Further mitigation and residual effect
  1. 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.
  2. 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.
                        Decommissioning phase
Magnitude of impact
  1. 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)
  2. 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
  1. All commercial fishing fleets are sensitive to displacement into other areas.
  2. 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
  1. 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
  1. 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.
  2. 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

                        All phases
Magnitude of impact
  1. The Tier 3 projects are not considered to raise the magnitude of impact beyond what is assessed for Tier 2 (paragraphs 328 to 330), summarised as medium for all commercial fishing fleets.
Sensitivity of receptor
  1. The sensitivity of receptors is the same or similar to that assessed for Tier 2 (paragraphs 331 to 332), summarised as medium for all commercial fishing fleets.
Significance of effect
  1. 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

  1. 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). 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.
  2. 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.

Impacts to commercial exploited species populations

                        Tier 1

                        Construction phase
Magnitude of impact
  1. The cumulative effects for fish and shellfish ecology have been assessed in volume 2, chapter 9 covering the following effects during the construction phase:
  • temporary habitat loss and disturbance;
  • long term habitat loss and disturbance; and
  • underwater noise impacting fish and shellfish receptors.
  1. Temporary and long term habitat loss and disturbance may occur due to the installation of infrastructure as assessed in volume 2, chapter 9 and predicted to be of minor adverse significance.
  2. The underwater noise effects on fish and shellfish receptors are assessed in volume 2, chapter 9 and predicted to be of minor adverse significance.
  3. Overall, cumulative effects on fish and shellfish ecology during construction are assessed to be of negligible to minor adverse significance. Therefore, the magnitude of impact to commercial fisheries resources is assessed as low for all commercial fishery fleets.
Sensitivity of receptor
  1. All commercial fishing fleets are sensitive to displacement of their target resource.
  2. 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
  1. 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
  1. 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
  1. The cumulative effects for fish and shellfish ecology have been assessed in volume 2, chapter 9 covering the following effects during the operation and maintenance phase:
  • temporary habitat loss and disturbance;
  • long term habitat loss and disturbance;
  • colonisation of hard structures; and
  • effects to fish and shellfish receptors due to EMF from subsea electrical cabling.
  1. Effects of temporary and long term habitat loss and disturbance is as described for the construction phase in paragraph 356 to 358.
  2. It is assessed in volume 2, chapter 9 that colonisation of hard structures may lead to a shift in baseline seabed conditions from soft to hard substrate in the areas where the infrastructure is installed, resulting in potential benefits of increased biodiversity, greater shelter/protection opportunities, greater prey availabilities and potential reef effects. Potential for habitat loss for subtidal sands and gravels, which may be suitable burial substrate for species like brown crab and sandeel, is also recognised.
  3. In relation to EMF, it is noted in volume 2, chapter 9 that EMF levels in the vicinity of subsea cables are influenced by a variety of design and installation factors, including distance between cables, cable sheathing, number of conductors, and internal cable configuration. Further, the intensity of EMF from subsea cables decreases at approximately the inverse square/power of the distance away from the cable and this attenuation is the same for buried, unburied, and dynamic cables (see volume 2, chapter 9). Therefore, the effect of EMF is likely to be highly localised to within metres to tens of metres from cables.
  4. Overall cumulative effects on fish and shellfish ecology during operation and maintenance are assessed to be of negligible to minor adverse significance. Therefore, the magnitude of impact to commercial fisheries resources is assessed as low for all commercial fishery fleets.
Sensitivity of receptor
  1. All commercial fishing fleets are sensitive to displacement of their target resource.
  2. 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
  1. 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
  1. 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
  1. No cumulative effects to fish and shellfish ecology were defined during the decommissioning phase.

                        Tier 2

                        All phases
Magnitude of impact
  1. The Tier 2 projects are not considered to raise the magnitude of impact beyond what is assessed for Tier 1 (paragraphs 355 to 358, and paragraphs 363 to 367), summarised as low for all commercial fishing fleets.
Sensitivity of receptor
  1. The sensitivity of receptors is the same or similar to that assessed for Tier 1 (paragraphs 359 to 360, and paragraphs 368 to 369), summarised as medium for all commercial fishing fleets.
Significance of effect
  1. 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
  1. 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 3

                        All phases
Magnitude of impact
  1. The Tier 3 projects are not considered to raise the magnitude of impact beyond what is assessed for Tier 2 (paragraph 373), summarised as low for all commercial fishing fleets.
Sensitivity of receptor
  1. The sensitivity of receptors is the same or similar to that assessed for Tier 2 (paragraph 374), summarised as medium for all commercial fishing fleets.
Significance of effect
  1. 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
  1. 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.