Conclusion
  1. Adverse effects on the qualifying Annex II diadromous fish features of the River Teith SAC which undermine the conservation objectives of the SAC will not occur as a result of in-combination underwater noise generated during piling and UXO clearance in the construction phase. Potential effects from these activities on the relevant conservation objectives (as presented in paragraph 140) are discussed in turn below in Table 5.42   Open ▸ . As stated in paragraph 140, a CAP has not yet been published for the River Teith SAC, and therefore, only the overarching conservation objectives for all qualifying species features are presented in Table 5.42   Open ▸ for Atlantic salmon and sea lamprey combined. The assessment has therefore been undertaken with regard to the available conservation objectives for the site (NatureScot, 2015).


Table 5.42:
Conclusions Against the Conservation Objectives of the River Teith SAC from Underwater Noise Generated during Piling and UXO Clearance in the Construction Phase of the Array In-Combination with other Plans and Projects

Table 5.42: Conclusions Against the Conservation Objectives of the River Teith SAC from Underwater Noise Generated during Piling and UXO Clearance in the Construction Phase of the Array In-Combination with other Plans and Projects

 

  1. It can be concluded, beyond reasonable scientific doubt, that there is no risk of an adverse effect on the integrity of the River Teith SAC as a result of underwater noise generated during piling and UXO clearance with respect to the construction phases of the Array in-combination with other plans and projects.
                        River Oykel SAC
Atlantic salmon
  1. As presented for the assessment of the Array alone (section 5.3.1), this potential impact was not predicted to cause an adverse effect on integrity to the Atlantic salmon feature of this site. Based on the Tier 1, 2, and 3 assessments presented in paragraph 302 et seq., this conclusion is also applicable to the in-combination assessment. Any in-combination effects are predicted to be of short to medium term duration (such as short term UXO clearance, and more medium-term piling schedules) and intermittent in nature. Further, the construction phases of the Array and those of the Tier 1, 2, and 3 projects, in reality, may have limited overlap, and therefore the potential for in-combination effects are reduced. Finally, it is likely that the Tier 1, 2, and 3 projects will also include similar designed in mitigation measures as those proposed for the Array ( Table 5.4   Open ▸ ), which will further reduce the total amount of acoustic energy emitted into the marine environment and the likelihood of injury, disturbance, and barrier effects to Atlantic salmon. Therefore, the assessment is considered to be precautionary.
Freshwater pearl mussel
  1. Adult freshwater pearl mussel are confined to freshwater environments, and there is therefore no pathway for direct effects associated with this impact. However, there is potential for indirect impacts on the larval stage of freshwater pearl mussel if Atlantic salmon (their host species) are impacted. As detailed in paragraph 348, injury, disturbance, and barriers to migration of Atlantic salmon are unlikely to occur from the Array in-combination with other plans and projects. Therefore, it can also be concluded that there will be no indirect impact to freshwater pearl mussel.
Conclusion
  1. Adverse effects on the qualifying Annex II diadromous fish features of the River Oykel SAC which undermine the conservation objectives of the SAC will not occur as a result of in-combination underwater noise generated during piling and UXO clearance in the construction phase. Potential effects from this activity on the relevant conservation objectives (as presented in paragraphs 146 to 148) are discussed in turn below in Table 5.43   Open ▸
Table 5.43:
Conclusions Against the Conservation Objectives of the River Oykel SAC from Underwater Noise Generated during Piling and UXO Clearance in the Construction Phase of the Array In-Combination with other Plans and Projects

Table 5.43: Conclusions Against the Conservation Objectives of the River Oykel SAC from Underwater Noise Generated during Piling and UXO Clearance in the Construction Phase of the Array In-Combination with other Plans and Projects

  1. It can be concluded, beyond reasonable scientific doubt, that there is no risk of an adverse effect on the integrity of the River Oykel SAC as a result of underwater noise generated during piling and UXO clearance with respect to the construction phases of the Array in-combination with other plans and projects.

5.4.3. Effects due to EMFs from Subsea Electrical Cabling

  1. The LSE2 assessment during the HRA Stage One process identified that LSE2 could not be ruled out for effects due to EMFs from subsea electrical cables in the operation and maintenance phase of the Array in-combination with other plans and projects. This relates to the following sites and relevant Annex II diadromous fish features:
  • River Dee SAC;

–           Atlantic salmon; and

–           freshwater pearl mussel.

  • River South Esk SAC;

–           Atlantic salmon; and

–           freshwater pearl mussel.

  • Tweed Estuary SAC;

–           sea lamprey.

  • River Tweed SAC;

–           Atlantic salmon; and

–           sea lamprey.

  • River Tay SAC;

–           Atlantic salmon; and

–           sea lamprey.

  • River Spey SAC;

–           Atlantic salmon;

–           freshwater pearl mussel; and

–           sea lamprey.

  • Berriedale and Langwell Waters SAC; and

–           Atlantic salmon; and

–           sea lamprey.

  • River Teith SAC;

–           Atlantic salmon; and

–           sea lamprey.

  • River Oykel SAC;

–           Atlantic salmon; and

–           freshwater pearl mussel.

  1. The MDS considered for this in-combination assessment is shown in Table 5.44   Open ▸ . 

 

Table 5.44:
MDS Considered for the Assessment of Potential Impacts to Annex II Diadromous Fish due to EMFs from Subsea Electrical Cabling in the Operation and Maintenance Phase of the Array In-Combination with other Plans and Projects

Table 5.44: MDS Considered for the Assessment of Potential Impacts to Annex II Diadromous Fish due to EMFs from Subsea Electrical Cabling in the Operation and Maintenance Phase of the Array In-Combination with other Plans and Projects

 

                        In-combination assessment

  1. There is potential for EMFs to be produced by the subsea electrical cables associated with the Array and the other plans and projects during their operation and maintenance phases. For the purposes of this assessment, this potential impact has been assessed using the tiered approach outlined in section 4.6. The plans and projects screened into the in-combination assessment for this potential impact and their respective tiers are outlined in Table 5.44   Open ▸ .
                        Tier 1
  1. There were two Tier 1 projects identified with potential for in-combination effects associated with this impact:
  • Proposed offshore export cable corridor(s); and
  • Eastern Green Link 2 ( Table 5.33   Open ▸ and Table 5.44   Open ▸ ).
  1. At the time of writing, there was no EIA Report available for the Proposed offshore export cable corridor(s). However, given that these two Tier 1 projects are both HVDC subsea power cables (and in contrast to the Array, they will not include dynamic cabling) it is expected these will be entirely buried, or protected where burial is not possible. For example, the Environmental Appraisal Report for the Eastern Green Link 2 presented calculations that a burial depth of 1 m reduced EMFs to background levels by 20 m distance from the cable (National Grid Electricity Transmission et al., 2022).
  2. The MDS for the Array accounts for up to 1,261 km of 66 kV inter-array cables, with up to 116 km as ‘dynamic cables’ in the water column, and the rest buried at a depth of at least 0.4 m ( Table 5.23   Open ▸ ). There will also be up to 236 km of interconnector cables buried to a minimum depth of 0.4 m and maximum depth of 3 m. It has been estimated in the MDS that up to 20% of these buried cables will require cable protection, with up to 24 cable crossings also requiring protection. The Eastern Green Link 2 project has two 436 km HVDC cables, totalling 872 km of subsea cabling which may emit EMFs (National Grid Electricity Transmission et al., 2022), which extend outside the fish and shellfish ecology study area.
  3. In contrast with the Array, neither of the Tier 1 projects will include dynamic cables. As Atlantic salmon and sea lamprey are likely to use the pelagic zone of the water column, opposed to the seabed, they are less likely to interact with EMFs emitted from subsea cables buried or on the seabed. This further reduces the potential for in-combination effects associated with the Tier 1 projects.
  4. As detailed in section 5.3.2 for the assessment of the Array alone, EMF levels in the vicinity of subsea cables are influenced by a variety of design and installation factors, including distance between cables, cable sheathing, number of conductors, and internal cable configuration. Further, the intensity of EMF from subsea cables decreases at approximately the inverse square/power of the distance away from the cable (Hutchison et al., 2021). This attenuation is the same for buried, unburied, and dynamic cables (Hutchison et al., 2021). Therefore, the in-combination impact with the Tier 1 projects is likely to be highly localised to within metres to tens of metres from cables.
                        Tier 2
  1. In addition to the Tier 1 projects, there was one Tier 2 project identified with potential for in-combination effects associated with this impact: the operation and maintenance phase of the Morven Offshore Wind Farm ( Table 5.33   Open ▸ and Table 5.44   Open ▸ ). The MDS for the Array is summarised in paragraph 357, and has not been repeated here,. As only a Scoping Report is available for the Morven Offshore Wind Farm, cable lengths, dimensions, and voltages are not currently available. However, given the scale of the project, it is likely that they will be of a similar extent to those of the Array, albeit with less dynamic cabling given that the Morven Offshore Wind Farm is not a floating project.
  2. As detailed in section 5.3.2 for the assessment of the Array alone and within the Tier 1 assessment, EMF levels in the vicinity of subsea cables are influenced by a variety of design and installation factors, including distance between cables, cable sheathing, number of conductors, and internal cable configuration. Further, the intensity of EMF from subsea cables decreases at approximately the inverse square/power of the distance away from the cable (Hutchison et al., 2021). This attenuation is the same for buried, unburied, and dynamic cables (Hutchison et al., 2021). Therefore, the cumulative magnitude of impact with the Tier 2 projects is likely to be highly localised to within metres to tens of metres from cables.
                        Tier 3
  1. In addition to the Tier 1 and Tier 2 projects, there were six Tier 3 projects identified with potential for in-combination effects associated with this impact:
  • Morven Offshore Export Cable Corridor(s);
  • Bellrock Offshore Wind Farm;
  • Bowdun Offshore Wind Farm;
  • Campion Offshore Wind Farm;
  • Eastern Green Link 3; and
  • Eastern Green Link 4 ( Table 5.33   Open ▸ and Table 5.44   Open ▸ ).
  1. The MDS for the Array is summarised in paragraph 357, and has not been repeated here. As Tier 3 projects, there is no project specific information regarding cable lengths, dimension, and voltages currently available in the public domain. However, given the scale of the projects, it is likely that EMF related impacts associated with the Bellrock, Bowdun, and Campion Offshore Wind Farms will be of a similar in nature and extent to those of the Array and Morven Offshore Wind Farm. The Morven Offshore Export Cable Corridor(s) is likely to be similar in nature and extent to that of the Array (the Proposed offshore export cable corridor(s) in Tier 1). Finally, the Eastern Green Link 3 and 4 are likely to be similar to the Eastern Green Link 2 (Tier 1; paragraph 356).
  2. As detailed in section 5.3.2 for the assessment of the Array alone and within the Tier 1 assessment, EMF levels in the vicinity of subsea cables are influenced by a variety of design and installation factors, including distance between cables, cable sheathing, number of conductors, and internal cable configuration. Further, the intensity of EMF from subsea cables decreases at approximately the inverse square/power of the distance away from the cable (Hutchison et al., 2021). This attenuation is the same for buried, unburied, and dynamic cables (Hutchison et al., 2021). Therefore, the in-combination magnitude of impact with the Tier 3 projects is likely to be highly localised to within metres to tens of metres from cables.

                        Operation and Maintenance Phase

                        River Dee SAC
                        Atlantic salmon
  1. As presented for the assessment of the Array alone (section 5.3.2), this potential impact was not predicted to cause an adverse effect on integrity to the Atlantic salmon feature of this site. Based on the Tier 1, 2, and 3 assessments presented in paragraph 355 et seq., this conclusion is also applicable to the in-combination assessment. Whilst any in-combination effects will be continuous and persist over the life cycles of each plan and project, they are likely to be highly localised in extent (i.e. within metres to a maximum of tens of metres from cables). Therefore, any in-combination impacts associated with EMFs will be confined to the immediate vicinity of cables associated with the Tiers 1, 2, and 3 projects. Further, for projects which with no dynamic cables, only those on the seabed, the in-combination impact is further reduced given the pelagic nature of diadromous fish offshore. Finally, it is likely that all the Tier 1, 2, and 3 projects will include cable burial and protection, where practicable, which will further reduce the distance between cables and migrating diadromous fish.
                        Freshwater pearl mussel
  1. Adult freshwater pearl mussel are confined to freshwater environments, and there is therefore no pathway for direct effects associated with this impact. However, there is potential for indirect impacts on the larval stage of freshwater pearl mussel if Atlantic salmon (their host species) are impacted. As detailed in paragraph 365, EMFs from subsea electrical cabling in the operation and maintenance phases of the Tier 1, 2, and 3 projects are unlikely to result in barriers to migration for Atlantic salmon. Therefore, it can also be concluded that there will be no indirect impact to freshwater pearl mussel.
                        Conclusion
  1. Adverse effects on the qualifying Annex II diadromous fish features of the River Dee SAC which undermine the conservation objectives of the SAC will not occur as a result of in-combination EMF from subsea electrical cables during the operation and maintenance phase. Potential effects from this activity on the relevant conservation objectives (as presented paragraphs 69 to 71) are discussed in turn below in Table 5.45   Open ▸ .
Table 5.45:
Conclusions Against the Conservation Objectives of the River Dee SAC from EMFs from Subsea Electrical Cabling in the Operation and Maintenance Phase of the Array In-Combination with other Plans and Projects

Table 5.45: Conclusions Against the Conservation Objectives of the River Dee SAC from EMFs from Subsea Electrical Cabling in the Operation and Maintenance Phase of the Array In-Combination with other Plans and Projects

 

  1. It can be concluded, beyond reasonable scientific doubt, that there is no risk of an adverse effect on the integrity of the River Dee SAC as a result of EMFs from subsea electrical cabling with respect to the operation and maintenance phases of the Array in-combination with other plans and projects.
                        River South Esk SAC
                        Atlantic salmon
  1. As presented for the assessment of the Array alone (section 5.3.2), this impact was not predicted to cause an adverse effect on integrity to the Atlantic salmon feature of this site. Based on the Tier 1, 2, and 3 assessments presented in paragraph 355 et seq., this conclusion is also applicable to the in-combination assessment. Whilst any in-combination effects will be continuous and persist over the life cycles of each plan and project, they are likely to be highly localised in extent (i.e. within metres to a maximum of tens of metres from cables). Therefore, any in-combination impacts associated with EMFs will be confined to the immediate vicinity of cables associated with the Tiers 1, 2, and 3 projects. Further, for projects which with no dynamic cables, only those on the seabed, the in-combination impact is further reduced given the pelagic nature of diadromous fish offshore. Finally, it is likely that all the Tier 1, 2, and 3 projects will include cable burial and protection, where possible, which will further reduce the distance between cables and migrating diadromous fish.
                        Freshwater pearl mussel
  1. Adult freshwater pearl mussel are confined to freshwater environments, and there is therefore no pathway for direct effects associated with this impact. However, there is potential for indirect impacts on the larval stage of freshwater pearl mussel if Atlantic salmon (their host species) are impacted. As detailed in paragraph 369, EMFs from subsea electrical cabling in the operation and maintenance phases of the Tier 1, 2, and 3 projects are unlikely to result in barriers to migration for Atlantic salmon. Therefore, it can also be concluded that there will be no indirect impact to freshwater pearl mussel.
                        Conclusion
  1. Adverse effects on the qualifying Annex II diadromous fish features of the River South Esk SAC which undermine the conservation objectives of the SAC will not occur as a result of in-combination EMF from subsea electrical cables during the operation and maintenance phase. Potential effects from this activity on the relevant conservation objectives (as presented paragraphs 78 to 80) are discussed in turn below in Table 5.46   Open ▸ .
Table 5.46:
Conclusions Against the Conservation Objectives of the River South Esk SAC from EMFs from Subsea Electrical Cabling in the Operation and Maintenance Phase of the Array In-Combination with other Plans and Projects

Table 5.46: Conclusions Against the Conservation Objectives of the River South Esk SAC from EMFs from Subsea Electrical Cabling in the Operation and Maintenance Phase of the Array In-Combination with other Plans and Projects

 

  1. It can be concluded, beyond reasonable scientific doubt, that there is no risk of an adverse effect on the integrity of the River South Esk SAC as a result of EMFs from subsea electrical cabling with respect to the operation and maintenance phases of the Array in-combination with other plans and projects.
                        Tweed Estuary SAC
                        Sea lamprey
  1. As presented for the assessment of the Array alone (section 5.3.2), this potential impact was not predicted to cause an adverse effect on integrity to the sea lamprey feature of this site. Based on the Tier 1, 2, and 3 assessments presented in paragraph 355 et seq., this conclusion is also applicable to the in-combination assessment. Whilst any in-combination effects will be continuous and persist over the life cycles of each plan and project, they are likely to be highly localised in extent (i.e. within metres to a maximum of tens of metres from cables). Therefore, any in-combination impacts associated with EMFs will be confined to the immediate vicinity of cables associated with the Tiers 1, 2, and 3 projects. Further, for projects which with no dynamic cables, only those on the seabed, the in-combination impact is further reduced given the pelagic nature of diadromous fish offshore. Finally, it is likely that all the Tier 1, 2, and 3 projects will include cable burial and protection, where possible, which will further reduce the distance between cables and migrating diadromous fish.
                        Conclusion
  1. Adverse effects on the qualifying Annex II diadromous fish features of the Tweed Estuary SAC which undermine the conservation objectives of the SAC will not occur as a result of in-combination EMF from subsea electrical cables during the operation and maintenance phase. Potential effects from this activity on the relevant conservation objectives (as presented paragraph 90) are discussed in turn below in Table 5.47   Open ▸ .

 

Table 5.47:
Conclusions Against the Conservation Objectives of the Tweed Estuary SAC from EMFs from Subsea Electrical Cabling in the Operation and Maintenance Phase of the Array In-Combination with other Plans and Projects

Table 5.47: Conclusions Against the Conservation Objectives of the Tweed Estuary SAC from EMFs from Subsea Electrical Cabling in the Operation and Maintenance Phase of the Array In-Combination with other Plans and Projects

 

  1. It can be concluded, beyond reasonable scientific doubt, that there is no risk of an adverse effect on the integrity of the Tweed Estuary SAC as a result of EMFs from subsea electrical cabling with respect to the operation and maintenance phases of the Array in-combination with other plans and projects. River Tweed SAC
                        River Tweed SAC
                        Atlantic salmon
  1. As presented for the assessment of the Array alone (section 5.3.2), this potential impact was not predicted to cause an adverse effect on integrity to the Atlantic salmon feature of this site. Based on the Tier 1, 2, and 3 assessments presented in paragraph 355 et seq., this conclusion is also applicable to the in-combination assessment. Whilst any in-combination effects will be continuous and persist over the life cycles of each plan and project, they are likely to be highly localised in extent (i.e. within metres to a maximum of tens of metres from cables). Therefore, any in-combination impacts associated with EMFs will be confined to the immediate vicinity of cables associated with the Tiers 1, 2, and 3 projects. Further, for projects which with no dynamic cables, only those on the seabed, the in-combination impact is further reduced given the pelagic nature of diadromous fish offshore. Finally, it is likely that all the Tier 1, 2, and 3 projects will include cable burial and protection, where possible, which will further reduce the distance between cables and migrating diadromous fish.
                        Sea lamprey
  1. As presented for the assessment of the Array alone (section 5.3.2), this potential impact was not predicted to cause an adverse effect on integrity to the sea lamprey feature of this site. Based on the Tier 1, 2, and 3 assessments presented in paragraph 355 et seq., this conclusion is also applicable to the in-combination assessment. Whilst any in-combination effects will be continuous and persist over the life cycles of each plan and project, they are likely to be highly localised in extent (i.e. within metres to a maximum of tens of metres from cables). Therefore, any in-combination impacts associated with EMFs will be confined to the immediate vicinity of cables associated with the Tiers 1, 2, and 3 projects. Further, for projects which with no dynamic cables, only those on the seabed, the in-combination impact is further reduced given the pelagic nature of diadromous fish offshore. Finally, it is likely that all the Tier 1, 2, and 3 projects will include cable burial and protection, where possible, which will further reduce the distance between cables and migrating diadromous fish.
                        Conclusion
  1. Adverse effects on the qualifying Annex II diadromous fish features of the River Tweed SAC which undermine the conservation objectives of the SAC will not occur as a result of in-combination EMF from subsea electrical cables during the operation and maintenance phase. Potential effects from this activity on the relevant conservation objectives (as presented paragraphs 97 to 101) are discussed in turn below in  Table 5.48   Open ▸ .
Table 5.48:
Conclusions Against the Conservation Objectives of the River Tweed SAC from EMFs from Subsea Electrical Cabling in the Operation and Maintenance Phase of the Array In-Combination with other Plans and Projects

Table 5.48: Conclusions Against the Conservation Objectives of the River Tweed SAC from EMFs from Subsea Electrical Cabling in the Operation and Maintenance Phase of the Array In-Combination with other Plans and Projects

  1. It can be concluded, beyond reasonable scientific doubt, that there is no risk of an adverse effect on the integrity of the River Tweed SAC as a result of EMFs from subsea electrical cabling with respect to the operation and maintenance phases of the Array in-combination with other plans and projects. River Tweed SAC
                        River Tay SAC
                        Atlantic salmon
  1. As presented for the assessment of the Array alone (section 5.3.2), this potential impact was not predicted to cause an adverse effect on integrity to the Atlantic salmon feature of this site. Based on the Tier 1, 2, and 3 assessments presented in paragraph 355 et seq., this conclusion is also applicable to the in-combination assessment. Whilst any in-combination effects will be continuous and persist over the life cycles of each plan and project, they are likely to be highly localised in extent (i.e. within metres to a maximum of tens of metres from cables). Therefore, any in-combination impacts associated with EMFs will be confined to the immediate vicinity of cables associated with the Tiers 1, 2, and 3 projects. Further, for projects which with no dynamic cables, only those on the seabed, the in-combination impact is further reduced given the pelagic nature of diadromous fish offshore. Finally, it is likely that all the Tier 1, 2, and 3 projects will include cable burial and protection, where possible, which will further reduce the distance between cables and migrating diadromous fish.
                        Sea lamprey
  1. As presented for the assessment of the Array alone (section 5.3.2), this potential impact was not predicted to cause an adverse effect on integrity to the sea lamprey feature of this site. Based on the Tier 1, 2, and 3 assessments presented in paragraph 355 et seq., this conclusion is also applicable to the in-combination assessment. Whilst any in-combination effects will be continuous and persist over the life cycles of each plan and project, they are likely to be highly localised in extent (i.e. within metres to a maximum of tens of metres from cables). Therefore, any in-combination impacts associated with EMFs will be confined to the immediate vicinity of cables associated with the Tiers 1, 2, and 3 projects. Further, for projects which with no dynamic cables, only those on the seabed, the in-combination impact is further reduced given the pelagic nature of diadromous fish offshore. Finally, it is likely that all the Tier 1, 2, and 3 projects will include cable burial and protection, where possible, which will further reduce the distance between cables and migrating diadromous fish.
                        Conclusion
  1. Adverse effects on the qualifying Annex II diadromous fish features of the River Tay SAC which undermine the conservation objectives of the SAC will not occur as a result of in-combination EMF from subsea electrical cables during the operation and maintenance phase. Potential effects from this activity on the relevant conservation objectives (as presented paragraphs 113 to 115) are discussed in turn below in Table 5.49   Open ▸ .

Table 5.49:
Conclusions Against the Conservation Objectives of the River Tay SAC from Subsea Electrical Cabling in the Operation and Maintenance Phase of the Array In-Combination with other Plans and Projects

Table 5.49: Conclusions Against the Conservation Objectives of the River Tay SAC from Subsea Electrical Cabling in the Operation and Maintenance Phase of the Array In-Combination with other Plans and Projects

 

  1. It can be concluded, beyond reasonable scientific doubt, that there is no risk of an adverse effect on the integrity of the River Tay SAC as a result of EMFs from subsea electrical cabling with respect to the operation and maintenance phases of the Array in-combination with other plans and projects.
                        River Spey SAC
                        Atlantic salmon
  1. As presented for the assessment of the Array alone (section 5.3.2), this potential impact was not predicted to cause an adverse effect on integrity to the Atlantic salmon feature of this site. Based on the Tier 1, 2, and 3 assessments presented in paragraph 355 et seq., this conclusion is also applicable to the in-combination assessment. Whilst any in-combination effects will be continuous and persist over the life cycles of each plan and project, they are likely to be highly localised in extent (i.e. within metres to a maximum of tens of metres from cables). Therefore, any in-combination impacts associated with EMFs will be confined to the immediate vicinity of cables associated with the Tiers 1, 2, and 3 projects. Further, for projects which with no dynamic cables, only those on the seabed, the in-combination impact is further reduced given the pelagic nature of diadromous fish offshore. Finally, it is likely that all the Tier 1, 2, and 3 projects will include cable burial and protection, where possible, which will further reduce the distance between cables and migrating diadromous fish.
                        Freshwater pearl mussel
  1. Adult freshwater pearl mussel are confined to freshwater environments, and there is therefore no pathway for direct effects associated with this impact. However, there is potential for indirect impacts on the larval stage of freshwater pearl mussel if Atlantic salmon (their host species) are impacted. As detailed in paragraph 384, EMFs from subsea electrical cabling in the operation and maintenance phases of the Tier 1, 2, and 3 projects are unlikely to result in barriers to migration for Atlantic salmon. Therefore, it can also be concluded that there will be no indirect impact to freshwater pearl mussel.
                        Sea lamprey
  1. As presented for the assessment of the Array alone (section 5.3.2), this potential impact was not predicted to cause an adverse effect on integrity to the sea lamprey feature of this site. Based on the Tier 1, 2, and 3 assessments presented in paragraph 355 et seq., this conclusion is also applicable to the in-combination assessment. Whilst any in-combination effects will be continuous and persist over the life cycles of each plan and project, they are likely to be highly localised in extent (i.e. within metres to a maximum of tens of metres from cables). Therefore, any in-combination impacts associated with EMFs will be confined to the immediate vicinity of cables associated with the Tiers 1, 2, and 3 projects. Further, for projects which with no dynamic cables, only those on the seabed, the in-combination impact is further reduced given the pelagic nature of diadromous fish offshore. Finally, it is likely that all the Tier 1, 2, and 3 projects will include cable burial and protection, where possible, which will further reduce the distance between cables and migrating diadromous fish.
                        Conclusion
  1. Adverse effects on the qualifying Annex II diadromous fish features of the River Spey SAC which undermine the conservation objectives of the SAC will not occur as a result of in-combination EMF from subsea electrical cables during the operation and maintenance phase. Potential effects from this activity on the relevant conservation objectives (as presented in paragraphs 123 to 126) are discussed in turn below in Table 5.50   Open ▸ .

Table 5.50:
Conclusions Against the Conservation Objectives of the River Spey SAC from Subsea Electrical Cabling in the Operation and Maintenance Phase of the Array In-Combination with other Plans and Projects

Table 5.50: Conclusions Against the Conservation Objectives of the River Spey SAC from Subsea Electrical Cabling in the Operation and Maintenance Phase of the Array In-Combination with other Plans and Projects

  1. It can be concluded, beyond reasonable scientific doubt, that there is no risk of an adverse effect on the integrity of the River Spey SAC as a result of EMFs from subsea electrical cabling with respect to the operation and maintenance phases of the Array in-combination with other plans and projects.
                        Berriedale and Langwell Waters SAC
                        Atlantic salmon
  1. As presented for the assessment of the Array alone (section 5.3.2), this potential impact was not predicted to cause an adverse effect on integrity to the Atlantic salmon feature of this site. Based on the Tier 1, 2, and 3 assessments presented in paragraph 355 et seq., this conclusion is also applicable to the in-combination assessment. Whilst any in-combination effects will be continuous and persist over the life cycles of each plan and project, they are likely to be highly localised in extent (i.e. within metres to a maximum of tens of metres from cables). Therefore, any in-combination impacts associated with EMFs will be confined to the immediate vicinity of cables associated with the Tiers 1, 2, and 3 projects. Further, for projects which with no dynamic cables, only those on the seabed, the in-combination impact is further reduced given the pelagic nature of diadromous fish offshore. Finally, it is likely that all the Tier 1, 2, and 3 projects will include cable burial and protection, where possible, which will further reduce the distance between cables and migrating diadromous fish.
                        Conclusion
  1. Adverse effects on the qualifying Annex II diadromous fish features of the Berriedale and Langwell Waters SAC which undermine the conservation objectives of the SAC will not occur as a result of in-combination EMF from subsea electrical cables during the operation and maintenance phase. Potential effects from this activity on the relevant conservation objectives (as presented in paragraph 133) are discussed in turn below in Table 5.51   Open ▸ .

 

Table 5.51:
Conclusions Against the Conservation Objectives of the Berriedale and Langwell Waters SAC from Subsea Electrical Cabling in the Operation and Maintenance Phase of the Array In-Combination with other Plans and Projects

Table 5.51: Conclusions Against the Conservation Objectives of the Berriedale and Langwell Waters SAC from Subsea Electrical Cabling in the Operation and Maintenance Phase of the Array In-Combination with other Plans and Projects

  1. It can be concluded, beyond reasonable scientific doubt, that there is no risk of an adverse effect on the integrity of the Berriedale and Langwell Waters SAC as a result of EMFs from subsea electrical cabling with respect to the operation and maintenance phases of the Array in-combination with other plans and projects.
                        River Teith SAC
                        Atlantic salmon
  1. As presented for the assessment of the Array alone (section 5.3.2), this potential impact was not predicted to cause an adverse effect on integrity to the Atlantic salmon feature of this site. Based on the Tier 1, 2, and 3 assessments presented in paragraph 355 et seq., this conclusion is also applicable to the in-combination assessment. Whilst any in-combination effects will be continuous and persist over the life cycles of each plan and project, they are likely to be highly localised in extent (i.e. within metres to a maximum of tens of metres from cables). Therefore, any in-combination impacts associated with EMFs will be confined to the immediate vicinity of cables associated with the Tiers 1, 2, and 3 projects. Further, for projects which with no dynamic cables, only those on the seabed, the in-combination impact is further reduced given the pelagic nature of diadromous fish offshore. Finally, it is likely that all the Tier 1, 2, and 3 projects will include cable burial and protection, where possible, which will further reduce the distance between cables and migrating diadromous fish.