5.4. Assessment of Adverse Effects of the Array in-Combination with other Plans and Projects

5.4.1. Plans and Projects Screened into the In-Combination Assessment for Annex II Diadromous Fish

296. A buffer of 50 km was used to identify plans and projects with the potential for in-combination effects associated with EMF. To account for the wider ranging impacts associated with underwater noise, a precautionary buffer of 100 km was used to identify plans and projects with the potential for in-combination effects associated with underwater noise generated during piling and UXO clearance ( Figure 5.4   Open ▸ ).
297. Given the limited available data about Tier 3 projects, projects were screened in initially based on temporal and/or spatial overlap as a precautionary approach. However, there was limited/no information on the construction/operation dates, nor foundation types proposed. Therefore, for potential impacts arising from piling and UXO clearance, which require these more detailed parameters, there was insufficient information to carry out a full quantitative assessment. A qualitative assessment has therefore been undertaken, based on the available information.
298. The plans and projects that have been identified as having the potential for in-combination effects are presented in Figure 5.4   Open ▸ and Table 5.33   Open ▸ .

Figure 5.4: Location of Other Plans and Projects Considered for the In-Combination Effects Assessment on SACs with Annex II Diadromous Fish Features

Table 5.33: List of Other Plans and Projects with Potential for In-Combination Effects on Annex II Diadromous Fish Features

5.4.2. Underwater Noise Generated during Piling and UXO Clearance

299. The LSE2 assessment during the HRA Stage One process identified that LSE2 could not be ruled out for underwater noise generated during piling and UXO clearance in the construction 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.

300. The MDS considered for this in-combination assessment is shown in Table 5.34   Open ▸ . The designed in measures are presented in Table 5.4   Open ▸ for the assessment of the Array alone.

Table 5.34: MDS Considered for the Assessment of Potential Impacts to Annex II Diadromous Fish due to Underwater Noise Generated during Piling and UXO Clearance in the Construction Phase of the Array In-Combination with other Plans and Projects

                        In-combination assessment

301. There is the potential for in-combination impacts from underwater noise generated during piling and UXO clearance in the construction phases of the Array and other plans and projects. For the purposes of this assessment, this 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 5.34   Open ▸ .

                        Tier 1

302. There were two Tier 1 projects identified with potential for in-combination effects associated with this impact:

• Proposed offshore export cable corridor(s); and
• Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm ( Table 5.33   Open ▸ and Table 5.34   Open ▸ ).

303. The MDS for the Array’s construction phase is given in Table 5.3   Open ▸ , which considers the reasonable worst case scenario from underwater noise on Annex II diadromous fish based on the greatest hammer energy. This scenario is represented by the installation of up to 265 semi-submersible floating foundations, with up to six anchors per foundation and one 4.5 m diameter pile per anchor (1,590 piles) for wind turbines, and up to three large and 12 small jacket foundations (total 216 piles) for OSPs, with all piles installed via impact piling.
304. Currently, there is no EIA Report available for the Proposed offshore export cable corridor(s), though construction is likely to be of medium duration, with noise being intermittent. Although there is no information on construction activities associated with the Proposed offshore export cable corridor(s), it is not expected that piling will be included in the project description (as this is a cable project). As such, noise impacts which have the potential to affect Atlantic salmon (and freshwater pearl mussel by association) and sea lamprey are expected to be limited to UXO clearance operations during site preparation. While there is no site-specific information on these impacts, it is expected they would be similar to those assessed for the project alone (section 5.3.1).
305. The EIA Report for Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm accounts for clearance of up to 14 UXOs (a maximum of 300 kg) within its inter-array area or offshore export cable route, and single donor charge of up to 80 g NEQ for each clearance event (SSE Renewables, 2022b). Up to 500 g NEQ may be used for a clearance shot to neutralise residual explosive material, with up to two destinations within 24 hours and clearance occurring during daylight only (SSE Renewables, 2022b).
306. During the construction phase for the Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm, up to 179 piled jacket foundations with up to four legs per foundation (1,432 piles) have been assessed for wind turbines. The maximum hammer energy is up to 4,000 kJ with a realistic maximum hammer energy of 3,000 kJ. Two concurrent piling events will occur with a minimum of 900 m and maximum of 49.3 km distance between these two events. Up to ten hours of absolute maximum piling per pile may occur with a wind turbine piling duration of 14,320 hours and a realistic maximum of 12,888 hours (SSE Renewables, 2022b).
307. During the construction phase for the Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm, up to eight jacket foundations with up to six legs per foundation (64 piles) have been assessed for large OSPs/offshore converter substation platforms, with a maximum hammer energy of 4,000 kJ. Piling may occur for up to eight hours, with a total piling duration of 1,792 hours (realistic maximum) or 2,048 hours (absolute maximum). The total piling phase is over 52 months over a construction period of 96 months (SSE Renewables, 2022b).
308. The Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm underwater noise assessment considered effects (including mortality, injury and behavioural effects) on a similar range of fish and shellfish receptors as the Array. In line with the assessment for the Array alone, the Berwick Bank assessment predicted that injury effects would be limited in extent and behavioural effects would occur across a wider area of up to tens of kilometres (SSE Renewables, 2022b). The effects would be temporary, reversible and would not result in significant effects on fish and shellfish receptors, and specifically would not lead to disruption of migration (e.g. barrier effects) of diadromous species, including Atlantic salmon and sea lamprey (SSE Renewables, 2022b). Within the RIAA for Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm, the following SACs were assessed:

• River Dee SAC;
• River South Esk SAC;
• Tweed Estuary SAC;
• River Tweed SAC;
• River Tay SAC; and
• River Teith SAC (SSE Renewables, 2022e).

309. All of these SACs were also included in this Part of the RIAA, however the River Spey SAC, Berriedale and Langwell Waters SAC, and the River Oykel SAC were not assessed in the Berwick Bank RIAA (SSE Renewables, 2022e). The potential impact of ‘injury and/or disturbance from underwater noise’ was not concluded to have adverse effects on the integrity of any of the six SACs assessed both from Berwick Bank alone, and in-combination with other plans and projects (SSE Renewables, 2022e).
310. The construction of the Array, and of Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm, will coincide for only two years (2031 and 2032). Furthermore, due to the large distance between the projects (56.84 km), there is limited potential for noise contours to interact. Given that UXO clearance is typically undertaken at the beginning of the construction phase, there is likely to be no temporal overlap in UXO clearance associated with the Array and Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm (where the construction phase is currently anticipated as 2025 to 2032 ( Table 5.33   Open ▸ )).

                        Tier 2

311. In addition to the Tier 1 projects, there were three Tier 2 projects identified with potential for in-combination effects associated with this impact:

• Morven Offshore Wind Farm;
• Cenos Offshore Wind Farm; and
• Salamander Offshore Wind Farm ( Table 5.33   Open ▸ and Table 5.34   Open ▸ ).

312. The MDS for the construction of the Array is given in Table 5.3   Open ▸ , and summarised in paragraph 303, and not repeated here. Currently, there is no EIA Report available for the Tier 2 projects, though piling activities during the construction phases are expected to be similar in nature as that of the Array. Although information on hammer energies and piling durations are not available for the Tier 2 projects, the impact is likely to be of medium duration, with noise being intermittent during the construction phase. As detailed in Table 5.33   Open ▸ , the construction phase of the Morven Offshore Wind Farm is anticipated to overlap temporally with that of the Array, and full overlap has been assumed in the absence of detailed information and to represent the realistic worst case scenario, due to its proximity to the Array (5.5 km). At this stage, the construction phases of the other Tier 2 projects are currently unknown.

                        Tier 3

313. In addition to the Tier 1 and Tier 2 projects, there were seven 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;
• Cedar Offshore Wind Farm;
• Flora Floating Wind Farm; and
• Aspen Offshore Wind Farm ( Table 5.33   Open ▸ and Table 5.34   Open ▸ ).

314. As these are Tier 3 projects, there are no Scoping Reports in the public domain. Therefore, there is limited information available on the potential impact that these Tier 3 projects will have on Annex II diadromous fish, though piling activities during the construction phase are expected to be similar in nature as that of the Array. Although information on hammer energies and piling durations are not available for the Tier 3 projects, the impact is likely to be of medium duration, with noise being intermittent during the construction phase.
315. The maximum duration of the offshore construction phase for the Array is up to eight years (2031 to 2038). There is currently no information available on the various Tier 3 projects; therefore, a precautionary assumption has been made that these may have overlapping piling phases with the Array ( Table 5.33   Open ▸ and Table 5.34   Open ▸ ). In reality, there may be limited temporal overlap between the construction activities of the Array and that of the Tier 3 projects, and thus, reduced potential for in-combination effects associated with this impact.
316. Furthermore, given the maximum injury ranges for the Annex II diadromous fish species associated with piling and UXO clearance from the Array alone (between hundreds of metres to low kilometres), there is low likelihood of any spatial overlap of ranges between the Array and the Tier 3 projects. For example, the closest Tier 3 projects are the Morven Offshore Export Cable Corridor (5.5 km away) and Bellrock Offshore Wind Farm (8.67 km away), with the rest multiple tens of kilometres away. Further, the potential for PTS is reduced through the application of designed-in measures ( Table 5.4   Open ▸ ), either by allowing some species/individuals to flee the area before noise levels reach a level at which injury may occur, and/or by limiting the total amount of noise energy entering the environment. Therefore there is limited potential for an in-combination impact associated with the Tier 3 projects, and each project will likely implement their own mitigation to limit injury and disturbance, thus further reducing the potential for in-combination effects associated with piling and UXO clearance.

                        Construction phase

                        River Dee SAC

Atlantic salmon

317. 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

318. 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 317, 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

319. 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 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 69 to 71) are discussed in turn below in Table 5.35   Open ▸ .

Table 5.35: Conclusions Against the Conservation Objectives of the River Dee SAC from Underwater Noise Generated during Piling and UXO Clearance in the Construction Phase of the Array In-Combination with other Plans and Projects

320. 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 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 South Esk SAC

Atlantic salmon

321. 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 may in reality, 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

322. 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 321, 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

323. 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 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 78 to 80) are discussed in turn below in Table 5.36   Open ▸ .

Table 5.36: Conclusions Against the Conservation Objectives of the River South Esk SAC from Underwater Noise Generated during Piling and UXO Clearance in the Construction Phase of the Array In-Combination with other Plans and Projects

324. 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 underwater noise generated during piling and UXO clearance with respect to the construction phases of the Array in-combination with other plans and projects.

                        Tweed Estuary SAC

Sea lamprey

325. 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 sea lamprey 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 sea lamprey. Therefore, the assessment is considered to be precautionary.

Conclusion

326. 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 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 90 to 92) are discussed in turn below in Table 5.37   Open ▸ .

Table 5.37: Conclusions Against the Conservation Objectives of the Tweed Estuary SAC from Underwater Noise Generated during Piling and UXO Clearance in the Construction Phase of the Array In-Combination with other Plans and Projects

327. 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 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 Tweed SAC

Atlantic salmon

328. 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.

Sea lamprey

329. 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 sea lamprey 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 sea lamprey. Therefore, the assessment is considered to be precautionary.

Conclusion

330. 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 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 99 to 101) are discussed in turn below in Table 5.38   Open ▸ .

Table 5.38: Conclusions Against the Conservation Objectives of the River Tweed SAC from Underwater Noise Generated during Piling and UXO Clearance in the Construction Phase of the Array In-Combination with other Plans and Projects

331. 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 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 Tay SAC

Atlantic salmon

332. 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.

Sea lamprey

333. 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 sea lamprey 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 sea lamprey. Therefore, the assessment is considered to be precautionary.

Conclusion

334. 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 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 113 to 115) are discussed in turn below in Table 5.39   Open ▸ .

Table 5.39: Conclusions Against the Conservation Objectives of the River Tay SAC from Underwater Noise Generated during Piling and UXO Clearance in the Construction Phase of the Array In-Combination with other Plans and Projects

335. 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 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 Spey SAC

Atlantic salmon

336. 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 may, in reality, 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

337. 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 336, 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.

Sea lamprey

338. 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 sea lamprey 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 may, in reality, 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 sea lamprey. Therefore, the assessment is considered to be precautionary.

Conclusion

339. 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 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 123 to 126) are discussed in turn below in Table 5.40   Open ▸ .

Table 5.40: Conclusions Against the Conservation Objectives of the River Spey SAC from Underwater Noise Generated during Piling and UXO Clearance in the Construction Phase of the Array In-Combination with other Plans and Projects

340. 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 underwater noise generated during piling and UXO clearance with respect to the construction phases of the Array in-combination with other plans and projects.

                        Berriedale and Langwell Waters SAC

Atlantic salmon

341. 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.

Conclusion

342. 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 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 paragraph 133) are discussed in turn below in Table 5.41   Open ▸ .

Table 5.41: Conclusions Against the Conservation Objectives of the Berriedale and Langwell Waters SAC from Underwater Noise Generated during Piling and UXO Clearance in the Construction Phase of the Array In-Combination with other Plans and Projects

343. 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 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 Teith SAC

Atlantic salmon

344. As presented for the assessment of the Array alone (section 5.3.1), 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 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.

Sea lamprey

345. 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 sea lamprey 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 sea lamprey. Therefore, the assessment is considered to be precautionary.