2. Consultation

  1. Consultation has been undertaken with statutory stakeholders with regards to the relevant Annex I habitats and Annex II diadromous fish and marine mammal features of SACs. A summary of all relevant consultation undertaken to date is presented in Table 2.1   Open ▸ .

 

Table 2.1:
Summary of Key Consultations on Relevant to Part 2 of the RIAA

Table 2.1: Summary of Key Consultations on Relevant to Part 2 of the RIAA

3. Summary of HRA Stage One LSE Screening Conclusions for Special Areas of Conservation

  1. This section summarises all pathways for potential LSE2 on Annex II diadromous fish and marine mammal features of SACs (arising alone or in-combination with other plans and projects).

3.1. Screening Outcomes for the Array Alone

  1. The potential for LSE2 as a result of the Array alone has been identified following the HRA Stage One LSE2 Screening with respect to 12 SACs ( Figure 3.1   Open ▸ and Table 3.1   Open ▸ ).
  2. There were no SACs designated for Annex I habitats or Annex II European otter advanced to the RIAA stage.

3.1.1. Annex II Diadromous Fish

  1. Nine SACs designated for Annex II diadromous fish and dependent features were advanced to the RIAA. These are as follows (presented in increasing distance from the closest point on the site boundary):
  • River Dee SAC;
  • River South Esk SAC;
  • Tweed Estuary SAC;
  • River Tweed SAC;
  • River Tay SAC;
  • River Spey SAC;
  • Berriedale and Langwell Waters SAC;
  • River Teith SAC; and
  • River Oykel SAC
  1. Standard data forms for all SACs are available from the JNCC (2024c).
  2. A summary of these nine SACs for which LSE2 was identified for Annex II diadromous fish features, alongside corresponding impact pathways for each phase of the Array, are presented in Table 3.1   Open ▸ . No updates relating to Annex II diadromous fish have been made to the HRA Stage One LSE2 Screening outcomes.
  3. Some of the nine SACs advanced to the RIAA are also designated for Annex II river lamprey, however, as stated in the Array HRA Stage One LSE2 Screening Report, this species was not considered as the marine phase of their life cycle is restricted to the coastal/estuarine environment. Given the distance of the site boundary offshore (approximately 80 km from the nearest coastline), interactions between river lamprey and activities associated with the Array are not anticipated.
  4. Some of the SACs are also designated for Annex II freshwater pearl mussel Margaritifera margaritifera, which will not be directly affected by the Array as it is restricted to freshwater environments but has the potential to be indirectly impacted due to its symbiotic life cycle with Atlantic salmon Salmo salar. The freshwater pearl mussel relies on Atlantic salmon, the host species during a critical parasitic phase of its life cycle, where its larvae attach to the gills of Atlantic salmon in mid to late summer and drop off in spring (Taeubert et al., 2017). Therefore, there could be an indirect effect upon the freshwater pearl mussel feature of European sites, should the Atlantic salmon population be adversely affected by the Array.

3.1.2. Annex II Marine Mammals

  1. Three SACs designated for Annex II marine mammals were advanced to the RIAA. These are as follows (presented in increasing distance from the closest point on the site boundary):
  1. Standard data forms for all SACs are available from the JNCC (2024c).
  2. A summary of the three SACs for which LSE2 was identified for Annex II marine mammal features, alongside corresponding impact pathways for each phase of the Array, are presented in Table 3.1   Open ▸ .
  3. Since the Array EIA Scoping Report (Ossian OWFL, 2023) and Array HRA Stage One LSE2 Screening Report (Part 1, appendix 1A) were published, there have been some minor changes to the impacts associated with marine mammals. Firstly, the impact of ‘Operational noise from anchor mooring lines’ was assessed as such in the Array HRA Stage One LSE2 Screening Report. This has since been updated to ‘Injury and disturbance from underwater noise generated during the operation of floating wind turbines and anchor mooring lines’ and has been assessed accordingly in this Part of the RIAA and in the Array EIA Report (Ossian OWFL, 2024). Secondly, the potential impact of injury and disturbance due to site-investigation surveys (including geophysical surveys), has since been included in the Array EIA Report, and has been carried forward for assessment in this Part of the RIAA. At the time of writing the Array HRA Stage One LSE2 Screening Report, site-investigation survey activities (including geophysical) were to be submitted in a separate application (Part 1, appendix 1A). Any potential impacts as a result of site-investigation (including geophysical) survey activities were therefore out with the scope of the Array HRA Stage One LSE2 Screening Report. They have since been included as part of the Application, and therefore, the potential impact of ‘injury and disturbance due to site-investigation surveys (including geophysical surveys)’ has been considered as a potential impact at the HRA Stage Two Appropriate Assessment in the construction and operation and maintenance phases, as per the approach taken in the Array EIA Report.
  4. Following a comprehensive assessment of potential connectivity as well as feedback from NatureScot, Natural England and MD-LOT provided as part of the Ossian Array Scoping Opinion and LSE2 Screening feedback ( Table 2.1   Open ▸ ), the Isle of May SAC, which is designated for grey seal, has not been carried forward for Appropriate Assessment. This deviates from the Array HRA Stage One LSE2 Screening Report, wherein the potential for LSE2 on this SAC was proposed.
  5. No other updates relating to Annex II marine mammals have been made to the HRA Stage One LSE2 Screening outcomes.

3.2. Screening Outcomes for the Array In-Combination with other Plans and Projects

3.2.1. Annex II Diadromous Fish

  1. A precautionary approach to the selection of relevant European sites for Annex II diadromous fish was adopted in the Array HRA Stage One LSE2 Screening Report. This involved the use of a large buffer of 100 km and screening in all SACs which flowed into the Firth of Forth and the Moray Firth (Part 1, appendix 1A). Due to this approach, all SACs relevant for Appropriate Assessment, particularly due to the potential for disruption to migration (i.e. barriers to migration) to/from natal rivers, have been identified. Therefore, there is no potential for connectivity between the site boundary and Annex II diadromous fish from any additional SACs beyond those identified as relevant in the Array HRA Stage One LSE2 Screening Report.
  2. This screening approach was adopted for both Atlantic salmon (and freshwater pearl mussel by proxy) and sea lamprey Petromyzon marinus, however with the caveat that there is little information on their spatial distribution of sea lamprey out with rivers and estuaries. Therefore, the screening approach was highly precautionary for sea lamprey.
  3. No potential impact pathways were identified between the Array and any additional sites designated for Annex II diadromous fish. Therefore, there is no potential for in-combination effects at any sites apart from those which are screened in for HRA Stage Two Appropriate Assessment (i.e. those listed in paragraph 12).

3.2.2. Annex II Marine Mammals

  1. A precautionary approach to selection of relevant European sites for Annex II marine mammals was adopted in the Array HRA Stage One LSE2 Screening Report (Part 1, appendix 1A).  Marine mammals are highly mobile animals with the potential to forage over wide areas. Therefore, all European sites for marine mammal features with a range that overlaps with the site boundary were considered. The screening area extended to the relevant marine mammal MUs and Seal Management Units (SMU) for each species, as defined by the Inter Agency Marine Mammal Working Group (IAMMWG) for cetaceans (IAMMWG, 2022, 2023), and by the Special Committee on Seals (SCOS) for grey seal (SCOS, 2023). For grey seal, the site boundary is located within the East Scotland Seal SMU, borders the Northeast England Seal SMU, and is within the vicinity of the Moray Firth Seal SMU. Thus, any European sites that are located within the East Scotland Seal MU were considered, and a precautionary buffer of 100 km was used to identify SACs within the adjacent SMUs which had the potential for connectivity with the Array.
  2. There were 19 transboundary sites identified within the search areas outlined above. However, all relevant impact pathways were considered extremely weak, given the distance between the site boundary and the sites (from 246 to 687 km depending on the site) (Part 1, appendix 1A). As a result, only negligible effects would be apparent and could not contribute, in any material way, to an in-combination effect. As such, LSE2 associated with planned projects or other activities in the vicinity of the site boundary are also not anticipated for marine mammal features of any transboundary site.
  3. No potential impact pathways were identified between the Array and any additional sites designated for Annex II marine mammals. Therefore, there is no potential for in-combination effects at any sites apart from those which are screened in for HRA Stage Two Appropriate Assessment (i.e. those listed in paragraph 17).

Figure 3.1:
Location of all European Sites Designated for Annex II Diadromous Fish and Marine Mammals for which an Appropriate Assessment is Required

Figure 3.1: Location of all European Sites Designated for Annex II Diadromous Fish and Marine Mammals for which an Appropriate Assessment is Required

Table 3.1:
Summary of all SACs for which the Potential for LSE2 could not be Discounted, and for Which Information to Support an Appropriate Assessment is Presented

Table 3.1: Summary of all SACs for which the Potential for LSE2 could not be Discounted, and for Which Information to Support an Appropriate Assessment is Presented