersal trawl and seine fishery targeting haddock, following mitigation, the magnitude of the impact is deemed to be low and the sensitivity of the receptor is considered to be medium. The residual effect will, therefore, be of minor adverse significance, which is not significant in EIA terms.

                        Decommissioning phase

Magnitude of impact

283. The magnitude of impact is the same or similar to that assessed for construction (paragraphs 270 to 274), summarised as medium for Tier 2 projects.

Sensitivity of receptor

284. The sensitivity of receptors is the same or similar to that assessed for construction (paragraphs 275 to 276), summarised as medium for all commercial fishing fleets.

Significance of effect

285. Overall, the magnitude of the cumulative effect is deemed to be medium and the sensitivity of the receptor is considered to be medium. The cumulative effect will, therefore, be of moderate adverse significance, which is significant in EIA terms.

Further mitigation and residual effect

286. Further mitigation is as proposed for construction Tier 2 assessment (paragraphs 279 to 282).
287. Overall, following mitigation, the magnitude of the impact is deemed to be low and the sensitivity of the receptor is considered to be medium. The effect will, therefore, be of minor adverse significance, which is not significant in EIA terms.

                        Tier 3

                        Construction and decommissioning phases

Magnitude of impact

288. The additional floating offshore wind farms within Tier 3 raise the cumulative effect of loss or restricted access to fishing grounds, however this rise is considered to remain within the medium magnitude category (i.e., leading to moderate loss of access to fishing grounds) and does not enter the high magnitude category (i.e., leading to substantial loss of access to fishing grounds). The Tier 3 projects are not considered to raise the category of magnitude of impact beyond what is assessed for Tier 2 (paragraphs 270 to 274), summarised as medium for all commercial fishing fleets.

Sensitivity of receptor

289. The sensitivity of receptors is the same or similar to that assessed for Tier 2 (paragraphs 275 to 276), summarised as medium for all commercial fishing fleets.

Significance of effect

290. Overall, the magnitude of the cumulative effect is deemed to be medium and the sensitivity of the receptor is considered to be medium. The cumulative effect will, therefore, be of moderate adverse significance, which is significant in EIA terms.

Further mitigation and residual effect

291. Further mitigation is proposed as described for temporary loss or restricted access to fishing grounds during construction for Tier 2 projects (paragraphs 279 to 282).
292. Overall, following mitigation, the magnitude of the impact is deemed to be low and the sensitivity of the receptor is considered to be medium. The effect will, therefore, be of minor adverse significance, which is not significant in EIA terms.

Long term loss or restricted access to fishing grounds

                        Tier 1

                        Operation and maintenance phase

Magnitude of impact

293. The justification for the magnitude of impact is the same or similar to that assessed for Temporary loss or restricted access to fishing grounds during construction for Tier 1 projects (paragraphs 251 to 260). While the operation and maintenance phase is of longer duration (35 years) than the construction phase (eight years); the impact magnitude is not considered to rise above that assessed for the construction phase.
294. The cumulative impact is predicted to be of international spatial extent (based on geographic scope of the commercial fisheries cumulative study area which covers multiple EEZs and UK and non-UK fishing fleets), long term duration, continuous and low reversibility. It is predicted that the impact will affect the receptor directly. Given the adaptation of the commercial fishing sector to operational wind farm developments, the magnitude is therefore, considered to be low for Tier 1 projects.

Sensitivity of receptor

295. The justification for the sensitivity is the same or similar to that assessed for Temporary loss or restricted access to fishing grounds during construction for Tier 1 projects (paragraph 262).
296. All commercial fishing fleets are deemed to be of high vulnerability, medium recoverability and medium-high value. The sensitivity of the receptor is therefore, considered to be medium.

Significance of effect

297. Overall, the magnitude of the cumulative effect is deemed to be low and the sensitivity of the receptor is considered to be medium. The cumulative effect will, therefore, be of minor adverse significance, which is not significant in EIA terms.

Further mitigation and residual effect

298. No commercial fisheries mitigation is considered necessary because the likely effect in the absence of further mitigation (beyond the designed in measures outlined in section 12.10) is not significant in EIA terms.

                        Tier 2

                        Operation and maintenance phase

Magnitude of impact

299. The justification for the magnitude of impact is the same or similar to that assessed for Temporary loss or restricted access to fishing grounds during construction for Tier 2 projects (paragraphs 270 to 274).
300. The cumulative impact is predicted to be of international spatial extent, medium term duration, continuous and low reversibility. It is predicted that the impact will affect the receptor directly. Given the loss of access posed by floating offshore wind farms, together with the anticipated introduction of fisheries management within the MPA network, the magnitude is therefore, considered to be medium for Tier 2 projects.

Sensitivity of receptor

301. The justification for the sensitivity is the same or similar to that assessed for Temporary loss or restricted access to fishing grounds during construction for Tier 2 projects (paragraphs 275 and 276).
302. All commercial fishing fleets are deemed to be of high vulnerability, medium recoverability and medium-high value. The sensitivity of the receptor is therefore, considered to be medium.

Significance of effect

303. Overall, the magnitude of the cumulative effect is deemed to be medium and the sensitivity of the receptor is considered to be medium. The cumulative effect will, therefore, be of moderate adverse significance, which is significant in EIA terms.

Further mitigation and residual effect

304. Further mitigation is proposed as described for temporary loss or restricted access to fishing grounds during construction for Tier 2 projects (paragraphs 279 to 282).
305. Overall, following mitigation, the magnitude of the impact is deemed to be low and the sensitivity of the receptor is considered to be medium. The effect will, therefore, be of minor adverse significance, which is not significant in EIA terms.

                        Tier 3

                        Operation and maintenance phase

Magnitude of impact

306. The Tier 3 projects are not considered to raise the magnitude of impact beyond what is assessed for Tier 2 (paragraph 299), summarised as medium for all commercial fishing fleets.

Sensitivity of receptor

307. The sensitivity of receptors is the same or similar to that assessed for Tier 2 (paragraph 301), summarised as medium for all commercial fishing fleets.

Significance of effect

308. Overall, the magnitude of the cumulative effect is deemed to be medium and the sensitivity of the receptor is considered to be medium. The cumulative effect will, therefore, be of moderate adverse significance, which is significant in EIA terms.

Further mitigation and residual effect

309. Further mitigation is proposed as described for ttemporary loss or restricted access to fishing grounds during construction for Tier 2 projects (paragraphs 279 to 282).
310. Overall, following mitigation, the magnitude of the impact is deemed to be low and the sensitivity of the receptor is considered to be medium. The effect will, therefore, be of minor adverse significance, which is not significant in EIA terms.

Displacement of fishing activity

                        Tier 1

                        Construction phase

Magnitude of impact

311. The effect of displacement during construction leading to gear conflict and increased fishing pressure is directly correlated to the previous impact of reduced access to fishing grounds (i.e. if there is no reduction in access, then there will be no displacement). There is a low magnitude of impact for reduced access to fishing grounds from Tier 1 projects and therefore an ongoing cumulative displacement effect is not expected to be recognisable beyond baseline conditions. Resumption of fishing within existing wind farms included in Tier 1 is assumed for scallop dredge, potting and demersal otter trawl and therefore displacement over time will have dissipated as commercial fishing fleets adapt and operate within fixed foundation wind farms. While pelagic trawl gear would not be feasible within Tier 1 wind farms, these are not located across grounds specifically targeted by pelagic trawl, and it is assumed that the opportunity to catch the fish outside wind farm area is not wholly lost.
312. Displacement is possible in response to the Proposed offshore export cable corridor(s) during its construction phase. However, it is expected that potting vessels active across the Proposed offshore export cable corridor(s) are unlikely to be the same potting vessels operating in the commercial fisheries regional study area for the Array, due to the distance of the identified potting grounds from the Array (approximately 100 nm south of the Array). Furthermore, it is assumed that appropriately mitigated loss of access impacts associated with the Proposed offshore export cable corridor(s) would limit the effect of displacement.
313. Overall, based on the above justifications, the magnitude of impact of displacement is assessed as low for all fleets.

Sensitivity of receptor

314. All commercial fishing fleets are sensitive to displacement into other areas.
315. All commercial fishing fleets are deemed to be of high vulnerability, medium recoverability and medium-high value. The sensitivity of the receptor is therefore, considered to be medium.

Significance of effect

316. Overall, the magnitude of the cumulative effect is deemed to be low and the sensitivity of the receptor is considered to be medium. The cumulative effect will, therefore, be of minor adverse significance, which is not significant in EIA terms.

Further mitigation and residual effect

317. No commercial fisheries mitigation is considered necessary because the likely effect in the absence of further mitigation (beyond the designed in measures outlined in section 12.10) is not significant in EIA terms.

                        Operation and maintenance phase

Magnitude of impact

318. The effect of displacement during operational phase leading to gear conflict and increased fishing pressure is directly correlated to the previous impact of reduced access to fishing grounds (i.e. if there is no reduction in access, then there will be no displacement). There is a low magnitude of impact for reduced access to fishing grounds from Tier 1 projects and therefore displacement is not expected. As such the magnitude of impact of displacement is assessed as low for all fleets.

Sensitivity of receptor

319. All commercial fishing fleets are sensitive to displacement into other areas.
320. All commercial fishing fleets are deemed to be of high vulnerability, medium recoverability and medium-high value. The sensitivity of the receptor is therefore, considered to be medium.

Significance of effect

321. Overall, the magnitude of the cumulative effect is deemed to be low and the sensitivity of the receptor is considered to be medium. The cumulative effect will, therefore, be of minor adverse significance, which is not significant in EIA terms.

Further mitigation and residual effect

322. No commercial fisheries mitigation is considered necessary because the likely effect in the absence of further mitigation (beyond the designed in measures outlined in section 12.10) is not significant in EIA terms.

                        Decommissioning phase

Magnitude of impact

323. The effect of displacement during decommissioning leading to gear conflict and increased fishing pressure is directly correlated to the previous impact of reduced access to fishing grounds (i.e. if there is no reduction in access, then there will be no displacement). There is a low magnitude of impact for reduced access to fishing grounds from Tier 1 projects and therefore displacement is not expected. As such the magnitude of impact of displacement is assessed as low for all fleets.

Sensitivity of receptor

324. All commercial fishing fleets are sensitive to displacement into other areas.
325. All commercial fishing fleets are deemed to be of high vulnerability, medium recoverability and medium-high value. The sensitivity of the receptor is therefore, considered to be medium.

Significance of effect

326. Overall, the magnitude of the cumulative effect is deemed to be low and the sensitivity of the receptor is considered to be medium. The cumulative effect will, therefore, be of minor adverse significance, which is not significant in EIA terms.

Further mitigation and residual effect

327. No commercial fisheries mitigation is considered necessary because the likely effect in the absence of further mitigation (beyond the designed in measures outlined in section 12.10) is not significant in EIA terms.

                        Tier 2

                        Construction phase

Magnitude of impact

328. The effect of displacement during construction leading to gear conflict and increased fishing pressure is directly correlated to the previous impact of reduced access to fishing grounds (i.e. if there is no reduction in access, then there will be no displacement). There is a medium magnitude of impact for reduced access to fishing grounds from Tier 2 projects, specifically due to the assumption that fishing will not resume within floating offshore wind farms and therefore displacement is expected.
329. The Applicant is committed to explore opportunities for coexistence subject to final design and layout within the Array.
330. The cumulative impact is predicted to be of international spatial extent, medium term duration, continuous and low reversibility. It is predicted that the impact will affect the receptor directly. Given the loss of access posed by floating offshore wind farms (Broadshore Hub, Buchan, Caledonia, Cenos, Marram, Muir Mhor, Stromar, and Salamander Offshore Wind Farms) and knock-on displacement effects, together with the anticipated introduction of fisheries management within the MPA network, the magnitude is therefore, considered to be medium for Tier 2 projects.

Sensitivity of receptor

331. All commercial fishing fleets are sensitive to displacement into other areas.
332. All commercial fishing fleets are deemed to be of high vulnerability, medium recoverability and medium-high value. The sensitivity of the receptor is therefore, considered to be medium.

Significance of effect

333. Overall, the magnitude of the cumulative effect is deemed to be medium and the sensitivity of the receptor is considered to be medium. The cumulative effect will, therefore, be of moderate adverse significance, which is significant in EIA terms.

Further mitigation and residual effect

334. Further mitigation is proposed as described for Temporary loss or restricted access to fishing grounds during construction for Tier 2 projects. It is considered appropriate to focus mitigation of displacement under the effect of loss of access to fishing grounds. No further mitigation specific to displacement is proposed.
335. Overall, following mitigation, the magnitude of the impact is deemed to be low and the sensitivity of the receptor is considered to be medium. The effect will, therefore, be of minor adverse significance, which is not significant in EIA terms.

                        Operation and maintenance phase

Magnitude of impact

336. The justification for the magnitude of impact is the same or similar to that assessed for construction for Tier 2 projects (paragraph 328 to 330)
337. The cumulative impact is predicted to be of international spatial extent, medium term duration, continuous and low reversibility. It is predicted that the impact will affect the receptor directly. Given the loss of access posed by floating offshore wind farms, together with the anticipated introduction of fisheries management within the MPA network, the magnitude is therefore, considered to be medium for Tier 2 projects.

Sensitivity of receptor

338. All commercial fishing fleets are sensitive to displacement into other areas.
339. All commercial fishing fleets are deemed to be of high vulnerability, medium recoverability and medium-high value. The sensitivity of the receptor is therefore, considered to be medium.

Significance of effect

340. Overall, the magnitude of the cumulative effect is deemed to be medium and the sensitivity of the receptor is considered to be medium. The cumulative effect will, therefore, be of moderate adverse significance, which is significant in EIA terms.