Glossary

Acronyms 

Acronyms

Units 

Units

Executive Summary 

Executive Summary

1. Ossian Offshore Wind Farm Limited (OWFL) (the Applicant) is a joint venture between SSE Renewables (SSER), Copenhagen Infrastructure Partners (CIP) and Marubeni Corporation (Marubeni) (hereafter referred to as ‘the Applicant’). The Applicant is developing Ossian, an offshore wind farm project within the E1 Plan Option (PO) Area awarded by Crown Estate Scotland (CES) as part of the ScotWind Leasing Round.
2. Ossian includes both the offshore and onshore infrastructure required to generate and transmit electricity from the offshore infrastructure to an onshore grid connection point. The Applicant is seeking consent to develop the offshore components of the Ossian Array (hereafter referred to as the Array), which are the subject of this Array Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Scoping Report (hereafter referred to as this Scoping Report).
3. Due to the ongoing National Grid Electricity System Operator (ESO) Holistic Network Design Follow Up Exercise (HNDFUE), the grid connection location for Ossian is currently unknown. Therefore, separate consent applications will be submitted for the Proposed offshore export cable corridor(s) (seaward of Mean High Water Springs (MHWS)) and the Proposed onshore export cable corridor(s) (including the onshore substation; landward of Mean Low Water Springs (MLWS)) once the grid connection location has been identified. The Proposed offshore export cable corridor(s) and Proposed onshore export cable corridor(s) (including the onshore substation) will be considered within the Cumulative Effects Assessment (CEA) of the Array EIA Report (as appropriate) to comply with the EIA Regulations.
4. The Array will be located approximately 80 km south-east of Aberdeen, Scotland, and will comprise the following infrastructure components:

• up to 270 wind turbine generators and associated floating support structures and foundations;
• up to six Offshore Substation Platforms (OSPs) with either fixed bottom foundations or associated floating support structures and foundations;
• moorings and anchoring systems for each floating substructure;
• a network of dynamic/static inter-array cabling linking the individual wind turbines to OSPs, end links plus interconnector cables between OSPs; and
• ancillary elements including scour protection and clump weights.

5. The Applicant will seek the following consents, licences and permissions for the Array:

• a Section 36 consent under the Electricity Act 1989; and
• a marine licence(s) under the Marine and Coastal Access Act (MCAA) 2009 (applicable to Scottish offshore waters between 12 nm and 200 nm).

6. An EIA Report will be prepared and submitted to support the required applications for offshore consents, licences and permissions for the Array, which will fulfil the requirements of the following regulations:

• in respect to a Section 36 consent application: The Electricity Works (Environmental Impact Assessment) (Scotland) Regulations 2017; and
• in respect to a marine licence(s) application: The Marine Works (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2007.

7. This Scoping Report has been prepared to support a request for a formal Scoping Opinion from Scottish Ministers in relation to the Array, and includes a summary of the existing physical, biological and human and socio-economic environment, based on known and accessible data sources, as well as an overview of any site-specific surveys undertaken to date. The potential scope of impacts associated with the construction, operation and maintenance, and decommissioning phases of the Array and the proposed methodology for assessing the significance of effect for the technical topics are also presented in this Scoping Report. The following technical topics have been considered within this Scoping Report:

• offshore physical environment

             physical processes;

             subsea noise;

             air quality

             airborne noise; and

             climatic effects.

• offshore biological environment

             benthic subtidal ecology;

             fish and shellfish ecology;

             marine mammals; and

             offshore ornithology.

• offshore human and socio-economic environment

             commercial fisheries;

             shipping and navigation;

             aviation, military and communications;

             marine archaeology;

             seascape, landscape and visual impact assessment;

             infrastructure and other users; and

             offshore socio-economics.

8. The Applicant welcomes responses from consultees to this Scoping Report. Each topic specific section contains a list of questions for consultees to provide response to, and the Applicant requests a formal opinion on the key impacts identified, the data sources used, and the methodology proposed.
9. The Applicant would also welcome feedback on the draft Stakeholder Engagement Plan (dSEP) for future consultation, which sets out the proposed approach for focused consultation with key statutory and non-statutory stakeholders throughout the pre-application process. The dSEP will be used to optimise post-Scoping consultation and ensure any further engagement is focused and efficient. The dSEP will apply to the EIA and Habitats Regulations Appraisal (HRA) process.

1.             Introduction

1. Introduction

1.1.        Background

1.1. Background

10. In January 2022, as part of the ScotWind Leasing Round, Ossian Offshore Wind Farm Limited (Ossian OWFL) (the Applicant) (a joint venture between Scottish and Southern Energy Renewables (SSER), Copenhagen Infrastructure Partners (CIP) and Marubeni Corporation (Marubeni), hereafter referred to as 'the Applicant', were awarded an Option to Lease Agreement to develop Ossian, an offshore wind farm project within the E1 Plan Option (PO) Area.
11. The site boundary is located off the east coast of Scotland, approximately 80 km south-east of Aberdeen from the nearest point (see Figure 1.1   Open ▸ ). The Array is located within the site boundary and comprises the turbines (inclusive of their floating substructures and mooring and anchoring systems), Offshore Substation Platforms (OSPs) (inclusive of their fixed bottom foundations or floating substructures and mooring and anchoring systems if used), and inter-array and interconnector cables. The Array is the subject of this Array Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Scoping Report (hereafter referred to as ‘this Scoping Report’).
12. Ossian includes both the offshore and onshore infrastructure required to generate and transmit electricity from the Array to an onshore grid connection point (location and parameters to be confirmed, see paragraph 13). The parameters and exact location of the Array infrastructure will be confirmed post-Scoping following review of site-specific data and front end engineering design work.
13. This Scoping Report (and, subsequently, the Array EIA Report to be prepared in due course) considers all the offshore infrastructure within the Array only (as listed in paragraph 11). A separate EIA Scoping Report and associated EIA Report for the Proposed offshore export cable corridor(s) and Proposed onshore export cable corridor(s) (including onshore substation at the Proposed landfall location(s)) will be produced in future once relevant information is available following conclusion of the ongoing Offshore Transmission Network Review (OTNR) and National Grid Holistic Network Design Follow Up Exercise (HNDFUE) review. Therefore, the Proposed offshore export cable corridor(s) and Proposed onshore cable corridor(s) (including onshore substation at the Proposed landfall location(s)) will not be discussed further within this Scoping Report.
14. The Applicant will seek the following consents for the Array:

• a Section 36 consent under the Electricity Act 1989; and
• a marine licence(s) under the Marine and Coastal Access Act (MCAA) 2009 (applicable to Scottish offshore waters between 12 nm and 200 nm).

15. There is a requirement for EIA Report to be prepared and submitted to support the required applications for offshore consents, licences, and permissions for the Array (see section 1.5 and Appendix 4 for further detail). The Array EIA Report is required to fulfil the requirements of the following regulations:

• in respect to a Section 36 consent application: The Electricity Works (Environmental Impact Assessment) (Scotland) Regulations 2017; and
• in respect to a marine licence(s) application: The Marine Works (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2007.

16. These regulations have collectively been referred to as the EIA Regulations, hereafter.
17. Stakeholder consultation will be detailed in, and will inform, the Array EIA Report. Section 4.3.4 and the draft Stakeholder Engagement Plan (dSEP) (Appendix 1) presents the proposed approach to Stakeholder Consultation. It is anticipated that the Array EIA Report will be submitted to Scottish Ministers in 2024.
18. A 50-year consent period is being sought by the Applicant. If the Applicant sought to repower the wind farm in the future, beyond this consent period, then they would be required to submit a separate application to cover any proposed new development.
19. The Proposed offshore export cable corridor(s) EIA Scoping Report and EIA Report and Proposed onshore export cable corridor(s) EIA Report (including onshore substation) will be submitted as part of a separate application(s) once grid connection locations are known.

Figure 1.1: Location of the Site Boundary Within Which the Array Will be Located

1.2.        Project Overview

1.2. Project Overview

20. Crown Estate Scotland (CES) launched the first ScotWind Leasing Round in June 2020. The ScotWind Leasing Round allowed developers to apply for the rights to build offshore wind farms in Scottish waters within specified PO areas, with up to 25 GW of new generating capacity expected to be built over the next ten years. The application window for registered applicants opened in January 2021 and closed in July 2021, with Option to Lease Agreements offered in January 2022. The Applicant was awarded an Option to Lease Agreement to develop Ossian within the E1 PO Area in this Leasing Round. As of October 2022, 20 ScotWind projects were awarded Option to Lease Agreements, with a total generating capacity of just under 27.6 GW (Crown Estate Scotland, 2022a). Further information on site selection and alternatives is provided in section 3.
21. The site boundary is approximately 859 km2 ( Figure 1.1   Open ▸ ). A maximum of 270 wind turbines supported on floating foundations (including and mooring and anchoring systems) will be installed within the Array. Up to six OSPs and associated foundations (fixed-bottom or floating substructures and mooring and anchoring systems) will be installed within the Array. Subsea dynamic/static inter-array cables will connect wind turbines to each other and to the OSPs. Interconnector cables will connect the OSPs to each other, if required. Full details of the project description is provided in section 2.
22. The process of decommissioning is likely to follow a similar programme to construction, albeit, in reverse. The Applicant has a ten year Option to Lease Agreement with CES and is seeking a 50-year consent period.

1.3.        Array EIA Scoping Report

1.3. Array EIA Scoping Report

1.3.1.    Purpose

1.3.1. Purpose

23. This Scoping Report has been prepared to support a request for a formal Scoping Opinion from Scottish Ministers in relation to the Array. Responses from key statutory and non-statutory consultees to this Scoping Report are expected to inform the Scoping Opinion to be produced by the Scottish Ministers, which will assist the progression of the Array EIA Report by the Applicant.
24. This Scoping Report will provide stakeholders with information on the Array and allow for stakeholders to engage on the key topics to be addressed in the Array EIA Report, as well as the baseline data sources and assessment methodologies proposed to inform the Array EIA Report. A summary of the information requirements as set out in the EIA Regulations (the Marine Works (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2007) and where these can be found in this Scoping Report is provided in Table 1.1   Open ▸ .
25. Potential environmental impacts are considered within this Scoping Report, including impacts which are proposed to be scoped out of the Array EIA Report due to having no predicted likely significant effects (in EIA terms) or no effect-receptor pathways identified. This Scoping Report seeks to gain agreement with key stakeholders to determine final impacts to be scoped in and scoped out of the Array EIA Report, and to agree assessment methods and approach to be used within the Array EIA Report (see section 4.3.4).
26. This Scoping Report has been developed using a number of tools and processes, as per the Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment (IEMA) (2017) ‘Delivering Proportionate EIA’ guidance, with the aim of producing a proportionate and robust EIA Report. Further details of these can be found in section 4.3.2.
27. Guidance on the approach to EIA was also provided by the Marine Scotland - Licensing Operations Team (MS-LOT) and NatureScot during pre-Scoping workshops held with stakeholders in November 2022. Consultee feedback received to date through pre-application engagement with stakeholders has also been considered in drafting this Scoping Report. The information presented in this Scoping Report aims to inform further stakeholder advice to agree the approach to undertaking a robust and proportionate EIA for the Array.
28. The Applicant welcomes the opportunity for further engagement with stakeholders and feedback on the Array and the scope (proposed content) of the Array EIA Report as part of the formal Scoping Opinion and throughout the EIA process. In addition, the Applicant welcomes feedback on the dSEP, presented in Appendix 1, which details the scope and process of focused consultation throughout the EIA process.

Table 1.1: Scoping Requirements of the EIA Regulations and Where the Information is Included in the Array EIA Scoping Report

1.3.2.    Approach

1.3.2. Approach

29. The approach to scoping that has been taken for the preparation of this Scoping Report is provided within this section. The aims of this scoping process are as follows:

• to provide a high-level overview of the baseline environment and the data collection and survey methodologies proposed to inform the EIA baseline characterisation for each technical assessment;
• to propose the impacts to be scoped out of the Array EIA Report including a clear justification for doing so; and
• to propose the impacts to scope into the Array EIA Report and the existing evidence base to support this, where appropriate.

30. This approach will allow the development of a proportionate Array EIA Report, through focusing on potential impacts which either have the potential to lead to a likely significant effect, or where significant uncertainty exists on potential effect.
31. The topic specific sections of this Scoping Report each include:

• an overview of the study area and baseline characterisation;
• a list of identified potential impacts to be scoped in and scoped out the Array EIA Report;
• a list of identified designed in measures;
• an overview of the proposed approach to the EIA;
• an overview of potential cumulative effects;
• a screening assessment of potential transboundary impacts;
• a list of questions to the stakeholders associated with each technical section; and
• a summary of suggested topic specific next steps.

32. Technical baseline characterisations are provided in Appendix 5 to Appendix 12 which provide additional detail to support the information provided in the topic specific sections of this Scoping Report.
33. Section 4 provides further information on the approach to this Scoping Report.

1.3.3.    Structure

1.3.3. Structure

34. Table 1.2   Open ▸ sets out the structure of this Scoping Report. Consideration of human health in this Scoping Report is provided in the airborne noise and air quality sections (section 5.3 and section 5.4).
35. Water and sediment quality will be assessed via topic specific assessments, where appropriate, due to the strong interlinkages with topic receptors.
36. A standalone chapter in the Array EIA Report will provide an assessment of the potential effects arising from major accidental scenarios and disaster, as well as the control measures which will be utilised to address these. In addition, a standalone Climate Change chapter is proposed to be included in the Array EIA Report which will assess the potential effects, both positive and negative, arising from the development of the Array, using a qualitative assessment methodology (see section 5.5).

Table 1.2: Topics Within this Scoping Report

1.4.        Ossian Project Team

1.4. Ossian Project Team

1.4.1.    Ossian OWFL

1.4.1. Ossian OWFL

37. Ossian OWFL is a joint venture between SSER, CIP and Marubeni.
38. SSER is a leading developer, owner and operator of renewable energy across the United Kingdom (UK) and Ireland, with a portfolio of around 4 GW of onshore wind, offshore wind, and hydro. SSER owns nearly 2 GW of operational onshore wind capacity with over 1 GW under development.
39. Its operational offshore wind portfolio consists of 487 MW across two offshore joint venture sites (Beatrice and Greater Gabbard), both of which it operates on behalf of its joint venture partners. SSER has the largest offshore wind development pipeline in the UK and Ireland at over 8 GW.
40. SSER is currently constructing the world’s largest offshore wind energy project, the 3.6 GW Dogger Bank Wind Farm in the North Sea, as well as Scotland’s largest and the world's deepest fixed bottom offshore site, the 1.1 GW Seagreen Offshore Wind Farm in the Firth of Forth. SSER is also at the planning stage of the Berwick Bank Wind Farm, which will be one of the world’s largest wind farm developments once built, generating up to 4.1 GW of power, with the planning application submitted to the Scottish Government in December 2022.
41. CIP is the world’s largest fund manager dedicated to the renewable energy sector. To date, it has raised approximately £17 bn for investments in green energy and associated infrastructure.  In the last decade, it has invested more than £1.5 bn in large-scale renewable energy projects in the UK, with future planned investments across the UK potentially requiring an additional £5bn - £10 bn.  These include onshore wind and associated grid infrastructure in Wales, and large-scale battery energy storage projects at various locations in Scotland and England.  CIP expects to be a lead investor and provider of capital for these projects, demonstrating its strong interest for further investment in the UK.
42. CIP also has considerable interests in floating offshore wind opportunities globally.  In addition to Ossian, CIP has expressed interest in the current Crown Estate leasing opportunity for 4 GW of Floating Offshore Wind (FLOW) in the Celtic Sea.  CIP was also recently announced (through its fund Copenhagen Infrastructure IV and its affiliate California North Floating, Limited Liability Company (LLC)) as the provisional winner of a lease area in the auction held by the United States (US) Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM).  The auction was the first-ever offshore wind lease sale on the US West Coast and the first-ever US sale to support potential commercial-scale floating offshore wind energy development.  CIP also has interests in the Scipio and Hannibal projects, (respectively, 500 MW and 250 MW floating wind developments off the coasts of Sicily and Sardinia, Italy).
43. Through its exclusive development partner Copenhagen Offshore Partners (COP), it is also currently developing the 100 MW Pentland FLOW project off the Caithness coast, Scotland.  To aid the delivery of these projects and furtherment of its growing interest in FLOW, COP will officially open its Floating Offshore Wind Competence Centre in Edinburgh in Spring 2023.
44. Marubeni is a Japanese conglomerate which is involved in third country trading and domestic business across a range of sectors (Marubeni, 2022a). Included within Marubeni’s extensive portfolio is their involvement in developing and operating over 2 GW of onshore and offshore wind farms to date. Marubeni’s core competencies with regard to the offshore wind business include Engineering, Procurement and Construction (EPC), construction management, operation and maintenance, project financing and coordination with stakeholders (Marubeni Offshore Wind Development, 2023).
45. Marubeni has been instrumental in the delivery of Japan’s first large-scale bottom fixed offshore wind farms at Akita Port and Noshiro Port in Akita Prefecture as part of the Akita Offshore Wind Corporation. As part of this project, Marubeni was responsible for development, construction, operation and maintenance, and financing of the project, with a total of 33 wind turbine units constructed and total output of 140 MW (Marubeni, 2022b). The Noshiro Port Offshore Wind Farm and the Akita Port Offshore Wind Farm started commercial operation in December 2022 and January 2023, respectively (Akita Offshore Wind Corporation, 2022).
46. Marubeni has also been involved in two Japanese government sponsored floating offshore wind demonstration projects off the coast of Fukushima and Kitakyushu, respectively (Marubeni, 2022b). The Fukushima Floating Offshore Wind Farm was operational between 2013 and 2020, consisting of three floating turbines with total capacity of 14 MW and one floating substation installed 20 km off the coast of Naraha-town (Fukushima prefecture) at a water depth of approximately 100 m. The Kitakyushu Floating Offshore Wind Farm began operating in 2019, consisting of one floating turbine installed 15 km off the coast of Kitayushu-city (Fukuoka prefecture) at approximately 50 m water depth. Marubeni managed the project consortiums for these projects, as well as taking a lead role in consenting and permitting, economics analysis, operation and maintenance, and coordination with fisheries (Marubeni Offshore Wind Development, 2023).

1.4.2.    The Project EIA Team

1.4.2. The Project EIA Team

47. RPS has been instructed by the Applicant to lead the Offshore EIA for the Array. This includes the initial review of the key environmental issues associated with the construction, operation and maintenance, and decommissioning of Ossian that have formed the basis of this Scoping Report, and the subsequent Array EIA Report.

1.5.        Policy and Legislation

1.5. Policy and Legislation

48. An overview of the relevant policy and legislation to the Array is presented below. Further details can be found in Appendix 4.

1.5.1.    Need for the Development

1.5.1. Need for the Development

                        International commitments

49. The Kyoto Protocol came into effect in 2005, which sets internationally binding emission reduction targets and commits state parties to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The UK is a signatory of this Protocol, with its commitments transposed into UK law by the Climate Change Act 2008. This initially required the net UK greenhouse gas emissions for the year 2050 to be 80% lower than the 1990 baseline, however, this was subsequently revised by The Climate Change Act 2008 (2050 Target Amendment) Order 2019 to a “net zero target” of greenhouse gas emissions for the year 2050 to be 100% lower than the 1990 levels. In Scotland, the net zero target must be delivered by 2045 (the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009).
50. The Paris climate conference (COP21), held in December 2015, established the first-ever universal, legally binding global climate deal which was adopted by 195 countries. The Paris Agreement (2016), arising out of COP21, sets out a global action plan towards climate neutrality with the aims of limiting the increase in global average temperature to below 2°C above pre-industrial levels, and to pursue efforts to limit global warming to 1.5°C.

                        UK and Scotland climate change and energy legislation

51. In addition to the Acts noted in paragraph 49, the UK and Scotland are committed to various other targets within legislation including the following:

• 2030 Targets including European Union Renewables Energy Directive;
• 2050 Low Carbon Economy;
• The Energy Act 2013;
• British Energy Security Strategy 2022 (HM Government, 2022a);
• UK Energy Security Bill (under review by the House of Lords at time of writing) (UK Parliament, 2023); and
• The Scottish Energy Strategy 2017 (Scottish Government, 2017).

1.5.2.    Planning Legislation

1.5.2. Planning Legislation

52. The following consents, licences and permissions are required for the Array:

• a Section 36 consent under the Electricity Act 1989; and
• a marine licence(s) for generation assets under the MCAA 2009.

53. If additional pre-construction licences are required, discussion and agreement with the relevant consenting authority will be undertaken during the pre-construction phase of the Array.

                        Section 36 consent

54. As the Array is an offshore generating station with a capacity of greater than 50 MW located in Scottish offshore waters (between 12 nm and up to 200 nm offshore) within the Scottish Renewable Energy Zone (REZ), there is a requirement for consent under Section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989. Section 36 consent allows for the construction and operation of the wind turbines, inter-array cables and interconnectors forming part of the Array.

                        Marine licence

55. The MCAA 2009 applies within the UK offshore waters (between 12 nm and up to 200 nm offshore). It gives the Scottish Ministers executively devolved powers in the Scottish Offshore region (12 nm to 200 nm). Under the MCAA 2009 (as amended) a marine licence must be obtained prior to the construction, alteration or improvement of any works, deposit of any substance or object in or over the sea, or on or under the seabed, or to carry out activities such as dredging.
56. If applications for both a marine licence under the MCAA 2009 and consent under Section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989 are made where the Scottish Ministers are the determining authority, a note may be issued to the applicant stating that both applications will be subject to the same administrative procedure. In this case, this ensures that the two related applications may be considered at the same time.

                        Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations

57. Through The Marine Environment (EU Exit) (Scotland) (Amendment) Regulations 2019, which came into force on EU Exit Day (31 January 2020), the requirements established under the EIA Directive (2011/92/EU, as amended by Directive 2014/52/EU) (as transposed into UK law) continue to be applicable, subject to only minor changes. Therefore, the Directive continues to set the framework for the EIA process in Scotland and is relevant to any application in Scottish waters for a Section 36 consent or a marine licence.
58. The following statutory instruments implement the EIA Directive into Scottish law:

• in respect to a Section 36 consent application: The Electricity Works (Environmental Impact Assessment) (Scotland) Regulations 2017; and
• in respect to a marine licence application: The Marine Works (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2007.

59. When applying for Section 36 consent or a marine licence, there is a requirement for an EIA Report to be prepared and submitted to support applications where the proposed development is likely to have a significant effect on the environment due to factors such as its size, nature or location, to comply with the aforementioned Regulations. For installations for the harnessing of wind power for energy production (wind farms), an EIA is required (Schedule 2).

1.5.3.    The Habitats Directive, Bird Directive and Associated Regulations

1.5.3. The Habitats Directive, Bird Directive and Associated Regulations

60. In 1992, Council Directive 92/43/EEC (The Habitats Directive) was adopted, which allowed the EU to meet its obligations under the Bern Convention. The Directive aims to maintain or restore natural habitats and wild species listed on the Annexes at a favourable conservation status, with protection granted through designation of European Sites (Special Areas of Conservation (SACs)) and European Protected Species (EPS). The European Directive (2009/147/EC) on the conservation of wild birds (The Birds Directive) provides a framework for the conservation and management of wild birds within Europe. Rare and vulnerable species listed under Annex I of the Birds Directive, and regularly occurring migratory species, are given protection through identification and designation of Special Protection Areas (SPAs).
61. The Directives are given effect in Scottish Law by various regulations including, primarily:

• the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (which apply to the Section 36 applications within Scottish offshore waters (12 nm to 200 nm)); and
• the Conservation of Offshore Marine Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (which apply to marine licences within the Scottish Offshore region).

62. Hereafter, these are referred to as the Habitats Regulations.
63. The Habitat Regulations require appropriate assessment of any plan or project which is likely to have a significant effect on a designated site, either individually or in combination with other plans or projects, in view of the site’s conservation objectives. Therefore, Marine Scotland are required to consider whether the Array is likely to have significant effects on the conservation objectives of the sites considered in the Habitats Regulations Appraisal (HRA). Where Likely Significant Effects (LSE, as defined by the Habitat Regulations) cannot be excluded at the screening stage, and in the absence of mitigation measures, an ‘Appropriate Assessment’ of the implication of the plan or project must be undertaken by the competent authority prior to granting consent for the proposed project.
64. Appendix 4 provides further details of the LSE Screening and HRA process. A standalone LSE Screening Report has been prepared and submitted for consideration alongside this Scoping Report.

1.5.4.    European Protected Species Licensing

1.5.4. European Protected Species Licensing

65. EPS are animal and plant species listed in Annex IV of the Habitats Directive which are given protection under The Habitats Regulations 2017 (as amended). All cetacean species (whales, dolphins and porpoise) are EPSs. An EPS licence is required where an activity is likely to cause disturbance or injury, to ensure that the activity is undertaken legally.
66. Subsea noise disturbance to marine mammals due to piling construction activities is one such activity which can be licenced under EPS licences. EPS licences are granted by NatureScot or the Scottish Ministers, depending on the species subject to the licence application. The granting of EPS licences is separate to the Section 36 and marine licence application process; however, it can be considered in parallel by Marine Scotland.

1.5.5.    Decommissioning

1.5.5. Decommissioning

67. Statutory requirements in relation to the decommissioning of offshore renewable energy installations (OREIs) and their related electricity lines are set out in Sections 105 to 114 of the Energy Act 2004 (as amended by the Energy Act 2008 and the Scotland Act 2016) (hereafter referred to as the Energy Act). Scottish Ministers may require a person who is responsible for these installations or lines in Scottish waters or in a Scottish part of a REZ to prepare (and carry out) a costed Decommissioning Programme for submission to and approval by Scottish Ministers under the terms of the Energy Act (Marine Scotland, 2018).
68. Appendix 4 provides further details on decommissioning.

2.             Project Description

2. Project Description

2.1.        Introduction

2.1. Introduction

69. This section of this Scoping Report outlines a description of the Array infrastructure and describes activities associated with the construction, operation and maintenance, and decommissioning phases of the Array. The design and components for the Array infrastructure are summarised here and have been developed based upon the latest design information and current understanding of the baseline environment from survey work and desktop studies.
70. This Scoping Report covers the following infrastructure components:

• wind turbine generators;
• floating foundations and associated moorings and anchoring systems;
• Offshore Substation Platforms (OSPs);
• fixed bottom or floating foundations for the OSPs;
• inter-array cables connecting the turbines to the OSPs;
• interconnector cables connecting the OSPs to each other; and
• scour protection and cable protection.

71. The Proposed offshore export cable corridor(s) and Proposed onshore export cable(s) (including the onshore substation at the Proposed landfall location(s)) will be subject to a separate Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Scoping Report(s), EIA Report(s) and consent application(s) in the future.

2.2.        Design Envelope Approach

2.2. Design Envelope Approach

72. The assessment of the Array will utilise the Project Design Envelope (PDE) approach (also known as the Rochdale Envelope approach), in accordance with current good practice, the “Rochdale Envelope Principle” [1], Scottish Government (2013) guidance, and guidance prepared by Marine Scotland and the Energy Consents Unit (Scottish Government, 2022l). The PDE concept will allow for sufficient flexibility in the final project design options, where the full details of a project are not known at the point of application submission.
73. A “maximum design scenario” (MDS) approach is applied in the PDE concept, which considers a realistic range of project design parameters. For each impact pathway, the MDS will be developed from the PDE which will establish the parameters (or combination of parameters) that could result in the maximum effect (i.e. the maximum adverse scenario).
74. The PDE approach could be used, for example, where several types of foundation mooring and anchoring systems are being considered. The assessment carried out in the Array EIA Report would be based upon the mooring and anchoring system known to have the greatest potential for impact (the realistic maximum adverse impact) to a particular receptor. In this example, the PDE for the mooring and anchoring system with the greatest potential for seabed disturbance would be the mooring and anchoring system with the largest footprint and the greatest number of wind turbines. If it is shown that no significant effect is anticipated after undertaking the impact               assessment for this scenario, it can then be predicted that any project parameters which are equal to or less than those assessed in the PDE will have the same level of, or less, environmental effects than the project parameters assessed. 
75. The PDE approach will be applied throughout the EIA process to allow assessment of the potential impact of the Array to proceed, whilst still allowing for a level of flexibility where required for future project design decisions and advancements in technology.
76. As the project progresses and a greater understanding of the Array is developed, the design envelope will be further refined up to design freeze. 
77. Since the pre-Scoping workshops held by the Applicant in November 2022, some of the project design parameters presented in the workshop have changed. For clarity, Table 2.1   Open ▸ shows the parameters presented in the pre-Scoping workshops versus what is presented in this Scoping Report. The updated turbine parameters have been incorporated to account for the current commercially available technology and anticipated available technology during the latter stages of construction.

Table 2.1: Changes to Maximum Design Envelope Since Pre-Scoping Workshops in November 2022

2.3.        Array Summary

2.3. Array Summary

78. The PDE for the Array has been developed and refined through analysis of engineering, technical and environmental constraints and, therefore, provides an accurate summary of the Array EIA Report project description for which the Applicant is seeking necessary consent applications (Section 36 consent and marine licence(s)). Further development and refinement of the PDE will be undertaken throughout the EIA process as baseline data is collected and potential impacts are assessed. A 50-year consent life will be applied for.

2.3.1.    Array

2.3.1. Array

79. The Array is located within the site boundary, which is located off the east coast of Scotland, approximately 80 km south-east of Aberdeen from the nearest point, and comprises an area of approximately 859 km2 (section 1,   Figure 1.1   Open ▸ ).
80. In January 2022, as part of the ScotWind Leasing Round, the Applicant, was awarded an Option to Lease Agreement to develop Ossian, an offshore wind farm project within the E1 PO Area.
81. The CES Option to Lease Agreement grants rights to the Applicant to carry out investigations within the site boundary, such as survey activities, to identify the potential design of the Array within the site boundary by understanding environmental and technical constraints.
82. See section 1.2, Figure 1.1   Open ▸ for an illustration of the site boundary.

2.3.2.    Water Depths and Seabed within the site boundary

2.3.2. Water Depths and Seabed within the site boundary

83. A geophysical survey was conducted over the site boundary between March and July 2022 to collect geophysical and bathymetric data. The seafloor across the site boundary slopes gently downwards in an approximately north-west to south-east direction. The seafloor is generally flat, with mega-ripples and sand waves observed in the north-west of the site. Furrows were observed occasionally across the site boundary, more commonly in the west (Ocean Infinity, 2022a; Appendix 7).
84. Across the site boundary, the maximum water depth was recorded at 88.7 m Lowest Astronomical Tide (LAT), and the shallowest area was recorded at 63.8 m LAT (Ocean Infinity, 2022a; Appendix 7).
85. Seabed sediments within the site boundary are significantly dominated by deep circalittoral sand, with one area of limited extent comprised of deep circalittoral coarse sediment within the northern part of the site (EUSeaMap, 2021). The geophysical survey indicated that the seabed comprises mainly of sand, with areas of gravel in the west of the site boundary (Ocean Infinity, 2022a; Appendix 7).
86. Further details of the bathymetry and seabed composition are presented within Appendix 5 and Appendix 7.

2.3.3.    Array Infrastructure Overview

2.3.3. Array Infrastructure Overview

87. The main components of the Array are expected to include:

• up to 270 wind turbines (each comprising a tower section, nacelle, hub and three rotor blades) and associated floating support structures and foundations;
• up to six OSPs with fixed foundations or associated floating support structures and foundations;
• mooring and anchoring systems for each floating substructure, including anchors or piles for each mooring line;
• a network of dynamic/static inter-array cabling linking the individual wind turbines to OSPs, and interconnector cables between OSPs (totalling approximately 1,515 km); and
• ancillary elements including scour protection and clump weights.

2.3.4.    Wind Turbines

2.3.4. Wind Turbines

88. The Array will comprise up to 270 wind turbines, however, the final number of wind turbines will be dependent on the capacity of individual wind turbines used, as well as the environmental and engineering survey results. If an increased rated output of wind turbine model is chosen when the final project design is developed, a reduced number of wind turbines may be installed.
89. The maximum rotor blade diameter is expected to be up to 350 m, with a maximum blade tip height of up to 399 m above LAT. The lower blade tip height will be confirmed following ongoing engineering design work and taking into account preliminary environmental assessments to mitigate effects where appropriate, but will be greater than 22 m, in accordance with Marine Guidance Note (MGN) 654 (Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA), 2021). The hub height will be up to 224 m above LAT. The Applicant will develop and agree a scheme for wind turbine lighting and navigation marking with consultees post-consent decision. A schematic of a typical floating wind turbine is presented in Figure 2.1   Open ▸ .
90. The layout of the wind turbines will be developed to effectively make use of the available wind resource and suitability of seabed conditions, as well as ensuring that the environmental effects and impacts on other marine users (e.g. fisheries and shipping routes) are kept to a minimum. Confirmation of the final layout of the wind turbines will occur at the final design stage (post-consent) and in consultation with relevant stakeholders.
91. The design envelope for wind turbines is presented in Table 2.2   Open ▸ .

Table 2.2: Maximum Design Envelope: Wind Turbines

Figure 2.1: Schematic of a Typical Floating Wind Turbine

2.3.5.    Wind Turbine Foundations and Support Structures

2.3.5. Wind Turbine Foundations and Support Structures

92. The Array will comprise wind turbines supported by floating substructures which require mooring and anchoring systems to maintain station. The substructures will be fixed to the seabed with up to nine mooring lines per foundation and anchored to the seabed via one or a combination of the anchoring types detailed in Table 2.4   Open ▸ .
93. An overview of the typical floating substructure options is provided in Figure 2.2   Open ▸ . Each floating technology has varying dimensions as a result of the differing approach to meeting the unique engineering challenges associated with floating turbines, turbine sizes and project specific requirements. The final substructure design may look different those pictured but will follow the same design principles. The following floating substructure solutions are being considered:

• Semi-submersible: A buoyancy stabilised platform which floats semi-submerged on the surface of the ocean whilst anchored to the seabed. The structure gains its stability through the buoyancy force associated with its large footprint (relative to the spar solution) and geometry, which ensures the wind loadings on the structure and turbine are countered/dampened by the equivalent buoyancy force on the opposite side of the structure.
• Tension Leg Platform (TLP): A TLP is a semi-submerged buoyant structure, anchored to the seabed with tensioned mooring lines. The combination of the structure buoyancy and tension in the anchor and mooring system provides the platform stability. This system stability (as opposed to the stability coming from the floating structure itself) allows for a smaller and lighter floating structure.

Figure 2.2: Floating Substructure Options for the Array

94. Three mooring configurations are currently being considered, namely; catenary, semi taut and taut mooring lines, as presented in Table 2.4   Open ▸ . Semi taut mooring lines typically use mixed materials, for example, chain and synthetic rope, secured to the seabed with anchors and ancillary elements, as well as buoyancy modules which lift connections off the seabed. Taut mooring line systems use synthetic or steel wire rope lines fixed to the seabed which are under tension. Anchors for this type of mooring system must be capable of withstanding vertical lift, for example, Vertical Loading Anchors (VLAs) (ORE Catapult, 2021). Catenary mooring line systems typically comprise free hanging chains, secured to the seabed using anchors and ancillary elements and may be used where the other mooring solutions are not feasible. A schematic of the differing mooring systems is provided in Figure 2.3   Open ▸ .

Figure 2.3: Schematic of Mooring System Options for Floating Wind Turbines

95. Anchoring types considered include driven piles, and a number of different embedded anchor types, including suction piles, Drag Embedment Anchors (DEA) and VLA ( Table 2.4   Open ▸ ), with up to nine anchors required per foundation. A brief description of the various anchoring types that will be considered are presented in Table 2.3   Open ▸ . Images of the anchoring solutions are presented in Figure 2.4   Open ▸ .

Table 2.3: Description of Anchoring Options Considered in the Maximum Design Envelope

Figure 2.4: Schematic of Anchoring Options Under Consideration as Part of the Proposed Mooring Configurations (Images Courtesy of Intermoor)

96. It should be noted that use of driven piles will only be undertaken where other solutions are not feasible, and only  a proportion of the foundations may be piled. There may be a mix of mooring and anchoring solutions used across the Array, which would reduce the number of driven piles which may be used. Geotechnical data acquisition and further studies will be undertaken to analyse ground conditions across the site boundary and inform mooring and anchoring solutions for floating turbine substructures. Further detail on foundation parameters and anchoring will be presented within the Project Description chapter of the Array EIA Report.
97. The mooring and anchoring systems could be connected using a number of different connectors and ancillaries which alter the mooring system behaviour, such as:

• Long Term Mooring (LTM) connectors (shackles or H-links);
• clump weights;
• buoys or buoyancy elements; and
• tensioners.

98. Clump weights are added to mooring lines to increase initial stiffness, which reduces dynamic loads and limits the mooring radius of the floating substructure. These are generally attached as a casing around the mooring line at the touchdown point on the seabed. A schematic of mooring line connectors and ancillaries is presented in Figure 2.5   Open ▸ .

Figure 2.5: Schematic of Mooring Line Connectors and Ancillaries

Table 2.4: Maximum Design Envelope: Wind Turbine Foundations, Mooring Lines and Anchors

2.3.6.    Offshore Platforms

2.3.6. Offshore Platforms

                        OSP topsides

99. Up to six OSPs may be required for the Array, to transform electricity generated by the wind turbines to a higher voltage allowing the power to be efficiently transmitted directly to shore or to a wider offshore grid network. As detailed in section 2.1, the infrastructure associated with the Proposed offshore export cable corridor(s) and Proposed onshore export cable corridor(s) (including the onshore substation at the Proposed landfall(s)) will be subject to a separate consent application(s). The OSP topside size will be dependent on the final electrical set up for the offshore wind farm but it is expected to be up to 130 m (length) by 110 m (width), and approximately 70 m in height (above LAT), excluding the helideck or lighting protection ( Table 2.5   Open ▸ ).
100. Further detail on the design of the OSPs and topside specification will be presented in the Project Description chapter of the Array EIA Report.

Table 2.5: Maximum Design Envelope: OSP Topsides

                        OSP foundations and support structures

101. It is anticipated that the OSPs will be supported by fixed substructures, however, floating substructures have also  been included as an option for consideration. These are described in the sections below. Further detail of the design of the foundation and support structures for the OSPs will be provided in the Project Description chapter of the Array EIA Report.

Fixed foundations

102. It is likely that OSPs will be installed on fixed jacket foundations. The fixed jacket foundations will have up to eight legs, with two piles required per leg.
103. This results in a maximum of 16 piles required per foundation, with a pile diameter of approximately 4 m. Up to 96 piles will require piling for up to six OSPs ( Table 2.6   Open ▸ ).

Table 2.6: Maximum Design Envelope: OSP Fixed Jacket Foundations

Floating foundations

104. If floating foundations are used for the OSPs, the substructures will be fixed to the seabed with up to nine mooring  lines per foundation and anchored to the seabed. Three mooring line types are considered at present ( Table 2.7   Open ▸ ).
105. Anchoring types considered include driven piles, and a number of different embedded anchor types, including suction piles, DEA and VLA ( Table 2.7   Open ▸ ), with up to nine anchors required per OSP floating foundation.
106. Section 2.3.5 provides further details of the mooring lines and anchoring types considered. As noted in paragraph 96, the use of driven piles for floating substructures will only be undertaken where other solutions are not feasible, subject to detailed assessment. There may be a mix of mooring and anchoring solutions used across the six OSPs and/or for each OSP, which could reduce the number of driven piles which may be used. Geotechnical data acquisition and further studies will be undertaken to analyse ground conditions across the site boundary and inform mooring and anchoring solutions for floating OSPs.

Table 2.7: Maximum Design Envelope: OSP Floating Foundations, Mooring Lines and Anchors

2.3.7.    Scour Protection for Foundations

2.3.7. Scour Protection for Foundations

107. Natural hydrodynamic and sedimentary processes can lead to seabed erosion and ‘scour hole’ formation around anchor and mooring systems, and foundation structures. Scour hole development is influenced by the shape of the foundation structure, seabed sedimentology and site-specific metocean conditions such as waves, currents, and storms. Employing scour protection can mitigate scour around foundations. Commonly used scour protection types include:

• concrete mattresses: cast of articulated concrete blocks, several metres wide and long and linked by a polypropylene rope lattice, which are placed on and/or around structures to stabilise the seabed and inhibit erosion;
• rock: layers of graded stones placed on and/or around structures to inhibit erosion, or rock filled mesh fibre bags which adapt to the shape of the seabed/structure as they are lowered on to it; or
• artificial fronds: mats which are several metres wide and long and composed of continuous lines of overlapping buoyant polypropylene fronds that create a drag barrier, preventing sediment in their vicinity being transported away. The frond lines are secured to a polyester webbing mesh base which is secured to the seabed by a weighted perimeter or anchors pre-attached to the mesh base.

108. Rock placement is the most frequently used scour protection method. This involves the placement of crushed rock around the base of some types of foundation structures.
109. The type and volume of scour protection required will vary depending on the foundation types considered, and the final parameters will be decided once the design of the foundation structure is finalised. This decision will consider a range of aspects including geotechnical data, meteorological and oceanographical data, water depth, foundation type, maintenance strategy, and cost.

2.3.8.    Inter-array Cables

2.3.8. Inter-array Cables

110. Inter-array cables carry the electrical current produced by wind turbines to an OSP. So as not to hinder the movement of the floating wind turbine substructures, it is proposed that dynamic inter-array cables will be used. There are several cable designs which may be used, however, the most likely to be used for the Array is a ‘lazy-s’ configuration which allows extension of the cables in response to the floating substructure movements. Buoyancy modules are attached to the dynamic inter-array cable to support the weight of the cable and provide the ‘lazy-s’ configuration in the water column, and bend restrictors help to reduce the fatigue in the inter-array cables. Bend restrictors are typically used where the cable exits the floating substructure and at touchdown points of the cable on the seabed.
111. From the point at which the dynamic cable transitions to static, the section of static cable on the seabed will be protected in line with the output of the Cable Burial Risk Assessment (CBRA), typically using either cable burial methods or external cable protection (comprising graded rock, concrete mattresses, or similar). Where crossing pre-existing cables, pipelines or exposed bedrock, inter-array cables will be protected with a hard protective layer (such as rock or concrete mattresses), as required. Where cable protection is required, the protection measure will be dependent on several factors such as seabed conditions, seabed sedimentology and the physical processes at the Array. A schematic of the dynamic/static inter-array cabling system is presented in Figure 2.6   Open ▸ .

Figure 2.6: Typical Schematic of the Dynamic/Static Inter-array Cable System (Subject to Detailed Design Configuration)

112. Different approaches and techniques are available for installation of the inter-array cables laid on the seabed. The final choice of installation will be subject to review of the seabed conditions and the CBRA. The following list details some of the installation tools that will be considered to achieve cable burial where required:

• Jet trenchers or mass flow excavators which inject water at high pressure into the sediment surrounding the cable. Jet trenching tools use water jets to fluidise the seabed which allows the cable to sink into the seabed under its own weight.
• Mechanical trenchers, usually mounted on tracked vehicles, which use chain cutters or wheeled arms with teeth or chisels to cut a trench across the seabed.
• Cable ploughs are usually towed either from a vessel or vehicle on the seabed. There are two types of plough:

           a displacement plough which creates a V shaped trench into which the cable can be laid; or

           a non-displacement plough which simultaneously lift a share of seabed whilst depressing the cable into the bottom of the trench. As the plough progresses, the share of the seabed is replaced on top of the cable.

113. The cable installation methodology and potential cable protection measures will be described in detail in the Project Description chapter of the Array EIA Report and finalised at the final design stage (post-application).
114. Sand wave and boulder clearance may also be required prior to cable installation to maximise the potential for cable burial. The anticipated MDS of seabed affected, and volumes of material required will be described in the Project Description chapter of the Array EIA Report.
115. The maximum design envelope for inter-array cables is presented in Table 2.8   Open ▸ .

Table 2.8: Maximum Design Envelope: Inter-Array Cables

2.4.        Offshore Construction Phase

2.4. Offshore Construction Phase

116. Construction of the Array is expected to occur over a period of nine years cumulatively aligning with the following indicative construction series:

1. seabed preparation activities (including, sand wave and boulder clearance, Unexploded Ordnance (UXO) clearance and pre-construction surveys);
2. anchoring and mooring installation;
3. wind turbine and OSP integration (in the case of floating OSPs) with floating foundation at harbour;
4. Towing of integrated floating substructure and turbine to site;
5. wind turbine and OSP foundation installation/commissioning (in case of using floating OSPs), including scour protection where required;
6. OSP installation/commissioning (in case of using fixed type OSP);
7. inter-array and interconnector cables installation, including cable burial or protection, where required; and
8. wind farm commissioning.

117. Pre-construction surveys, including geophysical and geotechnical surveys, may be carried out to provide further information of UXO, bedform and mapping of boulders, bathymetry, topography and sub-surface layers. The possibility exists for UXO originating from World War I or World War II to be encountered within the Array during the construction phase. Due to the health and safety risks posed by UXO, it is necessary for UXO to be surveyed and managed carefully. If UXOs cannot be avoided through micrositing, for example, or relocated, UXO will be cleared by a specialist contractor in advance. Detailed design work would be required to confirm planned locations of infrastructure, prior to conducting any UXO surveys.
118. Sand wave and boulder clearance may be required, in particular for the inter-array and interconnector cable laying, to provide a relatively flat seabed surface, remove mobile sediments and boulder obstructions to maintain required cable burial depth, and reduce the risk of damage to cables. Boulder clearance will also ensure minimal disruption to installation of mooring and anchoring systems and foundations, and jack-up vessel activities.
119. The offshore construction phase may be supported by various vessels, including Anchor Handling Tug Supply (AHTS) vessels, Service Operation Vessels (SOVs), Crew Transfer Vessels (CTVs), jack-up or floating Heavy Lift Vessels (HLV), support vessels, cable lay vessels, pre-lay survey vessels, Remotely Operated Vehicle (ROV) deployment vessels, rock installation vessels, service and commissioning support vessels, and guard vessels.
120. Moorings and anchoring systems will be transported and pre-laid at the installation location (yet to be confirmed), prior to installation of the floating substructures and wind turbine generators. Floating substructures and wind turbine generators (comprised nacelle, rotor blades, hub, and towers) will be assembled and integrated at the final assembly yard and wind turbine assembly yard and towed to the installation location using a AHTS vessel, or similar. If floating OSPs are chosen, the floating OSP substructures and OSP topsides will also be assembled and integrated at an assembly yard and towed to the final installation location. At the installation location, the integrated floating wind turbines and floating OSPs (if chosen) will be installed and hooked up to the pre-installed mooring system. Following connection to the necessary cabling, a process of testing and commissioning will be undertaken.

2.5.        Operation and Maintenance Phase

2.5. Operation and Maintenance Phase

121. The overall operation and maintenance strategy will be finalised once the operation and maintenance base location and technical specification of the Array are known, including wind turbine type, electrical export option and final project layout. Routine operation and maintenance works will be conducted using SOV, helicopter, drones, and/or CTV. For infrequent major operation and maintenance works, including major component replacements, turbines and OSPs (in the event that floating substructures are used for the latter) will be decoupled from their mooring and anchoring systems and towed to a suitable port facility. HLVs and/or jack-up vessels will be used for infrequent major maintenance campaigns associated with the OSPs, in the event that fixed bottom foundations are used. ROVs will be used to inspect foundations, mooring and anchoring systems, and cabling.
122. Offshore operation and maintenance will comprise of both preventative and corrective activities. The details of estimated annual and total operation and maintenance activities will be detailed within the Project Description chapter of the Array EIA Report.

2.6.        Decommissioning Phase

2.6. Decommissioning Phase

123. Under Section 105 of the Energy Act 2004 (as amended), developers of offshore renewable energy projects are required to prepare a Decommissioning Programme for approval by Scottish Ministers. A Section 105 notice is issued to developers by the regulator after consent or marine licence has been issued for the given development. Developers are then required to submit a detailed plan for the decommissioning works, including anticipated costs and financial securities. The programme will consider good industry practice, guidance and legislation relating to decommissioning at that time. The programme will be consulted on by stakeholders and will be publicly available.
124. The Array EIA Report will provide an overview of the anticipated decommissioning events and an assessment of the potential significant effects of this phase on receptors.

2.7.        Designed in Measures

2.7. Designed in Measures

125. The following designed in measures will be included within the Array design and will be considered in assessment in the Array EIA Report. These are summarised in Appendix 2:

• spacing between wind turbines within the Array will be sufficiently distant (at least 1,000 m) so that wake effects or changes to the wave field will be mitigated;
• spacing between wind turbines within the Array will be identified taking into account navigational risk and considered through the Navigational Risk Assessment (NRA) process;
• scour protection will be deployed around Array mooring and anchoring systems and foundations where required;
• implementation and monitoring of cable protection around Array cables through the development of and adherence to a Cable Plan (CaP);
• implementation and monitoring of cable protection (via burial, or external protection where adequate burial depth as identified via CBRA is not feasible) with any damage, destruction or decay of cables notified to MCA, Northern Lighthouse Board (NLB), Kingfisher and UK Hydrographic Office (UKHO) no later than 24 hours after discovered;
• development of and adherence to an appropriate Code of Construction Practice (CoCP);
• the development of, and adherence to, an Environmental Management Plan (EMP), including a Marine Pollution Contingency Plan (MPCP) and Invasive Non-Native Species Management Plan (INNSMP);
• the development of, and adherence to a Decommissioning Programme;
• implementation of soft-start and ramp-up measures for piling activities and UXO clearance;
• the development of and adherence to a Vessel Management Plan (VMP), or equivalent;
• the development of and adherence to a Marine Mammal Mitigation Plan (MMMP) to outline the additional mitigation to be implemented for piling and UXO clearance;
• the development of and adherence to a Piling Strategy (PS) (or equivalent, after consultation with stakeholders) which will set out the mitigation measures including soft-start and ramp-up measures;
• use of low order deflagration (ideally, and where possible) for UXO clearance;
• ongoing consultation with the fishing industry and appointment of a Fisheries Liaison Officer (FLO);
• development of a Fisheries Management and Mitigation Strategy (FMMS);
• adherence to good practice guidance with regards to fisheries liaison (e.g., Fishing Liaison with Offshore Wind and Wet Renewables Group (FLOWW), 2014, 2015);
• timely and efficient distribution of Notice to Mariners (NtM), Kingfisher notifications and other navigational warnings of the position and nature of works associated with the Array;
• use of guard vessels, as appropriate;
• implementation of a Navigational Safety Plan (NSP), or equivalent;
• liaison with Fisheries Industry Representatives (FIRs), as appropriate;
• compliance with MGN 654 (MCA, 2021) and its annexes where applicable;
• development of, and adherence to, a Development Specification and Layout Plan (DSLP), or alternative;
• development of, and adherence to, a Lighting and Marking Plan (LMP) or equivalent;
• development of, and adherence to, an Emergency Response Cooperation Plan (ERCoP);
• notification to the UKHO of the proposed works and appropriate marking on UKHO Admiralty charts;
• buoyed construction area in agreement with NLB;
• application for safety zones of up to 500 m during construction, periods of major maintenance and decommissioning;
• use of advisory safety distances around vessels undertaking construction, major maintenance, and decommissioning activities;
• marine coordination and communication to manage project vessel movements;
• compliance of project vessels with international marine regulations as adopted by the Flag State, including the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea (COLREGs) (International Maritime Organization (IMO), 1972/77) and the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS) (IMO, 1974);
• marking and lighting of the site in agreement with NLB and in line with International Association of Marine Aids to Navigation and Lighthouse Authorities (IALA) Recommendations (IALA, 2021a) and Guidance (IALA, 2021b);
• compliance with regulatory expectations on moorings and anchoring systems for floating wind and marine devices (Health and Safety Executive (HSE) and MCA, 2017);
• blade clearance of at least 22 m above the water line, accounting for pitch and roll as per MGN 654;
• fitting of aviation lighting on offshore wind turbines to all required turbines in accordance with Civil Aviation Publication (CAP) 764 (Civil Aviation Authority (CAA), 2016) and will be set out for consultation within a Lighting and Marking Plan (LMP) to be approved post-consent by Marine Scotland;
• Helicopter hoist status lighting will be located on the nacelle of the wind turbine in accordance with CAP 437 (CAA, 2021) and will be set out for consultation within a LMP, or equivalent plan, to be approved post-consent by Marine Scotland;
• the implementation of Archaeological Exclusion Zones (AEZs) around sites identified as having a known important archaeological potential to ensure that all offshore infrastructure will be located to avoid any known wrecks (50 m to 100 m buffer);
• archaeological input into specifications for and analysis of future preconstruction geophysical surveys;
• archaeologists to be consulted in the preparation of any preconstruction ROV or diver surveys and in monitoring/checking of data, if appropriate;
• all anomalies of possible archaeological potential will be reviewed against the final layout and design. If they are likely to be impacted, these anomalies would undergo further archaeological investigation. Should these anomalies prove to be of archaeological importance then future AEZs may be implemented following consultation with Historic Environment Scotland (HES);
• archaeological input into specifications for and analysis of future preconstruction works. This might include the presence of a geoarchaeologist on board the survey vessel and a provision for sampling, analysis and reporting of recovered cores;
• commitment to preparation and consultation with Historic Environment Scotland, on an Offshore Written Scheme of Investigation (WSI) and Protocol of Archaeological Discoveries (PAD) prior to any interaction with the seabed;
• archaeologists to be consulted in advance of pre-construction site preparation activities and, if appropriate, to carry out watching briefs of such work;
• micro-siting of wind turbine foundation anchors and mooring lines to avoid known wrecks;
• mitigation of unavoidable direct impacts on known sites of archaeological importance. Options include i) preservation by record, ii) stabilisation and iii) detailed analysis and safeguarding of otherwise comparable sites elsewhere;
• distance of the Array from the locations of sensitive seascape, landscape and visual receptors;
• ongoing engagement with oil and gas operators to coordinate activities and facilitate coexistence where possible and appropriate to do so;
• increasing the share of local/national content through meet the supplier events and contracting requirements;
• refinement of commitments underpinning the Supply Chain Development Statement (SCDS);
• Best Practicable Means (BPM) will be used to reduce the impacts of airborne noise upon sensitive receptors; and
• monitoring of airborne noise related complaints and undertaking appropriate remedial action.

3.             Site Selection Methodology and Consideration of Alternatives

3. Site Selection Methodology and Consideration of Alternatives

3.1.        Introduction

3.1. Introduction

126. This section discusses the site selection and alternatives of the Array which have been considered by the Applicant. The stages of site selection that have been carried out to establish the Array will be further outlined in the Array Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Report. In addition, any refinements to the Array that have taken place resulting from the EIA process and in response to consultation and stakeholder feedback will be included in the Array EIA Report, and the reasonable alternatives that have been considered as part of this process will be discussed.

3.2.        Site Selection And Consideration Of Alternatives

3.2. Site Selection And Consideration Of Alternatives

127. CES announced its intention to launch a leasing round for commercial scale offshore wind energy projects within Scottish waters in November 2017 (Scottish Government, 2020a). The first ScotWind Leasing Round was subsequently launched by CES in June 2020. The ScotWind Leasing Round allowed developers to apply for the rights to build offshore wind farms in Scottish waters within specified lease areas, with up to 25 GW of new generating capacity expected to be built over the following ten years. The application window for registered applicants opened in January 2021 and closed in July 2021, with Option to Lease Agreements offered in January 2022.
128. In October 2020, the Scottish Government published the Sectoral Marine Plan (SMP) for Offshore Wind Energy which provided a strategic framework for the ScotWind Leasing Round (Scottish Government, 2020a). The SMP identified 15 final Plan Options (POs) across four regions for renewable energy generation, with a national limit on generating capacity of 10 GW.
129. These final POs were developed through an iterative process. The first steps included identification of initial Areas of Search (AoS) which were subsequently refined through several iterations of Opportunity and Constraint Analysis, and consultation and engagement with key sectoral stakeholders, Scottish Ministers, the SMP Project Board and Project Steering Groups. From this, 17 revised AoS were selected as Draft Plan Options (DPOs) (Scottish Government, 2020a).
130. The DPOs were subject to a Sustainability Appraisal process, comprising a Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA), Habitats Regulations Appraisal (HRA) and Social and Economic Impact Assessment (SEIA), which examined cross-sectoral impacts of the DPOs to support sustainable development of renewable energy generation in Scottish waters. Statutory consultation was held between 18 December 2019 and 25 March 2020 to seek feedback on the DPOs. A Consultation Analysis Report was produced to inform the Scottish Ministers' decision on which DPOs to progress (Scottish Government, 2020d). Following this, the SMP was published, and the refined, final POs were identified within this (Scottish Government, 2020a). 
131. The SMP noted that there was potential for regional cumulative impacts on bird populations, benthic habitats, cetaceans, navigational safety, seascape/landscape, and commercial fisheries, however, the level of impacts are likely to vary depending upon the final POs developed. The SMP provides several mitigation measures regarding potential impacts at various scales (Scottish Government, 2020a).
132. The SMP was developed in accordance with the aims of the National Marine Plan (NMP) (Scottish Government, 2015) and sits alongside the Scottish Offshore Wind Energy Policy Statement (OWEPS) (Scottish Government, 2020b) to build a framework towards Scotland’s sustainable green recovery. It should be noted that the SMP is subject to an iterative review process (Scottish Government, 2020a).
133. The Applicant applied for the rights to develop an offshore wind farm within the E1 PO Area in the first ScotWind Leasing Round, and was subsequently awarded an Option to Lease Agreement for the site boundary, within which the Array will be located, in January 2022. The Applicant applied to develop the site boundary within the E1 PO Area based on a detailed review of number of parameters and constraints (SSER, Marubeni and CIP, 2021) including:

• water depth and distance to shore;
• wind speed and metocean conditions;
• offshore geotechnical conditions;
• offshore environmental designations (existing and proposed) including Special Protection Areas (SPAs), Ramsar sites, Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs), Special Areas of Conservation (SACs) and Nature Conservation Marine Protected Areas (NCMPAs);
• ornithology;
• offshore habitats;
• benthic ecology, including epifauna and infauna;
• fish and shellfish ecology;
• marine mammals including cetaceans and seals;
• shipping and navigation
• commercial fishing effort;
• seascape and landscape;
• archaeology and cultural heritage;
• aviation and radar, including civil and military aspects;
• existing infrastructure and oil and gas leases;
• energy generation;
• emergency services, including search and rescue (SAR) operations; and
• cables and pipelines.

134. The site boundary was selected by the Applicant for application after undergoing a site assessment process which used measured baseline data from Berwick Bank, Seagreen 1 (formerly known as Seagreen Alpha and Bravo), and Seagreen 1A Offshore Wind Farm projects, industry-leading tools including a Levelised Cost of Energy (LCoE) analysis of all 15 of the final POs included in the ScotWind Leasing Round, as well as an assessment of wind resource and energy yield prediction, and drew upon their extensive experience developing offshore wind globally and in Scotland (SSER, Marubeni and CIP, 2021).
135. According to the SMP, the key concerns within the E1 PO Area included minor socio-economic impacts to commercial shipping, fishing, power interconnector sectors, and Ministry of Defence (MoD) radar interference, as well as impacts to offshore ornithology (in particular kittiwake Rissa tridactyla and razorbill Alca torda) and fish spawning grounds for herring Clupea harengus, cod Gadus morhua, whiting Merlangius merlangus, plaice and sandeel Ammodytes spp. (Scottish Government, 2020a). Therefore, the Applicant carried out several studies and analyses at the pre-award stage to gain an understanding of the potential constraints associated with the site boundary, as noted in the SMP.
136. Analysis was undertaken to understand the metocean conditions within the area, followed by the deployment of metocean buoys within the site boundary in August 2022. The Applicant also assessed the wind and climatic conditions regarding site suitability and project feasibility, and commissioned Atkins to carry out a desktop geological and foundations feasibility assessment of the E1 PO Area. This desktop study concluded that the area of the site boundary was the best location for the development of a floating offshore wind farm based on desk-based data and taking into consideration the various constraints within the region. The Applicant has followed this with an interpretive geophysical survey and environmental survey (including benthic grab sampling and drop down video (DDV)) of the site boundary between March and July 2022. In addition, the Applicant also undertook a desktop study of other infrastructure in the area, including oil and gas, cables and pipelines and energy generation (SSER, Marubeni and CIP, 2021).
137. The Applicant began aerial ornithological and marine mammal surveys, prior to award, in February 2021, to gain an understanding of the ornithological and marine mammal baseline. This two-year survey is expected to conclude in February 2023 and will inform the design considerations and layout of the Array which will be taken forward into the Array EIA Report. Regional level ornithological surveys are also in progress, as proposed in the SMP.
138. In addition, the Applicant also commissioned several studies at the pre-award stage to gain an early understanding of the potential risks to human receptors within the site boundary, as follows:

• a shipping activity and constraints study, carried out by Anatec Ltd (Anatec Ltd., 2021);
• a fishing intensity and spawning analysis study, carried out by Brown and May Marine Ltd (Brown and May Marine Ltd., 2021); and
• an aviation and military activity study, carried out by Coleman Aviation.

139. Further desktop data analysis and studies will be carried out throughout the EIA process and documented in the standalone Technical Reports for the various receptor topics, as well as feeding into the assessments undertaken within the Array EIA Report.
140. The Array EIA Report will further describe the background to the ScotWind leasing round process and the evolution of the Array within the site boundary. In addition, the Array EIA Report will outline the process followed by the Applicant to identify potential wind turbine layouts and other infrastructure forming part of the Array application including Offshore Substation Platforms (OSPs), inter-array cables and interconnector cables, the reasonable alternatives that were considered, and the rationale for the selection of the final project design considering any modifications identified during consultation.
141. In 2020, the Offshore Transmission Network Review (OTNR) was launched by the UK Government and is currently ongoing. The purpose of the OTNR is to ensure that the network connections for offshore wind generation are delivered efficiently and consider environment, cost to consumers, local communities and deliverability (HM Government, 2022a; National Grid, 2022a). In April 2022, the UK Government released the British Energy Security Strategy policy paper which sets out the ambition to deliver up to 50 GW of offshore wind by 2030, including up to 5 GW of floating offshore wind (HM Government, 2022b). To achieve this ambitious target, it is necessary that a coordinated approach with regard to the offshore grid network and landfall points is put forward. As part of the OTNR, National Grid have developed the Pathway to 2030 Holistic Network Design (HND) to set out a coordinated approach for connecting 23 GW of offshore wind (National Grid, 2022a). The findings of the HND will feed into a Detailed Network Design (DND) which will be taken forward by the organisation(s) responsible for developing that part of the network, and a HND Follow Up Exercise (HNDFUE) will be undertaken by National Grid to include the remaining ScotWind leaseholders, any capacity available through the ScotWind clearing process, and 4 GW of Celtic Sea Floating Offshore Wind (FLOW) capacity (National Grid, 2022b).
142. Due to the ongoing nature of the OTNR and HNDFUE, and the uncertainty associated with landfall grid connection points, the Applicant has made the decision for the Proposed offshore export cable corridor(s) and Proposed onshore export cable corridor(s) (and associated onshore transmission infrastructure) to be subject of separate applications once the outcomes and/or further information of these reports are available.

4.             Environmental Impact Assessment Methodology

4. Environmental Impact Assessment Methodology

4.1.        Introduction

4.1. Introduction

143. This section presents the methodology that will be applied to the Array Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Report. The methodology for the identification and assessment of likely significant environmental effects, as defined in the EIA Regulations (The Marine Works (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2007; see Appendix 4), is discussed in this section, alongside the proposed methodology for the identification and assessment of cumulative and inter-related impacts, including consideration of potential transboundary effects. The methodology will follow a systematic and auditable evidence-based approach to assess and interpret the potential effects on physical, biological and human receptors within the offshore environment.

4.2.        Basis of Assessment

4.2. Basis of Assessment

4.2.1.    EIA Legislative Basis and Guidance Documents

4.2.1. EIA Legislative Basis and Guidance Documents

144. In order to comply with applicable law and policy (see Appendix 4) and in particular with the Marine Works (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2007 and the Electricity Works (Environmental Impact Assessment) (Scotland) Regulations 2017, an EIA Report will be prepared when applying for Section 36 consent and marine licence(s) for the Array, as discussed within section 1.5 and Appendix 4. A separate EIA Scoping Report and EIA Report will be produced for the Proposed offshore export cable corridor(s). In addition, a separate EIA Scoping Report and EIA Report will be prepared for the planning permission application(s) for the Proposed onshore export cable corridor(s) and associated infrastructure (above MLWS).
145. The following Regulations will also be considered in the production of the Array EIA Report, in addition to the EIA Regulations described in section 1.5 and Appendix 4:

• the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017; and
• the Conservation of Offshore Marine Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (which apply to marine licences and Section 36 applications within the Scottish Offshore region).

146. Guidance and good practice documents have also been developed, in addition to the legislative requirements, to assist with the production of a ‘fit for purpose’ EIA. These include:

• Marine Scotland Consenting and Licensing Guidance: For Offshore Wind, Wave and Tidal Energy Applications[4] (Marine Scotland, 2018);
• Guidelines for Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA) in the UK and Ireland – Terrestrial, Freshwater, Coastal and Marine (Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management (CIEEM), 2022);
• Environmental Impact Assessment for offshore renewable energy projects (British Standards Institute (BSI), 2015);
• Guidelines for data acquisition to support marine environmental assessments of offshore renewable energy projects (Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science (Cefas), 2012);
• A Review of Assessment Methodologies for Offshore Wind Farms (Collaborative Offshore Wind Research into The Environment (COWRIE) METH-08-08) (Maclean et al., 2009);
• Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment (IEMA) Environmental Impact Assessment Guide to Shaping Quality Development (IEMA, 2015);
• Planning Advice Note (PAN) 1/2013 Environmental Impact Assessment (Scottish Government, 2013);
• A Handbook on Environmental Impact Assessment (NatureScot, 2018);
• Advice Note Seventeen: Cumulative effects assessment relevant to nationally significant infrastructure projects (The Planning Inspectorate, 2019); and
• Cumulative Impact Assessment Guidelines - Guiding Principles for Cumulative Impact Assessment in Offshore Wind Farms (RenewableUK, 2013).

147. It should also be noted that there are a number of guidance documents which are in the process of being issued or consulted on by NatureScot and MS-LOT in the near future. The Applicant will monitor for, review, and endeavour to adhere to new guidance, where relevant, in the Array EIA Report.

4.2.2.    The Environmental Impact Assessment Process

4.2.2. The Environmental Impact Assessment Process

148. The EIA process broadly consists of:

• EIA Screening: The Applicant assesses whether an EIA is required for the Array, based on the thresholds and criteria of the project against the Schedules within the EIA Regulations. The Array is considered a Schedule 2 project as it is classed as an “Installation for the harnessing of wind power for energy production (wind farm)” (HM Government, 2007). The Applicant can submit a request for a Screening Opinion from the Scottish Ministers, however, the Applicant has chosen to voluntarily prepare an EIA Scoping Report and EIA Report for the Array without a Screening Opinion following the steps below;
• EIA Scoping: The Applicant produces an Offshore EIA Scoping Report for the Array (this document) and requests a formal Scoping Opinion from Scottish Ministers;
• Consultation: The Applicant will undertake stakeholder engagement during the pre-application period;
• EIA Report preparation: The Array EIA Report will be prepared. This will consider the responses to the consultation process and the outcomes of the assessment of the likely significant effects (as defined in EIA Regulations (see section 1.5) of the Array during the construction, operation and maintenance, and decommissioning stages of the project lifecycle;
• EIA Report consultation: The Applicant is required to publicise the Array EIA Report (and the application to which it relates) to allow the consultation bodies and the public to be given the opportunity to provide their views about the Array EIA Report, including the project design;
• Determination: The competent authority is required to examine all the environmental information, including the Array EIA Report, as well as any comments and representations received from consultation bodies and the public, to enable them to reach a reasoned conclusion on the significant effects of the Array on the environment. The competent authority must consider the environmental information and the conclusions reached, and whether any monitoring measures are appropriate when making the decision whether or not to give consent for the Array; and
• Decision notice: The competent authority is required to inform the public and the consultation bodies of the decision and must publish a ‘decision notice’ incorporating the authority’s reasoned conclusion on the significant effects of the development on the environment.

149. Figure 4.1   Open ▸ provides an overview of the Section 36 and marine licensing process and illustrates how the EIA Scoping stage fits within this process.

Figure 4.1: Stages of the Licensing Process in Scottish Waters

4.3.        Key Principles of the EIA

4.3. Key Principles of the EIA

4.3.1.    Overview

4.3.1. Overview

150. Within the Array EIA Report, each topic will consider the following:

• identification of the study area for the topic-specific assessments;
• description of the planning policy and guidance context;
• summary of consultation activity, including comments received in the Array Scoping Opinion and all other engagement undertaken during the pre-application phase;
• description of the environmental baseline conditions; and
• presentation of impact assessment, which includes:

           identification of the MDS for each impact assessment;

           a description of the mitigation and design measures implemented as part of the Array which aim to prevent, reduce or offset environmental effects;

           identification of likely impacts and assessment of the significance of identified effects, considering any measures implemented as part of the Array;

           identification of any secondary mitigation measures (IEMA, 2016) required regarding likely significant effects (as defined by the EIA Regulations and in addition to mitigation measures implemented as part of the Array), alongside a consideration of any residual effects;

           identification of any future monitoring required;

           Cumulative Effects Assessment (CEA) with any other developments, including those that are proposed, consented and under construction, and projects, plans or activities that are currently operational that were not operational when baseline data was collected (if applicable); and

           transboundary effects assessment for any potential transboundary effects on European Economic Area (EEA) states.

151. A separate standalone section will assess inter-related effects (i.e. inter-relationships between environmental topic areas). This section will include a receptor based inter-related effects assessment of the Array on each of the identified receptor groups, as well as an ecosystem-based assessment which will provide a qualitative assessment of the impacts of the Array at the ecosystem level to assess any effects on predator – prey relationships and the functioning of the ecosystem.
152. A number of key principles will be applied within each topic section. These are detailed in sections 4.3.2 to 4.3.8 below.

4.3.2.    Proportionate EIA

4.3.2. Proportionate EIA

153. This Scoping Report has been developed using a number of tools and processes with the aim of producing a proportionate EIA Report for the Array (as per IEMA (2017), and the Industry Evidence Programme (IEP) (Crown Estate et al., 2018)). These tools and processes will also be applied within the Array EIA Report.
154. Figure 4.2   Open ▸ presents the general approach taken for proportionate EIA in this Scoping Report.

Figure 4.2: Proposed Proportionate EIA Process Used Within this Scoping Report and the Subsequent Array EIA Report

155. The tools and processes noted in paragraph 153 include the following:

• development of a draft Stakeholder Engagement Plan;
• application of the existing evidence basis; and
• commitment to designed in measures.

                        Draft Stakeholder Engagement Plan

156. The dSEP has been developed to enable engagement throughout the pre-application phase (see Appendix 1).
157. The purpose of the dSEP is to allow stakeholders to plan resources to ensure post-scoping consultation is focused, direct and progresses in an efficient manner.
158. As noted in paragraph 176, pre-Scoping workshops were held with key stakeholders in November 2022 to present the baseline characterisation and data sources for a range of topics. Feedback and points of agreement from these workshops have been considered and presented within this Scoping Report for the relevant sections. Further information on these workshops can be found in paragraph 176 and Appendix 1.
159. Post-Scoping consultation will be used to discuss development and agreement of modelling methodologies to be used, interpretation of significance, application of new guidance, and/or agreeing the level of technical assessment which will be presented for impacts within the Array EIA Report. This will ensure that the Array EIA submission documents will be focused on likely significant effects (as defined by the EIA Regulations). The dSEP is considered a ‘live’ document which will be reviewed and updated in response to feedback from stakeholders as part of their Scoping representations.
160. At the time of writing this Scoping Report, the following topics have been identified in the dSEP as requiring focused post-Scoping consultation, subject to scoping feedback:

• benthic subtidal ecology (post-Scoping consultation expected to be minimal);
• fish and shellfish ecology;
• subsea noise and marine mammal ecology;
• offshore ornithology;
• commercial fisheries; and
• shipping and navigation.

161. In addition, there may be the need to discuss the approach to CEA and any queries raising from soon to be published guidance which may affect the approach taken in the Array EIA Report.
162. The section labelled “next steps” within each topic section of this Scoping Report, details the proposed approach for post-Scoping stakeholder engagement in line with the appended dSEP (see Appendix 1).

                        Existing evidence basis

163. As noted in section 3, the site boundary was subject to an extensive site assessment process through the development of the SMP, followed by the Applicant’s site assessment process pre-ScotWind award. This existing baseline data and site-specific information has been drawn upon to inform this Scoping Report and the subsequent Array EIA Report. In addition, site-specific information from Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm and other Scottish offshore wind farms in the vicinity of Ossian has been considered as part of the pre-ScotWind award site assessment process undertaken by the Applicant, as well as preliminary site-specific survey data for the Ossian site boundary, including digital aerial survey data, and geophysical and environmental survey data. Each technical section of this Scoping Report includes a detailed desktop review which aims to:

• provide an initial high-level summary of the baseline environment;
• provide an overview of the existing data to support the Array EIA Report;
• provide rationale for scoping out of impacts from the Array EIA Report where there is clear evidence to do so (e.g. lack of a receptor-impact pathway); and
• provide the existing evidence base to support scoping in of impacts to the Array EIA Report, where appropriate.

164. Offshore digital aerial surveys for ornithology and marine mammals were completed between March 2021 and February 2023. Metocean surveys are ongoing (due to be completed in August 2023), and geotechnical surveys are planned to commence in late Q1 2023 which will further inform the Array EIA Report and final project design.

                        Designed in measures and mitigation measures

165. There are three different forms of mitigation including:

• Primary mitigation (inherent): “Modification to the location or design of the development made during the pre-application phase that are an inherent part of the project, and do not require additional action to be taken” (IEMA, 2016).
• Secondary mitigation (foreseeable): “Actions that will require further activity in order to achieve the anticipated outcome. These may be imposed as part of the planning consent, or through inclusion in the ES” (IEMA, 2016).
• Tertiary mitigation (inexorable): “Actions that would occur with or without input from the EIA feeding into the design process. These include actions that will be undertaken to meet other existing legislative requirement, or actions that are considered to be standard practices used to manage commonly occurring environmental effects” (IEMA, 2016).

Designed in measures (primary and tertiary mitigation)

166. The term ‘designed in measures’ has been used to refer to primary and tertiary mitigation within this Scoping Report. The design of the Array has been informed via this iterative approach to the environmental impact assessment process, through the identification of likely significant effects (as defined by the EIA Regulations) and development of designed in measures to address these. Through the incorporation of designed in measures, the Applicant’s commitment to implementing the identified measures is demonstrated. These are referred to as designed in measures throughout this Scoping Report and the subsequent Array EIA Report.
167. This approach ensures that the significance of effect presented in throughout this Scoping Report and the subsequent Array EIA Report represents the maximum residual effect that the Array will have, should the application for consent be approved and the Array be constructed.
168. Both primary and tertiary mitigation measures are considered as designed in measures as they are incorporated as part of the project design. Therefore, the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) can be undertaken assuming that these designed in measures will be implemented during the relevant project phase. As a result, potential effects which might arise prior to the implementation of designed in measures do not need to be identified as potential effects as there is no potential for them to arise (IEMA, 2016). It should be noted that in each topic specific section of this Scoping Report, a full list of potential impacts without application of designed in measures has been presented, alongside a refined list of impacts proposed to be scoped in and out of the Array EIA Report after application of designed in measures. The topic specific designed in measures are presented in each topic receptor section.
169. Section 2.7 presents all designed in measures considered in this Scoping Report. The development of mitigation measures will continue as the EIA progresses and in response to stakeholder engagement. An iterative process will be used for any additional measures and the dSEP will be updated (Appendix 1).

Secondary mitigation

170. Secondary mitigation is a flexible form of mitigation that can be proposed at any point within the EIA process, including during the decision-making process (IEMA, 2016). As noted above, this form of mitigation requires further activity, particularly at the post-consent stage. Therefore, secondary mitigation measures are additional measures applied after completion of the assessment process to prevent, reduce and offset likely significant effects (as defined by the EIA Regulations) which could not be avoided through designed in measures.

4.3.3.    Design Envelope Approach and Maximum Design Scenario

4.3.3. Design Envelope Approach and Maximum Design Scenario

171. In accordance with current good practice and the “Rochdale Envelope Principle[5]”, the assessment of the Array will utilise the PDE approach (also known as the Rochdale Envelope approach). The PDE concept allows for some flexibility in final project design options within a maximum design, where the full details of a project are not necessarily known when the application is submitted.
172. The PDE parameters are set out in section 2, where the maximum project design values for relevant components of the Array are identified. The PDE considered will be the scenario which would give rise to the greatest potential impact (hereafter referred to as the MDS) for each of the topic sections within the Array EIA Report, and for each of the impacts assessed.
173. The Applicant has undertaken a process of PDE refinement prior to submission of this Scoping Report. Therefore, the assessment which is presented in the final application will be based on a PDE which is as refined and focused as is practical whilst still retaining a degree of flexibility for new technology or design solutions in the post-consent phase.

4.3.4.    Consultation and Stakeholder Engagement

4.3.4. Consultation and Stakeholder Engagement

                        Background

174. Appendix 4, section 4.5.2 notes that there is no legislative basis for undertaking Pre-application Consultation (PAC) as the Array application is located in Scottish offshore waters (12 nm to 200 nm), however, the PAC Regulations are considered good practice for undertaking public engagement.
175. An overview of consultation undertaken to date is presented in Appendix 1. Paragraphs 176 to 182 outline the Applicant’s proposed approach to stakeholder engagement to be followed during the pre-application period.

                        Engagement to date

176. Pre-Scoping stakeholder engagement has been undertaken to support the development of this Scoping Report. Consultation has included general project introductions to key stakeholders and regulators; discussions on proposed survey methodologies; pre-scoping engagement on the Array; interim updates with key Statutory Nature Conservation Bodies (SNCBs) and stakeholders, and updates on interim data results for topics such as ornithology, commercial fisheries and shipping and navigation. In addition, the Applicant held pre-Scoping workshops with SNCBs in November 2022 to present the approach to scoping of the Array and to gain feedback on the scoping in/out of specific impacts to key receptors. Topics covered in the workshops included physical processes, benthic ecology, fish and shellfish ecology, marine mammal ecology and subsea noise, offshore ornithology, seascape, landscape and visual resources and cultural heritage, shipping and navigation, and commercial fisheries.
177. An overview of the stakeholders engaged with to date is provided below:

• NatureScot;
• MS-LOT;
• Marine Scotland Science (MSS);
• Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB);
• Maritime Coastal Agency (MCA);
• Northern Lighthouse Board (NLB);
• North and East Coast Regional Inshore Fisheries Group (NECRIFG);
• Scottish Fishermen's Federation (SFF); and
• Scottish White Fish Producers Association (SWFPA).

                        Future engagement

Array Scoping

178. Once this Scoping Report has been received by the Scottish Ministers, they will consult with statutory consultees, in accordance with the EIA Regulations. This consultation is required to obtain advice and feedback from each consultee or advisor on the potential effects which should be scoped in or out of the EIA. A Marine Scotland gap analysis will be developed based on the Array Scoping Opinion to record the identified environmental concerns and will be used to inform the Array EIA Report preparation.

Pre-Application Consultation event

179. The PAC Regulations apply where activity is planned within Scottish territorial waters and require Applicants for a ‘prescribed class’ of activity to notify the MCA, NLB, NatureScot, and any delegate for a relevant marine region. The Array is located within Scottish offshore waters, therefore, there is no requirement under the PAC Regulations for the Applicant to notify delegates about the proposed activities within the Array. However, the Applicant proposes to follow the principles of the PAC Regulations for the Array as these Regulations are considered good practice for undertaking public engagement.
180. The Applicant proposes to hold at least one pre-application event, for example, in the form of a public exhibition, where these bodies, other stakeholders, and members of the public may engage with and provide comments to the Applicant. It is proposed that this public exhibition event is held in 2023 and further details of this event will be advertised.
181. Where appropriate to do so and if sufficient information on the grid connection and onshore elements of the project are available, public consultation will be carried out for the onshore and offshore elements at the same event, in order to give third parties a full understanding of the whole project.

Additional stakeholder engagement

182. Consultation with key statutory and non-statutory stakeholders throughout the pre-application process will continue as set out in the dSEP (Appendix 1) and on agreement with stakeholders. The Array EIA Report will provide a summary of key consultation undertaken, including the outcomes of the public exhibition.

4.3.5.    Impacts and Effects

4.3.5. Impacts and Effects

183. A range of impacts and effects regarding the physical, biological and human environment, for offshore receptors, have the potential to arise from the Array infrastructure and activities. Where a change is caused by an action, this is defined as an ‘impact’, for the purposes of the Array EIA Report. For example, the installation of moorings and anchoring systems (action) is likely to result in temporary and/or long term seabed loss and disturbance (impact). Impacts may be direct, indirect, temporary, irreversible, secondary, cumulative and inter-related, and can also be either positive or negative. However, the relationship between them can be complex.
184. The consequence of an impact is defined using the term ‘effect’. Further elaborating on the example presented above, the installation of moorings and anchoring systems (action) results in temporary and/or long term seabed loss (impact), which may have the potential to disturb benthic habitats and lead to mortality or injury of benthic species (effect). The significance of effects is defined by considering both the magnitude of impact and the sensitivity of each receptor/receptor group.
185. The extent, duration, frequency and reversibility of an impact are considered when determining the magnitude of an impact. For the purposes of the Array EIA Report, the physical or biological resource, or user group that may be affected by the potential impacts are defined as ‘receptors’. When determining the sensitivity of each receptor/receptor group, a number of factors may be considered, including the vulnerability, recoverability and value/importance of the receptor.
186. A matrix approach will be applied in the Array EIA Report to ensure a consistent approach is taken when defining the significance of an effect ( Table 4.1   Open ▸ ). Where a range is suggested for the significance of effect, for example, minor to moderate, it is possible that this may span the significance threshold. The technical specialist’s professional judgement will be applied to determine which outcome defines the most likely effect, which takes in to account the sensitivity of the receptor and the magnitude of impact. The technical specialist will provide an explanation for this determination in the relevant section of the Array EIA Report where applicable.

Table 4.1: Matrix Used for the Assessment of the Significance of the Effect

                        Approach to assessment of significance

187. Within the Array EIA Report, effects will be assessed as ‘significant’ or ‘non-significant’. A significant effect is defined as a level of effect of equal to or greater than ‘moderate’. A non-significant effect is considered as a level of effect of ‘minor’ or less. In the decision-making process, effects of moderate significance or above are considered important, whereas effects of minor significance or less are considered to have little, if any, importance.
188. The general approach described in the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB) (Highways England et al., 2019) and Environmental Impact Assessment for Offshore Renewable Energy Projects – Guide (BSI, 2015) has been considered as part of this matrix approach. However, several modifications have been made with regard to proportionality, including:

• where a magnitude of impact is determined as ‘no change’ no assessment will be undertaken since it will always lead to a non-significant effect;
• where a magnitude of impact is determined as ‘negligible’, this will not be considered further as it will always lead to a non-significant effect, even if more than one negligible magnitude impact was being considered cumulatively; and
• where it is determined that a receptor or receptor group has negligible importance, value or sensitivity, this will not be considered further as it will always lead to a non-significant effect.

189. The Array EIA Report will follow a “feedback loop” methodology, as shown in Figure 4.3   Open ▸ . Using this methodology, an impact is initially assessed to determine the significance of the environmental effect. If the effect of an impact is initially determined to have a major significant adverse outcome, primary and tertiary mitigation will be applied in order to reduce or offset the magnitude of impact, for example, through changes to the Array design parameters. Secondary mitigation such as engineering controls or construction methods will be employed, where possible, if the effect of an impact is initially determined to have a moderately significant adverse outcome, again, to reduce or offset the magnitude of the impact.
190. As illustrated within Figure 4.3   Open ▸ , the EIA practitioner will repeat this process until they are content that:

• the effect is reduced to a level that is not significant in EIA terms; or
• no further changes can be made to the Array design parameters to reduce the magnitude of impact and the significance of the effect. An overall effect that is still significant in EIA terms may be presented in these instances.

191. Using this iterative approach, it can be presumed that the significance of effect presented for each identified impact is representative of the maximum residual adverse effect the Array may have on the receiving environment.
192. Appendix 2 presents all designed in measures considered in this Scoping Report. The development of mitigation measures will continue as the EIA progresses and in response to stakeholder engagement. An iterative process will be used for any additional measures and the dSEP will be updated (Appendix 1).

4.3.6.    Inter-Related Effects

4.3.6. Inter-Related Effects

193. Where there are relationships between EIA topics which may lead to environmental effects, these are referred to as inter-related effects. There are two categories of inter-related effects:

• project lifetime effects: additive effect of individual impacts on each of the key receptor groups across the three Array phases (construction, operation and maintenance and decommissioning); and
• receptor-led effects: additive effect of multiple effects of the Array on the same receptor. For example, multiple effects on a given receptor such as benthic habitats (e.g. direct habitat loss or disturbance, sediment plumes, scour, jack-up vessel use etc.) may interact to produce a different or greater effect on this receptor than when the effects are considered in isolation. Receptor-led effects might be short term, temporary or transient effects, or incorporate longer term effects.

194. The proposed approach to the inter-related effects assessment is that this will not assess every individual receptor assessed at the EIA stage, but instead, potentially sensitive groups of receptors, therefore, the term ‘receptor groups’ has been used to refer to this. It is anticipated that three main receptor groups will be assessed which can be categorised as the physical environment, biological environment and the human environment. The biological environment, for example, would encompass and assess the inter-related effects associated with benthic subtidal ecology, fish and shellfish ecology, marine mammals and offshore ornithology.
195. Inter-related effects on each receptor or receptor group will be assessed as follows:

• the topic chapters of the Array EIA Report will be reviewed to identify receptors or receptor groups which will require assessment, as well as the likely effects on each receptor or receptor group; and
• an assessment will be undertaken into how the combination of individual effects may create inter-related effects on each receptor or receptor group for both project lifetime effects and receptor-led effects. A conclusion will then be determined on likely significant inter-related effects.

196. If the significance of an effect has been identified as negligible across all stages of the project within the topic-specific assessment, it is assumed that these effects can not contribute to any lifetime inter-related effects. Therefore, these will not be included in the inter-related effects assessment as it is predicted that the effect will be negligible over the lifetime of the project.
197. It should be noted that the inter-related effects assessment only considers the effects from the Array, with effects from other projects considered within the CEA (see section 4.3.7).

Figure 4.3: Proposed Iterative Approach to Mitigation Within the Array EIA Report

4.3.7.    Cumulative Effects Assessment

4.3.7. Cumulative Effects Assessment

                        Overview

198. Under the EIA Regulations, a CEA is legally required. The CEA considers the impacts arising from the Array alone as well as cumulatively with other relevant plans, projects and activities, and can be 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.
199. The CEA is essential to identify foreseeable developments or activities with which the Array may interact, resulting in cumulative impact. Cumulative impacts may arise from all phases (construction, operation and maintenance, and decommissioning) of the Array.
200. The Marine Scotland (2018) Consenting and Licensing Guidance: For Offshore Wind, Wave and Tidal energy Applications states that “Engagement with MS-LOT is required to identify which plans/projects/on-going activities should be included in the in-combination element of the cumulative effects assessment (CEA)”’. The CEA will consider offshore wind projects in the east of Scotland region, and other developments including those which are:

• already constructed;
• under construction;
• permitted application(s) not yet determined; and
• plans and projects which are “reasonably foreseeable” (i.e. developments that are being planned, including, for example, offshore renewable energy project which have a CES Option to Lease Agreement or Crown Estate equivalent, offshore renewable energy projects that have been scoped).

201. In addition, the Proposed offshore export cable corridor(s) and Proposed onshore export cable corridor(s) (including the onshore substation at the Proposed landfall location(s)) will be considered within the CEA, as well as other ScotWind projects located in the vicinity of the Array which fall into the criteria listed above.

Screening stage

202. An initial ‘long list’ of projects within a defined Zone of Influence (ZoI) will be developed based on the criteria listed in paragraph 201 to identify all potential projects to be considered in the CEA. The ZoI will encompass all regional study areas as defined in the technical assessments in the Array EIA Report.
203. The following staged process will be used for each impact-receptor pathway to reduce the initial long list:

• conceptual overlap – an impact-receptor pathway (in EIA terms) describes an impact which has the potential to directly or indirectly affect the receptor(s) in question. This is defined here as a conceptual overlap;
• physical overlap – ability for impacts arising from the Array to overlap with those from other projects/plans on a receptor basis. An overlap of the physical extents of the impacts arising from the two (or more) projects/plans must be established for a cumulative effect to arise. There are exceptions to this for certain mobile receptors that may move between, and are subject to, two or more separate physical extents of impact from two or more projects; and
• temporal overlap – for a cumulative effect to arise from two or more projects, a temporal overlap of impacts arising from each must be established. Some impacts are active only during certain phases of development (e.g. piling noise during construction). However, the absence of a strict overlap may not necessarily mean there is no potential for cumulative effect, as receptors may become further affected by additional, non-temporally overlapping projects.

204. Experienced and knowledgeable technical specialists will carry out this screening stage based upon the current guidance and regulations. After review of the long list, the remaining projects or plans are taken forward to the assessment stage. This refined short list of projects will be agreed with stakeholders and Scottish Ministers via MS-LOT.

Assessment stage

205. At the assessment stage, information is gathered on the projects, plans or activities, to be taken forward into the CEA. Where the likely significant effects (as defined by the EIA Regulations) for the Array alone are assessed as negligible, or where an impact is predicted to be highly localised, these will not be considered within the Array CEA, as it is considered that there would be no potential for cumulative effects with other plans, projects or activities.
206. A tiered approach will be used when undertaking the CEA of the Array, which provides a framework for placing relative weight upon the potential for each project/plan to be included in the CEA, based upon the project/plan’s current stage of maturity and certainty in the projects’ parameters. Projects or plans will be assessed using the following tiers:

• tier 1 assessment – Array with Proposed offshore export cable corridor(s), Proposed onshore export cable corridor(s), and Proposed landfall location(s) (NB: tiers will be assigned to these projects in the Array EIA Report based upon the information available prior to the cut-offs presented in paragraph 207);
• tier 2 assessment – all plans/projects assessed under Tier 1, plus projects which are operational, under construction, those with consent and submitted but not yet determined;
• tier 3 assessment – all plans/projects assessed under Tier 2, plus those projects with a Scoping Report and/or Scoping Opinion; and
• tier 4 assessment – all plans/projects assessed under Tier 3, plus those projects likely to come forward where a CES Option to Lease Agreement or Crown Estate equivalent has been granted.

207. The tiered approach above will be applied to all projects/plans that have been screened into the CEA via the screening process for assessment in the CEA. All other relevant plans, projects and activities that are publicly available six months prior to submission of the Array application will be considered in the CEA where quantitative assessment is required. A qualitative CEA will consider all other relevant plans, projects and activities that are publicly available three months prior to submission of the Array application.
208. The CEA methodology will follow the methodology described in section 4.3.5, where possible, for consistency throughout the EIA.
209. It is expected that the following activity types will be considered in the CEA of the Array based on maximum ZoIs identified from the relevant technical assessments detailed within this Scoping Report:

• marine aggregates and disposal –200 km from the Array;
• energy (including offshore wind, wave and tidal projects (including Innovation and Targeted Oil and Gas (INTOG) projects), cables, Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) and Underground Coal Gasification (UCG)) – proposed ZoI subject to further assessment of offshore ornithology aerial survey study area);
• oil and gas infrastructure –200 km from the Array;
• cables and pipelines –100 km from the Array;
• ports and harbours, 200 km from the Array; and
• military, aviation and radar –50 km from the Array.

210. The Applicant will seek agreement on the list of projects and/or plans to be included in the CEA as part of the post-Scoping consultation (see Appendix 1).

4.3.8.    Transboundary Effects

4.3.8. Transboundary Effects

211. Where impacts from the Array affects the environment of an EEA state(s), this is defined as a transboundary effect. The United Nations Economic Commission for Europe Convention on EIA in a Transboundary Context (the ‘Espoo Convention’) presents the need to consider transboundary effects and requires assessments to be extended across borders between Parties of the Convention when a planned activity may cause significant adverse transboundary impacts.
212. The EIA Regulations state that the Scottish Ministers are required to send information about the development to the Government of the affected country for any project that is likely to cause significant transboundary effects and invite them to participate in consultation procedures. Appendix 3 presents the screening of potential transboundary impacts to assist with this process.
213. The following receptors may experience transboundary impacts from the Array as identified in Appendix 3:

• offshore ornithology;
• commercial fisheries;
• shipping and navigation; and
• offshore socio-economics.

5.             Offshore Physical Environment

5.1. Physical Processes

5.1.1.    Introduction

5.1.1. Introduction

214. This section of this Scoping Report presents the relevant physical processes aspects to the Array and considers the scope of assessment on physical processes from the construction, operation and maintenance, and decommissioning of the Array.
215. Physical processes are defined as encompassing the following elements for the purposes of this Scoping Report and subsequent Array EIA Report:

• bathymetry;
• wind and waves;
• tidal currents and elevation;
• seabed substrate and geology;
• suspended sediments; and
• sediment transport (which is influenced by the elements listed above).

216. Throughout the remainder of this Scoping Report, the elements listed above are collectively referred to as ‘physical processes’.

5.1.2.    Study Area

5.1.2. Study Area

217. The physical processes study area encompasses the site boundary (i.e. the area within which the Array will be located), including the seabed that may be influenced by changes to physical processes due to the Array to the extent of one spring tidal excursion. One spring tidal excursion is defined as the distance suspended sediment is transported prior to being carried back on the returning tide, this will be identified using numerical modelling techniques. This modelled tidal excursion will also be used to inform other chapters of the Array EIA Report (e.g. benthic subtidal ecology, fish and shellfish ecology, marine mammals, etc.).
218. From published Admiralty data and preliminary modelling results, a tidal excursion of 8 km has been determined, which will not extend to the nearest designated area which is over 25 km away.

5.1.3.    Baseline Environment

5.1.3. Baseline Environment

219. The physical processes baseline has been compiled through a thorough review of desktop sources and site-specific survey data. A concise summary of the baseline environment is presented here, reference should be made to Appendix 5 for further detail.

Bathymetry

220. Geophysical data collected in 2022 suggests that the water depth within the site boundary ranges between 63.82 m and 88.66 m relative to LAT. The seafloor consists of gentle slopes and generally deepens towards the east (Appendix 5, Apx Figure 5.1   Open ▸ ). These gentle seafloor gradients range from 0 to 5, with numerous localised steeper areas observed within ripple areas and flanks of rippled scour depressions. Larger sediment features generally run in a direction from north to south, while smaller sediment features run in a more east to west direction.

                        Wind and waves

221. Metocean and Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) buoys were deployed within the site boundary in August 2022. The Metocean buoy will and the LiDAR buoys  will collect physical processes data until autumn 2023 and Autumn 2024 respectively. In the absence of site-specific data, metocean data collected from the Round 3 Firth of Forth Zone, in the vicinity of the site boundary, has been used to characterise the physical processes baseline for the wave regime and tidal currents and elevation. These eight metocean buoys were deployed within the Round 3 Firth of Forth Zone, with the nearest buoys approximately 57 km from the site boundary, with others further inshore towards the Firth of Forth. In the Round 3 Firth of Forth Zone during the stormiest event over the 18-month wave buoy deployment, in January 2012, a significant wave height of 6.7 m was recorded which correlates with a 1 in 1 year sea wave climate return period event (Fugro, 2012). Peak spectral wave periods of up to 20 s were recorded, both associated with strong winds and storms that are characteristic of the North Sea, (Royal Haskoning DHV, 2012). Although this data is now somewhat dated, it is considered sufficient at characterising the wind and wave regime across the Array due to the absence of more recent data and the site-specific data. It is unlikely that the site-specific data will vary significantly in the intervening period. Similarly, the Marine Scotland National Marine Plan Interactive (NMPi) maps presented annual mean wave power ranges from 14 kW/m to 19 kW/m and annual mean significant wave height ranges from 1.81 m to 2.10 m within the site boundary (Marine Scotland, 2022a).

                        Tidal currents and elevation

222. Metocean surveys conducted across the nearby Round 3 Firth of Forth zone provided an overview of tidal current flows in the vicinity of the site boundary, in the absence of site-specific data, which was unavailable at the time of writing. A maximum current of 0.91 m/s was recorded in April 2011 within the Seagreen 1 (formerly known as Segreen Alpha and Bravo) Offshore Wind Farm (50.72 km from the site boundary). Elsewhere in the Round 3 Firth of Forth Zone, the current speed ranged from 0.68 m/s to 0.88 m/s (Fugro, 2012, Royal Haskoning DHV, 2012).
223. The Marine Scotland NMPi maps provided an overview of the tidal flows within the site boundary, illustrating that the mean spring tidal range varies from 1.1 m to 3 m (Marine Scotland, 2022a).

                        Geology

224. The site boundary is part of a complex glacial system, in which the subsequent sedimentary depositions in the Quaternary sediments are affected by the alternating glacial and interglacial stages that affected the northern hemisphere. The ground model was defined from 2D Ultra High Resolution Seismic (UHRS) and Sub-Bottom Profiler (SBP) data integrated with bathymetric, backscatter and Sidescan Sonar (SSS) data that was collected in 2022. Ocean Infinity (2022a) states that “A total of five geological units were identified, with a total of five interpreted horizons, aided interpretation through the delineation of localised geological features”.
225. Within the site boundary, the published British Geological Survey (BGS) mapping (Stoker and Bent, 1985; Gatliff et al., 1994) indicates that the Quaternary geology will comprise of the Forth Formation (late Weichselian to Holocene, fluviomarine mud and sand), cutting into the Marr Bank Formation (Pleistocene, glaciomarine sandy silty clay) and the Aberdeen Ground Formation (Pleistocene, hard clay).
226. The geological morphology within the site boundary is varied and includes recent marine soft sediment deposits and deep channel structures (down to 60 m) with sedimentary infill.

                        Seabed substrate

227. The recent geophysical surveys identified that the seabed within the site boundary consists primarily of sand, with some areas of gravel and occasional diamicton (poorly sorted mixed sediments; Appendix 5, Apx Figure 5.2   Open ▸ ). Gravel areas are more frequent in the north-west, with occasional diamicton also observed in this area. The seabed within the site boundary is relatively flat, with a general slope towards the east. The presence of megaripples and sand waves across the site boundary indicates mobile sediments. The presence of furrows indicates sedimental erosion ( Figure 5.1   Open ▸ ).
228. Occasional boulder fields (5 to 20 boulders within a maximum area of 2,500 m2) and numerous boulder fields (≥ 20 boulders within a maximum area of 2,500 m2) are distributed across the site boundary, most frequently in the west, within areas of gravel and diamicton (Appendix 5, Apx Figure 5.2   Open ▸ ). Manmade seafloor features are present across the site boundary, with linear debris (such as wire and rope) observed most frequently, and occasional linear scars or trawl marks are present (due to anthropogenic activity, such as trawling) as illustrated in Figure 5.1   Open ▸ .
229. Due to the presence of large homogenous areas of sand, and the absence of rapid variation between substrates and pockets of sand, the substrate within the site boundary is not classified as a sensitive receptor. Receptor in this Scoping Report refers to physical features that are sensitive to potential impacts of the Array and/or are qualifying features of designated sites. The closest physical processes receptor to the Array is the Firth of Forth Banks Complex Marine Protected Area (MPA), which is detailed further in paragraph 234 below.

                        Suspended sediment and sediment transport

230. The spatial distribution of average non-algal Suspended Particulate Matter (SPM) for the majority of the UK continental shelf is presented in the Cefas Climatology Report (Cefas, 2016). Based on the data provided within this study, the average SPM associated with the site boundary area has been estimated at between 0 mg/l and 1 mg/l between 1998 and 2015. SPM levels are generally higher in the winter months (up to 3 mg/l in January and December) than the remainder of the year (Cefas, 2016).
231. There was no site-specific sampling undertaken for the Array, however site-specific surveys were conducted for the Seagreen 1 Offshore Wind Farm in March and June 2011, albeit at least 50.72 km away from the site boundary, and situated within shallower water (39.77 m to 64.82 m). Nonetheless, these samples suggested Total Suspended Sediments (TSSs) to be low (<5 mg/l) with a maximum value of 10 mg/l recorded in March 2011 (Fugro, 2012).
232. Suspended Sediment Concentrations (SSCs) are primarily influenced by tidal currents, with fluctuations occurring across the spring-neap cycle and the different tidal stages (high water, peak ebb, low water, peak flood) observed throughout the March and June datasets. Wave-driven currents during storms can temporarily elevate SSCs and can cause levels to rise significantly, which then gradually decrease to baseline conditions following storm events. Due to the seasonal nature and frequency of storms, SSC levels demonstrate a broadly seasonal pattern. These effects on SSCs during storm events are less significant in deeper waters, which have a lower degree of wave penetration than in shallower waters. Therefore, it can be inferred that the TSSs will be lower at the Array site than at the Seagreen 1 Offshore Wind Farm and therefore likely below a maximum value of 10 mg/l for a winter storm.
233. Based on the physical processes modelling undertaken for the Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm, within the site boundary the tide moves in an approximate north to south direction, with the flood tide going to 190o and the ebb tide to 15o, and peak spring currents of around 0.5 m/s. Residual currents are minimal in the order of 0.008 m/s in a south south-west direction of approximately 190o. Therefore, the net sediment transport in the region is limited to below 0.003 m3/d/m. The seabed material at the site boundary is primarily gravelly sand (paragraph 227), therefore using the Wentworth scale, movement would only occur for a small proportion of the tidal cycle (typically less than half). Sediment transport would increase during storm conditions, with the largest and most frequent waves approaching from the northerly sector, therefore, net sediment transport under storm conditions would be in a southerly direction.

                        Designated sites

234. The closest site designated with physical processes qualifying interest features is the Firth of Forth Banks Complex MPA, which is located a minimum of 25 km from the site boundary. This site includes the Berwick, Scalp, and Montrose Banks, and the Wee Bankie shelf banks and mounds. Although also designated for ocean quahog Arctica islandica aggregations, this MPA is designated for offshore subtidal sands, shelf banks and mounds and moraines representative of the Wee Bankie Key Geodiversity Area (Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC), 2021a).
235. Due to the distance of this designated site to the Array (at least 25 km) and the tidal excursion of 8 km (see paragraph 218), it is concluded that there are no designated sites with the potential to be impacted by the Array.

Figure 5.1: Seabed Features within the Site Boundary

5.1.4.    Potential Array Impacts

5.1.4. Potential Array Impacts

236. A list of all potential impacts on physical processes which may occur during the construction, operation and maintenance, and decommissioning phases of the Array in the absence of designed in measures is included in Table 5.1   Open ▸ .

Table 5.1: Potential Impacts Identified for Physical Processes in the Absence of Designed in Measures