Conclusion

  1. It is concluded, beyond reasonable scientific doubt, that no adverse effects on the qualifying interest features which could undermine the conservation objectives of the SPAs listed in Table 5.57   Open ▸ , will occur as a result of barrier to movement impacts during the operation and maintenance phase for the Array. An assessment of the impact of barrier to movement against each relevant conservation objective is presented in Table 5.57   Open ▸ . Where the justifications and supporting evidence are the same for more than one conservation objective, the assessments have been grouped.

Table 5.57:
Conclusions Against the Conservation Objectives of SPAs and their Qualifying Features from Barrier to Movement during the Operation and Maintenance Phase

Table 5.57: Conclusions Against the Conservation Objectives of SPAs and their Qualifying Features from Barrier to Movement during the Operation and Maintenance Phase

  1. As detailed in Table 5.57   Open ▸ , it can be concluded, beyond reasonable scientific doubt, that there is no risk of an adverse effect on the integrity of any of the SPAs listed in Table 5.57   Open ▸ or their qualifying features due to barrier to movement resulting from the operation and maintenance of the Array alone. There is no risk of undermining the Conservation Objectives of the sites considered due to the following:
  • given the Array falls outside the SPA boundary, there is no potential for the Array to impact on the distribution and extent of habitats within the SPA;
  • given the Array falls outside the SPA boundary, there is no potential for the Array to influence the distribution of birds within the SPA;
  • given the Array falls outside the SPA boundary, there is no potential for the Array to influence the structure, function and supporting processes of habitats supporting the species;
  • given the level of impact arising from barrier to movement from the Array area, there is no potential for the Array to influence the population of the species as a viable component of the site; and
  • given the level of impact arising from barrier to movement from the Array area, there is no potential for the Array to influence the disturbance of the species within the SPA.

5.4.7. Entanglement

  1. The LSE2 assessment during the HRA screening process identified that during the operation and maintenance phase, LSE2 could not be ruled out for entanglement as an impact on diving birds. This relates to the following sites and relevant marine ornithological features:
  • Coquet Island SPA

-        breeding seabird assemblage (due to potential impact on breeding puffin).

  • Fair Isle SPA

-        breeding seabird assemblage (due to potential impact on breeding gannet).

  • Farne Islands SPA

-        breeding seabird assemblage (due to potential impact on breeding puffin).

  • Flamborough and Filey Coast SPA

-        gannet (breeding);

-        guillemot (breeding);

-        breeding seabird assemblage (due to potential impact on above species).

  • Forth Islands SPA

-        gannet (breeding);

-        puffin (breeding); and

-        breeding seabird assemblage (due to potential impact on above species).

  • Fowlsheugh SPA

-        breeding seabird assemblage (due to potential impact on breeding razorbill).

  • Hermaness, Saxa Vord and Valla Field SPA

-        gannet (breeding); and

-        breeding seabird assemblage (due to potential impact on above species).

 

  • North Rona and Sula Sgeir SPA

-        gannet (breeding); and

-        breeding seabird assemblage (due to potential impact on above species).

  • Noss SPA

-        gannet (breeding); and

-        breeding seabird assemblage (due to potential impact on above species).

  • St Kilda SPA

-        gannet (breeding); and

-        breeding seabird assemblage (due to potential impact on above species).

  • Sule Skerry and Sule Stack SPA

-        gannet (breeding); and

-        breeding seabird assemblage (due to potential impact on above species).

 

  1. It should be noted that there is no pathway for an impact on non-diving birds (e.g. kittiwake) and therefore non-diving birds have been screened out for this impact due to no potential for a LSE2.
  2. The MDS considered within the assessment of entanglement is shown in Table 5.58   Open ▸ .

 

Table 5.58:
MDS Considered for the Assessment of Potential Impacts to Marine Ornithological Features due to Entanglement during the Operation and Maintenance Phases

Table 5.58: MDS Considered for the Assessment of Potential Impacts to Marine Ornithological Features due to Entanglement during the Operation and Maintenance Phases

 

Table 5.59:
Designed In Measures Considered for the Assessment of Potential Impacts to Marine Ornithological Features due to Entanglement during the Operation and Maintenance Phase

Table 5.59: Designed In Measures Considered for the Assessment of Potential Impacts to Marine Ornithological Features due to Entanglement during the Operation and Maintenance Phase

 

                        Operation and maintenance phase

  1. The HRA screening process (Ossian OWFL, 2023, along with revisions in section 3.1 of this RIAA) identified that during the operation and maintenance phase, LSE2 could not be ruled out for entanglement at 12 European sites for three breeding seabird species (gannet, razorbill and puffin) and their associated breeding seabird assemblages, as listed above and in Table 3.1   Open ▸ .
  2. A maintenance plan will be put in place during operation and maintenance ( Table 5.59   Open ▸ ). This maintenance plan will ensure that mooring lines and floating inter-array cables will be inspected frequently to confirm the structural integrity of the cable systems, using a risk-based adaptive management approach. During these inspections, the presence of discarded fishing gear will be evaluated for seabird entanglement risk and appropriate actions will be taken to remove if deemed necessary.
  3. With the measures in place, the potential likelihood of any entanglement will be further reduced, making it of negligible consequence and insufficient to result in significant disturbance or a population level effect.
  4. Therefore, it is concluded, beyond reasonable scientific doubt, that there is no potential for an adverse effect with respect to entanglement in mooring lines for any of the European sites and/or their qualifying ornithology features screened in for assessment and no measurable impact to carry forward for in-combination assessment.

                        Conclusion

  1. It is concluded, beyond reasonable scientific doubt, that no adverse effects on the qualifying interest features which could undermine the conservation objectives of the SPAs listed in Table 5.60   Open ▸ , will occur as a result of entanglement during the operation and maintenance phase for the Array. An assessment of the impact of entanglement against each relevant conservation objective is presented in Table 5.60   Open ▸ . Where the justifications and supporting evidence are the same for more than one conservation objective, the assessments have been grouped.

Table 5.60:
Conclusions Against the Conservation Objectives of SPAs and their Qualifying Features from Entanglement during the Operation and Maintenance Phase

Table 5.60: Conclusions Against the Conservation Objectives of SPAs and their Qualifying Features from Entanglement during the Operation and Maintenance Phase

  1. As detailed in Table 5.60   Open ▸ , the conclusion remains consistent across all instances: there is no discernible risk of adverse effects on the integrity of the SPAs, or their qualifying features due to entanglement resulting from the operation and maintenance of the Array alone. Additionally, there is no risk of undermining the Conservation Objectives of the sites considered due to the following:
  • given the Array falls outside the SPA boundary, there is no potential for the Array to impact on the distribution and extent of habitats within the SPA;
  • given the Array falls outside the SPA boundary, there is no potential for the Array to influence the distribution of birds within the SPA;
  • given the Array falls outside the SPA boundary, there is no potential for the Array to influence the structure, function and supporting processes of habitats supporting the species;
  • given the level of impact arising from entanglement from the Array area, there is no potential for the Array to influence the population of the species as a viable component of the site; and
  • given the level of impact arising from entanglement from the Array area, there is no potential for the Array to influence the disturbance of the species within the SPA.